I'm really not sure how I feel about utilities in Maryland trying to appear environmentally conscious. Sounds weird, I know. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for anything that decreases our addiction to fossil fuels and helps fight climate change. But I don't know if it's good that Maryland utilities promote their "green" agenda, when it seems that most of the "green" they are doing is simply complying with state law and is on the ratepayers dime. Let me elaborate.
The utilities in Maryland are a strange beast. They are neither a government entity, nor a truly private company in the standard sense of the word. Unlike other private companies, their maximum profits are determined by a government agency (the Public Service Commission), but in exchange they do not have to worry about losing money. They do not acquire customers like a normal for-profit business. They are assigned a given territory. If you live or your office is in that territory, you automatically become their customer. If they want to make an investment in infrastructure, to improve operations or better serve their "customers," they need to get approval from the PSC, the government board. They have certain programs (ie. efficiency) they must run because of state law, yet they get to recoup every dollar they spend from every ratepayer in their territory. Despite all this, they are considered "for profit," and actually have shareholders/investors.
Thus, the utilities have jumped on the green bandwagon and are extolling their commitment to a greener world. If you don't think their green image is important to them, just check out this report by Pepco Holdings, owner of one of the state's utilities.
Why is it important for them to brag to investors and others about being green? Because it increases the value of the brand, and thus increases the company value for shareholders.
This is where it gets weird. When a utility in Maryland offers energy efficiency incentives, is that something they should get credit for, or get to brag about as a "green measure?" When they simply comply with the law passed by the state of Maryland, is that a "green" initiative? It's not so clear. A normal company would be using its own money to pay for a program it offers, and thus get to take credit for it, but really it should be something that is above and beyond the minimum requirement of the law, no? But if a utility in Maryland is using ratepayer money to fund the program, what exactly is that utility doing to go above and beyond business as usual?
For example, if Pepco spends money to sponsor something like Bethesda Green, does that money come from their profit or does it come from the Pepco ratepayers? It's really hard to tell. Bethesda Green is a worthy group to sponsor, don't get me wrong. Clean Currents is a proud sponsor. But we don't get to automatically recoup the money we spend on the sponsorship from a captured audience. When a utility does sponsor a worthy cause, should it be allowed to put its logo on the promotional material and get the PR benefit? I don't know. If the utility is using ratepayer money to fund the donation, I think the answer should be "no."
Pepco recently put a link to a carbon calculator on its web site. Ok. Not sure what the point is, but I sort of get it. A calculator only makes sense if it leads to direct action to reduce carbon. The question is, however, did the ratepayers pay to put that calculator up or did it come from Pepco's profits? I don't know the answer.
I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of how the utilities operate. But I think that's sort of the point. There is such a huge gray, undefined area of what a utility can do as this strange beast somewhere between private and public. The best thing to do is to follow the model in DC and Delaware, where the state and district set up a separate Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU). The SEU gets to run all the green programs, using the ratepayers money instead of the utilities doing it. This way, you don't have the ratepayers funding the increased brand value of a private company. You don't have the ratepayers funding the creation of a "green" brand to compete with companies that are in fact truly green.
Public policy, or the public good, is best served by having a neutral party disseminate public funds with an equal playing field for everyone. Putting a semi-for profit company, with an agenda to increase shareholder value in charge of disbursing public funds is not the best way to approach things. If the utilities want to be green, that would be great. But they should do it on their own dime, and they should take actions that go well above and beyond the basic requirements of the law.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Green Power Choice Grows Despite the Recession, in the Right Markets
Just back from the national Renewable Energy Marketing conference, held this year in Atlanta. The green industry is alive and well, and actually growing even in these tough economic times.
According to the Center for Resource Solutions, the folks who run Green-E Energy, Green-E energy sales increased a whopping 45% in 2008. They say more than 13 million megawatt-hours of certified renewable energy was purchased by 500,000 residential and 20,000 commercial consumers. That's great growth!
I've seen this kind of growth here in the DC area. Thousands of homeowners are making the choice to switch to clean energy along with hundreds of businesses. There's a real green movement in this area.
One interesting point - though 2009 is not done, there is some data to show green power sales trends this year, and it's not as good as 2008, in certain markets.
The markets where green power purchasing is down are markets that are fully "regulated," ie. markets where the only "choice" consumers have is the choice of their monopoly utility. In more open markets, such as Maryland and DC, where consumers have a real choice to buy power through competitive energy suppliers or innovative green startups, the green power market continues to rise.
This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Utilities, by nature, are about as innovative as a slice of bread. Many, if not all, are large, quasi-government run behemoths that don't know how to market, or how to take risks, or how to think in the new economy. The green power programs they run are considered a huge success if they sign up 4% of their market. There is practically never a chance for a consumer to save money and go green at the same time. Utilities such as BGE, Pepco and others may not have bad intentions, but they simply are not green companies. Asking utilities to offer innovative new green products is like asking the U.S. Postal Service to turn a profit. They just don't think that way.
On the other hand, companies like Clean Currents can innovate, market in new ways, and offer savings to consumers who want to go green.
It's no wonder that open markets work better for promoting green power than do monopoly utility markets.
According to the Center for Resource Solutions, the folks who run Green-E Energy, Green-E energy sales increased a whopping 45% in 2008. They say more than 13 million megawatt-hours of certified renewable energy was purchased by 500,000 residential and 20,000 commercial consumers. That's great growth!
I've seen this kind of growth here in the DC area. Thousands of homeowners are making the choice to switch to clean energy along with hundreds of businesses. There's a real green movement in this area.
One interesting point - though 2009 is not done, there is some data to show green power sales trends this year, and it's not as good as 2008, in certain markets.
The markets where green power purchasing is down are markets that are fully "regulated," ie. markets where the only "choice" consumers have is the choice of their monopoly utility. In more open markets, such as Maryland and DC, where consumers have a real choice to buy power through competitive energy suppliers or innovative green startups, the green power market continues to rise.
This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Utilities, by nature, are about as innovative as a slice of bread. Many, if not all, are large, quasi-government run behemoths that don't know how to market, or how to take risks, or how to think in the new economy. The green power programs they run are considered a huge success if they sign up 4% of their market. There is practically never a chance for a consumer to save money and go green at the same time. Utilities such as BGE, Pepco and others may not have bad intentions, but they simply are not green companies. Asking utilities to offer innovative new green products is like asking the U.S. Postal Service to turn a profit. They just don't think that way.
On the other hand, companies like Clean Currents can innovate, market in new ways, and offer savings to consumers who want to go green.
It's no wonder that open markets work better for promoting green power than do monopoly utility markets.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Brief Musings on the Loss of the Green Jobs Czar
The White House has lost Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar, sacrificed at the alter of the 24 hour news beast. I'm not going to wade into the controversy about Jones. You can find out more about that at other sources. I am extremely disapointed that we are losing a person who knows more about green job creation and community development than 99% of the rest of the country. On this subject, there are few, if any stronger than Van Jones. The question is - what will the Obama Adminstration do now?
Obviously, health care seems to be the top priority right now. But climate change is not going away, and there is a huge green energy/green jobs/climate bill still working its way through the Senate. The White House needs a point person on this issue. There must be somebody to focus the power of the White House bully pulpit on passing the bill. There needs to be somebody with Van Jone's weight in the progressive community to rally the grassroots. I don't know who the right person is, but I know that we need somebody and we need them now. President Obama should work with all due haste to fill these enormous shoes. The damage of delay will be immense. It will not only be a huge blow for a greener economy, but will also hurt Obama politically. He needs to show strength by appointing another fire-breating, take-no-prisoners, unapologetic green jobs warrior to take the batton from Mr. Jones. The climate cannot wait.
Obviously, health care seems to be the top priority right now. But climate change is not going away, and there is a huge green energy/green jobs/climate bill still working its way through the Senate. The White House needs a point person on this issue. There must be somebody to focus the power of the White House bully pulpit on passing the bill. There needs to be somebody with Van Jone's weight in the progressive community to rally the grassroots. I don't know who the right person is, but I know that we need somebody and we need them now. President Obama should work with all due haste to fill these enormous shoes. The damage of delay will be immense. It will not only be a huge blow for a greener economy, but will also hurt Obama politically. He needs to show strength by appointing another fire-breating, take-no-prisoners, unapologetic green jobs warrior to take the batton from Mr. Jones. The climate cannot wait.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Going on an Energy Diet
Of all the diets that one can go on, an energy diet has got to be among the easiest things to do. There are many low hanging fruit in every household, which will bring energy savings and the shedding of carbon pounds from your life. I know I'm a little bit of a zealot, but I actually look forward to seeing my electric bill every month. Why? Because I am so thrilled to see how little electricity my household uses compared to years past.
Not too long ago, my house of six people was pretty average in Maryland. We used about 1,000 KwH a month of electricity. In Summer, we would hit 1,400 or so, and in Winter, we'd drop to 600 or so. This Summer, in May, June, and July, we've been averaging 650 KwH a month! I'm not saying this to brag so much as to let you know how easy it is to go on an energy diet. Most importantly, you can do this without any loss of quality of life.
In my house, we've made investments over the years in insulation, air sealing, and energy star windows. When we've had to replace an appliance, we've purchased the most energy efficient one we could find (within our budget). We use CFL's and got rid of energy hogging halogen lights.
One of the best investments was a $45 programmable thermostat. By simply following the Energy Star guidelines, I knocked 3-5% off my energy use. Going beyond those settings (which I did), knocked off another few percent.
By doing all these great energy efficiency measures, I could now go solar and have the solar array produce 60%-80% of my Summer power. That's huge!
The point is that going on an Energy Diet is simple to do and should not be put off until tomorrow. Not sure how to get started? We at Clean Currents are proud to have partnered with ecobeco to provide Energy Efficiency and Green Energy Assesments for low cost. Have the folks from ecobeco come to your house and you'll find out how to get started on your Energy Diet today.
Not too long ago, my house of six people was pretty average in Maryland. We used about 1,000 KwH a month of electricity. In Summer, we would hit 1,400 or so, and in Winter, we'd drop to 600 or so. This Summer, in May, June, and July, we've been averaging 650 KwH a month! I'm not saying this to brag so much as to let you know how easy it is to go on an energy diet. Most importantly, you can do this without any loss of quality of life.
In my house, we've made investments over the years in insulation, air sealing, and energy star windows. When we've had to replace an appliance, we've purchased the most energy efficient one we could find (within our budget). We use CFL's and got rid of energy hogging halogen lights.
One of the best investments was a $45 programmable thermostat. By simply following the Energy Star guidelines, I knocked 3-5% off my energy use. Going beyond those settings (which I did), knocked off another few percent.
By doing all these great energy efficiency measures, I could now go solar and have the solar array produce 60%-80% of my Summer power. That's huge!
The point is that going on an Energy Diet is simple to do and should not be put off until tomorrow. Not sure how to get started? We at Clean Currents are proud to have partnered with ecobeco to provide Energy Efficiency and Green Energy Assesments for low cost. Have the folks from ecobeco come to your house and you'll find out how to get started on your Energy Diet today.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Checking In on the Maryland Renewable Standard
Some of us fought tooth and nail for several years to get Maryland to adopt a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in 2004. It wasn't easy. We had a reluctant legislature, a Governor opposed to us, and a large contingent of the business community expressing concerns about costs. There was a lot said in 2004 about the bill and its impact. So now that we are in 2009, it's worth checking the latest compliance reports to see what is actually happening. The results are very surprising. So far, it turns out, none of us were right.
First, a very brief background. The RPS requires any entity that sells electricity in Maryland (a "Load Serving Entity" or "LSE") to get a percentage of its power from clean, renewable sources. The percentage starts low (it is currently below 5%) and rises over time. The way electricity companies comply with the law is to submit Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) from qualified sources, to the Maryland Public Service Commission. If an LSE fails to meet the requirement, it must pay an "Alternative Compliance Payment" or "ACP" to the PSC. The ACP is meant to put a ceiling on how much an RPS would cost ratepayers, while also acting as a market setter for the cost of RECs. One of the biggest battles in the RPS war, besides the level of the ACP, was over the definition of clean, renewable energy. Solar, wind and sustainable biomass were all obvious choices to include, but industry and some politicians wanted us to include their favored sources, such as Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSW), or what I like to call, "burning garbage" and "black liquor," which is not moonshine, but actually a by product of making paper that can be burned to make electricity.
In the end, we compromised by making two tiers for the RPS, a Tier 1 and a Tier 2. The Tier 1 renewables are solar, wind, sustainable biomass... plus, "small" hydro, which is a hydro plant under 30 megawatts, wood chips used for co-firing with coal, captured methane from landfills (technically not renewable, but at least helping the climate by keeping methane out of the air), and yes, black liquor. This last item was inserted at the very last minute by Bill Pitcher, who was then the lobbyist for MeadWestvaco, a paper mill in western Maryland. At the time, he claimed, and the Senate Democratic leadership agreed, that including black liquor would only help MeadWestvaco meet the RPS without any hardship on them, thus avoiding the plant closing or leaving Maryland. Small hydro was including over our objections. It is clean and renewable, but there already exists many small hydro plants in the area and thus there is no need to incentivize them to get built.
Tier 2 includes burning garbage and large hydro. The good news is that Tier 2 ends in 2019.
So, now that you have the background, here is the update on what is actually happening.
In 2008, Tier 1 was met by the following sources
Black Liquor 37%
Waste Wood 30%
Small Hydro 17%
Landfill Gas 15%
Wind 1/2 of 1%
Solar too small to even count!!!
Sustainable Biomass None!
Tier 2 was met by:
Large Hydro 85%
Burning Garbage 15%
As you can see, it is not a very pretty picture.
Now let's examine claims that both sides made in 2004 and see who is right or wrong so far.
The Green Side
1. RPS will lead to development of wind power in the region.
WRONG. So far, it has done a lot for black liquor and wood waste but nothing for wind. Allowing black liquor and wood waste into the RPS has seriously crowded out wind power.
2. RPS will lead to clean energy development in Maryland.
WRONG. So far, litigation and the economy has prevented wind farm construction in Maryland. Also, allowing LSE's to meet their RPS obligation with RECs from all over the PJM electric grid and beyond has meant there was no incentive to build right here in Maryland.
3. RPS will not have a huge cost on ratepayers.
RIGHT. So far, the RECS used for compliance are so cheap to be almost worthless.
The Other Side
1. Black liquor will only be used to help MeadWestvaco.
WRONG. As we see, black liquor DOMINATES the RPS. It is a huge loophole in the law that allows ratepayer support for a source of energy that is not clean and not renewable and in no need of additional support.
2. The RPS will add 2 cents/KWh to everybody's electric bills.
DEAD WRONG. The RPS RECs in Tier 1 currently seem to go for about 4/100's of 1 cent. That is 40 times less than the opponents said it would cost.
3. The RPS will cause economic hardship for Maryland businesses.
WRONG. There has not been a single case of a Maryland business applying for an economic hardship waiver in the RPS. The costs are negligible.
CONCLUSION
Obviously, we need to do some things to fix the RPS. It was not meant to be a black liquor/waste wood incentive bill, but that's what it is right now.
Stay tuned for the next blog, exploring how the various LSE's responded to the RPS, to see how things are going in the Solar Carve-Out, and to see what we can do to fix things.
First, a very brief background. The RPS requires any entity that sells electricity in Maryland (a "Load Serving Entity" or "LSE") to get a percentage of its power from clean, renewable sources. The percentage starts low (it is currently below 5%) and rises over time. The way electricity companies comply with the law is to submit Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) from qualified sources, to the Maryland Public Service Commission. If an LSE fails to meet the requirement, it must pay an "Alternative Compliance Payment" or "ACP" to the PSC. The ACP is meant to put a ceiling on how much an RPS would cost ratepayers, while also acting as a market setter for the cost of RECs. One of the biggest battles in the RPS war, besides the level of the ACP, was over the definition of clean, renewable energy. Solar, wind and sustainable biomass were all obvious choices to include, but industry and some politicians wanted us to include their favored sources, such as Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSW), or what I like to call, "burning garbage" and "black liquor," which is not moonshine, but actually a by product of making paper that can be burned to make electricity.
In the end, we compromised by making two tiers for the RPS, a Tier 1 and a Tier 2. The Tier 1 renewables are solar, wind, sustainable biomass... plus, "small" hydro, which is a hydro plant under 30 megawatts, wood chips used for co-firing with coal, captured methane from landfills (technically not renewable, but at least helping the climate by keeping methane out of the air), and yes, black liquor. This last item was inserted at the very last minute by Bill Pitcher, who was then the lobbyist for MeadWestvaco, a paper mill in western Maryland. At the time, he claimed, and the Senate Democratic leadership agreed, that including black liquor would only help MeadWestvaco meet the RPS without any hardship on them, thus avoiding the plant closing or leaving Maryland. Small hydro was including over our objections. It is clean and renewable, but there already exists many small hydro plants in the area and thus there is no need to incentivize them to get built.
Tier 2 includes burning garbage and large hydro. The good news is that Tier 2 ends in 2019.
So, now that you have the background, here is the update on what is actually happening.
In 2008, Tier 1 was met by the following sources
Black Liquor 37%
Waste Wood 30%
Small Hydro 17%
Landfill Gas 15%
Wind 1/2 of 1%
Solar too small to even count!!!
Sustainable Biomass None!
Tier 2 was met by:
Large Hydro 85%
Burning Garbage 15%
As you can see, it is not a very pretty picture.
Now let's examine claims that both sides made in 2004 and see who is right or wrong so far.
The Green Side
1. RPS will lead to development of wind power in the region.
WRONG. So far, it has done a lot for black liquor and wood waste but nothing for wind. Allowing black liquor and wood waste into the RPS has seriously crowded out wind power.
2. RPS will lead to clean energy development in Maryland.
WRONG. So far, litigation and the economy has prevented wind farm construction in Maryland. Also, allowing LSE's to meet their RPS obligation with RECs from all over the PJM electric grid and beyond has meant there was no incentive to build right here in Maryland.
3. RPS will not have a huge cost on ratepayers.
RIGHT. So far, the RECS used for compliance are so cheap to be almost worthless.
The Other Side
1. Black liquor will only be used to help MeadWestvaco.
WRONG. As we see, black liquor DOMINATES the RPS. It is a huge loophole in the law that allows ratepayer support for a source of energy that is not clean and not renewable and in no need of additional support.
2. The RPS will add 2 cents/KWh to everybody's electric bills.
DEAD WRONG. The RPS RECs in Tier 1 currently seem to go for about 4/100's of 1 cent. That is 40 times less than the opponents said it would cost.
3. The RPS will cause economic hardship for Maryland businesses.
WRONG. There has not been a single case of a Maryland business applying for an economic hardship waiver in the RPS. The costs are negligible.
CONCLUSION
Obviously, we need to do some things to fix the RPS. It was not meant to be a black liquor/waste wood incentive bill, but that's what it is right now.
Stay tuned for the next blog, exploring how the various LSE's responded to the RPS, to see how things are going in the Solar Carve-Out, and to see what we can do to fix things.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Energy Musings
All the energy action is on Capitol Hill this month.
As Representatives Waxman and Markey sheppard through their climate legislation, many people of good will are debating what is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing the green energy economy. The debate has crystalized to three significant points of view. There is the "cap and trade" crowd, the "carbon tax" crowd, and the "cap and dividend" crowd. All three have merit.
Personally, I love the cap and dividend concept being pushed by climate champion, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. It makes so much sense politically and from a policy stand point as well. The idea is that the government would put a cap on emissions and polluters would have to buy permits for carbon emissions. That's just like the "cap" on the "cap and trade" bill. Where they differ is that Mr. Van Hollen's measure would take the money that's collected and distribute it to every single American as a payment. Just like Alaska share's oil revenue with its citizens, the U.S. government would be sharing carbon revenue with its citizens. Every citizen would thus have a stake in constraining carbon emissions, creating the widespread support that is desperately needed. The beauty of this approach is also in its simplicity. There would be no special interest exceptions, or extra benefits to any particular group or industry. Just like Social Security, every citizen would get a check regardless of income.
But right now, the big push is for the "cap and trade" bill. In fact, the bill could be on the House floor before Memorial Day. While the bill is not perfect, it would finally put this country on a path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something unthinkable during the long winter of the Bush administration. It would also establish a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring electricity providers in this country to get 15% renewable energy and reduce energy consumption 5% within a short time. This would have the effect of dramatically increasing the amount of clean, renewable energy available in many parts of the country.
Over the next few weeks and months, there will be a lot of debate within the green community about the pros and cons of the current climate bill. There will be a lot of hand wringing about concessions that are needed to get votes in Congress. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about finally cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. This is the Super Bowl of the climate movement that we've been waiting for, for so many years. We're finally here with our chance to literally save the planet. The magnitude of this moment is immense. There are climate activists who have labored in this field for years and years, with little to no results. They were ignored, belittled, and shunted aside. Now, finally the United States Congress and the President are on our side. What a moment in time!
As Representatives Waxman and Markey sheppard through their climate legislation, many people of good will are debating what is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing the green energy economy. The debate has crystalized to three significant points of view. There is the "cap and trade" crowd, the "carbon tax" crowd, and the "cap and dividend" crowd. All three have merit.
Personally, I love the cap and dividend concept being pushed by climate champion, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. It makes so much sense politically and from a policy stand point as well. The idea is that the government would put a cap on emissions and polluters would have to buy permits for carbon emissions. That's just like the "cap" on the "cap and trade" bill. Where they differ is that Mr. Van Hollen's measure would take the money that's collected and distribute it to every single American as a payment. Just like Alaska share's oil revenue with its citizens, the U.S. government would be sharing carbon revenue with its citizens. Every citizen would thus have a stake in constraining carbon emissions, creating the widespread support that is desperately needed. The beauty of this approach is also in its simplicity. There would be no special interest exceptions, or extra benefits to any particular group or industry. Just like Social Security, every citizen would get a check regardless of income.
But right now, the big push is for the "cap and trade" bill. In fact, the bill could be on the House floor before Memorial Day. While the bill is not perfect, it would finally put this country on a path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something unthinkable during the long winter of the Bush administration. It would also establish a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring electricity providers in this country to get 15% renewable energy and reduce energy consumption 5% within a short time. This would have the effect of dramatically increasing the amount of clean, renewable energy available in many parts of the country.
Over the next few weeks and months, there will be a lot of debate within the green community about the pros and cons of the current climate bill. There will be a lot of hand wringing about concessions that are needed to get votes in Congress. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about finally cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. This is the Super Bowl of the climate movement that we've been waiting for, for so many years. We're finally here with our chance to literally save the planet. The magnitude of this moment is immense. There are climate activists who have labored in this field for years and years, with little to no results. They were ignored, belittled, and shunted aside. Now, finally the United States Congress and the President are on our side. What a moment in time!
Monday, April 13, 2009
Two Sides to Energy Legislation in Maryland
Two Sides to Energy Legislation in Maryland
As I write this, another legislative session in Annapolis is drawing to a close. Two bills that emerged in this session illustrate the right way and the wrong way to handle energy related legislation. The fact that both bills were supported by Governor O'Malley is perhaps a curious case of an Administration with multiple personalities, or maybe just a case of politics trumping reason. In either event, I'm thrilled to see both the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) become law and the electricity Re-Regulation bill defeated.
The GWSA, championed by House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D - Rockville), is a progressive piece of legislation that puts Maryland at the forefront of efforts to address the very real danger of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions. The bill puts Maryland on course to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint as a state. It was crafted over the course of two years. The Department of Environment, under the leadership of Secretary Shari Wilson, led a process that brought in any interested stakeholders to come to consensus on the bill. Opponents of the bill, including labor unions and Maryland's remaining industrial manufacturers, had a fair chance to provide input on the legislation. In the end, Ms. Wilson was able to craft a compromise that change opponents into proponents while preserving the integrity of the bill. The end result is a bill that pleases the environmental community, labor unions, manufacturers and many others. Clean Currents was proud to be a supporter of this historic bill.
Contrast that with the botched attempt to end customer choice for electricity in Maryland. The so-called Re-Regulation bill (a misnomer because electricity is already regulated in our state) was hoisted upon the General Assembly in what appeared to be a hastily crafted attempt to score some political points on the anger many people feel over rising energy costs. The bill was introduced without any consultation with the solar energy industry or the major wind developers in Maryland. No environmental groups were brought on board. Instead, a bizaro world coalition of groups were brought together to support the bill. MaryPIRG, a consumer rights group, supported the bill because they said they thought it would prevent a new nuclear plant from being built, yet the chief sponsor of the bill talked about the bill being a main vehicle to build new power plants. AARP and the seemingly directionless Progressive Maryland supported the bill because they said it would lower electricity prices, yet the Chairman of the Public Service Commission said it would do no such thing. The Governor supported the bill, claiming it would be good for renewable energy. Yet the renewable energy industry came out against the bill, forcing the Governor to exempt wind power from the legislation.
Interested parties were not brought into the process until the very last moment, after the bill was already introduced. Confusion ran rampant among legislators, causing some to vote for this ill-conceived bill without really understanding it. Progressive legislators like Sen. Mike Lennet (D- Silver Spring), for example, voted for the bill despite opposition from his own constituents, clean energy companies (including Clean Currents), concern from environmental advocates, and no evidence whatsover that the bill would do anything positive for ratepayers. Others, like Sen. Rob Garagiola (D- Potomac) opposed the bill because they understood its promises did not match its reality. One of the original sponsors of the bill, Delegate Herman Taylor (D- Olney), a man on the Economic Matters Committee that would decide the fate of the bill was brushed aside by the Governor in favor of Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D- Bethesda), a well meaning freshman Delegate who has no real experience in electricity legislation.
All this confusion, total lack of consensus, and poor handling of the issue, doomed the Re-Regulation bill. The Governor seemed to be genuinely surprised by the opposition to his bill from the clean energy sector and the serious concerns expressed by environmental activists. That's unfortunate. Because while one part of his administration showed amazing leadership and vision in bringing all stakeholders together for the Global Warming Solutions Act, another part of his administration did just the opposite with the Re-Regulation bill. The Governor should use the interim to follow the path set by Ms. Wilson and Majority Leader Barve. Bring together interested parties, discuss the goals the Governor is trying to achieve, and forge a consensus. We all want a secure energy future in Maryland, so it shouldn't be impossible to find a means to get there.
As I write this, another legislative session in Annapolis is drawing to a close. Two bills that emerged in this session illustrate the right way and the wrong way to handle energy related legislation. The fact that both bills were supported by Governor O'Malley is perhaps a curious case of an Administration with multiple personalities, or maybe just a case of politics trumping reason. In either event, I'm thrilled to see both the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) become law and the electricity Re-Regulation bill defeated.
The GWSA, championed by House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D - Rockville), is a progressive piece of legislation that puts Maryland at the forefront of efforts to address the very real danger of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions. The bill puts Maryland on course to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint as a state. It was crafted over the course of two years. The Department of Environment, under the leadership of Secretary Shari Wilson, led a process that brought in any interested stakeholders to come to consensus on the bill. Opponents of the bill, including labor unions and Maryland's remaining industrial manufacturers, had a fair chance to provide input on the legislation. In the end, Ms. Wilson was able to craft a compromise that change opponents into proponents while preserving the integrity of the bill. The end result is a bill that pleases the environmental community, labor unions, manufacturers and many others. Clean Currents was proud to be a supporter of this historic bill.
Contrast that with the botched attempt to end customer choice for electricity in Maryland. The so-called Re-Regulation bill (a misnomer because electricity is already regulated in our state) was hoisted upon the General Assembly in what appeared to be a hastily crafted attempt to score some political points on the anger many people feel over rising energy costs. The bill was introduced without any consultation with the solar energy industry or the major wind developers in Maryland. No environmental groups were brought on board. Instead, a bizaro world coalition of groups were brought together to support the bill. MaryPIRG, a consumer rights group, supported the bill because they said they thought it would prevent a new nuclear plant from being built, yet the chief sponsor of the bill talked about the bill being a main vehicle to build new power plants. AARP and the seemingly directionless Progressive Maryland supported the bill because they said it would lower electricity prices, yet the Chairman of the Public Service Commission said it would do no such thing. The Governor supported the bill, claiming it would be good for renewable energy. Yet the renewable energy industry came out against the bill, forcing the Governor to exempt wind power from the legislation.
Interested parties were not brought into the process until the very last moment, after the bill was already introduced. Confusion ran rampant among legislators, causing some to vote for this ill-conceived bill without really understanding it. Progressive legislators like Sen. Mike Lennet (D- Silver Spring), for example, voted for the bill despite opposition from his own constituents, clean energy companies (including Clean Currents), concern from environmental advocates, and no evidence whatsover that the bill would do anything positive for ratepayers. Others, like Sen. Rob Garagiola (D- Potomac) opposed the bill because they understood its promises did not match its reality. One of the original sponsors of the bill, Delegate Herman Taylor (D- Olney), a man on the Economic Matters Committee that would decide the fate of the bill was brushed aside by the Governor in favor of Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D- Bethesda), a well meaning freshman Delegate who has no real experience in electricity legislation.
All this confusion, total lack of consensus, and poor handling of the issue, doomed the Re-Regulation bill. The Governor seemed to be genuinely surprised by the opposition to his bill from the clean energy sector and the serious concerns expressed by environmental activists. That's unfortunate. Because while one part of his administration showed amazing leadership and vision in bringing all stakeholders together for the Global Warming Solutions Act, another part of his administration did just the opposite with the Re-Regulation bill. The Governor should use the interim to follow the path set by Ms. Wilson and Majority Leader Barve. Bring together interested parties, discuss the goals the Governor is trying to achieve, and forge a consensus. We all want a secure energy future in Maryland, so it shouldn't be impossible to find a means to get there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)