Letter: La.’s energy-efficiency noninitiative

Lower energy bills? Check. More-efficient homes? Check. Economy boost? Check. Why would the Public Service Commission want to stop these improvements for Louisiana?

In December, our Public Service Commission passed statewide energy efficiency rules that would help families and businesses save money by reducing wasted energy in homes and buildings. These types of programs have been wildly successful in 46 other states — as well as in our own city of New Orleans — and have brought with them new jobs and lower utility bills.

Confoundingly, newly elected Chairman Eric Skrmetta and the PSC ended this initiative last month in a last-minute repeal.

Energy efficiency is not about making huge sacrifices; it’s about being smarter in the use of energy, such as air conditioning — resulting in a lower cost. By reducing the need to produce more energy, we decrease the likelihood of ratepayers spending billions of dollars for the construction of new power plants. Energy-efficiency programs provide incentives to weatherize homes and install efficient appliances — all resulting in lower bills. We put money right back into our wallets.

Commissioner Skrmetta and the PSC are only moving Louisiana backwards by repealing these rules. The people spoke in the commission’s original vote supporting the initiative — Louisianians want energy efficiency.

Jordan Macha

Gulf States representative, Sierra Club

New Orleans

Comments

1) Comment by Buck - 20/03/2013

PVill: Thanks for your comments re. Sierra Club. Happy to see your interest in energy matters. As I mentioned, these tend to be confusing, especially when trying to unravel issues via LaPSC documents. You may find it interesting to examine how the PSC is structured. It does not share any aspects of the other public body, i.e. it is independent of such and only deals with specific economic entities. As per the utilities it regulates, they are quasi-public and thus all relations with the PSC are public record. Whereas the PSC is an independent body that consist of just 5 Commissions when it operates correctly it is a model of open and efficient governmental practices. The problem arises when a dysfunctional imbalance becomes the norm, the effects can be very harmful. Am concerned such has developed with the election of Mr. Angell(sic) who has a strong relationship with the current Guv. who tends towards micromanagement, and thus the PSC could lose it's independent status. Like you, I also was involved in State government long ago. I worked on the fourth floor. That experience has made me aware of the power of outside economic interests and how they try to impact governmental policy. As you may be aware these interests will try to present their own versions/figures to justify position. An example of such are the entities you quote re. the FIT program. Realize who are the entities that are trying to discredit the approach. A deeper analysis will indicate they are coming from the major energy generators. (What a surprise), Myself I always look for the results of actions. This led me to examine the economic status of Germany and the success it has accomplished by doing things outside of the box. Welcome to world of energy policy. Like many issues there are no absolute truths, thus a need to be open to all options till proven wrong. Sadly in our community we keep digging deeper holes and avoid the courage to attempt different approaches.

2) Comment by InPVille - 20/03/2013

@Buck: " the initiatives in Germany, be aware that there has been a process in placed called Feed In Tariff. If you would care to explore, this is a market based program that entails a direct contract between a renewable energy producer and a utility generator. No governmental subsidy." Oh ! Really?! They are called subsidies here. -[**]- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/02/germany-cuts-solar-power-subsidies -[**]- http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/the-latte-fallacy-german-switch-to-renewables-likely-to-be-expensive-a-776698.html "The redistribution effect of this subsidization of solar power is noteworthy, because it upends the conditions politicians would normally consider desirable. The wealthy southern states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, where there are especially large numbers of solar panels, cash in while the rest of the country pays." http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/german-ministries-clashing-over-renewable-subsidies "German Economy Minister Philipp Roesler stepped up demands for extra cuts to subsidies for wind and solar power providers, aggravating a clash with his Environment Ministry Cabinet colleague over the nation's energy overhaul."

3) Comment by InPVille - 20/03/2013

@Buck: I looked at your PSC-28281. Of course it said absolutely nothing about where any public funds would have been or spent(if any) as a result of the program. Nor did I find any discussion of these expenditure line items in any other the other documents(presumably 31106 and not 3110)you referenced although I didn't look at all of them. I don't know how the PSC does business. However, if it is anything like the way things were conducted by the state agency I worked for, explanations of money line items would be somewhere else. -[**]- My references to money for Sierra Club was based on Mr. Skrmetta's statements just as I gave credibility to Mr. Machas statements that the issue was one of "energy efficiency". Refer to my earlier comment to DMJ. So I can't honestly say I have any information or clue whether or where money has been spent on the program. But lo and behold after looking at the Draft Implementation Plan document I found that it had nothing at all to do with what I think of as energy efficiency(home insulation or energy efficient appliances, cars, or even electrical generation). No! Apparently the term Renewable Energy no longer is having the desired effect on the public mind and has been replaced by "Energy Efficiency" much like the name migration from Global Warming to Climate Change to Climate Disruption to whatever is the current term in vogue. The words: efficient, efficiency, oversight, money, funds, funding budget, dollars, and the $ symbol do not appear in PSC-28271. However, the word renewable appears 40 times by my count. -[**]- As for the energy efficiency and cost effectiveness of many of the renewable energy methods referenced do not impress me. (larger numbers mean more cost in the following) conventional natural gas seems the most reasonable at 68.6 as opposed to 99.6 for coal and besides the Obama Administration has pretty much insured electrical generation is going to move to natural gas. Biomass at 120.2, Solar PV at 156.9, Solar Thermal 251, Wind 96.8, and Wind Offshore 330.6 are out of line. No wonder the PSC wants to take a second look. -[**]- Fuel Cells: "Fuel cells are still extremely expensive and in transportation applications fuel cells are still very fragile. Storing and distributing hydrogen is still difficult, because hydrogen as a gas contains very little energy by volume, and therefore must be either liquefied or stored under extreme pressure in order to deliver meaningful amounts of energy. Finally, hydrogen itself must be extracted from other fossil fuels, or manufactured using electricity and water. So even if hydrogen becomes the clean energy of choice, hydrogen will have to be manufactured using other fuels." http://www.business-in-asia.com/china/china_alternative_energy.htm. -[**]- The word "home" doesn't appear in the PSC document either, though Mr. Macha attempts to lead the reader to conclude that is what is at issue in his first sentence. No can I see where spending more on energy as from what has been listed above is going to help our economy. So the most I can say is that the veracity of both gentlemen is at best unclear. -[**]- As for Germany. Their renewable energy program has many problems, is increasing costs, and is falling far short of the overly optimistic claims made at program inception.

4) Comment by Buck - 18/03/2013

PVille, Nice try to avoid my request to provide proof of your claim re. Serria Club. As per your request, suggest you contact whoever made quotes and ask them to provide proof of such. I'm responsible only for my own. As per your request for background info, I refer you too two dockets of the LaPSC. The first is Docket R-28271 Subdocket B, Renewable Energy Pilot Implementation Plan. It was via the development of such that energy efficiency was first discussed and as such it was realized that whereas energy efficiency was by far the most cost effective measure that could be implemented, the inclusion of such in renewable resources would skew the results. Thus it was decided to create another Docket R-3110 Energy Efficiency. Both Dockets can be found on the LaPSC web site for your review. Thy are extensive as they provide body, history and comments. The most significant aspect of the recent LaPSC action was the shutting out of the public comments opportunity . This is in violation of the open/transparent process that the LaPSC has used for the last several years. While Commissioner Fields was on, this was the case. As soon as Scott A replaced him, the process changed. Do you need further proof? As per your other post re. the initiatives in Germany, be aware that there has been a process in placed called Feed In Tariff. If you would care to explore, this is a market based program that entails a direct contract between a renewable energy producer and a utility generator. No governmental subsidy. The only role of government is oversight. Numerous other countries and some States and local communities have adopted the process. The biggest issue with such is that it is can be too successful and thus a call for a review of tariffs to be adjusted on occasion. Realize that issues involving utilities can be a confusion issue at time, thus do hope that you will spend some time familiarizing self with same before making statements. Again I ask for proof of YOUR statement that SC would make a financial gain as per the Pilot Program.

5) Comment by InPVille - 18/03/2013

@DMJ: I was referring to those who post here. However, if you look at the results of green energy initiatives in Germany, you will find that their energy costs have gone up. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-renewable-energy-policy-takes-toll-on-nature-conservation-a-888094.html "The Price of Green Energy: Is Germany Killing the Environment to Save It? By Markus Dettmer, Peter Müller and Cornelia Schmergal The German government is carrying out a rapid expansion of renewable energies like wind, solar and biogas, yet the process is taking a toll on nature conservation. The issue is causing a rift in the environmental movement, pitting "green energy" supporters against ecologists." -[**]- http://www.euroinvestor.com/news/2013/03/01/germany-debates-fracking-as-energy-costs-rise/12231684 " Yet Ms. Merkel's "energy revolution," as the shift away from nuclear has been dubbed, is having unexpected side effects. Subsidies for renewable-energy producers that are financed in part through household electricity bills are causing electricity prices for ordinary consumers and industry to rise. Germany's biggest industrial power consumers have seen electricity prices per kilowatt hour rise nearly 40% in the past five years, according to the Cologne Institute for Economic Research, also known as IW. Electricity prices for industry are nearly 15% higher than the average in the 27-nation European Union, IW said. "We have reached the pain threshold," said Michael Huther, IW's director. He added that data show that energy-intensive industries are already beginning to curtail investment in Germany because of higher electricity charges." The German economy is highly important to the EU. If they go down, what is subsidizing their govt. programs is reduced.

6) Comment by DMJ - 18/03/2013

"It would reduce our energy costs" ...which would reduce someone's profits. Considering the state we live in, you really think no one is against efficient energy? You're less cynical than I.

7) Comment by InPVille - 18/03/2013

@Buck: How about you supply proof that "under guidance will give us the same results as is being done to education and other public entities." We have this representative of the Sierra Club saying one thing and we have Mr. Skermetta saying something else. I don't know whether either is telling the whole truth and I suspect neither do you. Can you show that what Mr. Skermetta is reported to have said here: "Skrmetta says it came about from a consultant hired by the PSC--but the report was rushed through without review and debate under previous PSC chairman . . ." is incorrect? If it is correct, the prior PSC didn't do it's due diligence no matter how many groups did or didn't have input. Having "input" doesn't necessarily mean the input is reflected in the final document. It(due diligence) should be done before anything is done. If he is blowing smoke, then you have some evidence to support Jordan Macha's letter. But I am not going to automatically assign either to the "round basket" based on what I've seen so far. Can you point to where what was in the program is spelled out online so people can take a look at it?

8) Comment by Buck - 18/03/2013

Just two points. It is not correct that Skermetta is a newly elected. It is Scott Angela, Jindal's clone, who is the new Commissioner and under guidance will give us the same results as is being done to education and other public entities. Expect Scott to announce he will run for Governor to continue the policy of existing. Second, I'm curious of any evidence that the Sierra Club will gain fiscally from this program. Please supply proof. Note that the development of this Quick Start program was two years in the making with input from numerous groups including utilities, major energy uses and consumer groups. Interesting that comes also at a time when the lil Bobby wants to cut the funding to the LaPSC.

9) Comment by InPVille - 18/03/2013

@DMJ: I did read the letter. Did you read the article I linked to in my first post on this letter? Did you read this letter? The letter is about EFFICIENT Energy. I seriously doubt anyone is against EFFICIENT Energy. It would reduce our energy costs.

10) Comment by DMJ - 18/03/2013

Pville, read the letter. The PSC IS doing nothing. I am right. "Confoundingly, newly elected Chairman Eric Skrmetta and the PSC ended this initiative last month in a last-minute repeal." The PSC most definitely IS fighting clean energy initiatives, and to reiterate my original point, they can do so because they have political cover.

11) Comment by InPVille - 18/03/2013

@DMJ: No conspiracy. However, you could be one of the best examples of "conclusion jumpers" hanging around on this website. Your motto seems to be: "I can deduce what is going on based on pure hunch." or "Get the rumors going before all of the facts come in." If the PSC does nothing, then you might be right. However, just because the PSC did not act on a time table you might have preferred does not mean they will not do something on this issue.

12) Comment by DMJ - 18/03/2013

Ahh yes...one more person in on the conspiracy. Ugh.

13) Comment by InPVille - 18/03/2013

@DMJ: Of course the prospect of the Sierra Club, which Jordan Macha, represents, getting to handle much of the $30 million dollar Quick Start Program funds couldn't possibly color or bias the presentation made in this letter.

14) Comment by DMJ - 18/03/2013

"Why would the Public Service Commission want to stop these improvements for Louisiana?" Because our state is filled with idiots who don't care about the environment and think the world's climate scientists are all involved in one big conspiracy. Still...good letter, Jordan. Thanks for the work you do.

15) Comment by phil - 18/03/2013

The devil is in the details.

16) Comment by SuzanneMS - 18/03/2013

Silly man. As if what the public wants has anything to do with governing in Louisiana. Entergy wants to bill the public for billions for the construction of new plants, and for continuing high utility bills due to wasted energy, and the PSC does its master's bidding.

17) Comment by InPVille - 18/03/2013

The other side of the coin: http://avoyellestoday.com/view/full_story/21973170/article-PSC-chairman-says-La--doesn-t-need-help-managing-energy-efficiency -[**]- "Louisiana does not need a $30 million Quick Start program promoting energy efficiency that would be managed by third-party groups, some of them special interests like the Sierra Club, said Louisiana Public Service Commission chairman Eric Skrmetta." -[**]- "The back story: In December 2012, the PSC passed a program called Quick Start. Skrmetta says it came about from a consultant hired by the PSC--but the report was rushed through without review and debate under previous PSC chairman Foster Campbell, a Shreveport Democrat. He and fellow Democrat Lambert Boissiere III of New Orleans voted for Quick Start in December. So did Eric Skrmetta, R-Metarie." -[**]- " “Now we’re going to go back, we’re going to start over and we’re going to get it done the right way,” Skrmetta told nola.com after the Feb. 27 meeting. [parag] Industries and businesses consume 78 percent of electricity, said Skrmetta, and programs that the PSC may eventually pass should focus on encouraging business to adopt energy conservation because there are bigger savings than among consumers. “They can save the most,” he said. “We want to encourage consumers to save energy as well.” [parag] “Pentland said that Louisiana is not particularly astute because 46 other states had done this. I disagree,” said Skrmetta. “Many of those 46 are rethinking this.” " ------- Time will tell what happens with this issue. There is not enough information available for me to form firm conclusions.

18) Comment by lovemykids - 18/03/2013

This program does not suit Jindal.