Archive 2008 - 2019

Taking Credit Where Credit/No Credit is Due

by Dan Haley
1/25/2012

Last week state Rep. Dan Winslow (@danwinslow) tweeted an interesting bit of Massachusetts legal trivia: "Just learned a little known quirk: by MA statute, the state AG's third term in office is uncompensated. Think Martha will stay? #mapoli."
 

 

The Patrick Admin's $4B
Ego Trip

 

My un-tweeted response was "No - but then she's already running for Governor."

 


 

 

That's been my theory for a while now, as the self-rehabilitated AG continues to put herself consistently on the front pages (particularly of the Herald) with a steady stream of establishment-bucking, explicitly consumer friendly initiatives. And I can hardly claim sole ownership of the theory.

Anyhow, AG Coakley provided further fodder for that particular rumor mill at an appearance this morning before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, where she renewed and enhanced her recent broadside against the Patrick Administration's signature environmental legislation.

Recall that in November the Attorney General made waves when her office released a report estimating that the Green Communities Act, signed into law in 2008 by Governor Patrick, will cost Massachusetts consumers approximately $4 billion dollars over the next four years to implement.

Here's the State House News (via the Herald) on Coakley's speech this morning:

 

Attorney General Martha Coakley called Wednesday for competitive bidding for energy contracts and an end to "sweetheart deals currently offered to utility companies," which she said were inflating consumers’ energy bills.

 

"Put another way, I believe the commonwealth can continue to go green, but we can still leave some green in your pockets," she said to business officials at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast at downtown Boston’s Intercontinental Hotel.

 

Coakley said she hoped to take a fresh look at the state’s Green Communities Act, a 2008 law that requires utility companies to purchase a small percentage of their power from renewable sources. The act includes a provision governing direct negotiations between utility companies and power suppliers, essentially sanctioning no-bid deals. She also reiterated concerns that the law would cost Massachusetts consumers $4 billion over the next four years.

 

The Patrick Administration's response back in November was rather tepid. This time a veteran operative came out of retirement to "defend" the law more vigorously (and more disingenuously). Again from the SHNS:

 

Coakley’s remarks drew an immediate rebuke from Ian Bowles, the former state secretary of energy and environmental affairs, who called Coakley’s assessment of the Green Communities Act "shameless grandstanding" intended to mislead about the actual impact of the law, which he said had saved consumers $9 billion. Bowles, who initially took to Twitter to level his critique, also said the assessment of the costs is "remarkably misleading."

 

"It’s shamelessly misleading to talk about costs without talking about benefits," he said. "Our electricity costs are down by 40 percent. The cost of electricity is down by 40 percent since the act was passed. It’s the biggest energy efficiency program in the country. None of this is in dispute."

 

Partly true, insofar as it goes. Since the Green Communities Act was signed in 2008, the cost of electricity in Massachusetts has taken a dive. Also, since I tied my shoes this morning the temperature outside has dropped by twelve degrees. Who could dispute the obvious cause and effect?

Comments (2)

Thanks Dianna. It occurs to me that notions like "moral math" bear a good deal of blame for budget problems at all levels of government. Not that policy-makers should not strive to be "moral," of course, but once one goes down the path of applying so subjective a consideration to questions of dollars and cents, there is no end to the borrowing and can-kicking that can be rationalized. This post was truncated in the re-posting. Anyone interested in reading the rest can do so here: http://www.criticalmassachusetts.com/2012/01/taking-credit-where-credit-no-credit-is.html

Dan Haley | 2012-01-26 12:01:20

Just a general comment: when analyzing the costs and benefits of green energy, I think it is essential to make a full accounting. Martha Coakley acknowledged that she did not factor in the potential savings from energy efficiency: "The attorney general's cost estimates suggested a growth in the cost of implementing the programs created by the Green Communities Act that would outpace the first three years of the law's existence, though she acknowledged not factoring in potential savings from energy efficiency." (http://tinyurl.com/74gd4og). This link provides a more detailed and nuanced look at the issue if you are interested. Note also that climate change is enormously expensive, in addition to being destructive and deadly, and note that fossil fuel companies receive huge taxpayers subsidies and are still subsidized at a much greater rate than renewables, despite being the most profitable business on earth. A full accounting, please, and one that includes "moral math."

Dianna Vosburg | 2012-01-26 10:45:02