MA Energy Costs - How hard is it to say
This week the House followed suit, passing its own version of what might be called the "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead Massachusetts energy cost inflation bill of 2012." At least over in the House leadership has the decency to be honest (kinda) about what they are doing.
Here's the State House News:
The House on Monday advanced legislation aimed at diversifying the state's energy portfolio by doubling the amount of renewables required to be purchased by utilities, while introducing competitive bidding to the process in an attempt to address the cost of the policy.
Pretty much par for the Senate's course - doubling (!!!) the amount of higher-cost renewable energy that utilities are required to purchase, thereby guaranteeing beyond any shadow of a doubt that consumer energy costs will continue to rise. The introduction of competitive bidding might (might) temper the rate of increase somewhat (or it might not), but it certainly won't do anything to bring down consumer costs. Here's the good part:
Rep. John Keenan, the chair of the Joint Committee on Telecommunication, Utilities and Energy, said quantifying customer savings from the energy bill was "hard to say," but said the bill sought to address some of the underlying drivers of the state's high energy costs, while also allowing Massachusetts to build on its renewable energy sources.
Well, no, actually "quantifying customer savings from the energy bill" is not "hard to say." It is very easy to say. Zero. Phonetically: ZEE-ROE. Or even easier: Nil. Or en espanol: Nada. There will be no customer savings from the energy bill passed by the House today, because like the senate version it requires utilities to buy and sell higher-priced energy. It may well be difficult to quantify the customer price premium that will result from this bill, but not the savings. More:
[Rep. Keenan] also said the introduction of competitive bidding to the renewable marketplace was not an indictment or commentary on the controversial contracts signed for Cape Wind power, but rather a statement of how the Legislature wants to proceed in the future.
Right. So in the future the Legislature wants to be upfront about its efforts to increase the cost of energy in Massachusetts. Which is great... if you happen to think our elected officials ought to be going out of their way to make it even more expensive to live and do business here in the Commonwealth. Yet more:
With an average electric rate in Massachusetts of 14.24 cents per kilowatt hour, the seventh highest in the country and more than 4 cents higher than the national average, state officials have discussed reducing energy prices as a way to remove an impediment to job growth.
They sure have! They have discussed the heck out of reducing energy prices. If someone had just thought to erect a turbine or three in front of all of those discussions, maybe we'd have made some progress toward the goal. As it is, the Legislature seems to be proceeding once again on the
George Constanza theory: doing the opposite. Finally (we're still with the State House News here folks):
"I think the policy is more driven toward making sure we have a diverse energy portfolio as we're moving toward natural gas. We're trying to procure additional renewables and, though more expensive than natural gas, we're trying to make it as least costly as possible," Keenan said.
And there's that honesty I mentioned above. Perhaps inadvertently, Representative Keenan just told us exactly what the House and Senate energy bills are all about - and it isn't cost reduction. See, the nation's suddenly plentiful supply of natural gas is seriously undermining the already-artificial, almost entirely government-supported "market" for renewable energy. Legislation like this - doubling down on mandates requiring the purchase of higher-priced (but politically correct) energy - is all about propping up that artificial "market" in the face of what used to be called "competition." Not surprisingly, this is the same agenda being pursued at the national level by the Obama Administration and its allies in Congress.
"We're trying to make it as least costly as possible," indeed. But "as least costly as possible" will still be MORE costly. Just bear that in mind. Our state legislature is deliberately driving up our cost of living.
Tom, your "more complex view of reality" might hold the seeds of an argument to be made in favor of these measures - which undoubtedly raise the short-term cost of energy here, whatever they might or might not do in the long term. But those aren't the arguments being made in favor of this legislation, which is consistently sold as an effort to both reduce costs and "invest in the future" or some-such treacle. On point: just today CNBC released its bi-annual rankings of business-friendly states. This is the survey that Gov. Patrick touted ad nauseum in 2010, saying that our #6 rank proved we were "on the mend and on the move," etc. Well, we plummeted to 28, the largest drop of any state, in large part because we now rank 49th in cost of doing business. Making that WORSE, deliberately, has real consequences. If there is an argument in favor of doing that, let it be argued up front.
Dan Haley | 2012-07-10 18:18:20
This is how our government works! Somewhere down the line some company, municipality or bureaucracy is reaping the added funds in which they line certain companies and individuals with the easy profits. This is crony capitalism at the state bureaucratic level. There are tons of things like this going on every day and all year long. It is a disgrace and costs all of us more somewhere down the line. What a disgrace! We need these lawmakers for What? They need to be exposed and term limits need to be put on all the politicians at the local state and federal levels. Capitalism is the best form of social governing unless of course the thieves figure out a way to defraud the public money jar.
Sean | 2012-07-10 13:41:06
Dan, again, fossil fuels only seem cheap. They're terribly expensive if you make a full accounting: the costs born by the public due to just the last few weeks of extreme weather driven by global warming runs into many lives and millions of taxpayer dollars. Don't forget the billions we spend each year on subsidies for the most destructive--and most profitable--industry ever seen on earth. The natural gas boom is due to fracking, which emits as much CO2 as other fossil fuels and is poisoning water. The cost of corn is rising due to crop losses from drought. Moving toward renewables is the only responsible energy policy for the long term, and will save a living planet while boosting the economy. Also, why do you spend so much time carrying water for the fossil fuel companies?
Dianna Vosburg | 2012-07-07 16:44:35
The cartoon with Obama lighting a molotov cocktail with a cigarette is a nice touch, Dan. (What no Devil's goatee and horns?) The subtlety fits well with the tone of the piece, because what else is a caricature really but choosing of one obvious feature and peeling away anything that might distract from the characterization, anything like the complexities of reality? And that's basically the process of argument here that brings you around to conclude "Obama and those Democrats on Beacon Hill are all conspiring to make your energy costs higher." A more complex view of reality might allow that public policy isn't simply about this week or this month, that it is supposed to be geared with a somewhat longer view. Yes, the policy measures that serve to diversify our energy resources going forward involve immediate cost, but is it really so wise to do nothing while "market force" allows fossil fuels to monopolize? Couldn't there be some cost associated with that in the longer run? (I mean beside the environmental devastation.)
Tom Driscoll | 2012-07-05 19:28:01