Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (0)
Got Bills?
Have you been paying attention to bills lately?
I mentioned in my last blog that I was tracking a few electric energy bills in the Virginia General Assembly and that I’d let you know more about that in my next blog. In the meantime, there has been quite a bit of commentary about the rising cost of electricity and the significant increases we should be anticipating in our electric bills in the not-so-distant future. Maybe you’ve been wondering what’s been happening in Richmond and what it means for us as ratepayers.
I’ve trekked to Richmond numerous times over the past few months to try to understand the legislative process better, to see firsthand why some bills die and others survive, and to gain more insight about electric energy policy. Two bills in particular drew my attention: Senator Petersen’s SB 446 and Senator Norment’s SB 596. The former bill contained comprehensive provisions for a clean energy future, while the latter bill’s main purpose was to rename and redirect the Commission on Electric Utility Restructuring (CEUR), given last year’s reregulation legislation. Both of these bills were first considered by the CEUR early this year.
The CEUR met the mornings of January 28 and February 11. These meetings commenced at 7:30AM. Now I’ve got to tell you that I’m not nearly so energized in the wee hours of the morning as I am late at night. Attending these meetings meant getting up in time to leave northern Virginia by 4:45AM. As I was driving to Richmond those mornings, I remember thinking about representatives like Del. Bob Marshall who make that commute daily the first few months of the year.
The first meeting was very well attended, standing room only; 13 bills – including SB 446 and SB 596 - were considered. Senator Petersen’s bill was not recommended by the commission, while Senator Norment’s bill was. The second meeting drew far fewer people since only one bill – Senator Petersen’s bill - was being (re)considered. Again, Senator Petersen’s bill was not recommended. My impression, based on the discussion that took place, was that the CEUR did not feel that the Commonwealth was ready to embrace such an ambitious new energy future.
I should mention that February 11 was one of the days when bills were “crossing over,” i.e., senate bills were crossing over to the house and house bills were crossing over to the senate. Needless to say it was very busy in the General Assembly Building. I couldn’t help but notice that on every floor people were in huddles either talking very rapidly or listening very intently.
Both SB 446 and SB 596 were next considered by the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee the afternoon of February 11. Even though the CEUR had rejected Senator Petersen’s bill earlier that day, the senator presented it passionately before the committee. And even though the bill was defeated 3-12 in committee, the senator left the podium with very apparent resolve to get a clean energy bill passed as soon as possible. Senator Norment’s bill, by way of contrast, passed unanimously in committee, continued its path through the legislative process, and was signed by the Governor on May 12. Effective July 1, the legislation, in addition to renaming and redirecting the CEUR, authorizes and directs the State Corporation Commission to design and implement electric energy consumer education.
In the process of observing how bills do or don’t become law and after meeting with several legislators and/or their aides over the course of a few months, I learned more about how important public policy issues are prioritized.
Beyond any coal plant or rate increase or power line or other such controversies, our representatives don’t seem to hear from many folks who are really all that interested in our Commonwealth’s energy future, much less a balanced generation portfolio.
I think we could all do more, not only to increase our knowledge about energy conservation and efficiency, demand-side management, demand response, and renewable energy, but also to let our legislators know we’re paying attention to those issues so they will receive higher priority.
And we do need to pay attention… Fuel costs have risen, and as a result Dominion Virginia Power and other utility companies have applied for fuel-rate rate increases. But fuel rate increases aside, capped base rates are due to expire automatically on December 31, 2008. So at some point in the not-so-distant future, we should expect the utility companies to apply for additional increases in electric rates, base rates as opposed to fuel rates. We need to start paying more attention soon, before rates start to rise significantly.
Hopefully, the consumer education provisions of SB 596 will help pave the way not only for the passage of a clean energy bill but also for other electric energy legislation that market participants with diverse agendas and viewpoints can endorse and that our representatives can collectively and confidently embrace.
You must be logged in to post a comment.