New Hampshire has a resource problem. We’ve too many ax-grinders protesting energy infrastructure projects but you can’t create electricity with those. Not legally. You need something else. Several somethings. But each and every effort to improve energy infrastructure in the Granite State is protested, blocked, or dragged out in court until the developers give up.
If we don’t replace or update aging infrastructure, many of which the same ax-grinders are working to shutter, we’ll be reduced to wood and solar. By that I mean a world lit only by fire.
That may be the plan (visit the deluminating dim-bulbs at Treehugger for offer details) but you can’t power your iPhone or expect Starbucks to make your pretentious cup-o-java with just sunshine and wood-smoke. And those super-awesome electric cars we pay billions to subsidize annually won’t work either which is good news to the Birkenstock people because we’ll be doing a lot more walking, but not to work. Jobs and economic growth need more than just the power of rainbows and unicorns; unlike the universe, these don’t just appear from nothing. So, a recent State Supreme Court decision gives us some hope.
The state Supreme Court has overturned a decision by the Public Utilities Commission regarding a proposal by Eversource to purchase space on a natural gas pipeline project known as Access Northeast.
Proponents had argued that buying that space violated a 1996 restructuring law that “deregulated” the state’s energy industry. According to reporting in this morning’s Union Leader the Court ruled that,
“…the primary intent of the legislature in enacting (the electric market restructuring law) was to reduce electricity costs to consumers,” according to the concurring justices. “We disagree with the PUC’s ruling that the legislature’s overriding purpose was to introduce competition to the generation of electricity.”
This is an interesting decision for a number of reasons. First, it may allow for the pursuit of infrastructure delivery systems that help reduce the cost of electricity. That’s a new idea despite having been embossed in statute 22 years ago.
The legislature passed deregulation to “lower rates” but has done the opposite at every opportunity since then (not to say there is any proof that deregulation lowers rates).
It has repeatedly acted to make electricity rates more expensive. RGGI. Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Measures that force providers to buy more expensive power from outside the state. And more recently, the three crony-redistribution bills the State Legislature just sent to the Governor this past week.
One (SB446) expands net metering which means more pricey power from a wider range of sources. The second (SB365) prop up wood-burning plants. The third (SB577) subsidizes the Berlin Bio-Mass plant. All three divert money via higher rates to other people’s pockets.
All three violate the spirit of the 1996 deregulation law if it was “meant to reduce electricity costs to consumers.” All three favor government support of generating “capacity” that will make rates more expensive.
But unicorns and rainbows aside the court did not say (and I’m speculating because I have not read the entire ruling) that the state can’t screw ratepayers. It has ruled that the PUC can’t reject infrastructure projects by claiming they are the same as owning production capacity. Their contention is that ‘Deregulation’ was not meant to stop things like pipelines or transmission line projects.
To answer the question posed in the headline, no. The decision does not mean lower electric rates. But it could.
Last winter our lack of capacity created shocks as demand during freezing weather (caused by global warming™) drove prices up. A problem that could be alleviated (at least to some degree) had we not blocked every effort to pipe natural gas into the state.
Natural gas is not just a great way to keep costs down it is clean and efficient. Hydro is also an excellent source of power, that along with gas meets growing demand while doing something the ax-grinders actually want. Lower CO2 output.
Preventing these projects make it harder for your electricity providers to compete because of the diminishing resources available for them to draw. And the further away they need to go to buy the power (they are prohibited from producing) the more it costs.
It’s all very catch-22. You can’t create it. We won’t let you help pay to bring it here. That leaves us with looking far and wide which drives up costs and rates. In this scenario, deregulation must drive up rates by design even though that is contrary to the point.
Then Governor Shaheen invested a lot of political capital into the progressive grandstanding of the day known as energy deregulation. In reality, it was a sop to upscale green-power cronyism. So were the RPS and RGGI. All of which drove up rates. Things we continue to suffer through to this day. Mandates that force providers to buy power from wind farms and solar grids in far-flung locales at above market rates (even for New Hampshire) to meet arbitrary emissions reduction targets to reduce a trace gas whose primary function is greening the planet.
Let’s ignore that fraud if we can and wrap this up.
Wind and Solar are incapable of meeting demand and do the opposite of what the court just suggested the legislature was after. Lowering the cost of electricity. That (again) might be something for Governor Sununu to take note of before he signs any or all of that recent trio of bills that hit his desk. Legislation that contradicts his 10-year energy plan (which mirrors the spirit of the deregulation law passed 22 years ago). Lower electric rates.
Legislation that could lead to a long list of problems for homeowners and electricity customers.
To do that we need to stop punching ourselves in the face. The State Supreme Court just used the words”…the primary intent of the legislature in enacting (the electric market restructuring law) was to reduce electricity costs to consumers.” Given the excess capacity of lawyers there has to be someone somewhere willing or able to use that as leverage to get us out from under some of these rate hiking legislative mandates.
I’m not holding my breath.
Related: An Intelligent Conversation About Energy
