Senate Bill 807: A Waste of Ratepayer Money!

1.It appears, at least to me that CUB's comments on this bill are misplaced and misguided. This is a rather straight forward, and generally quite usual form of legislation for nongovernmental bodies involved in receiving public money, developing plans and actions involving the public, and involved in working directly with the public. In this instance ETO's transparency and self-review is irrelevant. These are neither independent nor critical assessments of IF and HOW ETO fulfills or fails to fulfill its mission in the use of public money. It is necessary and prudent public policy to have critical and complete reviews of how ETO spends public money and the results achieved by ETO. Plus the costs involved are generally nominal and are a fair investment for ETO to make. ETO should not be exempt from such independent thorough reviews of its use of public funds.

2.Trust Energy Trust. Vote NO on SB 807

3.@Ken Zimmerman, thanks for your comment. Please don't misunderstand our views on SB 807 to be somehow against accountability and transparency. Those are very important to us. Our main point is that the bill adds nothing but expense to the already substantial oversight under which the Energy Trust operates.


First, the money that funds the Energy Trust is not public money; it's ratepayer money. That may seem like a distinction without a difference but it's an important distinction to make since it means that it's not the legislature's money to control. It's part of rates so the main oversight belongs to the Public Utility Commission and they take that oversight role very seriously.


Second, the Energy Trust doesn't self-audit. All of its financial audits are independent third party. Its management audits are independent third party. Its reports to the Public Utility Commission are independently verified by staff who report to the commission. These, added to the very transparent way that the Energy Trust operates in the normal course of its business, call into question what more is being sought. Ratepayers pay a lot for these independent, third-party audits, analyses and reviews and we should. We just don't want to pay for something that either has little value or that we're already paying for.


Third, no one believes the Energy Trust is or should be exempt from independent review. But this bill is not coming from a customer group -either residential or business - raising concerns. It's not coming from the utilities. It's not coming from a regulator. It's not coming from an affected business. In fact, every stakeholder who watches the operations of the Energy Trust - customer groups, utilities, regulators, affected businesses - is in agreement: this bill is unneeded and adds costs for no discernable purpose. That is the case CUB is making along with the range of stakeholders to the legislature. We have a lot of issues to address. Energy Trust accountability just isn't one of them.


Thanks again for your comments. Let us know if you have additional questions.

4.Jeff,
Based on my experience in performing such work, I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. Commission staff always welcomed my assistance, the cost was nominal - $30,000 to $50,000, and results always helped, never hindered. ETO's work is too important to allow it to be impeded by allegations about money management that can be easily addressed publically and fairly.