Coal Investment Dominates Meeting of Consumer Advocates
Posted on July 6, 2012 by Bob Jenks
Tags, Utility Regulation
I recently returned from the mid-year meeting of utility consumer advocates from around the country where clean air investments in coal plants was the dominant issue, including a panel presentation, a resolution, and a consumer advocates discussion. The meeting was a great opportunity to connect with other state advocates and talk about the great work we’ve accomplished in Oregon on the issue.
CUB is a member of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA). Most states have someone who represents utility consumers before the Public Utility Commission (or similar regulatory body) and those organizations network together through NASUCA. The meeting this summer was held in Charleston, South Carolina. When I stepped out of the airport in Charleston, the humidity engulfed me and made me appreciate our summers here (even if it has started slowly this year).
A panel presentation entitled The Price & Practicalities of a Cleaner Generation Fleet – Real World Impacts of the EPA’s New Coal Regulations, discussed new EPA regulations, the likelihood that they will lead to some coal plants being retired and how energy efficiency, natural gas and renewables can replace those resources. One panelist, Bruce Biewald, from Synapse Energy Economics, suggested that advocates should read CUB’s recent testimony from the PacifiCorp rate case as a good example of how to analyze clean air investments and their alternatives. Another panelist, Jim Lazar, of the Regulatory Assistance Project, cited PGE’s Boardman plant as a relatively new plant that was going to be closed because the economic analysis of clean air investments showed that it made more sense to close the plant.
A resolution was considered in the NASUCA Business Meeting, urging the EPA to ensure that timelines for clean air investments gave enough time for states to conduct least cost planning and considered the implications of the investments, and the alternatives to the investment. CUB supported the resolution because of our belief that least cost planning is critical to the retirement of coal plants, however I spoke out and explained that in our experience with Boardman and with PacifiCorp’s plants, the EPA’s timeline is not as much of a problem as getting the utility to conduct a least cost analysis of each coal unit and getting the regulatory Staff to critically analyze coal investments.
Finally on the last day of the Summer Meeting, we held a NASUCA members-only meeting to discuss what was happening in our states with coal investments. This was an opportunity for me to discuss our concerns with PacifiCorp’s approach with consumer advocates in other PacifiCorp states, like Wyoming and Utah.
It was a good 2½ days of meetings. Other states were interested in our approach to closing Boardman and the ability to phase out a coal plant down in a manner that reduces costs to customers and allows thoughtful consideration of alternatives. As the Executive Director of CUB, I was proud to represent my state and organization and speak to all of the great work that we have accomplished and how we are working to expand these efforts regionally.
To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!
03/29/17 | 0 Comments | Coal Investment Dominates Meeting of Consumer Advocates