By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org
As Joni Mitchell sings, “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone,” and she might as well be singing about the state’s energy efficiency program.
About a month ago, the Public Utilities Commission issued an order on a proposed three-year energy efficiency program that had the support and was developed by the state’s electric and gas utilities as well as environmental groups and social service organizations. The universal support by itself is noteworthy.
The order was 11 months late for the anticipated timeline, and essentially ended the current utility managed NHSaves program.
The proposed expanded program would have caught the state up to its neighbors over time for energy efficiency initiatives.
On Friday, the program’s supporters filed a motion for the PUC to rehear the case and to stay its two recent orders rejecting the program. The motion claims numerous legal, regulatory and statutory errors in the order rejecting the three-year plan.
It is no secret the PUC is in flux and has been for a while with numerous vacancies and the nomination of some folks with little relevant experience. Essentially, Gov. Chris Sununu cleaned house of the folks responsible for denying the Northern Pass transmission project, which included two of the three commissioners.
One is now a superior court judge and the other was not renominated by Sununu to her post, although most of her career has been either as a PUC staff member or commissioner.
The creation of the Department of Energy also made changes that began to rein in the PUC’s independence and bring it more under direct guidance of the Executive Branch.
The end result is likely to politicize the commission in a way it has not operated in the past.
Like judges, who like to say they are above politics, commissioners have to be approved through the political process so they are inherently political positions, you just hope they put politics aside in deciding cases unlike the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as Friday.
The commission has had only two commissioners for some time and the decision on the energy efficiency program came on the last day former chair Dianne Martin served on the PUC, and included current chairman Daniel Goldner who has only served a couple of months before becoming chair.
Another commissioner was approved recently who is a former staff member of the PUC and Office of Consumer Advocate, which most people believe is a step in the right direction, but he cannot sit on the energy efficiency case having been a staff member of the agency and the consumer advocate’s office.
The Nov. 12 order rejected the expanded three-year program, costing between $350 million and $400 million, and funded by the system benefit charge, proceeds from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction program and carry over revenues from the forward capacity market program and called it “an enormous burden on New Hampshire ratepayers.”
Instead the PUC rolled back the system benefit charge to 2018 levels which guts the current program and spurred at least one lawsuit over already contracted work that will not be completed because of the order. Several companies also said they would have to lay off workers and others said they would close.
The commission’s characterization of the program as “an enormous burden on ratepayers” sounds very much like a letter sent to the commission about a year ago, as it was nearing a decision on the proposed three-year plan.
The new majority Republicans on the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee along with the then House Speaker-elect, the late Dick Hinch, R-Merrimack, wrote the PUC asking regulators to suspend action on the energy efficiency plan.
“Now is not the time to impose $100 million-dollar annual cost-increases on our state’s ratepayers with the hopes that we achieve cost savings for everyone at a later date,” they wrote, noting many businesses and citizens are struggling financially due to the pandemic.
The PUC in December 2020 — instead of acting on the agreement — approved the continuation of system benefit charges at current levels freezing the program in place.
In its order rejecting the proposed three-year program, the PUC rejected several earlier commission decisions and findings including an economic value test of specific energy efficiency programs. The test was approved by the commission and developed by a working group it convened.
Other New England states have developed more renewable energy resources and efficiency programs and have approved greater carbon reduction goals to reduce catastrophic climate change.
At one time, renewable energy sources were much more expensive than burning fossil fuels, but that equation is changing with more affordable solar and wind projects and large-scale hydro projects like those in Quebec and the Maritimes.
At the heart of the PUC’s decision and national and global discussions is a fundamental policy conflict between the continued use of fossil fuels and the move to renewable resources to satisfy the world’s energy appetite.
The intense conflict was apparent at the recent Glasgow energy summit and the fossil fuel industry’s influence.
The industry uses its economic and political might to maintain its position as the leading energy provider and its profitability, despite the fact that public opinion is turning against the continued use of carbon rich compounds to drive the world’s economy.
New Hampshire is very dependent on fossil fuels from cars to electricity and the state’s energy policy from this administration certainly favors it over renewable energy.
New England is fossil fuel dependent for electricity as about 60 percent is generated by burning natural gas and this winter that is going to be a problem.
While the United States generates more than enough natural gas for electric generating facilities and to heat homes, businesses and public businesses, there will likely be a shortage this winter in New England because of demand in Europe and Asia where the companies can make more money and therefore greater profits.
The New England grid operator ISO New England recently lamented the vote in Maine to end the transmission line that would have flowed hydro power from Quebec to Massachusetts because natural gas is expected to be scarce and expensive this winter and that could lead to rolling blackouts. The hydro power would have helped close the gap, officials said.
Favoring fossil fuels as the preferred energy source has been a fairly consistent policy for the state as has downplaying greater use of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.
But this policy is ultimately shortsighted, not just because of global warming, but because fossil fuels are a finite fuel source while the sun, wind and water are not.
And if you are committed to fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and it is a finite fuel source, why not conserve by improving efficiency programs so less electricity and fuel is wasted.
But changing direction often requires a push.
The decision by the PUC says it is time to end subsidized, utility-managed efficiency programs and let the free market develop them.
So far the free market has done little to help residential ratepayers lower their power costs compared to larger commercial and industrial users. That was one of the promises of restructuring the industry in the late 1990s, but it has not happened.
Given the history, why would anyone think the free market would help residential customers with energy efficiency upgrades?
The PUC’s decision is too short-term — which is a political consideration — to be in the public’s greater good and that is unfortunate.
Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@gmail.com.
Distant Dome by veteran journalist Garry Rayno explores a broader perspective on the State House and state happenings for InDepthNH.org. Over his three-decade career, Rayno covered the NH State House for the New Hampshire Union Leader and Foster’s Daily Democrat. During his career, his coverage spanned the news spectrum, from local planning, school and select boards, to national issues such as electric industry deregulation and Presidential primaries. Rayno lives with his wife Carolyn in New London.