As policymakers at all levels of government grapple with the global energy crunch and look for ways to transition to a lower-carbon energy grid, they need to focus on market-based solutions.
We’ve already seen that competition is the best way to achieve the energy future that customers want – one that fosters innovation, combats climate change, promotes reliability, and drives down prices. Competitive markets – not monopolies – should be the path forward.
The Biden administration’s ambitious goal of running America’s economy on 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035 is accelerating the shift to renewable energy and sparking a debate among policymakers over how best to encourage the clean energy transition without having costs fall entirely on consumers.
While the war of words between the fossil fuel and renewables camps has garnered the lion’s share of the attention, less has been paid to the importance of modernizing transmission infrastructure and the role of competition in incentivizing investment in a cleaner, more efficient and affordable power system.
Ohio’s elections chief has filed a complaint with the state Elections Commission accusing former House Speaker Larry Householder of campaign violations.
Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s complaint alleges his fellow Republican, Rep. Larry Householder (R-Glenford), received $32,000 in excess or improper campaign donations. That includes $1,000 from Juan Cespedes, a lobbyist for FirstEnergy Solutions who has pleaded guilty in a $61-million-dollar bribery case connected to Ohio’s nuclear bailout law. Householder has pleaded not guilty to charges in that alleged bribery scheme. Four other unnamed donors were also part of this complaint for exceeding campaign finance limits.
This isn't the first time LaRose has filed an elections complaint against Householder. Last summer, LaRose filed 162 campaign-finance charges against Householder, Cespedes, lobbyist Neil Clark and former Ohio Republican Party chairman Matt Borges - who are all also charged in that case.
FirstEnergy and FirstEnergy Solutions donated more than $1 million to nonprofit groups and political campaigns since 2017 to help elect Gov. Mike DeWine, according to a Dayton Daily News investigation into Ohio’s HB 6. In July, federal prosecutors charged former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and four others with racketeering, alleging they ran a nearly $61 million bribery scheme using undisclosed political money to position Householder as speaker and then pass and defend a $1.3 billion bailout law. While FirstEnergy and FirstEnergy Solutions aren’t specifically named in court documents, the descriptions identify those companies as alleged participants in the scheme and the utility has said it is working with investigators.
Arizona lawmakers are trying to strip the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) of its authority to require investor-owned utilities to generate a portion of the state’s power with renewable energy. House Bill 2248 and its Senate companion would bar the commission from adopting or enforcing any new policy, decision or rule that regulates the electric generation resources without specific legislative authorization. And the measure, sponsored by Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, provides no such authority.
Donald Kochan had a good commentary in The Chicago Sun Times this week on Illinois’ new mandate requiring utilities to increase the amount of in-state renewable energy they purchase. Kochan argues that limiting the requirement to Illinois-based renewable generation will result in less clean energy and higher bills for consumers.
As policymakers at all levels of government grapple with the global energy crunch and look for ways to transition to a lower-carbon energy grid, they need to focus on market-based solutions.
We’ve already seen that competition is the best way to achieve the energy future that customers want – one that fosters innovation, combats climate change, promotes reliability, and drives down prices. Competitive markets – not monopolies – should be the path forward.
With infrastructure the talk of the town in D.C., the Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition (ETCC) and other organizations are pushing Congress to support competition and oppose monopolies on new electric transmission projects.
The Energy Choice Coalition supports this call on Congress to not buckle to monopolies, and instead allow for competition that lowers consumer costs and increases cleaner and more reliable energy sources.
The Biden administration’s ambitious goal of running America’s economy on 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035 is accelerating the shift to renewable energy and sparking a debate among policymakers over how best to encourage the clean energy transition without having costs fall entirely on consumers.
While the war of words between the fossil fuel and renewables camps has garnered the lion’s share of the attention, less has been paid to the importance of modernizing transmission infrastructure and the role of competition in incentivizing investment in a cleaner, more efficient and affordable power system.
Kari Lydersen reports in the Midwest Energy News that a conservative-led alliance of farming, construction, and clean energy groups is pushing new legislation in Wisconsin meant to create competition and accelerate the development of subscriber-backed community solar projects.
Backers of the bill (LRB 1902) say it would facilitate a significant increase in the state’s renewable generation, help customers access clean energy and save money on bills, create solar construction jobs, and provide a revenue stream for struggling farmers.
It’s a Saturday night and rather than walking to your local pizzeria, you decide to order food through UberEats. Well, you’ve suddenly accepted a more expensive bill with the addition of the delivery fees. With food delivery, at first it seems like the same cost as picking up the food or dining in – but then the delivery fees dramatically drive up the total cost for consumers. The same scenario plays out with utilities charging delivery fees to access their large-scale solar farms.
The delivery costs make solar farms costly while strengthening utility companies’ control over customers; whereas, rooftop projects distinguish themselves as the one-stop-shop – generation, transmission and distribution. Consumers should continue to fight for independence and competition for their electrical needs, starting with rooftop solar projects. By harnessing the power to take advantage of one’s electrical bill and break free from burdensome, outdated and less reliable utility companies, consumers have a special opportunity to chip away at utility monopolies’ control.
The Energy Choice Coalition backed efforts urging the Department of Energy to create a program to assist states in developing wholesale electricity markets. The successful creation of such a program would increase grid reliability, drive down consumer costs and speed up the transition to renewable energy.
“A dedicated program at the Department of Energy will provide states with the tools needed to expand competition in electricity markets and hasten the transition to cleaner energy and deliver the greatest possible benefits to consumers,” said Robert Dillon, the executive director of the Energy Choice Coalition.
Georgia Power’s Vogtle project has demonstrated the need for market competition so the tired script of utilities placing burdensome costs on consumers can once and for all be retired. For the Augusta Chronicle, Jordan McGillis astutely points out how flawed the utility monopoly managed the now $25 billion project. Unfortunately, it’s yet another story of how the utility company leaves the customer with no choice and pricy bills.
A report by the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), titled “Energy Market Design and the Southeast United States,” proves that renewable energy advocates are unified on the benefits of competitive markets with real-time pricing signals. The benefits – consumer savings, effective integration of renewable energy and environmental well-being – trump the antiquated SEEM proposal which upholds the vertically integrated monopoly utility model.
With the SEEM proposal, utilities have devised a plan to shore up control and block competition from the region. The proposal’s faults are numerous, including (a) providing voting power to utilities and control of the program to the largest utilities, (b) giving utilities the ability to hire and fire their own “market auditor,” and (c) projecting less than $50 million in savings, as opposed to the billions projected under an RTO/ISO proposal.
Intentionally, the burdensome fee sends a loud and imposing message to customers: don’t install solar or it will cost you. Because of its position and power, the utility company squashes competition and flexes its muscle at the cost of the customer. Alabama Power’s fee structure is characteristic of a similar narrative that monopoly utilities repeat over and over - block competition, maintain power and slow progress toward a cleaner and more affordable energy future. In Alabama, the reprisal of this story isn’t going down without a legal fight.
