Part of the Georgia Public Service Commission’s job is certifying how and where Georgia Power gets the electricity you use. With ever-changing federal environmental regulations, the PSC soon will have to decide on Georgia Power’s plan to close some of its old coal-fired power-generating facilities in light of new federal environmental standards.
Another question is, if those units are closed, whether agreements should be signed with power plants in Alabama or cleaner gas-fired units should be built.
These decisions impact your rates, the state’s air and water quality, ever-important energy reliability, and local jobs.
Let’s start with jobs. Georgia Power is the largest taxpayer in Putnam County, and its request to shut down two coal units there certainly will impact the local economies of Eatonton and nearby Milledgeville.
A decision by the PSC to “control” the units at Plant Branch would bring hundreds of temporary construction jobs to the area, but these jobs would go away in several years. By doing the upgrade, though, the plant retains its employees many years into the future and the area gets a shot in the arm from the construction workers and the millions of dollars they’ll spend on food, lodging and the like.
So why is this decision so hard, when the benefits seem so obvious? It’s because it costs more money than other choices we have before us. Plant Branch sits beside Lake Sinclair just off U.S. Highway 441, and the unusual footprint of the plant, along with the age and size of the units, makes it pricey to install the massive pollution controls required.
After careful analysis, Georgia Power is recommending that power purchase agreements be signed with two large plants in Alabama and several small gas-fired plants in Georgia. These lengthy contracts supply the needed power at a slightly better price — for now, at least.
In fact, this decision about whether to keep the coal units or close them will come up over and over again in Georgia and across the country over the next five years unless the federal Environmental Protection Agency establishes more reasonable compliance requirements for their rulemaking.
I can’t speak for the other four PSC commissioners, but this policy decision worth billions of dollars is something about which I want to hear from voters.
On the one hand, we save money on your monthly bill by taking the least cost option and shutting the units down, but with the same stroke of the pen we potentially devastate the economy of a county like Putnam. Power customers around the state, already upset about higher power bills, seem ambivalent about where we get the power as long as it is there when they need it. Meanwhile, Putnam County residents are shaking in their boots.
Environmentalists, who normally don’t side with Georgia Power, may find themselves in favor of an opportunity to curtail the use of coal. The replacement fuel of natural gas, while much cleaner-burning, is not without its share of controversy as hydraulic fracturing continues to come under more and more scrutiny for possible drinking water contamination.
As your newest elected regulator, I believe this decision has enormous ramifications. Do we upgrade these coal-fired units in our state and keep local jobs, or do we pursue the least-cost option of natural gas from out-of-state sources? How can we add more renewables to the mix? Can we build more carbon-free nuclear power sources in the future?
Oh, well — no one said this job would be easy. I hope to hear from you soon.
Read print version in paper here and post a comment: http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2011-11-16/echols-tough-decisions-coming-power-generation
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Why I could not vote for a solar subsidy
Recently, I was the swing vote on the Georgia Public Service Commission in blocking a solar subsidy that would have appeared on the electric bills of more than 2 million Georgia Power customers — for 20 years. Since that vote, many people have asked me to reconsider, and to support the measure. While it was very tempting, I just could not make peace with the decision to increase rates.
My initial vote against the solar subsidy surprised many, because I have solar energy at my home. Also, I organized the “Solar Express” train ride in South Georgia, and have tirelessly promoted Georgia solar companies and existing solar arrays. In fact, this summer, by a vote of 5-0, I joined the other four Public Service Commission members to create a 50-megawatt solar program — without a subsidy. I was fine with that. This program will deploy in 2015, boosting our total solar portfolio.
But when it came time for me to vote on modifying this plan and adding a subsidy on ratepayers’ bills in order to accelerate the solar deployment, the pledge I made to Georgians to keep their rates low, promote free-market systems, and keep government interference at a minimum kept echoing in my mind.
Those three guiding principles would be violated if I supported the subsidy.
The most tempting moment came when the solar development companies who won the bid promised to use Georgia panels instead of Chinese panels if I changed my vote. That offer caused me to lose some sleep. However, the guiding principles I outlined to voters kept coming back up.
First, I had to ask myself whether the ratepayer subsidy was right for Georgia consumers, not just the companies that would benefit. Based on information from the consumer groups that contacted me about this, it was not a good idea.
I also asked myself whether all other reasonable options have been exhausted. In this case, the bid process is just beginning, and other solar developers in the queue believe they should have a shot before we add a subsidy. So, we must be patient and let the bid process run its course, as Commissioners Stan Wise and Chuck Eaton have suggested.
Another issue is whether the subsidy could improve the business climate in Georgia. A solar subsidy might have some benefit on our “green” image and temporarily help a few companies, but the precedent set by raising rates without a hearing creates controversy regarding the integrity of the PSC’s rate hearing process.
A related question is whether the subsidy would mean more jobs for Georgia. Certainly it will, because the two solar developers have signed a document in front of me pledging to use Georgia companies. This almost won me over, but is it enough by itself?
Finally, I had to consider whether the timing is right for this decision. With the solar market so volatile right now, and prices dropping rapidly, I hesitate to obligate residential ratepayers for 20 years with a subsidy. So what can we do to bring more solar energy to Georgia? I believe we must continue to bring ideas to the table because of the fixed-cost nature of solar energy. It has no pollution, no spills, and uses no water. So, can power companies utilize solar on their existing plant sites, avoiding costly construction for interconnecting and transmitting? Can we tweak our metering statutes and give power companies an incentive to allow bidirectional metering, thus producing more distributed generation? Can homeowners and businesses work with power companies and have solar systems installed and financed on their property such that both parties benefit? And, can Georgia Power promote its current “green energy” program aggressively and increase participation, triggering the building of more solar infrastructure in Georgia?
With increasing government regulations of coal, natural gas fracking and nuclear energy, we must figure out how to make solar energy work in our state as a hedge against government interference.
Post a comment here: http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2011-12-26/echols-solar-energy-subsidy-raises-questions
My initial vote against the solar subsidy surprised many, because I have solar energy at my home. Also, I organized the “Solar Express” train ride in South Georgia, and have tirelessly promoted Georgia solar companies and existing solar arrays. In fact, this summer, by a vote of 5-0, I joined the other four Public Service Commission members to create a 50-megawatt solar program — without a subsidy. I was fine with that. This program will deploy in 2015, boosting our total solar portfolio.
But when it came time for me to vote on modifying this plan and adding a subsidy on ratepayers’ bills in order to accelerate the solar deployment, the pledge I made to Georgians to keep their rates low, promote free-market systems, and keep government interference at a minimum kept echoing in my mind.
Those three guiding principles would be violated if I supported the subsidy.
The most tempting moment came when the solar development companies who won the bid promised to use Georgia panels instead of Chinese panels if I changed my vote. That offer caused me to lose some sleep. However, the guiding principles I outlined to voters kept coming back up.
First, I had to ask myself whether the ratepayer subsidy was right for Georgia consumers, not just the companies that would benefit. Based on information from the consumer groups that contacted me about this, it was not a good idea.
I also asked myself whether all other reasonable options have been exhausted. In this case, the bid process is just beginning, and other solar developers in the queue believe they should have a shot before we add a subsidy. So, we must be patient and let the bid process run its course, as Commissioners Stan Wise and Chuck Eaton have suggested.
Another issue is whether the subsidy could improve the business climate in Georgia. A solar subsidy might have some benefit on our “green” image and temporarily help a few companies, but the precedent set by raising rates without a hearing creates controversy regarding the integrity of the PSC’s rate hearing process.
A related question is whether the subsidy would mean more jobs for Georgia. Certainly it will, because the two solar developers have signed a document in front of me pledging to use Georgia companies. This almost won me over, but is it enough by itself?
Finally, I had to consider whether the timing is right for this decision. With the solar market so volatile right now, and prices dropping rapidly, I hesitate to obligate residential ratepayers for 20 years with a subsidy. So what can we do to bring more solar energy to Georgia? I believe we must continue to bring ideas to the table because of the fixed-cost nature of solar energy. It has no pollution, no spills, and uses no water. So, can power companies utilize solar on their existing plant sites, avoiding costly construction for interconnecting and transmitting? Can we tweak our metering statutes and give power companies an incentive to allow bidirectional metering, thus producing more distributed generation? Can homeowners and businesses work with power companies and have solar systems installed and financed on their property such that both parties benefit? And, can Georgia Power promote its current “green energy” program aggressively and increase participation, triggering the building of more solar infrastructure in Georgia?
With increasing government regulations of coal, natural gas fracking and nuclear energy, we must figure out how to make solar energy work in our state as a hedge against government interference.
Post a comment here: http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2011-12-26/echols-solar-energy-subsidy-raises-questions
Why the US should stay friends with Israel
These people not only survive, they thrive.
I’m talking about the Israelis. We in the United States have a few things we can learn from them.
I had a chance to see that firsthand on my recent week-long tour of Israel with a delegation participating in the American Jewish Committee’s Project Interchange seminar for Georgia elected officials.
First of all, Israel is all about innovation. Dan Senor, co-author of the book “Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle,” describes a key difference between Israeli youth and their American counterparts. “Israeli youth, because almost all have to serve in the military for three years, have their head in a different place by the time they get to college,” Senor said.
And, as any U.S. veteran knows, military service brings with it maturity and perspective. But most importantly for the Israelis, it brings an opportunity to innovate.
What does that mean, exactly? Well, in America, we put a high value on authority and following orders. If you challenge that authority in business, in the military or elsewhere, you do so at your own peril.
In Israel, challenging authority is not only normal, it is encouraged. In the Israeli military, missions are assigned with minimum guidance, making adaptive problem-solving of paramount importance.
In fact, Senor says, the Israeli approach is to teach people to be good at a lot of things, rather than be excellent at one thing.
Do we do this in America? Not as a matter of course. But if we did, we’d be doing our kids a favor, I think. Here’s why: In my regulatory duties as a member of the Georgia Public Service Commission, I’m seeing all too frequently that we have a shortage of skilled workers such as welders, pipefitters and equipment operators.
And yet, we have a plethora of college grads, many even with graduate degrees, who can’t find jobs. I have three degrees myself, and can’t even change my own oil.
We place a high value on college education, to the extent that I think we often look down our noses at people who don’t have a degree. Maybe, though, we should change our thinking. Let’s encourage more of our students to enter the military or go to technical college. To fuel the fire for this, let’s require high-school students to take a course in auto mechanics or welding or some other technical endeavor.
In Israel, I visited a boarding school for at-risk youth. The kids, all from disadvantaged and extremely challenging home conditions, were being provided at school with the skills necessary to succeed in as mechanics, agricultural technicians and caregivers. There has been incredible success in preparing these kids to become productive members of their society.
Here at home, why not tweak the collegiate curriculum to have students take elective courses in some practical, hands-on subjects?
I recently toured the John Deere plant in Grovetown near Augusta. Plant officials said military veterans are their best employees. The armed forces clearly are doing something right in teaching job skills. Yet only 1 in 221 Americans are in active-duty military service, compared to 1 in 10 during World War II. In Israel, that ratio today is 1-in-2. We need to think about this here in America.
Americans also need a dose of Israeli “chutzpah,” which Senor describes as a combination of gall, brazen nerve, guts, presumption and arrogance. It seems a lot like argumentativeness, but it’s different. It’s assertiveness, not insolence. It’s independent thinking, not insubordination. It’s ambition and vision, not arrogance. It is something I need more of.
Israel is our friend, and the Israelis have much to teach us.
Post a comment here: http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2012-01-02/echols-america-can-learn-israel
I’m talking about the Israelis. We in the United States have a few things we can learn from them.
I had a chance to see that firsthand on my recent week-long tour of Israel with a delegation participating in the American Jewish Committee’s Project Interchange seminar for Georgia elected officials.
First of all, Israel is all about innovation. Dan Senor, co-author of the book “Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle,” describes a key difference between Israeli youth and their American counterparts. “Israeli youth, because almost all have to serve in the military for three years, have their head in a different place by the time they get to college,” Senor said.
And, as any U.S. veteran knows, military service brings with it maturity and perspective. But most importantly for the Israelis, it brings an opportunity to innovate.
What does that mean, exactly? Well, in America, we put a high value on authority and following orders. If you challenge that authority in business, in the military or elsewhere, you do so at your own peril.
In Israel, challenging authority is not only normal, it is encouraged. In the Israeli military, missions are assigned with minimum guidance, making adaptive problem-solving of paramount importance.
In fact, Senor says, the Israeli approach is to teach people to be good at a lot of things, rather than be excellent at one thing.
Do we do this in America? Not as a matter of course. But if we did, we’d be doing our kids a favor, I think. Here’s why: In my regulatory duties as a member of the Georgia Public Service Commission, I’m seeing all too frequently that we have a shortage of skilled workers such as welders, pipefitters and equipment operators.
And yet, we have a plethora of college grads, many even with graduate degrees, who can’t find jobs. I have three degrees myself, and can’t even change my own oil.
We place a high value on college education, to the extent that I think we often look down our noses at people who don’t have a degree. Maybe, though, we should change our thinking. Let’s encourage more of our students to enter the military or go to technical college. To fuel the fire for this, let’s require high-school students to take a course in auto mechanics or welding or some other technical endeavor.
In Israel, I visited a boarding school for at-risk youth. The kids, all from disadvantaged and extremely challenging home conditions, were being provided at school with the skills necessary to succeed in as mechanics, agricultural technicians and caregivers. There has been incredible success in preparing these kids to become productive members of their society.
Here at home, why not tweak the collegiate curriculum to have students take elective courses in some practical, hands-on subjects?
I recently toured the John Deere plant in Grovetown near Augusta. Plant officials said military veterans are their best employees. The armed forces clearly are doing something right in teaching job skills. Yet only 1 in 221 Americans are in active-duty military service, compared to 1 in 10 during World War II. In Israel, that ratio today is 1-in-2. We need to think about this here in America.
Americans also need a dose of Israeli “chutzpah,” which Senor describes as a combination of gall, brazen nerve, guts, presumption and arrogance. It seems a lot like argumentativeness, but it’s different. It’s assertiveness, not insolence. It’s independent thinking, not insubordination. It’s ambition and vision, not arrogance. It is something I need more of.
Israel is our friend, and the Israelis have much to teach us.
Post a comment here: http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2012-01-02/echols-america-can-learn-israel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)