I had an interesting dialogue with Representatives Ron Kresha, who represents the Long Prairie and Little Falls areas, Rep. Dave Baker from Willmar, and Annie Levenson-Falk, Executive Director of the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) last August.
For me, there were three take-aways from the discussion;
- Sometimes even experienced legislators get confused by the legislative process.
2. We can provide assstance to confused legislators if we inform ourselves.
3. We can’t do number two by ourselves.
It started with a letter to the editor that I sent to the Little Falls based Morrison County Record. Bear with me. This is a bit long.
Here’s the letter:
Dear Editor:
Representative Ron Kesha and Senator Paul Gazelka voted to take away the rebates that people who live in small towns get when they purchase efficient electrical appliances. The program is called the Conservation Improvement Plan (CIP) and it saves people money and keeps pollution out of the air. But the two politicians voted for legislation that allows small utilities like Randall Electric and Pierz Utilities to be exempt from the CIP rebates. So that means if you live in Randall or Pierz you may not be able to get a rebate for your new energy efficient refrigerator but if you live in Little Falls or Long Prairie you can apply for and receive a rebate. Why are Rep. Kresha and Sen. Gazelka discriminating against people in small towns?
Tim King
Rep. Kresha and I have always had a constructive relationship so when he responded to my letter with an email I was happy. Here’s his email.
 |
| Rep. Ron Kresha District 9B |
Hello Tim,
I saw your editorial and appreciate the dialogue. I looked back at my votes and was wondering if the vote you reference was the vote to give smaller electrical coops boards more decision making, which included the ability to decide on the CIP rebates?
Thanks,
Ron
Rep. Kresha and I see the world differently but we respect each other. So I responded as follows:
Hi Ron.
It’s good to hear from you. When I didn’t Hear back from you about tobacco taxes I thought we were done dialoging.
I’m including Rep. Dave Baker and Annie Levenson-Falk on this email. They were both kind enough to help educate me on this subject. Dave authored the legislation and Annie, who is with the Citizens Utility Board, opposed it.
The legislation you voted for exempted small municipal utilities and co-oops from the CIP. That means no action is required by them. They can simply discontinue paying the CIP rebates. No board decision is required. Dave told me they can decide to opt back in to the program but I’m not sure how they would do that. Do you know if the legislation established a process for opting back into CIP?
It seems to me that you made the decision in St. Paul and none is needed in Pierz or Randall or other communities where these small utilities are. As Annie has pointed out your vote ignored the fact that both the Minnesota Rural Electric Association and the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association opposed the proposal to eliminate CIP for small utilities. That sounds like you’re ignoring the voice of the utilities rather than acting on their behalf.
But my point in the letter you reference is that you, and the supporters of the legislation, created a two tier system that discriminates against rate payers who get their electricity from these small utilities. Small utilities aren’t like small manufacturing or service businesses in Randall or Pierz or some other community. They have monopolies granted them by the people to provide electricity to customers within a certain area. The area is protected by law and regulation. In return for the protected monopoly utilities agree to be regulated in a way established by law and regulations.
These regulated utilities exist at the pleasure of the people for the people. They aren’t like normal private for profit entities. It’s beyond me why you think there is an advantage to the people by the establishment of a two tier regulatory system that discriminates against those served by small utilities.
I do have one theory about this effort to dismantle the CIP. Based on the favorable treatment the legislature provided Excel this year and the various attempts to weaken the PUC I’d say the over all goal is to allow privately held utilities such as Excel keep their monopoly status but become as unregulated as possible. The contract between the public utilities and the people will become increasingly lopsided and favorable to the big privately held utilities. As a result ratepayers, like those in Randall or Pierz, will suffer.
I’d be happy to have a more favorable explanation but for the time being I will be speaking out against these moves to deregulate public utilities.
Respectfully,
Tim
Ron responded:
I wasn't intending to disrupt our dialog, and I have to go back and look at the email I missed about the tobacco. I missed that response. Admittedly I get distracted trying to switch back and forth between my day job and the legislative work.
As for the CIP program, I'll give you my recollection of the bill.
As you have correctly identified, Rep. Baker carried the legislation. He did a good job working with different parties and I can honestly say that if there was strong opposition to the change in the CIP program, then I missed that information. When a bill has lots of concerns, I'll receive a long list of emails, phone calls and meetings. I don't recall this bill have that much activity.
Additionally, when I looked on the MREA website, they call out the CIP program changes in a positive manner indicating there must have been some consensus and compromise. See the two passages from their State Legislature section:
We passed our offensive legislative priorities, including rail crossings and copper theft. The legislature also passed a provision we supported from the beginning to remove the 1% threshold for infrastructure projects in the Conservation Improvement Program (CIP).
Conservation Improvement Program (CIP)-HF 2749: After working with numerous stakeholders prior to the legislative session on advancing a measure similar to this, we had not focused on it during the session because it was traveling with other provisions lacking consensus among our membership. The legislation removed the 1% threshold for infrastructure projects giving cooperatives and municipal utilities the ability to include infrastructure investments in their yearly conservation plans without first achieving 1% savings on the member side of the meter.
I do remember when this bill came up on the House floor a couple of my colleagues from the DFL side spoke favorably as well so it appeared to me to be a bill that had bipartisan support and consensus.
I appreciate your informed stance and I don't wish to sway you one way or the other on my actions. But, I will look closer at the program and see what concerns are raised.
Also, I don't know about the opting in or out process, that would be a question for the bill's author.
Lastly, I see your perspective on the PUC changes and see how you might draw the conclusions that you do; however, those motivations aren't mine.
Respectfully,
Ron
Annie, who does a great job protecting rate payers at CUB, pitched in after after Ron responded to me. She was less distracted and was paying more attention to important details then Ron was:
Tim,
Since you've included me on this conversation, here's a little more information on the topics you brought up.
If I'm not mistaken, Rep. Baker indicated that even though the cooperative and municipal utility associations opposed this bill, some individual utilities did support it, even if not on the record at the legislature. I won't speak for him, but I believe that was part of the motivation behind the bill, and utilities' concerns are one of the things that I'm hoping the Dept. of Commerce project looking at CIP will address. (I represent CUB on the advisory committee for that project.)
While the exempted utilities no longer have to continue their conservation programs, they're not prohibited from doing so. It's my understanding that they're all considering now whether they'll continue to offer energy efficiency rebates, etc., and I'm hoping at at least some will do so.
 |
| AAnnie Levenson-Falk | Executive DirectorCitizens Utility Board of Minnesota http://cubminnesota.org |
One additional distinction that the utility folks would want to point out is that, while Xcel, Minnesota Power and Otter Tail are private, investor-owned companies, coops and municipal utilities are are publicly-owned or member-owned nonprofits, so they don't have the profit motivation that the big utilities have. That's not to say that CUB, as a consumer advocate, thinks that they always operate in their customers'/members' best interests (as you well know), just that they're different.
Also, Rep. Kresha, I think that the MREA website might still be talking about 2016 legislation, which they supported. Rep. Baker's bill from 2017 exempted small utilities from the Conservation Improvement Program altogether; this one, MREA opposed. I don't think the bill was ever heard on the floor as a stand-alone, which may be why it didn't get as much attention in the rush of omnibus bills at the end of session.
I'm trying to figure out the best options for consumers going forward, including understanding the concerns from all sides and trying to make sure rural customers like myself have the best options they can.
Annie
I responded to both Annie and Ron:
Thanks Annie and Ron.
I think that the best approach going forwards towards improving the CIP is to understand both the utilities interests and the rate payers interests. I know Rep. Baker is impatient with that process but as it stands, the legislation that was passed in 2017 makes rate payers at small co-ops and municipal utilities second class citizens as far as energy efficiency is concerned. I think that’s unfair, does nothing to improve the CIP, and I still don’t understand why you supported that Ron.
Regards,
Tim
PS: Ron, I looked at the MREA link you sent me. It does refer to the 2016 session, not the 2017 session, and a different piece of legislation.
Ron responded to me but not to Annie.
Tim,
The dialogue has raised some questions for me as well. I need to go back and trace the bill and its progress.
Confusion reigns.
ReplyDelete