Posted tagged ‘Roger Berliner’

Does Burning Money Increase MoCo’s Carbon Footprint?

28 April 2014

 

Council member Roger Berliner sponsored a set of environmental bills that made it through the council last week.  The worst one — which was passed, of course — requires the county to purchase 100% of its electricity from “clean fuels”.  The current requirement is 30%.

This initiative is all cost, and no benefits.

Based on the county’s fiscal impact statement, the law will increase the county’s energy expenditures in the range of $279,000 – $545,000 per year.  That gets over a million easily, in less than four years.Plaudits to Nancy Floreen, who argued for looking at this from a budgetary standpoint.  None of the other council members thought that was worthwhile.

And what do we get for those millions of dollars? Nothing.   The incremental change from this bill is so infinitesimally tiny that it adds up to nothing. No change in greenhouse gas emissions, no impact on climate change. Zero. Just a meaningless statement and bit of bluster.

So if the environment is not improved, who does benefit from those millions of taxpayer dollars? Well, council members like Berliner and George Leventhal get to crow about their wondrous accomplishment. (Leventhal excelled at playing the pompous windbag on this one.  He called it “the most urgent public policy challenge that we face.”   Really, George? More urgent than homelessness? Crime? Poverty? Educational failures for low-income neighborhoods?)

And certain energy producers, politically favored, get a more than tripling of the subsidy they currently receive. These producers are too expensive to compete, so they work through the political process to extract funds from MoCo taxpayers.

I can understand wanting to reduce emissions from fossil fuels.  I can understand reasonable policy proposals to do that.  But anyone with a lick of sense can also see what is purely symbolic, useless, and wasteful.This is a useless and expensive heap of corporate welfare, that allows the politicians to beat their chests, but accomplishes nothing. Nothing, that is, except take away funds from needs that really are urgent.

 

Advertisements

Addressing PEPCO Problem — for real

4 September 2012

I thought it best to follow up on the snarky approach from my post on PEPCO solutions.  How about something a little more practical?

The problems that need to be addressed include (apparently) better maintenance of the infrastructure for distributing electricity, and improvement of PEPCO’s responsiveness, especially to repairing wiring and connections when storms cause outages.

How can these problems best be addressed?

First, forget about Councilman Berliner’s dream of a publically owned power company.  There is little empirical evidence to suggest that a publically owned utility would be more efficient or responsive than an investor-owned utility like PEPCO.

Keep in mind that PEPCO is already a monopoly – granted and enforced by the state.  The main problem with a government-granted monopoly like PEPCO is that the firm has little incentive to improve service.  Since the law precludes any competition with PEPCO, they don’t have to fear that customers will abandon them in favor of a different electricity provider.

How, then, can we provide incentive for PEPCO to do better?  In theory, oversight from the state is designed to pressure them to be more responsive to consumer needs.  And there have been many cries for the Public Service Commission to “crack down” on PEPCO.  But the PSC doesn’t seem to have successfully induced PEPCO to better service.  In fact, it almost seems like PSC has done the opposite.

The policy solution may go back to that problem of incentives.  Despite the monopoly they are granted, there are ways to improve the utility’s performance incentives.

1)      Emphasize competition, wherever possible.  Maryland law has already been changed to allow some flexibility and competition in generation of electricity.  You can choose which of several firms you would like to buy power from.  But in distribution  of electricity – that is, bringing it into your home — we have no competition yet allowed by law.  One way to do this is to emulate the model that is used for pay television services.  In much of the county, you can choose your service provider for pay television.  In addition to satellite services like Direct TV and Dish Network, service is provided by Comcast, RCN, and Verizon.   If you get junk mail, or see television commercials, you know how fiercely those three firms battle for customers.  For the most part, they are not building redundant wiring networks.  They are competing for the right to use the existing network infrastructure (both cable and telephone) to provide services to customers.   A similar model is used in telephone service.  You don’t have to purchase your telephone service from Verizon; there is an array of CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers) that you can contract with.  This doesn’t even discuss VOIP or other options.  All of this competition has helped lower rates and improve service;  wouldn’t it be nice to see the same thing happen for electricity distribution?

2)      Reduce barriers to entry.  We need to make sure that the legal framework for electricity is advancing to meet the technological framework, which is changing all the time.  Cogeneration, home solar, local generation – these are just a few ways for people to get electricity and (at least partially) bypass the PEPCO network.  Any legal or administrative obstacles to increasing these options need to be removed.

3)       Fix the “decoupling” policy.  Decoupling was the legislative solution to an apparent paradox (or conflict of interest) that confronts electric utilities.  On the one hand, the state wants to conserve energy, and utilities are required to subsidize energy efficiency programs for consumers.  That left the utilities in the awkward position of urging customers to buy less from their businesses.   The decoupling policy was the remedy: it guaranteed income to the utilities even if power consumption dropped.

The problem is that this creates a tremendous disincentive for utilities to be efficient about restoring power.  As UMBC economist Tim Brennan phrases it, “[T]he silliest thing we could do would be to promise these utilities the same profits regardless of how much electricity they deliver.”   The PSC has already taken steps to limit the charges that utilities can make, but the issue needs to be addressed more comprehensively.

Symbolic Politics of Global Warming

29 May 2008

Council member Roger Berliner is “committed to ensuring that Montgomery County is at the forefront of the fight against Global Warming.” As if anything Montgomery County did – compared to one or two new power plants in China – had any contribution at all to global warming.

At his behest, the council has passed legislation this month, committing the county to a passel of activities that, at best, will be harmless. Some of the features:

– Commits the county to developing a Climate Protection Plan, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in MoCo by 80%.

Does the council realize what that means? Or is it just pretty talk? An 80% reduction would mean that all roads in the county would become Lexus lanes – because only the wealthy would be able to afford to drive a car. Air conditioning would be a thing of the past, as the cost of electricity would skyrocket.

– Directs Montgomery County government to develop a “renewable energy action plan”. Part of the plan is examining the feasibility of creating a “Sustainable Energy Fund – “a non-profit organization which develops end-user markets for products and services relating to energy efficiency and renewable energy.”

Oh, good. It’s not dumb enough that the county is in the liquor business and the nightclub business and the music entertainment business and the summer camp business. Now the county is going into the electric utility business. I’m sure that will be a real productive exercise.

And for what? As a result of these edicts, the total greenhouse gases in the world – which is the only measurement that counts – would be virtually unaffected by the privations of one stupid county, directed by one thoughtless council member.

Best yet, this meaningless and damaging bill was declared an emergency, giving it expedited consideration and enforcement. “The Council declares that this legislation is necessary for the immediate protection of the public interest” (italics mine).

I don’t know which of those terms – “necessary”, “immediate”, or “protection” is more untrue. All together, though, they add up to one big farce.