DIALOGUE

Questioning deregulation

MY STAFF WILL TELL YOU I ASK THEM A LOT OF QUESTIONS. If you’re kind, you might say that I’m an inquisitive person. Another way of saying it, however, is that my staff is being “Mike-romanaged.”

Either way you look at it, I find asking questions, especially the right ones, to be the best start to any new initiative.

The General Assembly will be asking questions as it con siders tasking a joint study committee to look into restructuring the state’s energy market—a process in which the cooperatives plan to participate. Any conclusions drawn from this investigation should start with the crucial questions at a high level. While we’re up there, let’s look at how other states encountered these questions when they restructured their energy markets. Deregulation, wholesale or retail? Generally, a deregulated competitive market exists at two levels: wholesale and retail. The wholesale market includes the bulk purchase and sale of electric ity among energy producers and energy distributors. That market must exist first within a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) or an Independent Service Operator (ISO) before retail deregulation —allowing consumers to choose from whom they want to buy their power —could ever take place. Texas, California and Ohio were three of the first states in the nation to deregulate their energy markets. They took dif ferent approaches initially, but all three found the need to go back and enact new policies as their experiences yielded new questions.

California deliberated restructuring throughout the 1990s, finally yielding to stakeholder pressure to fully dereg ulate (both wholesale and retail) in 1998. Errors in their market designs and restrictions on pricing and generator con tracts contributed to a California energy crisis. High demand exceeded energy supply, and prices spiked, costing ratepayers tens of billions of dollars. There were blackouts, and the state’s largest investor-owned utility, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), went into bankruptcy. In response, California re-regulated its retail market in 2001, then later opened com petition back up for non-residential consumers and municipal aggregation, which are programs that allow local governments to procure power on behalf of their residents. The wholesale market was left open, however, and is still managed today by their independent system operator, CAISO.

Texas is seen by many as the gold standard of open energy markets, with some of the lowest rates in the nation. It didn’t begin that way. In 1995 the Texas legislature required utilities to provide independent generators access to transmission to support wholesale competition. Seven years later, the Texas electricity market was opened to retail competition. Even with the benefit of lessons learned from California, Texas ratepayers were still saddled with costs associated with the tran sition. After Texas securitized the divestment of the utilities’ generation assets, ratepayers were left with $9.5 billion in stranded costs. In the first 10 years, customers in restructured parts of the state faced higher rates than those who were served by regulated utilities (like Texas cooperatives).

When Ohio restructured retail elec tricity in 1999, it wasn’t just following the national trend. It was also trying to take advantage of low natural gas prices and the recently deregulated wholesale market. The state’s large industrial sector also pressed for deregulation. The legis lation provided a five-year development period that required a residential rate reduction and freeze. But as that period came to a close, there were still a limited number of choices in the market, espe cially in rural areas, and growing concerns that an immediate shift to market-based rates would create a sticker shock for consumers. A second restructuring bill in 2008 stimulated more choices in the retail market while also making it easier for utilities to collect distribution charges. What factors other than market forces affect what we pay for power? As Texas saw in its first 10 years of deregulation, competition wasn’t a magic potion. In the last decade, ratepayers have benefitted from the drop in natural gas prices as well as the abundance of wind energy in the state. An argument could be made that these advantages have been realized primar ily in the wholesale market and then passed down to retail customers.

California focused on resource adequacy, energy efficiency and decarbonization in responding to its early deregulation failures. While that has created some of the highest rates in the nation, it has also reduced the amount of power the average Californian consumes. In 2016, their average monthly bill was $31.90 less than the average Texan’s. BY MIKE COUICK President and CEO, The Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina

There is a certain amount of investment inherent in energy generation and delivery, and you can’t compete away the real costs of those investments.

In South Carolina, cheaper fuel options are limited. We have aging nuclear plants and an abundance of coal-fired generation. Because gas is cheaper and cleaner, coal is no longer the preferred source of fuel that it once was. We don’t sit on top of a natural gas shale like Ohio and Pennsylvania do, nor are we anywhere close. A new transmission network would have to be built to get natural gas-fueled energy to the homes and businesses in South Carolina. That could cost more than building new generation.

The experiences of other states have yielded this reality: There is a certain amount of investment inherent in energy generation and delivery, and you can’t compete away the real costs of those investments. Someone must pay for them. For example, some states have required utilities to divest gener ation facilities to participate in the open wholesale market. That creates stranded costs, such as in Texas, and those costs are passed down to the ratepayers.

The elements and factors that are the primary influencers on our market now may not have the same significance in our near future. New ones inevitably come along and take their place. Everyone in our industry is trying to anticipate the role battery storage will play in the energy economy. Batteries paired with solar-generated energy may be our next game-changer. Shouldn’t a restructuring of the energy market account for that?

What are the goals of restructuring our energy market? The easy answer here is to lower rates, right? But for whom? The move toward deregulation in Texas and Ohio was influenced by their industrial sectors, but it ended up costing residential ratepayers comparatively.

Clean energy and decarbonization? An admirable and perhaps necessary priority, but is it achievable at this stage? The wind doesn’t blow here as it does in the Midwest, and we don’t have the hydropower assets of the Northwest. Renewable energy can and should be a part of our region’s generation mix, but it shouldn’t be debilitating for residential ratepayers.

As cooperatives, our priorities have always been safe and reliable power at an affordable price. In the past, meeting the energy demands of our members has meant forecasting loads 30 years in the future and securing generation accordingly. Is that still the world in which we need to live?

The most powerful market force is public policy. While the term deregulation seems to step away from government influ ence, in reality it is just the construction of a new set of rules. Those rules, and the incentives they create, serve the same function in a deregulated market as the regulator serves in a traditionally regulated market. How you structure those rules and the incentives they create in a deregulated market is just as important as picking a regulator who can understand and apply laws in a regulated one.

Ultimately, it’s the state legislatures that structure these new markets with new laws. Some have found they needed to step back in to try to fix the situation with more restructuring and more regulation when things didn’t go as planned. That is a particularly inefficient form of micromanagement. And the best way to avoid it is by asking the right questions at the very beginning. The ones posed here are fundamental, but they are not the only ones we need to ask. I’ll have more in next month’s column.

Your efficiency upgrades checklist

BY PAT KEEGAN AND BRAD THIESSEN

QI recently moved into an older home that’s definitely not as effi cient as my last residence. I want to make some upgrades, but I’m not sure how to get started. Can you offer any advice?

AMaking your home more energy efficient can be a big task, and it’s helpful to have a plan in place before you dive in. Here’s a six-step checklist we’ve compiled to help you get organized.

STEP 1: Set goals and constraints. Start by setting your primary goal. Are you mainly looking to save money on your home’s energy bills, make it more comfortable, increase the resale value or help the environment? Then, set a deadline for when you need the project completed. This may affect whether you do some of the work your self and which contractor you choose. Last but not least, set your budget. How much is it worth to you to live in an energy-efficient home?

One way to look at this is to review your annual energy bills. If they’re around $2,000 per year, you might ask yourself how much you’d be willing to spend if you could cut that expense in half. For example, $10,000 spent to save $1,000 each year would be a 10% rate of return on your investment.

STEP 2: Educate yourself. Consider the costs and benefits of each potential im provement. There are many helpful lists of small and large energy-efficiency up grades available online. There are also some great resources like the Department of Energy (energy.gov), the Energy Star program (energystar.gov) and Consumer

Some work, like caulking windows or adding weather stripping to doors, can easily be done by the homeowner, especially with the help of online tutorials.

Reports (consumerreports.org). Your elec tric co-op may have a home energy advisor on staff or literature that can help.

STEP 3: Schedule an energy audit. An energy audit will help you prioritize so you can spend your money on the measures that will bring you the most benefit. And an energy auditor can help in other ways. My neighbors hired a contractor to do some major energy-effi ciency upgrades. They asked an energy auditor to take a look at the work before they paid for it, and the auditor found it wasn’t even close to the level agreed to in the contract. It took three or four return visits for the contractor to get the work up to the promised level of efficiency.

YOU’LL SAVE IN THE LONG RUN Consulting with a professional energy auditor can help homeowners evaluate efficiency upgrades and prioritize improvements that will show the greatest return on investment.

STEP 4: Plan your projects. Now that you have set your budget and priorities and have a sense of the work and costs involved, make a list of the items you want to include in your energy-efficiency upgrades. Some work, like caulking windows or adding weather stripping to doors, can easily be done by the homeowner, especially with the help of online tutorials. Other work, like insulating an attic, can be dangerous and may require special equipment or know-how. PIEDMONT ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

STEP 5: Identify and select contractors. This can be challenging. You want a contractor who really knows how to do energy-efficiency work. And you may need two or more contractors, such as one for your heating system and another for insulation. Be sure to get several quotes if possible, as well as references from past clients. Create and sign a con tract with guaranteed work and completion dates, with payments due only as work is completed and inspected.

STEP 6: Oversee the work. The quality of the work makes a big difference in the amount of energy savings and added comfort you desire. Keep an eye on the project and don’t be afraid to ask ques tions—lots of questions. Remember, it’s your home, and you’re the one paying the bills!

Send questions to Energy Q&A, South Carolina Living, 808 Knox Abbott Drive, Cayce, SC 29033, or email energyqa@scliving.coop.

“This is truly a miracle… I don’t even know how to begin thanking you for giving me my life back!” HEARING AID TECHNOLOGY ADVA NCED DIGITA L Now Rechargeable! — Sherri H., Granville, NY

Reg: $599.98 BUY 1 GET 1 FREE Only $ 299 99

Each When You Buy a Pair – LIMITED TIME ONLY!

The answer: Although tremendous strides have been made in Advanced Digital Hearing Aid Technology, those cost reductions have not been passed on to you. Until now... How can a rechargeable hearing aid that costs only $29 9 99 be every bit as good as one that sells for $2,400 or more?

CHARGE AND GO AT NIGHT ALL DAY

The MDHearingAid ® VOLT uses the same kind of Advanced Digital RECHARGEABLE Hearing Aid Technology incorporated into hearing aids that cost thousands more at a small fraction of the price. Over 350,000 satisfi ed MDHearingAid customers agree: High-quality, digital, FDA-registered rechargeable hearing aids don’t have to cost a fortune. The fact is, you don’t need to spend thousands for a hearing aid. MDHearingAid is a medical-grade digital rechargeable hearing aid offering sophistication and high performance, and works right out of the box with no time-consuming “adjustment” appointments. You can contact a licensed hearing specialist conveniently online or by phone — even after your purchase at no cost. No other company provides such extensive support. Now that you know... why pay more? Use Code JW38 and get FREE Shipping For the Lowest Price Call 45-DAY RISK-FREE TRIAL! If you are not completely satisfi ed with your MDHearingAids, return them within 45 days for a FULL REFUND! 1-800-862-5602 www.MDVolt.com Nearly Invisible CHARGING READY