ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

Editor's note: After press time Lea Márquez Peterson let us know activity  Thursday has "changed the ACC's next action on energy rules." The updated information is below, in bold: 

ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ is at a crossroads and has an opportunity to lead the nation in a clean energy proposal that differs from the Green New Deal.

On May 5, the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Corporation Commission had one choice: Approve an incomplete Energy Rules package “as isâ€� or adopt reasonable amendments that would fix them and move us to the next step of rule-making.

Green New Deal proponents demanded the Commission adopt the flawed Energy Rules “without amendment.� Certain commissioners, myself included, wanted more debate and data to analyze and did not want to pass the preliminary package without further information.

Ultimately, we have to balance the timing of the move to clean energy with affordability and reliability.

Unfortunately, after nearly 11 hours of debate, the vote to move forward with reasonable amendments did not receive support from a majority of commissioners.

We are a body of five commissioners with three Republicans and two Democrats elected statewide. Certain commissioners decided to take a hard-line position on any and all rational amendments and put politics over policy. They were unwilling to reach across the aisle to negotiate a compromise with their fellow commissioners. Only myself and Commissioner Jim O’Connor voted in support of the recent Energy Rules.

How did we get here? Last year, the commission voted to advance Energy Rules that adopted 100% clean energy for ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ by 2050. The rules were created after more than three years of stakeholder input.

I was proud to support the effort at the time but was clear that additional work would be needed following the 2020 election. Specifically, I was concerned about the impact on individual ratepayers and the fact that the data had not been provided to the commission.

I was successful in requiring a cost-benefit analysis to be completed over the next few months, and noted that we were in essence voting in a vacuum without considering the financial impact to ratepayers.

Once I was elected chairwoman, I committed to placing the Energy Rules on an ACC agenda. During the meeting and in sessions leading up to the event, I repeated my concern for ratepayers and our lack of data regarding the impact.

Special interest groups however continued to apply pressure to pass the Energy Rules “as-is� with no modification or consideration for affordability in the rules.

Adopting the Energy Rules “as-is� without knowing the cost impact to consumers means not only handing a blank check to utilities at the expense of ratepayers, but also rewarding special interests for the undue influence they exert.

I could not, in good conscience, force the transition while so many of the people we serve might be unable to afford the price that comes along with a plan that hasn’t been fully vetted and that doesn’t identify what it would do to utility rates.

I stood firm with our ratepayers and voted in support of sensible amendments that improved the Energy Rules.

Where are we now?

Since the May 5 meeting, I have written to my fellow commissioners to gauge their interest in reconsidering their final votes against the modified Energy Rules. We continue to hear from ratepayers on both sides of the issue.

This past week, the feedback I received from my fellow Commissioners was not specific nor direct on their positions to reconsider the final vote for the amended Energy Rules.

However, I have placed the Energy Rules as modified on a future agenda to give Commissioners an opportunity to bring specific solutions to the table that assure that there are no unintended consequences for ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ families.

ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Corporation Commissioners have an opportunity to shape our state’s energy future while protecting our ratepayers and assuring reliability.