Electric utilities are backing a proposal to gut the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), a federal law that supports the growth of renewable energy and competition in electricity markets, and they brought their network of special interest groups and paid consultants to the fight.
The move was immediately praised by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), which has targeted PURPA for over 40 years, in a joint statement with the American Public Power Association and National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association. EEI also submitted comments to FERC in support of the NOPR, comments that were echoed by EEI member utilities like Southern Company, which said that it “actively participated in the development of the EEI comments” in its own filing on the issue.
Neil Chatterjiee, the Republican chair of FERC, tweeted this photo after speaking with EEI’s Board of Directors earlier this year. At the time FERC had a docket open where it gathered comments on PURPA referenced in the current NOPR.
Other utilities also endorsed EEI’s comments, including:
A subsidiary of one major utility, Consolidated Edison Development, weighed in that it “strenuously” opposes the NOPR. Con Edison Development develops renewable energy projects, often selling the electricity at rates governed by PURPA.
“CED strenuously objects to the Commission’s proposed rule changes, not the least of which because of several aspects of the Commission’s NOPR are unlawful and discriminatory in violation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978,” Consolidated Edison Development said in its comments to FERC.
“There is little evidence that the current regulations produce a bad result, and there is every reason to think that the current regulations have produced new technology, created competition with incumbent monopoly utilities, and have provided renewable energy to customers at a rate that holds them indifferent,” it also said.
Beyond that defection, utilities largely lined up behind EEI’s campaign to gut PURPA, consistent with the utility industry’s long history of lobbying against policies that promote clean energy and challenge their monopolies.
Below is an overview of some of the consultants and front groups utilities that are part of the utility industry’s campaign against PURPA.
We Stand for Energy argues that PURPA needs to be “modernized” by FERC because “… wind and solar energy have grown to be important parts of our energy mix, and parts of PURPA no longer make sense.”
John Weaver of PV Magazine wrote that the EEI-backed study suffers from a “major sampling error” that likely accounts for the “overpayment” for solar contracts that Concentric Energy Advisors attributes to PURPA.
IER attached to its NOPR comments a study on “The Urgency of PURPA Reform to Assure Ratepayer Protection” by David Dismukes of the Center for Energy Studies at Louisiana State University.
“The author wishes to thank the Institute for Energy Research for financial assistance in conducting this research,” the study said.
The Center for Energy Studies has an Advisory Council that includes representatives of major utilities like AEP, oil and gas companies like ExxonMobil, and Koch Industries.
Another comment in support of the NOPR came from David Holt, president of the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) and managing partner for the lobbying firm HBW Resources that runs CEA.
“On behalf of our 550,000 individual members and nearly 300 member organizations, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) writes to express appreciation and support for the Commission’s determination to modernize its Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) regulations in a way that benefits the American energy consumer and family budgets,” Holt wrote.
Americans for Tax Reform claims that “PURPA creates unnecessary and burdensome costs on ratepayers and energy consumers.” Yet it receives funding from EEI, which many utility customers are forced to fund through hidden charges on their electricity bill.
A former member of the Michigan Public Service Commission
Another commenter supportive of the NOPR was Steven A. Transeth, a former member of the Michigan Public Service Commission (2007-2009). Transeth’s comments cited Concentric Energy Advisors’ study for EEI.
Transeth also attacked PURPA earlier this year. The Detroit News published his op-ed in April, which was when the PSC was set to rule on Consumer Energy’s request to waive certain requirements under PURPA. The PSC denied the utility’s request, and then months later approved a settlement between solar developers and Consumers Energy that will place 584 MW of renewable energy projects under contract by September 1, 2023.
