<[link removed]> February 1, 2023 <[link removed]> New Year, New Congress Mean New Opportunities Welcome to the Energy Choice Coalition’s monthly newsletter. January brought a new Congress, a new chairman <[link removed].> of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and new opportunities to advance energy freedom with policies that put consumers first. That’s our message to policymakers in our latest commentary published this week by the online media site C3 News. The piece is featured below and on our website <[link removed]> , too. The Energy Choice Coalition’s mission is to promote consumer-first policies that lead to greater competition and choice in retail electricity markets. We stand up for free-market principles against a legacy monopoly system that has outlived its usefulness and stands in the way of a cleaner, more affordable electricity system. Our objective is to separate the generation and transmission of electricity in states where utilities still retain monopoly control over both services to allow true competition to flourish. Are you ready for energy freedom? Send us an email to join our coalition or to find out more about the benefits of competition. Contact us at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . Follow us on Twitter <[link removed]> and see up-to-date content on our website <[link removed]> . Sincerely, Robert Dillon, Executive Director <[link removed]> A New Approach to Clean Energy in 2023 <[link removed]> The following commentary was originally published by C3 News <[link removed]> on January 31. President Joe Biden’s ambitious post-pandemic recovery plan includes a historic push to electrify much of America’s economy and meet nearly all the resulting increases in demand for power – from transportation to manufacturing – with renewable energy. The transition from fossil fuels to cleaner alternatives in response to climate change has become the biggest spending priority of the Biden presidency, including dedicating more than half of last year’s $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to climate and clean energy investments. The IRA’s $375 billion in clean energy incentives is in addition to billions in climate-related spending approved by Congress in the 2021 infrastructure law, CHIPS and Science Act, and other bills since Biden entered the White House with the pledge to halve the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, from 2005 levels, by the end of the decade. But while the generous use of the public purse was feasible as long as Democrats maintained majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans taking control of the House in January changed the outlook on Capitol Hill significantly. A top-down, big government approach won’t work with the new crop of Republicans, especially with inflation hovering near 7 percent and a looming partisan showdown over raising the national debt limit. That doesn’t mean Republicans and Republican-leaning independents aren’t interested in addressing climate change or modernizing the electricity industry. It does mean a different approach is needed to achieve those shared goals – one that doesn’t put the burden on taxpayers. Last year, a national survey <[link removed]> released by Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES) found that Americans, including a majority of Republican primary voters, support “commonsense” policies to reduce emissions linked to climate change and increase the use of cleaner sources of energy. Separate polling by Pew <[link removed]> showed a 69 percent majority of Americans support prioritizing the development of clean energy, including distributed energy resources (DERs), solar-plus-storage, and electric vehicles. Voters of all stripes care about the environment and, as electricity consumers, want to be part of the solution to climate change, but they want more of a voice in the energy transition. They also want realistic climate solutions, a more prominent role for the private sector, and fewer government mandates, which tend to drive up prices. That presents an opportunity for Republicans who have long championed free-market economic principles to support policy and regulatory reforms that reduce barriers to entry for private-sector energy and technology companies to compete for customers. Competitive market structures are one of the most effective tools to achieve our nation’s shared energy, environmental, and economic goals. Restructured, competitive markets enable competition between energy sources and utilize market-based mechanisms to provide incentives for consumers to adopt cleaner energy sources. In the handful of states with restructured markets that give consumers the right to choose their service provider, competition is spurring innovation and the deployment of new digital technologies that offer consumers lower prices, greater control over their energy use, an array of products and services, and the freedom to express their energy preferences. Unfortunately, much of the country is still under the outdated electricity market structure where a single vertically integrated utility has a monopoly over generating and distributing electricity within a defined service area. This absence of competition under the monopoly model limits innovation and ignores consumer preferences for clean energy and efficiency improvements, including behind-the-meter, customer-owned solar, batteries, heat pumps, smart appliances, and other devices. Rather than allowing incumbent utilities in monopoly markets to repeat the poor investment decisions of the past, policymakers should promote consumer sovereignty by fully opening electricity markets to competition. That means removing barriers to competition and embracing the fact that the new electricity customer is not only an end-user but a producer of electricity as well. As Congress considers how to advance the energy transition, it should prioritize policies that put consumers first. Support for the energy transition may be more complicated under a divided government, but that doesn’t mean it’s a lost cause. Clean energy advocates must adjust their approach and allow the market to drive decision-making. Such a transition would be a win for both consumers and the environment. Read More <[link removed]> <[link removed]> Should Transmission be Owned by Utilities or a Separate Entity? <[link removed]> In recent years, it has become increasingly challenging to get transmission projects built for a wide range of reasons, including permitting delays, NIMBYism, disincentives to develop projects between different utility territories, and lack of coordination between states. As a result, there is now more proposed generation capacity and associated projects in the interconnection queues of the independent system operators than ever before, the vast majority of which are wind and solar projects. Part of the reason for the delay in the development of more renewable energy is that there is insufficient transmission capacity in the areas where these projects are being proposed. Ari Peskoe <[link removed]> , the Director of the Electricity Law Initiative <[link removed]> at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program, makes two suggestions to resolve these issues. One is to give states more authority over transmission planning and promote competition in developing transmission infrastructure rather than letting the incumbent utilities build it themselves. The second is establishing a minimum set of benefits for transmission projects to be approved rather than just a single reason, such as improved reliability. Other reasons could include reduced emissions, increased resilience, and increased flexibility. Read More <[link removed]> <[link removed]> What's Really Driving Consumer Costs? <[link removed]> A recent New York Times article <[link removed]> claims that states with deregulated – or, more accurately, “reorganized” – electricity markets have disproportionately higher prices compared to regulated states. However, research examining changes in consumer electricity prices over time in reorganized and regulated states shows this isn’t true. Times reporter Ivan Penn overlooks the fact that transmission remains under the jurisdiction of traditionally regulated investor-owned utilities – even in reorganized states. As a Pacific Research Institute’s paper <[link removed]> in 2021 shows, the 14 states with the highest percentage increases in electricity prices from 1996 to 2020 were all states with traditionally regulated electric markets, while four of the five states with the lowest percentage increases were reorganized states. Read More <[link removed]> <[link removed]> Coalition Appeals California's Decision Gutting Net Metering <[link removed]> In a unanimous vote by the state’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) last month, the State of California abruptly reduced incentive payments for rooftop solar power. The state’s solar incentives program, which led to solar panels on the roofs of 1.5 million homes and businesses, had put California front and center of the energy transition. Now, three groups are pushing the California PUC to reverse that decision. The Protect Our Communities Foundation, the Environmental Working Group, and the Center for Biological Diversity filed an application for a rehearing to reverse the ruling <[link removed]> on January 18, citing a section of the Public Utilities Code instructing the Commission to ensure “that customer-sited renewable distributed generation continues to grow sustainably and include specific alternatives designed for growth among residential customers in disadvantaged communities.” Read More <[link removed]> <[link removed]> Economist Lynne Kiesling Launches Substack Version of The Knowledge Problem <[link removed]> Economist Lynne Kiesling has launched a new Substack version of Knowledge Problem <[link removed]> , the blog on economics, electricity, technology, regulation, and how they interrelate that she shared with economist Michael Giberson. The original KP blog is archived and available for search <[link removed]> . In her first Substack post, Kiesling takes aim at the New York Times article by Ivan Penn Why Are Energy Prices So High? Some Experts Blame Deregulation <[link removed]> . Kiesling singles out three problems with Penn’s analysis: his definition and use of "deregulation," his use of California as an illustration when it is an outlier, and his confusing conflation of retail and wholesale liberalization in a vertically-integrated industry. Kiesling’s full analysis is worth your time, so check out Knowledge Problem <[link removed]> on Substack and subscribe. Read More <[link removed]> Follow us on Twitter <[link removed]> and on the Web at EnergyChoiceCoalition.org <[link removed]> Energy Choice Coalition 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 820 Washington, DC 20001 United States Unsubscribe <[link removed]>