Lunch with the NY Association of Energy Economists
Yesterday I attended a NY Association of Energy Economists’ (http://nyaee.org/) luncheon for the first time. It was really fascinating. The speaker was Robert E. Curry, Jr. commissioner of the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC).
It was fascinating to hear his perspective on the regulatory process and, in particular, the types of questions he asks. I left the luncheon feeling grateful to have a Public Service Commissioner with extensive private sector experience and a commitment to public service.
Here, I interject a disclaimer: the conversation moved very quickly, so the questions I list were not necessarily questions raised by the commissioner, but questions I wrote in my notes sparked by comments that he made and issues he raised. Any errors, omissions or opinions that follow are mine and mine only.
What do I want to learn more about after this presentation?
1) The differing roles of responsibility and regulatory authority. For example, ultimately, the PSC does not have the final say on Indian Point (or whether or not fracking will be allowed upstate), but they are responsible for the consequences of both of those events because they are required to ensure stable and affordable energy supplies. Very interesting challenges
2) In his talk, he brought up a lot of transmission issues that had never occurred to me, mostly because my view has been much more specific – reducing energy consumption- and narrow – within my program that I work in.
Some interesting points:
a. Over 2300 miles of transmission lines is 70 to 90 years old
b. NYISO has authority and is grappling with how to manage this. PSC ultimately is responsible for ensuring it is sufficiently upgraded without costing consumers too much.
This just seems like a really juicy area for further research as it touches the core of why now is the time for smartgrid technologies and a HUGE business opportunity.
A major issue, which I had never before considered, that the commissioner brought up was IF all these major consumers start doing their own power generation, how will the commission structure rates to ensure that the costs of transmission don’t fall exclusively on the backs of the poorest consumers?
As a sidebar, and my own thoughts: if consumers are generating their own power, smart grid technologies become even more important so that there can be coordination of power production going on and offline, etc… That will also add to the cost of transmission.
4) Electrical Submetering:
I have long held it as the gospel that submetering is essential to energy efficiency. People must know what they are using. If they pay for it directly, they are then incentivized to reduce their consumption. It is frequently mentioned as a large potential source of energy efficiency.
An audience member asked WHY the PSC is suggesting that when submetering, the installer must ensure that there is the ability to turn off. The issue is that it raises the cost of installation.
Apparently, there was an issue in earlier submeterings in Mitchell Lama buildings where the landlords tied to insert a clause (ex-post facto, might I add) that people who are late on their electric bill will be declared in default on their lease and subject to eviction. The commission is concerned that this is not in keeping with the spirit of the reason taxpayer dollars were used to create Mitchell Lama housing.
Shocking fact: in NYS there are over 1 million residential accounts that are OVER 60 days late in paying their electric bills.
There was mention of a “15% cost reduction” when delivering to mater metered buildings. That the cost:benefit of submetering is still an open topic.
This comment makes me want to understand a lot more about the issues in sub-metering. The sub-metering issues currently in front of the PSC can be found here: http://bit.ly/z27F7O
