Jason Marks on Utility Based Energy Efficiency Programs, 7/1/07

(Comments on proposals from the new advocacy organization "Break the Grip")

The requirement that energy-efficiency programs be utility-based comes from the Efficient Use of Energy Act, passed into law during the 2005 Legislature. At the time, I was skeptical of several parts of the Act, including the part that gives utilities the right to control the programs. Because I was new on the PRC in 2005, making this a new issue for me, and because I generally supported the goal of energy efficiency, I decided not to publicly oppose the bill and the array of environmental advocates who were supporting it, who included Ben Luce, the founder of Break the Grip. In private with these advocates, I believe I likened the concept to putting tobacco companies in charge of anti-smoking campaigns.

The bill passed, and it is now law. I take very seriously my obligation to administer and obey the laws of the state of New Mexico, even those with which I disagree on policy grounds. Break the Grip's call for the PRC to halt utility-based EE programs is effectively a demand for the PRC to break the law. I could be supportive of an initiative by Mr. Luce or others to change the law to allow for independent programs in the future without utility companies' consent. But until the law changes, I will continue my efforts to make the utility-based programs as effective and cost-efficient as possible. To this end, I personally took on the work of having a community-based CFL program considered as part of this year's PNM Electric Energy Efficiency plan. If this plan is approved, we will be providing 40,000 CFLs directly to the families of New Mexico school children at very low overhead costs, thanks to the committment of Sierra Club volunteers.

In December 2005, I lead a Commission vote against PNM's first Gas Energy Efficiency program, which came to the PRC as a joint proposal by PNM, CCAE, and others. We sent the plan back to the parties with direction to make it a better deal for utility customers, but the group came back to us with the same plan as before and a threat that if we didn't approve it, energy efficiency in the state would be set back. I regret adding my vote to the majority when the program came back for this second vote. By this Spring, it became clear that the PNM Gas program was not working as advertised and was not benefitting customers proportional to the costs. I asked the Commission to support me in opening an investigation, which it did.

Most recently, I supported language in PNM's gas rate case on decoupling that says the PRC will only favorably consider decoupling mechanisms that are limited to compensating utilities for the directly provable effects of their own efficiency programs (i.e., the will not be held harmless from the revenue loss effects of conservation activities in general). As this record shows, I (and the PRC) have been consistent in considering the interests of public in cost-effective energy efficiency programs that don't just throw money at utilities. Mr. Luce's advocacy on behalf of ratepayers (and the environment) is welcome, however, he is casting stones in the wrong direction when he aims at the PRC.