NARUC Continues: Harbour Gives Moratoria Report

Yesterday, NARUC President Fred Butler (NGP Photo-l) opened the summer meeting in Seattle by introducing Clearwire CEO Bill Morrow (NGP Photo) to discuss his company's, "Cutting Edge Broadband Technology" in partnership with such giants as Cisco. 

Butler then invited 'host' Commissioner Pat Oshie (NGP Photo) of Washington State to moderate a panel discussing their, "Shared Energy Vision for North America - Regulations, Markets, and the Environment."  Panelists included FERC Chairman Joh Wellinghoff, Mexico's Energy Regulatory Commission President, Francisco Xavier Salazar Diez de Sollano (NGP Photo); Canadian National Energy Board Chairman Gaetan Caron (NGP Photo); Canadian Gas Association President and CEO Michael Cleland (NGP Photo), Thomas Skains, American Gas Association Board Chairman; and Duke Energy's Chairman, President and CEO, Jim Rogers (NGP Photo).  

 (Photos and more details coming later....)

Most 'shared a vision' of inevitable and desirable climate change-related legislation which would increase consumer costs.  Most shared a vision of supporting such legislation and accepting the accompanying, increased consumer costs.  Most shared a vision that the public should be better informed about the importance of climate change legislation. 

The American regulators and utility representatives seemed united behind Rogers' statement that, "The science is clear; the political science is clear."   He spoke of the 'decarbonization of power production" and automobiles and said, "We have to have a new energy federalism; we need new regulatory paradigms."  Having quite a way with words, Rogers added that, "We have to realize that it's not going to be cheap, easy or quick."  An observer's clear impression was that the momentum for some kind of cap and trade, carbon tax or related, expensive legislation is iminent and that many regulators accept it as do most lawmakers.  The utilities seemed to accept it as a fait accompli and without too much stress because climate change costs will, after all, be ordered by regulators to be passed on to their consumers.   Most of the regulators are appointed by govenors to multi-year terms and are not subject to public votes, though they are subject to the good-will of governors to reappoint them.  About a dozen of the states electe their regulatory commissioners, making that particular group a little more responsive to voter concerns...like dramatically higher utility bills.

Caron, of Canada, however, tactfully spoke of presenting several scenarios of government climate change goals and obtaining citizen reactions to those goals before imposing them.  Mexico's Salazar said, "I don't believe in imposed solutions.  Imposed solutions are not efficient."   One notes, hopefully, that concern for citizen involvement still exists both North and South of the U.S. borders.

Later, as your author addressed a commissioner luncheon, he asked rhetorically why it would be so important to so rapidly pass legislation with such a great financial impact on so many consumer families before those families had an opportunity to understand -- if not approve -- the costs such legislation would impose on them.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal story by Matthew Rosenberg noted that, "India, like China, has long refused to accept emmissions caps...," noting that Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told visiting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that India will not accept binding limits on carbon emissions. 

One wonders what de minimus effect any U.S. climate change legislation will actually have on the climate when the most prodigious carbon emitters, China and India, are increasing their carbon output from coal fired power plants at a rate of about one new plant a week.  Perhaps the greatest actual effects of U.S. climate change legislation will be 1) the satisfaction to some that America is taking a leadership position on this critical issue regardless of what actual benefit America's sacrifice produces, and 2) the several thousand dollars per year effect that increased utility costs will have on American families.

This morning your author was scheduled to address NARUC's Gas Committee on the status of the organization's study on the social, economic and environmental costs of maintaining oil and gas exploration and development moratoria on and beneath Federal on- and off-shore lands.  NARUC's 2007 resolution created a Study Group to oversee research and appropriated $50,000 to fund it with the expectation of support from other companies and organizations around the country.  To date, the Study Group has raised over $300 thousand, has issued an RFP, awarded a contract and is in the last stages of completing the research.

A year after NARUC passed the resolution, the President and Congress withdrew most of the moratoria designations.  Since there has still been no action to develop domestic energy from those sources, the NARUC Study Group concluded that the study would continue targeting the former moratoria areas since many of those energy-rich lands could be the object of upcoming Department of Interior lease sales.  The study is scheduled for completion before NARUC's winter meeting in November.

The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission indorsed the NARUC resolution.

(Note: Photos and other details to follow....  -dh)