Comments on: The Writing Is on the Wall for Coal. Will New Hampshire Notice? http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/the-writing-is-on-the-wall-for-coal-will-new-hampshire-notice/ For a thriving New England Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:21:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jim Rubens http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/the-writing-is-on-the-wall-for-coal-will-new-hampshire-notice/#comment-2196 Jim Rubens Sun, 13 May 2012 15:40:09 +0000 http://www.clf.org/?p=9451#comment-2196 In early 2009, when PSNH had only pre-ordered steel and completed some site prep for its death-spiral inducing scubber, a bill was heard before the NH legislature in the packed Reps hall asking for only this: a legislative study evaluating the ratepayer economics of alternatives to prolonging Merrimack Station's life with the now-installed $420 million scrubber. One alternative featured in testimony would have been to halt scrubber construction, embed into ratepayer rates the still modest cost of the steel, site work, and vendor cancellation penalties, permanently shut down the plant, and for PSNH for buy far-cleaner, lower-cost, and abundantly available power from the wholesale market. Reps Hall was packed because PSNH turned out 250 union members who would later build the scrubber with matching green T-shirts saying "Don't Scrub Our Jobs." (No disparagement of union members right to advocate their interests intended here.) Support in the legislature for STUDYING OPTIONS immediately wilted and the bill was immedately and quietly killed. The PSNH death spiral was completely prectable before the scrubber was built and could have been avoided, resulting a lower electric rates for most NH ratepayers for years to come. Question: could a case be made before the NH PUC in its coming proceeding to determine how much of PSNH's investment in the scrubber is allowed to be charged to ratepayers that -- before the scrubber was built -- PSNH was clearly warned (in a detailed and widely released white paper) and knew or should have known from its own information sources that there were high odds that the scrubber would make Merrimack Station uneconomic and to therefore disallow some or most of its costs in rates? I personally believe that PSNH knew this to be the case and was banking on its long-stsanding ability to cow the NH legislature and get its way with the PUC so that it could stick ratepayers with $40 million in annual profit on its Merrimack Station scrubber investment even if the plant became uneconomic. In early 2009, when PSNH had only pre-ordered steel and completed some site prep for its death-spiral inducing scubber, a bill was heard before the NH legislature in the packed Reps hall asking for only this: a legislative study evaluating the ratepayer economics of alternatives to prolonging Merrimack Station’s life with the now-installed $420 million scrubber. One alternative featured in testimony would have been to halt scrubber construction, embed into ratepayer rates the still modest cost of the steel, site work, and vendor cancellation penalties, permanently shut down the plant, and for PSNH for buy far-cleaner, lower-cost, and abundantly available power from the wholesale market.

Reps Hall was packed because PSNH turned out 250 union members who would later build the scrubber with matching green T-shirts saying “Don’t Scrub Our Jobs.” (No disparagement of union members right to advocate their interests intended here.)

Support in the legislature for STUDYING OPTIONS immediately wilted and the bill was immedately and quietly killed.

The PSNH death spiral was completely prectable before the scrubber was built and could have been avoided, resulting a lower electric rates for most NH ratepayers for years to come.

Question: could a case be made before the NH PUC in its coming proceeding to determine how much of PSNH’s investment in the scrubber is allowed to be charged to ratepayers that — before the scrubber was built — PSNH was clearly warned (in a detailed and widely released white paper) and knew or should have known from its own information sources that there were high odds that the scrubber would make Merrimack Station uneconomic and to therefore disallow some or most of its costs in rates?

I personally believe that PSNH knew this to be the case and was banking on its long-stsanding ability to cow the NH legislature and get its way with the PUC so that it could stick ratepayers with $40 million in annual profit on its Merrimack Station scrubber investment even if the plant became uneconomic.

]]>