The Allliance for Affordable Energy
LPSC District 1 Election
A Brief Analysis
POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES:
LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ELECTIONS
The Louisiana Public Service Commission regulates utility companies, including companies that supply energy to Louisiana citizens and businesses. On October 4 registered voters in District 1 will have the opportunity to vote for one of four candidates for a seat on the LPSC. District 1 includes the north shore of Lake Ponchartrain, parts of East Bank Jefferson Parish, and parts of the Lakeview and Uptown neighborhoods in New Orleans. (See a map of Louisiana or New Orleans metro area for districts.)
We at the Alliance for Affordable Energy offer the following overview of the candidate’s positions some of the vital issues affecting the future of our families and our state, based both upon responses to a questionnaire ( available here) that we offered and on research about the candidates. Since what we offer here includes very condensed versions of the candidates responses, we strongly urge you to read their own words.
ISSUE: Fossil Fuels/Greenhouse Gas/Carbon Capture
Mr. Kincade Emphasizes the importance of shifting to renewable energy sources and natural gas. Says that coal should be a “small player” in Louisiana. He has indicated support for “clean coal” technologies.
Mr. Odinet Has expressed concerns over the short-term cost of alternative energy sources other than fossil fuels. He supports a moratorium on new power plants that do not have carbon capture and storage.
Mr. Schwegmann Has expressed a preference for the relative cleanliness of natural gas as a fuel source (over coal). He expresses concern over costs.
Mr. Skrmetta Has called for a comprehensive energy policy that would reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In terms of carbon capture, he indicated he would call for enforcement of “federal regulations”, however there are currently no federal regulations calling for carbon capture.
The Alliance: We need to end our total dependence upon fossil fuels as soon as possible because they are the biggest cause of Global Warming and have very negative effects on health. Advocates for power utility companies point to carbon capture and storage as a way to permanently cope with the carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels. While this is a potentially expensive and unproven technology, we feel that if this is the best solution that the power companies can offer, they should be required to use it. There is no such thing as “clean coal” because the dirty elements always have to be put somewhere. The many long-term costs of usng fossil fuels must be weighed against the short-terms costs. It will do us no good to save a dime today and be faced with a dollar of costs to our families and planet tomorrow.
ISSUE: Campaign Contributions from regulated utilities/Allowing energy companies to bill ratepayers for the construction of new power plants, referring to CWIP (Construction Work In Progress)
Mr. Kincade No campaign contributions from regulated utility companies. Supports allowing companies to bill ratepayers for the construction of new plants.
Mr. Odinet No campaign contributions from regulated utility companies. Does not believe ratepayers should pay for new construction of power plants.
Mr. Schwegmann No campaign contributions from regulated companies. Indicated that he would like more information but currently is against allowing companies to charge ratepayers for construction.
Mr. Skrmetta Has accepted campaign contributions from regulated utilities. Has not taken a stand for or against allowing companies to charge ratepayers for construction, saying that he would support whatever is most cost-effective for ratepayers.
The Alliance: We believe that allowing regulated utilities to make campaign contributions is ethically questionable and undermines the ability of regulators to be effective custodians of the public good. We also do not feel the public should be required to provide financing for companies dedicated to private profit, especially in a case where the project to be financed will do harm, like Entergy's conversion of the Little Gypsy power plant to burn coal and petroleum coke.
ISSUE: Stands on nuclear, wind and solar as power sources.
Mr. Kincade Has expressed concerns about the costs of constructing nuclear facilities and overruns. Wants Louisiana to move to 20% renewable energy sources over four years, based on the Florida model.Mr. Odinet Has in the past indicated support for more nuclear power. Says he will work to bring wind and solar to the forefront, but expressed concern about short-term costs.
Mr. Schwegmann Says he will require a cost cap for any new nuclear plants. Says he is in favor of diversifying energy sources such as wind and solar as long as they are affordable to ratepayers.
Mr. Skrmetta Favors expansion of nuclear power within existing locations in the state. Favors shifting of tax credits from consumers to energy companies to finance non-fossil fuel generation with a goal of 30% conversion, but has not offered a timetable to do this.
The Alliance: Nuclear power is costly in terms of construction, maintenance and decommissioning, and represents a host of regulatory and operational challenges that can be disastrous if not handled properly. The eight to ten year construction phase and fuel manufacture are carbon intensive. We oppose taking the tax credits from home and business owners and giving them to the energy companies. We support tax credits for commercial as well as residential investments in renewable power resources. We encourage a significant move to renewables including wind and solar under a dedicated timetable, certainly under a decade.