Alliance for Affordable Energy
  • Home
  • Who
  • What
    • Consumer Protection and Education >
      • Regulate Our Pipelines
      • Health Impact Assessment
    • Clean Energy >
      • Renewable & Clean Portfolio Standard
      • Transmission
    • Energy Efficiency >
      • EEFA
    • GS4GND
    • Past Work
  • How
    • New Orleans City Council >
      • Council Actions
    • New Orleans Dockets >
      • UD-22-05 Hurricane Ida Costs
      • UD-22-04 Demand Solutions
      • UD-22-03 Battery Storage
      • UD-22-02 100% Renewable
      • UD-22-01 Storm Reserve
      • UD-21-03 Resilience
      • UD-21-02 Zeta Cost Recovery
      • UD-21-01 Winter Storm Uri
      • UD-20-02 IRP (2021)
      • UD-19-01 RPS
      • UD-18-07 ENO Rate Case
      • UD-18-02 EV Charging
      • UD-18-01 Smart Cities
      • UD-17-04 Reliability
      • UD-17-03 IRP (2018)
    • LA Public Service Commission >
      • LPSC 2022 Election
      • Engage with the LPSC
    • Lawsuits & Appeals
    • Climate Initiative Task Force
  • News
    • The Watchdog
    • People's Power Hour
    • MISO Soup
    • Hurricane Ida
    • Events Calendar >
      • AAE House Party
  • Learn
    • Glossary
    • Timeline
    • Reports
  • Get Involved
    • Support
    • Newsletter
    • Intern and Volunteer >
      • Wimpelberg Intern Fellowship
    • Contact Us

The Watchdog

A blog on energy matters in Louisiana!

Show us the receipts! Does Entergy's and the Council Advisors' claim of $96 million hold up in the light of day?

2/19/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture
February 19, 2019, New Orleans, LA -- Earlier today, Susan Miller, counsel for the Alliance for Affordable Energy, as well as organizations and residents opposed to Entergy's gas plant, sent a letter to the New Orleans City Council in response to Council concerns. Groups are calling for the Council to initiate a public prudence review concerning Entergy's request for $96 million from New Orleans residents and businesses. 

Entergy cannot simply wave a fist full of invoices at the City Council and be found to be entitled to ratepayer reimbursement for the expenditures!

The letter (attached) cites a New Orleans case in 1991, when the New Orleans City Council --  Joseph I. Giarrusso (At-Large), Dorothy Mae Taylor (At-Large), Peggy Wilson (A), Jame Singleton (B), Jacquelyn B. Clarkson (C) , Lambert Boissiere (D) and Johnny Jackson, Jr. (E) -- fought and won ratepayer protections. 
​
"New Orleans: In the early 1990s, the New Orleans City Council found that approximately $476 million of costs related to construction of a nuclear power plant had been imprudently incurred, because the utility failed in its oversight and management of its participation in the project construction. The Council specifically found that the utility had done virtually nothing to minimize its risks. However, the Council decided not to permit $135 million of the total costs to be passed onto ratepayers. On appeal, the court found that none of the imprudently incurred costs could be passed through to ratepayers, but had to be borne by utility shareholders."

​*** Find the full pdf letter to City Council below or 
click here***
Councilmembers:

     During the recent UCTT Committee meeting on February 14, 2018, it became clear that there is significant confusion regarding the City Council’s authority to deny Entergy the cost
recovery of funds expended for the construction of the gas plant should the Council ultimately
chose to cancel that plant. Entergy cannot simply wave a fist full of invoices at the City Council
and be found to be entitled to ratepayer reimbursement for the expenditures.1 Apparently,
Entergy claims it has spent $96 million on the gas plant and that ratepayers must pay these costs regardless of whether the gas plant is constructed.

     Statements by members of the Council that assume Entergy is entitled to the cost recovery are contrary to law and regulatory policy. A basic part of utility regulation is a decision-making process known as a prudence review in which a regulated utility, in this case Entergy, must prove that its expenditures were reasonable when incurred. The Council should initiate a prudence review to determine what costs, if any, should be recovered. The Council’s should also be aware that Louisiana courts have established that in a prudence review the utility must “demonstrate that it went through a reasonable decision making process to arrive at a course of action and, given the facts as they were or should have been known at the time, responded in a reasonable manner.”

      It is important for the Council to bear in mind that that prudence review is not a one-time process, but is a continuing obligation to make decisions based on on-going and updated information. In other words, the Council can administer more than one prudence review of expenses that Entergy proposes for cost recovery in order to address new facts or information that may require a change to a decision made in a prior prudence review. For this reason, Entergy’s obligation to act in a prudent manner is a continuing one, and the Council is required as the regulator to enforce that obligation. The Council has an abiding responsibility to ensure rate-payers are not burdened with inappropriate costs.

Here are just a few examples where regulatory bodies or the utility itself addressed expenses that were incurred imprudently and therefore ineligible for cost recovery:
-  New Orleans: In the early 1990s, the New Orleans City Council found that approximately $476 million of costs related to construction of a nuclear power plant had been imprudently incurred, because the utility failed in its oversight and management of its participation in the project construction. The Council specifically found that the utility had done virtually nothing to minimize its risks. However, the Council decided not to permit $135 million of the total costs to be passed onto ratepayers. On appeal, the court found that none of the imprudently incurred costs could be passed through to ratepayers, but had to be borne by utility shareholders.

​-   Mississippi: Following approval from the Mississippi Public Service Commission (“MPSC”), Mississippi Power & Light (“MPL”) spent 10 years constructing a coal gasification power plant. When construction was nearly complete, the MPSC ordered the project halted notwithstanding MPL’s expenditure of $7.5 billion on construction. After MPSC proceedings and negotiations, ratepayers were shielded from having to pay $6.4 billion of the total construction costs. The remaining costs were charged to the ratepayers to pay for the portion of the plant that was not cancelled and was actually serving customers. Thus, MPL recovered only a fraction of the costs of its approved but, later, cancelled power plant. 

-    Louisiana: Entergy Louisiana halted the Little Gypsy rebuild project after other stakeholders made it clear to the utility that the power generated by this plant would be more expensive than power from other resources. In this instance, Entergy Louisiana acted prudently to avoid the more expensive rebuild costs, without waiting for a directive from the Louisiana Public Service Commission.

-    South Carolina: The South Carolina Public Service Commission found that, starting in March 2015, SCG&E, the utility, intentionally misled the Commission about a failing nuclear plant construction project. In an effort to avoid being labeled imprudent, the utility agreed not to charge ratepayers for any construction costs incurred from March 2015 until the project was cancelled in July 2017. However, the SCPSC ultimately issued an order finding that the utility had been imprudent.

-     Arizona: The Arizona Public Service Company, a utility, sought to recover expenses in cancelling the construction of Palo Verde Units 4 and 5 in California, a joint project proposed to be built by the Arizona Public Service in conjunction with other utilities. The Arizona Corporation Commission disallowed cost recovery for construction expensesbecause the decision to cancel the project was the result of imprudence by the utilities in failing to recognize the regulatory barriers and prepare contingencies in the negotiation of contracts.
      It is important emphasize that the duress Entergy attempts to exert on the Council to stand by the approval of the previous Council for a new gas plant is designed to force this Council to ignore established utility law and policy. Entergy incurred the expenses by its own actions and must accept the consequences of those actions.


Entergy’s Unethical Behavior

     On March 6, 2018, prior to the full Council’s consideration of Entergy’s application to construct the gas plant, several stakeholders sent a demand letter to the Council objecting to the manner in which the UCTT Committee meeting on the gas plant application was conducted. While at that time neither these stakeholders, the general public, or even the Council itself knew the exact nature of what had occurred at that meeting, Entergy knew because Entergy was responsible for the conduct that prevented residents of New Orleans from exercising their right to participate in the process. The investigator’s report demonstrates that Entergy knew (or should have known) the actions being taken by the Hawthorn Group and Crowds on Demand and actively encouraged those actions to continue. If the Council’s approval of the gas plant is rescinded, this decision will be the direct result of the unethical and possibly illegal conduct of Entergy. Entergy cannot claim “good faith” when the very approval it is relying on occurred as a result of its unethical behavior. In the event that the plant is not constructed, the Council should find that Entergy is responsible for the costs associated with the cancelled plant since the cancellation of the plant would be the direct result of Entergy’s own unethical disruption of the approval process.


Entergy’s Failure to Negotiate Contingency Plans in Design and Construction Contract(s)

  The Council should find that Entergy’s poorly structured EPC contracts also constitute imprudence. According to Council’s Advisors testimony at the February 14, 2019 meeting, 80 percent of the costs Entergy claims it is entitled to recover stem from the EPC contract on the RICE units. Entergy, not its ratepayers, selects the firms which work on a construction project
and negotiates the applicable contracts. Therefore, Entergy, not the ratepayers must bear the
consequences of the utility’s failure to negotiate appropriate terms.6 In this instance, the
consequences of Entergy’s apparent failure to negotiate provisions protecting ratepayers from
contingencies such as the cancellation of the project in the event that Entergy cannot obtain or
retain all the permits necessary to construct the gas plant constitutes mismanagement and
imprudence.

     The Council must not permit Entergy’s unethical behavior to successfully block this
Council from exercising its full authority to regulate Entergy. The Council should protect the ratepayers of New Orleans to the fullest extent possible by initiating an open and transparent
prudence review of Entergy’s claimed expenses. The Council should consider and adopt the
resolutions recently made public, R-19-18, R-19-20, and R-19-17, to rescind the previous vote
approving Entergy’s application, reopen the record and require Entergy to submit all the analyses the Company was previously directed to provide, and fine Entergy at least $5 million for its unethical actions.
****Read the full letter to the council below or click here****
1 Comment

Henry Killingsworth link
6/3/2021 11:30:44 am

It was really interesting to me when the article talked about how decision-making is an important process in utility regulation. Would it be a good idea to work with an oversight service when you are managing or overseeing utilities? Working with an overnight service seems like a good idea because it could help with the decision-making process.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012

    Categories

    All
    Alexandria Lia
    ALI
    ALI Meiner
    Andrew Wiseman
    Anniversary
    Bia Assevero
    CalGreen
    CCS
    Charles Rice
    Clean Energy
    CLECO
    CLECO FAQ
    CLECO Sale
    CLECO Sale Denied
    CLECO Stock
    CLECO Stock Prices
    CLECO Takeover
    Climate Change
    Clyde Holloway
    CO2
    Coastal Restoration
    Corruption
    Cost
    David Roberts
    Decoupling
    Dirty Energy
    Education
    Elections
    Energy
    Energy Efficiency
    Energy Policy
    Energy Smart
    Entergy
    Entergy New Orleans
    Environmental Risks
    EPA
    FERC
    Gas Plant
    Georgetown
    Government
    Grand Gulf
    Green Building
    Grid Failure
    GSREIA
    Gulf Of Mexico
    Health Risks
    Hurricane
    Hurricane Sandy
    Industrials
    Infrastructure
    IRP
    Land Loss
    Land-Use
    LA Public Service Commission
    LEED
    Liquid Air
    Louisiana
    Louisiana Public Service Commission
    LPSC
    MACQUAIRE
    Mayor's Office
    MISO
    Natural Gas
    New Iberia
    New Orleans City Council
    News
    NRDC
    Nuclear
    Oil & Gas Leases
    People Power
    Pipelines
    Power Grid
    Power Outages
    Power Plant
    Public Interest
    Regulation
    Reliability
    Renewable Energy
    RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY NETWORK FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
    Resiliency
    Resolutions
    RTO
    Rulemaking
    Sacrifice Zones
    Sea Level Rise
    Solar
    Storage Solutions
    Subsidies
    SWEPCO
    TED Talks
    The Town Walk
    Town Hall Meetings
    Transmission
    Utilities
    Vicki Arroyo
    Watchdog
    Water Conservation
    Water Use
    WDSU
    Wetlands
    WWL Radio

    RSS Feed

Intern & Volunteer
If you want to be a frontline soldier on environmental protection, social justice, or environmental racism, come to Louisiana” –Gary Groesch, Founder of AAE
Calendar
View our events calendar ​for important upcoming community events and public meetings!
Support our work- ensure fair, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy for all.
501(c)3 IRS Notice

Alliance for Affordable Energy
Phone: (504) 208-9761
4505 S Claiborne Ave
New Orleans, LA 70175

Copyright © 2022 · Alliance for Affordable Energy
  • Home
  • Who
  • What
    • Consumer Protection and Education >
      • Regulate Our Pipelines
      • Health Impact Assessment
    • Clean Energy >
      • Renewable & Clean Portfolio Standard
      • Transmission
    • Energy Efficiency >
      • EEFA
    • GS4GND
    • Past Work
  • How
    • New Orleans City Council >
      • Council Actions
    • New Orleans Dockets >
      • UD-22-05 Hurricane Ida Costs
      • UD-22-04 Demand Solutions
      • UD-22-03 Battery Storage
      • UD-22-02 100% Renewable
      • UD-22-01 Storm Reserve
      • UD-21-03 Resilience
      • UD-21-02 Zeta Cost Recovery
      • UD-21-01 Winter Storm Uri
      • UD-20-02 IRP (2021)
      • UD-19-01 RPS
      • UD-18-07 ENO Rate Case
      • UD-18-02 EV Charging
      • UD-18-01 Smart Cities
      • UD-17-04 Reliability
      • UD-17-03 IRP (2018)
    • LA Public Service Commission >
      • LPSC 2022 Election
      • Engage with the LPSC
    • Lawsuits & Appeals
    • Climate Initiative Task Force
  • News
    • The Watchdog
    • People's Power Hour
    • MISO Soup
    • Hurricane Ida
    • Events Calendar >
      • AAE House Party
  • Learn
    • Glossary
    • Timeline
    • Reports
  • Get Involved
    • Support
    • Newsletter
    • Intern and Volunteer >
      • Wimpelberg Intern Fellowship
    • Contact Us