On Monday, June 6, Salt River Project had its application for reconsideration of the decision heard by the Arizona Corporation Commission. The ACC in April denied SRP a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for expansion of the Coolidge FOSSIL FUEL-burning electricity generating station.
That generating station, according to SRP, is used for peak load. Namely, when summer temperatures are very hot and demand for air conditioning is very high. It just so happens that SRP funded an ASU School for the Future of Innovation in Society study. Entitled "Decarbonizing Arizona," the main point the SRP-funded propaganda tried to make, for the moment anyway, is that we must wait until 2035 before SRP will have to eliminate fossil fuel burning for generating electricity. Clark Miller and Lauren Keeler, both with ASU, presented the study. Professors Miller and Keeler seem unaware of the wisdom of either Leo Tolstoy, or Upton Sinclair for that matter.
“Remember then: there is only one time that is important-- Now! It is the most important time because it is the only time when we have any power. The most necessary man is he with whom you are, for no man knows whether he will ever have dealings with any one else: and the most important affair is, to do him good, because for that purpose alone was man sent into this life!” -- Leo Tolstoy
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair
It seems SRP still hopes to slide by without addressing the elephant in the room.
Further, presentation of this study seems intended to enable SRP to not even have to justify to anyone that it has not even planned for expanding use of sustainable technology to generate electricity in the near future. I guess it's just too easy to go with what they're already too comfortable using.
Since SRP is not interested in justifying to the public or to government regulators why they refuse to even to try address this foreseeable load demand for 2024-2026, what makes anyone (with critical thinking skills) think that come 2035 they won't still be singing the same tune?
Perhaps they haven't yet heard of John Doerr's book Speed and Scale.
Nevertheless, SRP yesterday also had the ACC hearing. The vote on what ACC chair Lea Marquez Peterson noted was a strictly procedural hearing/vote was defeated 2-3. In other words, right now there will be no reconsideration of SRPs plan to burn more fossil fuel. I encourage you to view and listen to the end of the hearing. At this link beginning at 1:28:20 [link corrected at 2:15pm MST 6-9-22] into the recording. It may answer some questions you have about the situation. By the way, ACC Commissioner Sandra Kennedy's remarks explaining her vote are especially salient.
Looking back 50-plus years into American technology history, can you imagine that if NASA and Congress had taken the mealy-mouthed approach that SRP now takes, we may never have landed any astronauts on the moon and returned them safely back to Earth. Should SRP be Thinking Like a Rocket Scientist, or continuing to obfuscate and employ subterfuge? That's a huge down side to allowing protected monopolies.
In 2015, the rooftop solar industry in Maricopa County, Arizona, dried up almost overnight. That year, the Salt River Project, or SRP, a state-owned [more correctly, a quasi-municipal] electric utility that serves about 2 million customers in the Phoenix metropolitan area, set new rates for rooftop solar owners. Suddenly, generating your own electricity from the sun was expected to cost you $600 more per year on your electric bill than it had the year before. At that rate, paying off the panels could take twice as long.
Wouldn't you wonder why SRP would rather pay a couple of academics to generate some irrational rationalization for why the utility needs to expand fossil fuel burning generating capacity instead of actually thinking like the 1960s vintage rocket scientists who accepted President Kennedy's challenge to put astronauts on the moon?
It's almost disheartening to see the monopoly, in the face of an existential crisis (for humanity, rather than for it's own financial comfort) try to con the people of Arizona into lethargy and defeat?
Rather than get lawmakers to make it harder for homeowners to install solar-power generating rooftops seven years ago, would SRP now be needing to greatly expand its peak power generating capacity?
I also wonder what SRP has up its sleeve for use of that expanded fossil fuel generating capacity when WE don't need the electrons it generates? Of necessity, SRP ratepayers will provide the capital to build the capacity. But who will get the benefit when SRP uses that excess capacity to sell electrons (electricity) on the bulk market (exporting to utilities out of state)?
Again, the entire scheme is subterfuge. The ACC fully expects SRP to take the matter to court. I have no insight at the moment on how Maricopa County Superior Court would address this matter, but I would have to believe any honest judge would require the utility to demonstrate good faith about planning to address sustainable technologies. That may have been one reason for the ASU study. However, the attorney who represented the residents of the community of Randolph likely will continue to represent them when the matter goes to court. Dianne Post, that attorney, is nobody's push over.
*****
I would also recommend viewing the recent Frontline three part report on the Power of Big Oil. Big Utilities are not much better.
No comments:
Post a Comment