“It may be a decade or more before Falmouth can heal from the divisive battle that raged since 2009. Paying off the $14 million will be a constant reminder. It is unlikely that the residents, the locals, will be quick to trust local and state officials who put ideology and self-serving monetary gain ahead of the health and welfare of others. In that respect, Falmouth is like every other wind project battle we’ve followed.”
After seven years of public hearings, nuisance complaints, state-funded facilitations, dueling noise experts, and several fatal court rulings costing hundreds of thousands, the Town of Falmouth has finally decided to abandon its defense of the town’s two Vestas V82 (1.65 megawatt) turbines.
The last straw came on June 19, 2017, when Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Cornelius J.…
Continue Reading“What is underemphasized or missing in the working paper is consideration of real-world competition as the industry understands it. In other words, rate discounting, surplus capacity, new entry and bypass, alternative fuel competition, and other factors make markets very competitive whatever the market shares of its individual participants.”
“[FERC] never considers the imperfections of regulation itself. It is assumed that regulation is a costless alternative to correct imperfect pipeline markets.”
In a previous life, I worked for an interstate gas transmission company that was rate- and service-regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). During this time, I tried to make a case for deregulation where both entry/exit and rates would not be regulated under cost-based public utility regulation.
Following neoclassical economics, FERC did not consider interstate pipelines “workably competitive.” Using a technical approach instead of a common-sense, real world approach, FERC could not see what those in the business saw on a day-to-day basis: that the pipeline business was very competitive, and discounts from maximum rates proved so.…
Continue Reading“DOE’s energy efficiency regulations generally have the effect of increasing the cost of products and reducing competition and innovation.”
“In most other cases, it would be better for DOE to scrap its rules and allow private market actors to develop standards and information tools in their place.”
Julian Morris of the Reason Foundation recently submitted COMMENTS OF REASON FOUNDATION ON THE REGULATORY BURDEN REDUCTION in a Request for Information (RFI) by the U.S. Department of Energy (Document Number 2017-10866, Docket ID DOE_FRDOC_0001-3375, 82 FR 24582, 5/30/2017.)
Excerpts from his comments follow. (For the full comments, including footnote sources, see here.)
This comment seeks to address questions raised by the Department of Energy in its Request for Information regarding “existing regulations, paperwork requirements and other regulatory obligations that can be modified or repealed, consistent with law, to achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department’s statutory obligations.”…
Continue Reading