LAST week, the House Committee on Public Utilities, Transportation and Communications conducted a public hearing on House Bill 23-92, which would amend the net metering law or P.L. 18-62, which, in turn, amended a previous net metering law, which amended the original net metering law, which was passed without consulting CUC, the entity that is supposed to implement the measure.
Still on board?
This reminds me, in any case, of what the British philosopher Herbert Spencer noted in his book published in 1884: The “thousands of Acts of Parliament which repeal preceding Acts, are so many tacit admissions of failure.” He then quoted the following “confession” of a government commission: “We find…that there is scarcely one statute connected with the administration of public relief which has produced the effect designed by the legislature, and that the majority of them have created new evils, and aggravated those which they were intended to prevent.” In plain English: Very few public relief laws achieve their intended goals, and most create new problems or worsen existing ones.
According to Spencer, “[W]hile every day chronicles a failure, there every day reappears the belief that it needs but an Act of Parliament and a staff of officers to effect any end desired. Nowhere is the perennial faith of mankind better seen. Ever since society existed Disappointment has been preaching, ‘Put not your trust in legislation’; and yet the trust in legislation seems scarcely diminished.”
The House PUTC said it has “tabled” H.B. 23-92 and will “thoroughly study” the issues pertaining to net metering, including the concerns raised by CUC and the net metering customers (voters).
Well and good. But the committee should also point out that to fully implement net metering, and to provide its customers the benefits that the net metering law says they should get, millions of dollars are needed. The current net metering law is an unfunded mandate. The CNMI government, which is CUC’s largest delinquent customer, has saddled the corporation with another costly expense.
Some lawmakers and officials are hoping that more federal grants ought to do the trick. Ah, hope; the politicians’ last refuge. Or is it voter amnesia?
In July 2022, the House PUTC conducted an “emergency” meeting with CUC officials to “address concerns” regarding the high power rates caused by rising oil prices. Asked about net metering and renewable energy, the then-CUC deputy executive director, Chretien Voerg (pronounced “verge”), said, “Operating utilities is very complicated as far as…integrating new equipment with older technology and how that reacts in the grid. So part…of expanding our technology into renewables is making sure that we evaluate the reliability of our grid so that we can integrate these new resources without damaging the infrastructure we already have.”
He added, “We already have solar in place…and we have plans for another 20-megawatt community-based solar…. One of the biggest problems with a solar system of that size is getting the land necessary to build the solar farm. So…our executive director is working with DPL on identifying locations that would be suitable. They need to be in close proximity of the existing grid so that they can be tied in appropriately, but also the land needs to be available. So we’re talking in excess of 80 acres of land. That’s significant.”
Asked about a timeline for the project, Voerg replied, “We’re moving forward…but I don’t have an exact date for you…. There’s so many moving parts to a project that large.”
And then he mentioned a fact that that many elected officials would rather not hear:
“Whether the hospital or any other government agency does not pay their bill, CUC has to figure out a way to survive. And part of that survival is not reinvesting in the infrastructure that we need desperately to be more efficient…. If we can receive those arrears payments, we can reinvest in our infrastructure, we can put in more efficient and renewable and reliable equipment that then will result in a cost savings for our customers….”
We have to pay attention whenever someone speaks about a subject of which s/he is an acknowledged expert. Such an expert provides nuanced answers, which offer a comprehensive and thoughtful understanding of the subject by taking into account various factors, perspectives or intricacies. But many voters have no patience for nuance. What most of them want is a simple answer to their question, which usually involves and/or requires funding. When they, for example, ask, “Why is the FAC so high?” what they usually mean is, “I don’t want to pay for it.”
Not surprisingly, unlike experts, most politicians resort to platitudes: “We’ll listen to you and we’ll work together,” which is usually followed by a vague allusion to a once-and-for-all solution (usually involving a federally funded boondoggle). And many people (voters) will believe it. Many of us prefer (empty) promises to a truthful but disappointing statement like:
The real problem is that the bloated, overspending government needs a lot of money it doesn’t have because the CNMI’s tourism-based economy is still in the gutter.
Send feedback to editor@mvariety.com
