Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2009 > February > 05
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Clark Howard, Georgia Power, and the ‘C’ word
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Last week, in a brief and local cutaway, WSB consumer specialist Clark Howard went ballistic on a bill to permit Georgia Power to charge ratepayers upfront for the cost of financing two new nuclear units not scheduled to come online until 2017.
A Senate vote on S.B. 31 could come as early as Monday.
On the broadcast, while Howard twice called the utility an upstanding corporate citizen, Howard noted the influence being brought to bear on behalf of the utility, and dropped the biggest, baddest “C” word in politics.
“It’s one of those times, one of those symbols, where the actual, real effects of corruption are borne by you and me, not indirectly, but immediately and directly,” the radio host said.
In political terms, the original broadcast had a small, insignificant audience. But the Internet gives everyone a permanent shelf life, and that four-minute Howard spot is now breezing around the state Capitol via YouTube and an e-mailed mp3 file, giving utility lobbyists heartburn.
We’ve been slow to post it, simply because the bosses insist on following federal copyright law. Howard had to give his permission — and now he has. (Hat tip to Jason Pye for making the YouTube clip.)
“Georgia Power went berserk,” Howard said. He’s got an off-air sit-down with them next week, to hear out the utility. The above spiel was impromptu, Howard said.
And there are some inaccuracies.
For instance, Howard, 53, says he’ll never use a kilowatt hour from the plants in his lifetime. The plants are scheduled to fire up in 2017. We wish him a longer stay here than that.
Howard also says that average Joes will be required to shoulder the entire load. Not quite true.
But a report by the staff of the Public Service Commission said the load is, in fact, skewed:
Limiting the allocation of financing costs to rates designed to recover embedded capacity costs means that approximately 37.7% of all kWh sold and 20.9% of base revenues are exempt from the allocation. Costs that could have been allocated to certain large industrial and commercial customers, would have to be allocated to remaining customers, thus increasing their rates even more.
Georgia Power has challenged that assessment in this document. Christy Heiser, a spokeswoman for the utility, expressed “surprise” at Howard’s opposition. One of her points: S.B. 31 would “help preserve the company’s credit ratings, which will save literally hundreds of millions of dollars for consumers.”
Complicated issues like this often turn on simplified, even simplistic representations. And given Howard’s standing as a trusted voice for consumers, his digitally preserved remarks are likely to become an important factor at the state Capitol next week.
We offer a partial transcript of Howard’s remarks on the jump, along with Georgia Power’s response.
Photo credit: Joey Ivansco/AJC
From Jan. 29 broadcast of “The Clark Howard Show” on WSB Radio (750AM):
”There’s something that a good corporate citizen, Georgia Power, is doing right now that I think just absolutely stinks.
“They have 70 lobbyists — 70 — at the Georgia State Capitol. Seventy. And they are down there, working the halls like you can’t believe, trying to pick your and my pocket in a way that is absolutely disgusting.
“Georgia Power has an initiative to build new nuclear capacity in Georgia. They do not want to shoulder the financial risk of it upfront. They want the Legislature to put the risk on you and me upfront, for power that you and I would not benefit from for — well, gosh, I’m 53. If I live a normal lifespan, I might not get a single kilowatt from it, but I’ll have to pay for it the rest of my life.
“And what’s worse, the big commercial users of power in Georgia were opposed to Georgia Power getting this plant pre-funded by the ratepayers. And so Georgia Power didn’t think they could get the bill through as result, so they then exempted the big industrial and commercial users like shopping centers retailers factories and all that, so 100 percent of the cost of building this plant now gets passed on to you and me — upfront.
“And even worse, the way the bill is structured, in the Legislature, the greater Georgia Power’s cost overruns are on the new nuke plant, the more profit they end up making from charging us money up front. In other words, we take all the risk. Georgia Power gets full reward for not being cost-efficient in building the plant. Don’t check your hearing. That’s what’s going on….
“It’s one of those times, one of those symbols, where the actual, real effects of corruption are borne by you and me, not indirectly, but immediately and directly.”
Georgia Power’s response on Feb. 6.
Georgia Power is surprised that Clark Howard opposes a bill that will:
— Provide Georgia Power customers the same benefits of reduced interest expenses that customers of other utilities* in the Southeast and in Georgia can receive.
— Reduce total increases required to recover the cost of the plant from 12 percent to 9 percent.
— Help preserve the company’s credit ratings, which will save literally hundreds of millions of dollars for consumers.
— Help put the plant in rates in a way that does not cause “rate shock” - by phasing in the cost over seven years versus putting all of the cost in two years.
— Reduce financing costs by $300 million, directly benefiting consumers.
— Reduce the in-service cost of the plant by nearly $2 billion, which will save money for customers over the remaining life of the plant.
*Other utilities in Georgia have the ability to recover financing costs during construction - and have done so previously. Additionally, other states around Georgia have passed legislation that allows recovery of financing costs during construction, particularly utilities that are considering new nuclear power plant projects. States that have passed legislation include Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, and Mississippi.
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment |
Oxendine chides Cagle on Sunday sales, but there’s this Gwinnett County stadium bill…
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
State Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine this morning announced his opposition to another attempt in the state Legislature to permit Sunday sales of beer and wine.
“Republicans are supposed to be the party of family values. Where is the value in selling alcohol on the Lord’s Day?” asked the 2010 candidate for governor.
Oxendine took a shot at Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who has said he won’t stop S.B. 16, which would permit individual communities to vote on the matter, from reaching the Senate floor for a vote.
“I share the disappointment of many in the faith movement in Georgia that certain elected officials have moved away from the position they promised to support during their campaigns once they were in office,” Oxendine said.
“Unlike certain elected officials, I will keep my promise on this important issue of safety and faith.”
Last year, this same issue was tied to a Gwinnett County effort to permit the new minor league Braves stadium to sell beer and such on the Christian Sabbath. The pairing presented an uncomfortable ethical dilemma for many Republican lawmakers, torn between business interests and conservative Christians.
What most people don’t know is that the same Gwinnett County bill is back again, reportedly for housekeeping issues. Oxendine is from Gwinnett County. It’s his geographic political base.
What is his position on H.B. 104?
Said Oxendine:
“I strongly support the ability to sell alcoholic beverages at the Gwinnett Braves stadium. As for the details of H.B. 104, it has been suggested by some that there might exist the possibility for unintended consequences. It is my hope that the Legislature will, in its wisdom, seek to avoid any unintended consequences that are not the intent of the authors.”
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment |
Isakson on stimulus: ‘I didn’t trade my vote’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Even though the Senate unanimously approved his $15,000 tax credit for homebuyers, U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson said he will wait until he sees the final bill before deciding whether to vote for it.
“I didn’t trade my vote for the amendment,” he told my AJC colleague Thomas Oliver this afternoon.
Republicans led by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, considered a moderate, are attempting to pare down the House-passed stimulus bill. She has said her aim is $700 billion or less, well below the $819 billion House version — and even further below the $900 billion now in a Senate version pumped up with amendments. Now, including Isakson’s.
The Georgia senator said Collins is talking about eliminating the spending provisions that have little to do with job creation, like the millions for smoking cessation programs and community swimming pools.
Isakson said he felt his amendment would make the final cut. Collins, the one leading the effort to slash the stimulus package, voted for it, he said.
Photo credit: AFP/Getty Images
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment |
Learning from the Taliban
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It’s worth noting that President Obama isn’t the only one who screwed up this week.
The Hotline, a subscription news service, this morning posted an interview with U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who said House Republicans might have to adopt Taliban-style insurgency tactics to cope with Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
“Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban,” Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. “And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes.
And these Taliban — I’m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that’s not what we’re saying. I’m saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with.”
He continues:
“If they do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become insurgency of a nature to where we do those things that are necessary to making sure the American public knows what we think the correct answer is.”
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
Scott on the governor’s race: Too much GOP coziness with the people who write the checks
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Last month, state Rep. Austin Scott of Tifton, who has spent 14 years in the Legislature but is not yet 40, told his Republican colleagues that he intended to join the 2010 contest for governor.
Scott becomes the fourth Republican elected official to announce. And the fifth GOP candidate, if you count states’ rightist Ray McBerry.
In an interview, Scott described a campaign that would emphasize morality and management style. His description: “Good ethical-based government that we hope will get rid of some of the cynicism that’s out there.”
Scott was the only Republican to join Gov. Roy Barnes’ effort to remove the ’56 state flag and its Confederate battle emblem. He supported Sonny Perdue and his request for a tobacco tax increase during the new governor’s first session.
“People will truly see that I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem,” he said. “It’s not going to be politics as usual.”
Given Scott’s past record, it’s a safe bet that, while he may remain deficient in fund-raising, he injects a great deal of unpredictability into the race.
Among his basic points:
— Scott intends to fund his campaign with contributions of “$100 from 100 people in the state’s 159 counties.”
— He also intends to come out against monied interests.
“”We will not appoint anybody to the Board of Regents who contributes more than $1,000 to our campaign,” he said. “This perception that these board seats are bought and paid for before a candidate ever takes office is something that we as Republicans can’t afford to have as an issue in the November race.”
Have Republicans cozied up too closely to the people who fund their campaigns? “Yes, I think we have. I think both at the national [and state] level. That would be a fair criticism. I think that would be a fair criticism of both parties,” Scott said.
As chairman of the House governmental affairs committee, Scott is part of the leadership. But he admits he is not a member of House Speaker Glenn Richardson’s “inner circle.”
Said Scott:
“He has not given me a commitment. But I have not asked him for a commitment, either. I like Glenn. He’s a friend of mine. I want, and I need, the House leadership’s and our members’ support. I need Glenn, I need Jerry [Keen], I need Mark [Burkhalter]. And I need the other 104 members in the House.”
On the same day that Scott announced his decision to Republican caucus members, he dropped a bill to put a $10 tag fee on all vehicles, to fund a statewide trauma care network.
The question was obvious. “How is it that a Republican running for governor drops a tax increase?” he asked himself. “I don’t have any shame about my belief that the trauma care system needs to be funded. The $10 car tag [fee] to me makes the most sense. So much of the cost of the trauma network comes from automobile accidents.
“I believe in limited government, not no government. And I do believe there are certain things that people expect out of their government. One of them is access to the health care they need in the event of an accident,” Scott said.
On the other hand, Scott said he’s leaning against a House proposal for a statewide sales tax for transportation needs. He fears it would burden retailers already under siege from untaxed Internet sales.
If the state’s transportation agencies can get their act together, and voters agree, he’d prefer to see an increase in the gasoline tax. “It’s more of a user fee and encourages people to buy more efficient vehicles,” Scott said.
The Tifton legislator also said he intends to emphasize a shift in management style, presumably away from the current governor.
“It’s a big state. I am going to surround myself with people who I have enough respect for to listen to when they tell me I’m wrong. And who have enough respect for me to tell me when I’m wrong,” he said.
“If someone thinks I’m always right, they’re not going to be on our leadership team.”
Photo credit: Ben Gray/AJC
