Laserfiche WebLink
With important committee deadlines looming, it was a busy week for MMUA lobbyists <br />at the state capitol. Four issues dominated our attention: three energy proposals and a private <br />well-drilling regulation. <br />A number of separate energy-related bills have been lumped into an omnibus energy bill <br />(HF 1010 SF 1029). MMUA's focus remains on three specific issues: Conservation Improvement <br />Program (CIP), Renewable Energy Standard (RES) and net-metering. <br />The House Environment, Enerey and Natural Resources Policv and Finance Committee <br />Thursday worked on assembling its omnibus energy bill, including CIP. MMUA and the <br />Minnesota Rural Electric Association met with bill author Rep. Michael Beard earlier in the <br />week. The Dayton administration, through the Division of Energy Resources (formerly Office of <br />Energy Security) has said it has serious problems with bill as it stands. <br />The Senate bill differs from the House bill and may be more acceptable to the <br />administration. <br />The Senate Committee on Energy Utilities and Telecommunications Thursday addressed <br />its omnibus bill, including language on CIP. The Senate bill allows the Minnesota Public Utilities <br />Commission to approve utility CIP savings goals of less than 1 percent, something the Dayton <br />administration has said it does not oppose. <br />(Current engrossments of these bills may not be posted yet on the legislative website.) <br />The Senate energy committee Tuesday heard SF 1093 titled the "Public utilities <br />renewable energy standards compliance rate information impact report submission:' This bill <br />has the unusual distinction of being pushed by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and <br />supported by a variety of environmental interests. <br />Utilities don't much like it. <br />Municipal power agencies believe the bill is well-intentioned-requiring a report on all <br />of a power supplier's costs relating to implementing the renewable energy standard-but could <br />have unintended consequences, such as encouraging endless questions and second-guessing <br />during resource planning proceedings at the MPUC. <br />MMUA successfully softened the bill from requiring an "analysis' of costs to an <br />"estimation' of costs. MMUA also successfully changed the language to handle future reports <br />Vol. 14, No. 10 April 29, 2011 <br />