UTILITY BLOGGER: I just caught Henry Gomez's very nice post at Tech Link last Wednesday about my "utility blogging". Coincidentally, I've been struggling for the last couple of days with a complicated entry about the big disparity in electric rates between northern and southern Ohio, and what I think public leaders -- Democratic candidates for governor and attorney general, in particular -- should be doing about it. That should be posted soon, but maybe it's time for a few prior words about my obsession with energy and utility issues.

The main source of my interest in this stuff is that I've spent a large part my adult life learning about it. I came back to Ohio in August 1976 at the invitation of some folks who wanted to start a consumer organizing project in Akron (does anyone out there remember Bob Loitz?), and immediately found myself in the midst of a grassroots campaign to pass four state ballot proposals for PUCO and utility reform. The issues went down in flames, of course -- I believe the utilities outspent the "Yes" campaign forty to one, or something like that -- but I got a crash course in the theory and politics of electric and gas rates in Ohio.

That was the beginning of a fourteen-year stint of utility consumer organizing and advocacy -- first with People Power, a neighborhood-based organization in Akron that led coalitions against Ohio Edison and East Ohio Gas rate hikes; and then with the Ohio Public Interest Campaign (now Ohio Citizen Action) where I was Energy Program Director from 1980 through 1989. I helped research, strategize and organize campaigns to keep nuclear plant investments out of consumers' rates; to block Ronald Reagan's proposed deregulation of wellhead natural gas prices; to protect households from winter shutoffs; to preserve and expand municipal electric systems in Cleveland and elsewhere; and to get utilities to invest in conservation and "demand-side management". (One small point of pride -- getting Amory Lovins to come speak in Cleveland way back in 1984.) Without getting into twenty-year-old war stories (summary: we won some, we lost more), I got to be pretty knowledgeable, for a guy without a degree in law or engineering, about Ohio's utility industry, the PUCO, the many enduring ways they work together to screw the rest of us, and the politics of the whole sick process.

After 1989, I left consumer organizing behind to work in neighborhood development, and later in community technology. But I still try to pay attention, and I still pay gas and electric bills. And working on community strategies for IT literacy and access has brought me back around to the arena of utility regulation -- this time, the emerging public utility of fast Internet access.

To an old utility geek, the territory looks depressingly familiar.

No, TCP/IP networks aren't all that similar to power lines or pipelines, and the economics of information isn't very much like the economics of heat and light. What is familiar, though, is the PUCO's (and General Assembly's) routine devotion to the financial interests of the companies it regulates, rather than the public interest it exists to protect. Also familiar -- the way money flows around Ohio's political process to reinforce and protect this special relationship between the regulators and the regulated. Also familiar -- the way not just consumers, but upstart technologies and providers (renewable and distributed power generators, wireless network innovators), are kept on the margins of the regulatory process, outside looking in.

Like schools, roads and taxes, utility regulation is always there on the list of big-ticket state government functions. But unlike the other three, utility regulation isn't mostly about public budgets, and it doesn't divide the broad public into competing interests. Instead, it's about billions of private dollars flowing, in small increments, from all of us to a handful of legally privileged private corporations.

It's not surprising that these corporations work so hard to dominate the policy arena. Nor is it surprising that policy makers -- elected officials as well as professionals -- tend to gravitate to the industry side of the table, where the grants, fees, jobs and campaign contributions are to be found.

But I do find it surprising that utility consumer advocacy is so rare among politicians these days. After all, there aren't many issues that unite the material interests of so many diverse Ohioans -- poor and middle class, urban and rural, business and resident -- against such a small circle of privileged insiders. There aren't many issues that make themselves so obvious on a monthly basis. There aren't many issues in which the nexus of power -- PUCO, utility lobbyists and legislators -- is so clearly understood and distrusted by the public. There is no other area (can you think of one?) in which private monopolies are still enforced, protected against economic and technological competition, and guaranteed profitability by state law.

So I really don't understand why some opportunistic Democrats (and Republicans, too) aren't raising hell about utility issues, both old and new. But they're not. So I figure I should.

Plus, as a northern Ohioan, my electric and gas bills are big enough to piss me off on a regular basis. What's better for blogging than that?

BRYAN FLANNERY MET THE BLOGGERS this morning. The former Lakewood state representative, seeking the Democratic nomination for Governor, was quizzed in detail by George, Tim and me about his signature school funding plan and other issues.

MTB interviews already scheduled for January include Secretary of State candidate Jennifer Bruner on the 4th and Sherrod Brown on the 14th.

At Brewed Fresh Daily, George would like to have a talk with you about MTB.

CLEVELAND AFL-CIO DELEGATES ENDORSE BROWN FOR SENATE, STRICKLAND FOR GOVERNOR

Breaking news from John Ryan:

Congressmen Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown got early Christmas presents from the Delegates at the Cleveland AFL-CIO Federation of Labor: Recommendations for the posts they seek in the 2006 elections. The Cleveland AFL-CIO Delegates unanimously decided to recommend Ted Strickland for Governor and Sherrod Brown for the U.S. Senate. The recommendation will be sent to the Ohio AFL-CIO for their consideration; the state body next meets in January 2006.

Not a surprise in any way, but another sign that lines will be drawn early and hard in the Brown/Hackett race.

PAUL HACKETT MEETS THE BLOGGERS

The audio of U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett's Meet the Bloggers interview is on line, in four parts. Interviewers include Tim, Gerardo, George, Adam, Brian, Jill, Pho and me.

Check out descriptions of the session at Pho's Akron Pages and Now That's Progress. Also, Tim excerpts an exchange on future Iraq funding.

Update 12/15: The transcript is available here.

STRICKLAND RESPONDS ON HIGH UTILITY COSTS... KIND OF

Last Friday I posted this comment on Rep. Ted Strickland's campaign blog about his energy and jobs program:

One of the things the governor does is appoint the Public Utilities Commission. Northern Ohio, for as long as anybody can remember, has had the highest total energy costs on both businesses and consumers outside of a couple of spots on the two coasts, particularly electricity costs. We’ve gone through now over a decade of so-called deregulation and that has not changed. That’s obviously a competitive issue for businesses.

What is your plan, if any, to deal with energy costs (as distinct from sources or jobs) particularly for this part of the state?

Today there's a response posted by Strickland campaign staffer Jesse Taylor (who also sent it to me by email):

You are absolutely right that electricity rates in Northeast Ohio are very high, and present a competitive challenge. The situation is bound to be uncertain as we approach the end of our deregulation transition period, in which energy prices are still somewhat controlled. At this point, any changes in the regulatory structure will require not only PUCO action, but also legislative changes. Ted believes that its important to monitor the current transition period closely. Ted will appoint people to PUCO that will look out for the best interests of Ohioans and our businesses.

In approaching this issue, there are two things Ted thinks we need to be concerned about (1) the ability of the deregulated enterprise to generate the capital needed to invest in new technologies that can generate Ohio jobs and clean up air emissions and (2) the system’s ability to keep energy prices at a low enough level to keep Ohio energy prices competitive.

Clearly, this is a complex issue that will require informed input from all the stakeholders. Ted really values input and ideas from everyone on this issue.

In the long term, Ted’s Friday announcement addresses part of the problem by laying out a specific plan to increase supply, and, hopefully positively affect prices.

As you know, Ted’s plan is to marshal at least $1 billion in public private partnership to develop new sources of energy production : ethanol, clean coal, solar and wind – all of which will not only create jobs but help reduce high energy prices.

Here's Eric Fingerhut's response to the same question.

It's striking that both candidates, when asked about energy prices (i.e. high utility bills), mostly want to talk about big investment in new energy sources, which they say will lead, in some unspecified way, to lower consumer costs. Speaking as an old utility consumer activist from back in the 70s and 80s, when we were hearing the same story about nuclear plants, I'm not at all sure I buy this. And I'm really not sure it's going to impress voters, whose outrage about this winter's utility bills will still be fresh when the primary rolls around in May.

"Ted really values input and ideas from everyone on this issue." Okay, I'll give it a try in my next post.

MTB NEWS FLASH: Tim reports that Democratic candidates for Governor Ted Strickland and Eric Fingerhut have agreed to their first debate -- on Meet The Bloggers! (Fingerhut hasn't formally declared yet, of course, but he sure sounds like he's running.)

What about Bryan Flannery, the other declared candidate? He's scheduled for an MTB interview Friday.

Also this week: U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett, Wednesday morning.

FEAGLER

Please, Mr. PD Editor, please find another actor to play the "ordinary old sort-of-liberal white-guy columnist who remembers how it used to be" role. This one's just not trying any more.

Somewhere in the ranks of your working reporters there must be someone who aspires to be the new Royko (or Breslin, or Hamill, or whoever). There must be someone in the newsroom who's got the experience, the address book and the long perspective the role requires -- but is still a real live journalist, committed to learning and sharing things we don't already know. There must be someone whose grasp of technology and media has moved beyond early Paddy Chayefsky.

It's time to open up the slot and give'em a chance.

I don't think Feagler is too old or out-of-touch to write a good column -- in his own way he's still a sharp, knowledgeable guy -- but he has obviously decided not to give a crap any more. Today's willfully ignorant, meretricious, mean, dumbass piece on blogs should settle any lingering doubt about that.

Mr. Editor, it's time. Give the space to someone who cares.

Others on this subject: George (with lots of comments), Tim, Bridget, JMZ, Cool Cleveland, John Ryan, Chas.

STRICKLAND POSTS ENERGY PLAN

Coincidentally, Ted Strickland's campaign just posted his new "Good Jobs through Clean Energy" program.

Shorter version: He'll use $250 million in tax-exempt state bonds plus Third Frontier money to "create new jobs and a cleaner environment by investing in new, cutting-edge sources of energy including biofuels, solar, wind, and clean coal technologies."

Looks like it's basically the Policy Matters/Apollo Alliance approach, with a heavy skew toward clean coal and biofuels. Strickland also wants to target investment to automotive technology, solar and and wind, but doesn't mention hydrogen or fuel cells.

Strickland's plan mentions consumer and business energy costs in passing, but doesn't really talk about reducing them.

So I guess I should send him an e-mail with the same question I asked Fingerhut. Stay tuned.

FINGERHUT ON NORTHERN OHIO ENERGY COSTS

An excerpt from the Meet The Bloggers transcript:

Bill Callahan: One of the things the governor does is elect the public utilities commission, or appoint the public utilities commission. Northern Ohio for as long as anybody can remember has had the highest total energy costs on both businesses and consumers outside of a couple of spots on the two coasts, and particularly electricity costs. We’ve gone through now over a decade of so-called deregulation and that has not changed. That’s obviously a competitive issue for businesses.

Eric Fingerhut: Absolutely.

Bill Callahan: What is your plan, if any, to deal with energy costs, particularly for this part of the state?

Eric Fingerhut: It’s a great question. It’s a classic and you focused properly on the PUCO as the location for creating positive change in this area. We need a new generation of electricity generating plants in Ohio for our competitiveness, for our environment, for our economy. It exists out there. The technology is being developed that would allow us to build much more efficient, clean, lower polluting, lower cost, energy generating plants.

So, the challenge for the next governor in working with his or her appointments to the PUCO, will be to work with – you’ve got to work with the incumbent utilities. I mean, they’re there. To work with them to develop a plan and an investment and a rate structure that says we are going to build these new plants. We’re going to build cutting edge, top of the line plants all over the state of Ohio. And what does it take for us to get there. By the way, there’s an irony in this which is if you actually were using the most modern technology, you could also burn Ohio coal. One of the things that’s happening is that these plants are all shipping coal in from the west and they’re not burning Ohio coal, and we’re getting the worst of both worlds. It’s still expensive and high polluting. But the technology exists to do it in the most modern and efficient plants.

The other thing that we’re going to do is we’re trying to build this fuel cell industry in Ohio. Obviously a lot of it’s based here in northeast Ohio. It’s another example of my argument about scale. We created the fuel cell institute at the Wright Center and all that. We put some money into it, but it’s a small amount ultimately. We’re going to have to significantly invest in that on an annual basis to get to the point where fuel cells could really be a source of energy. And Ohio can be the center of a new industry for it.

Bill Callahan: Quick follow-up question. The last time the state was told that we were going to lower electricity costs through a new generation of plant investment was in the 1970s. There were nuclear power plants and that’s the reason why we have the high rates we have today because northern Ohio is still paying for those investment costs. Could you speak to why what you just said is different and how it relates to the question of high electric rates now imposed on northern Ohio? I mean, do you think that you can lower electric rates by building new plants in the near term?

Eric Fingerhut: Yes, I do because it’s simply a fact that the new technologies that exist are lower cost because they’re more efficient. I mean, more efficient plants are lower cost. That’s one of the reasons why the cost of commodities comes down because the more you invest in the technology, the lower the price of producing each unit is. So, we need to move to the building of those. They tend to be smaller plants, but they’re more technologically advanced. Now, what we need to do to achieve that is to transfer the revenue stream that the PUCO has directed to those utilities to still pay off the old plants and transfer it into the investment in new plants. When you get those up and running – they don’t take decades to build, it’s a matter of a couple years — you can lower rates, absolutely. This isn’t going to happen overnight, but it can happen in the course of a gubernatorial term.

What do you think, folks? Lower electric bills through new coal plants and fuel cells?

MEET THE BLOGGERS: FINGERHUT AUDIO IS ON LINE

The audio of State Senator Eric Fingerhut meeting the bloggers is now posted (in four parts) at Meet The Bloggers. (It doesn't say anything about the transcript, but I bet it'll be up in a day or two.)

Jim Eastman and Jill Miller Zimon post about the MTB Experience.

Update: The Fingerhut transcript is now posted!

(If you appreciate the chance to read rather than listen, please note George's point about the cost. Thanks, Gerardo and BuckeyePolitics.net!)

ERIC FINGERHUT MEETS THE BLOGGERS; SHERROD BROWN WILL, TOO

An excellent MTB interview with State Senator Eric Fingerhut about his possible candidacy for Governor took place this morning at Talkie's, with live blogging by George Nemeth. The audio and transcript should be posted soon. (In the spirit of continuous improvement, our techmeister George recruited WRUW's Jim Eastman to help with the sound. Every day in every way...)

There's been much agitation on other blogs recently about whether Congressman Sherrod Brown will MTB. The answer, as of this morning, is yes... some time in January.

(Brown's rival for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination, Paul Hackett, is semi-scheduled to MTB next Wednesday.)

Update 12/9: The MTB interview with Paul Hackett is definitely scheduled for next Wednesday morning. There's still time to contribute your questions for the interview here. Also, gubernatorial candidate Brian Flannery will Meet The Bloggers next Friday.

CLEVELAND-ONTARIO FERRY: HAS THIS SHIP SAILED?

Jerry at Red Wheebarrow is still skeptical about the prospects of the Cleveland-to-Ontario ferry project. George at BFD echoes his doubts.

I say my piece in a comment on the BFD post.

Anybody up for a Blogger Road Trip to London, Ontario to find out what people there are thinking?

DEMOCRACY REDUCTION PETITION UPDATE

The Plain Dealer asks some of the right questions in its editorial this morning about the Cleveland City Council reduction petition. But the editorial writer gets one important thing wrong: If the proposal appears on the May 2006 primary ballot and passes, the new smaller Council will have its first election in 2007, not 2009.

Here's the proposed language, with emphasis added:

The eleven (11) Councilmen to be elected under the terms herein shall be elected at the next regular Municipal Election in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Charter of the City of Cleveland. The division of the City into wards existing at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall continue until changed as provided.

And here's Chapter 3 of the City Charter:

A general election for the choice of elective officers provided for in this Charter shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd numbered years. Elections so held shall be known as regular Municipal elections. Such other elections shall be held as may be required by law, or provided for in this Charter.

A "regular Municipal election" takes place every odd-numbered year. In November 2007, as in 2005, a handful of City voters will elect some Muny Court judges. But if the petitioners have their way, we'll also be picking a new eleven-member Council to replace the twenty-one representatives we just elected a month ago.

So starting in May, the twenty-one incumbents will be thrown into an eighteen-month free-for-all for the seven much bigger ward seats or the four citywide seats. Both ward services and normal legislation will collapse in the frenzy of campaigning, deal-making and fundraising. The Jackson Administration's chances of successful governance will collapse with them. And so will Cleveland Democrats' ability to focus on the 2007 Senate and Governor's races -- which, I suspect, is the actual point of this whole effort by Messrs. Kirsanow, Gibbons and George.

Who told the PD editorial page that the smaller Council wouldn't be elected until 2009? Maybe they just made the same mistake I did the first time I looked at this. Or maybe it's what the "Ohio Citizens' League" told them.

If Kirsanow and Co. are the PD's source, then there are two possibilities: They've done a sloppy job of drafting their petition, or they're being (shall we say) disingenuous about their plan. In deciding which possibility is more likely, just bear in mind that Peter Kirsanow is a very expensive lawyer.

THERE GO MY FIFTEEN MINUTES: First Thomas cuts my link out of Cool Cleveland, and now this.

This morning's "Blogosphere Cleveland" in the PD features a quote from this post but attributes it to our friends at Right Angle Blog. Must be some autonomic journalistic response to the name "Blackwell".

I feel so violated.

(Thanks for the heads-up, Tim.)

STRICKLAND POSTED: The transcript and audio of the interview with Congressman Ted Strickland are finally on line at Meet The Bloggers.

CONGRESSMAN STRICKLAND MEETS THE BLOGGERS: Six Cleveland bloggers (George, Tim, Adam, Jack, Gerardo and me) showed up at Talkie's today to quiz the candidate for governor about school finance, business taxes, small-scale economic development, trade policy, municipal home rule, the Third Frontier vs. the digital divide, and more.

The audio should be up this evening at www.meetthebloggers.net. And (drum roll, please) there'll be a transcript soon.

Meanwhile, George live-blogged it, and Adam's account is already posted at Now That's Progress.

(As a fringe benefit, I finally got to meet Jesse Taylor, who used to run Pandagon and gave it up to work for the Strickland campaign.)

WKSU: "CLEVELAND DEFENDS PREDATORY LENDING LAW IN SUPREME COURT"

Here's the audio (mp3). This is an extremely important case on the municipal home rule front. Can a city go further to protect its citizens and neighborhoods from exploitative lenders than the industry's friends in the General Assembly want it to go? Stay tuned.

CONGRESSMAN STRICKLAND MEETS THE BLOGGERS TOMORROW: Rep.Ted Strickland, the Democratic frontrunner for Governor, Meets The Bloggers tomorrow. Any questions? (The commenters at Buckeye Politics have a few.)

A BUNCH OF NUMBERS ABOUT OUR ELECTRIC RATES

The Federal Energy Information Administration collects data every year from electric utilities, both public and private, on (among other things) their power sales and revenues. The complete annual databases back to 1990 are available for download. Last night I downloaded the files for 2004 and took a look.

Cleveland Public Power sold 410 million kilowatt-hours for home use last year for $43,854,000. That works out to 10.7 cents for their average residential kwh.

CEI/First Energy sold 1,587,912,000 residential kwh for $161,911,000, or 10.2 cents for the average kwh.

These average prices put Cleveland's two electric utilities right at the top of Ohio private and municipal electric providers. EIA's database shows eight other investor-owned electric utilities operating in Ohio, along with 43 other municipal power systems that serve more than 1,000 homes. Only one of them -- Toledo Edison, CEI's sister company -- had an average residential charge exceeding ten cents per kwh. The large majority were under nine cents, and more than half billed an average of less than eight cents.

CPP's average charge to commercial customers -- 10.55 cents -- was also the most expensive among significant Ohio private and municipal utilities, exceeded only by tiny Haskins Village (which seems to really stick it to the 39 businesses on its municipal system).

Like I've been saying, the most expensive electricity in Ohio comes from CPP.

But perhaps more troubling from an economic standpoint (i.e. our jobs rather than our budgets) is where our electric rates fit in the national picture. Here are the average kwh charges paid last year by commercial users in the twenty biggest Mid-Atlantic and Midwest cities, according to the EIA data:


Was someone talking about reducing the cost of doing business in Cleveland and Northeast Ohio? Maybe we could start with CPP and CEI rates. Just a thought.

DAVID ABBOTT MEETS THE BLOGGERS

The Executive Director of the George Gund Foundation answers questions from George, Tim, Pho and me about the Fund for Our Economic Future and its Voices And Choices program. It gets more argumentative than most of these interviews (and I ask one really, really longwinded question).

Update 12/1/05: Pho has some thoughts about the interview, as do the commenters at BFD.