I was at the energy issues working group today and it was a chilling experience. 

The
energy issues working group is drafting a new version of a bill (S. 3)
that would create what is called a renewable portfolio standard
(RPS).  This group is part of a “stakeholder” process where a bill
that is definitely going to get passed out of committee is drafted
primarily by environmental groups and utilities.  The utilities
have no choice but to participate because if they don’t, they will have
no say in the matter.  This also allows them to pass on all costs
to consumers, which they are doing.

This process also allows the sponsor of the bill to call it a
consensus bill.  An RPS requires that utilities purchase a certain
amount of electricity through renewable sources, even though it could
cost at least $350 million a year more for electricity consumers.

Roy recently wrote about this issue.

Today at the energy issues working group, which is a public
process, I recommended that utilities inform electricity consumers
exactly what they would be paying for, and not to just bury millions of
dollars in added costs in the rates as currently proposed.  I
guess I was crazy for trying to protect the millions of residential
consumers that are not being represented at these meetings.

In a very strange series of events, the “independent”
legislative staffer running the group meeting, George Givens, in a
passive aggressive manner, mocked the idea of transparency for
consumers–he even tried to ignore the idea when he provided a summary
of issues at the end of the meeting.  Givens never made any
arguments against the idea, he just tried to make it sound like it
wasn’t a serious proposal.  In addition, for some reason he
decided to be belligerent to JLF from the start of the meeting. 
His comments and the entire meeting have been recorded for anyone to
hear. 

The Public Staff, which is the consumer advocate, remained
silent, in part because it has expressed support for the RPS even
though it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers. 
This legislation may become law primarily because the consumer advocate
seems to think consumers want to pay millions more a year.  I have
written extensively on this agency, including here and here.

This RPS, and all the other “goodies” in the bill, may cost the
public more than almost any other bill in recent memory. 
Apparently, explaining what those costs are to consumers is too much to
ask, and is funny to some.