WAS
MINNEAPOLIS ENERGY OPTIONS STRATEGICALLY SUCCESSFUL IN ACCOMPLISHING INTENDED
GOALS?
There
are indeed critics of the Minneapolis Energy Options campaign who said simply
laying out thoughtful proposals directly would be more virtuous and less
distracting than instigating political theatre on going for municipal utility.
An example was an August 10, 2013 Star Tribune
opinion piece co-written by Tom Horner and Tim Penny:
“In their defense, advocates of the Xcel
takeover are right in calling for the design of a new energy future. Minnesota
has the incentive — its wealth of natural resources and environmental assets —
and the capacity — its technology talent — to be a leader in this arena. But
threatening Xcel with a hostile takeover is an unnecessary distraction. It is
the strategic cousin to the Republican tactic of forcing Congress to take vote
after vote on repealing Obamacare (something that will never happen while Obama
holds a veto pen). Political theater at the expense of thoughtful policy is no
more attractive from the political left than it is from the right. Too often,
this political grandstanding focuses attention on peripheral issues or
unrealistic promises.”
NOTE 1
By
the time the editorial was printed, the drive for considering a municipal
utility was at dead end so the end effect of the editorial was a critique of
the strategy: The strategy of trying to put this issue to a vote in 2013 in
order to give a shock to Xcel/ Centerpoint before rather than during the
franchise agreement negotiations. Having the campaign in a municipal election
year was also strategically timed to set up political theatre as it gave the
various candidates for Mayor and City Council the opportunity to exalt their
green credentials and make energy into a campaign issue.
Now
the question is, could the advocates “calling for the design of a new energy
future” have gotten Xcel to share the same incentive without threatening Xcel
with what they perceive of as a “hostile takeover”?
Basically low-risk means
low-reward. This story brings about yet another lesson on the essential
importance of exerting community pressure in advocating for a better outcome as
opposed to merely placating the status quo. There is something about this
particular political theatre and controversy that finally managed to generate
widespread public attention on the topic of energy in a way that small
piecemeal policy proposals and isolated neighborhood projects could not.
I was doing outreach for far less
controversial proposals in my experience with the Our Power Project; ones about
individuals saving energy in their own homes. We attempted to get residents we
spoke with to be block club leaders and engage their neighbors in energy saving
programs and action steps. However this non-controversial idea did not generate
enough excitement or enthusiasm to build committed volunteers like Minneapolis
Energy Options did.
Winning
the ballot initiative was not the endgame for Minneapolis Energy Options. The
campaign won just by making this an issue. It is fantastic we are finally
talking about energy in Minneapolis rather than glossing the issue over. So now
that the issue of energy has gotten city-wide attention, we can tell a larger
story and more people will be excited to show up at energy related events. The
work we have done has inspired people for the further work we can accomplish in
the future.
We want to have widespread public
attention, enthusiasm and interest on the topic of energy in order to unlock
our “environmental assets, capacity and technological talent” that Horner and
Penny were referring to.
The question is if the Minneapolis
Energy Options campaign (along with Xcel) was generating the right kind of
attention or the wrong kind of attention.
If it
is true that Xcel was previously undetermined to negotiate with the city
insiders on reaching Minneapolis’ climate and energy goals, then we generated
the right kind of attention. There is no indication that the drive to put the
initiative on the ballot in 2013 was a move that backfired or burned bridges.
Far from burning bridges, the initial momentum in calling for a ballot
initiative has already pushed Xcel to create a better dialogue with
environmental groups.
Horner and Penny might not have
foreseen it at the time but there was victory in the larger goal of pressuring
Xcel Energy to come to the bargaining table. Since the initial goal of support
this referendum was to bring Xcel/ Centerpoint to the bargaining table, then
the “grandstanding” strategy was a success.
Minneapolis Energy Options deserves
credit for putting this resolution on the table but City Council deserves
credit for taking the risk of holding the public hearing.
The fact that
the City brought up the mere possibility of transferring our electric utility
to public ownership caused Xcel to give deeper thought about its negotiating
stand.
NOTE 1 Minneapolis utilities debate is a distraction
·
Article by: TOM HORNER and TIM PENNY
- Updated:
August 10, 2013 - 4:49 PM http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/219052911.html
THE
PUBLIC LETTER EXCHANGE BETWEEN XCEL AND MAYOR RYBAK
On 8/5/2013, the Monday after the public hearing, the core group of
Minneapolis Energy Options met with a
core group of Xcel Energy officials.
At the meeting, we
showed the Xcel Officials the list of 24 recommendations from CEAC (Minneapolis’ Community Environmental
Advisory Committee) wanted out of the franchise negotiations. SEE APPENDIX We
sent a message to this core group of Xcel officials that Minneapolis Energy
Options was here for a serious agreement. We explained to Xcel officials that
we want each and every of the CEAC recommendations – all 24 of them rather than
for Xcel to dance around and cherry pick the lowest-hanging fruit.
This meeting resulted
in Xcel/ NSP executive
Dave Sparby sending public letter to Mayor
Rybak on August 8th, a letter making a commitment to be a good partner with
Minneapolis’ Energy goals in exchange for keeping the referendum off the
ballot. The letter contained the statement
“We see much common ground and believe we can
effectively collaborate with the city building on our long history of working
together.” NOTE 1
The specific commitments in Xcel
Energy put forth in the letter sounded good to the average reader. But to those
who follow energy policy news more closely, Xcel chose to publicly commit the 5
things they were already required to do by law out of the whole list of 24
items. The five
different “clean energy concessions” Xcel made to the city in this letter was
Xcel basically promising to follow through on community solar and standard
renewable energy contracts that were already required for them to do under
state law and repackage them as their own ideas. The items from the
CEAC list that were omitted from the letter tended to be the items not required
of Xcel by state law.
Although Xcel may have been picking the low hanging fruit
according to what was already state law in choosing specific content of the
letter, the overall picture the letter painted was a significant step forward.
At last, Xcel made promises the City could hold them accountable to.
Later the same day, Mayor Rybak sent President Sparby a detailed
response in which he expressed “real hope that we can seize opportunities that
have been missed in the past” — including, renewable powered the City’s
streetlights, making a solar investment at Xcel’s Riverside plant, and to
provide Minneapolis-specific reliability reports. NOTE 2 Mayor Rybak added,
“I also thank advocates, including Minneapolis Energy Options, for pushing our
community and me to expect more and for insisting on a more sustainable energy
system for future generations.” NOTE 3
This exchange of public letters took away any remaining public
expectation that City Council would even take a vote on the original
resolution.
THE
FRAMEWORK RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL PASSED ON AUGUST 16th
In addition to the meeting with Xcel, Minneapolis Energy Options
also negotiated with City Council on a plan B following the August 1st hearing.
City leadership concluded that the ballot initiative was not in a place to win
that year, and losing a ballot initiative would undermine City Council’s power
in the 2014 franchise negotiations. So instead of preparing to take a vote on
whether to put the initiative on the ballot, City Council started working to
develop a framework for the upcoming utility franchise negotiation process for
2014.
about how city would
negotiate and check in on negotiations based on energy pathways study that
would be finished in 2014.
August 16th had originally been looked forward to as
the make or break moment of truth where we would finally figure out which
on-the-fence council members were for or against Minneapolis Energy Options
making it onto the ballot. But then the focus for August 16th became
to pass a plan B so that Minneapolis Energy Option would not leave empty handed
in the quest to hold the utilities accountable to their promises.
On August 16th of 2013, the city Council unanimously adopted
“Framework for
Reaching City of Minneapolis Energy Goals” (RESOLUTION 2013R-353), that paved the
way for the city to hold the utility accountable to the city’s energy goals.
The resolution articulated the steps ahead for the 2014 franchise negotiations
with Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. It and reaffirmed the City Council’s
commitment to using the franchise negotiations to leverage affordable energy
for cost-burdened families, reliable energy for city businesses, and local
clean energy for the city’s economy and to continue
The resolution required the
City Council to adopt an energy vision and goals for the franchise agreement
negotiations, including those goals already laid out in the Minneapolis Climate
Action Plan.
The resolution ensured these
goals and information drawn from the Energy Pathways Study would be expressed
in the negotiations with Xcel and CenterPoint.
The resolution also set a
timetable for city staff to begin negotiations with the utilities and report
the progress to City Council by mid-2014.
The resolution also affirmed
Minneapolis pursuing energy reforms at the state level that will give the City
more flexibility to implement its energy goals.
The first results of the
framework came on September 9th 2013 when the Minneapolis City
Council adopted the energy Vision Statement that closely echoed the message of
Minneapolis Energy Options. It reads, “In 2040, Minneapolis’s energy system
will provide reliable, affordable, local and clean energy services for
Minneapolis homes, businesses, and institutions; sustaining the city’s economy
and environment and contributing to a more socially just community.”
This energy vision was
created to provide the Energy Pathways Study with formal guidance.
No comments:
Post a Comment