Public Power - January/February 2008 - (Page 37) happening with PJM and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “If we don’t, we believe these price increases will not stop,” he said. The message to legislators and regulators is two-fold: First, is not the only cause. We need to remind people of the original promise of deregulation and restructuring, which was to help reduce prices, and make it clear to them how the current structure is contributing to increased in starting the group. “When I returned from the APPA Legislative Rally in March 2006, I talked with a government relations director at Dairyland Power Cooperative,” he said. He mentioned in passing that “In order to influence an issue in Washington, you need to reach out to stakeholders outside your own organization who have similar interests.” the effort at deregulation/restructuring has failed to drive rates down. “While reliability is important, we have sacrificed a concern for cost and the impact on the customer in the name of reliability,” he said. Second, APPA’s Electric Market Reform Initiative is aimed at bringing forth real solutions to the problems that public power utilities face. “We are thankful that APPA has selected PJM as one of the focus areas,” he said. According to Jablonski, the EMRI studies have shown, without a doubt, that industry restructuring has not led to a competitive market for electricity. “We need to put this information into the hands of policymakers and decision makers,” he said. But, with a public that is indifferent to electricity rate hikes, the first objective of a grass roots effort is to create public outcry by explaining the issue to the public. New Jersey residents are not upset about rising electricity prices because most people perceive that rising fuel prices are causing electric rates to climb. “They have simply become resigned to it,” Jablonski said. “We need to get the word out to the public that the rising cost of fuel www.APPAnet.org electricity prices.” David J. Benforado, executive director of the Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, is another believer in the value of grass roots advocacy. While Benforado has found that working with other public power entities is important to getting an “ear” in Washington, he has also learned that working with organizations in different industries really gets the attention of legislators. “In order to influence an issue in Washington, you need to reach out to stakeholders outside your own organization who have similar interests,” he said. MEUW has had success this way with one issue and is in the process of using the strategy with another issue. The first relates to the captive rail problem. Benforado is an active member of an organization called Badger-CURE. C.U.R.E. (Consumers United for Rail Equity) is a national organization focused on dealing with the captive rail problem. And Wisconsin, of course is the “Badger State.” Badger-CURE was formed in Wisconsin in early 2006. Its goal is to try to keep costs for rail transport of coal as low as possible. Benforado was instrumental he was not getting any traction with members of the Wisconsin delegation (two senators and eight representatives) in Washington on the captive rail issue. The Dairyland government relations director said he had been in Washington three weeks earlier and received the same “glassy-eyed” response. “As a result, he and I started making some calls, and within a couple of weeks—to paraphrase the words from Arlo Guthrie’s ‘Alice’s Restaurant’ song—‘we had a movement,’” he said. Members of BadgerCURE now include public power utilities, rural electric cooperatives, investor-owned utilities and other companies that ship bulk commodities in Wisconsin. Badger-CURE meets regularly and schedules meetings with members of the Wisconsin delegation, including in-district meetings. In addition, with the assistance of Rep. Tom Petri, RWis., the organization hosted a breakfast meeting this summer with Surface Transportation Board Chair Charles Nottingham. “We also send information to members of the Wisconsin delegation every two to three months, to continue to let them know that we care very much about the issue,” he said. The efforts have begun to pay dividends. Benforado said at least half of the Wisconsin delegation has signed on to one of the four bills that address rail reform. In addition, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., and his office staff have taken notice of the fact that the rail industry is one of only two (the other is major league baseball) not covered by the nation’s antitrust laws. “They are now really invested in this concern,” he said. Senator Kohl authored S. 772, legislation that would revoke the railroad antitrust exemption. The success on rail issues prompted MEUW to launch another multi-group initiative. It recently sent a joint letter to the Wisconsin delegation asking them to support the Community Broadband Act of 2007, which would eliminate state barriers to municipally owned telecommunications operations. The letter was cosigned by representatives of MEUW, the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Citizens Utility Board, and the Wisconsin Association of School Boards. When congressional staff open a letter like this, they will pay more attention to it because of the diverse group supporting the issue, Benforado said. “It’s not just a letter from the Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin.” ❚ JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2008 37 http://www.APPAnet.org
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.