The Oregonian has a story today about an infuriating and irrational decision by some legislators to plunder the state Energy Trust in order to pay off some of OMSI’s debt, a debt that was incurred before the Energy Trust fund was established.

The Oregonian story says that budget writers couldn’t find more than $1 million in the general fund — well they weren’t looking very hard:

HB 2210 is expected to put $5 million in general tax revenue into the pockets of the biofuels industry. That’s an excellent place to find $5 million.

Taking the money from the biofuels bill has two benefits: it saves the Energy Trust so that the money in the trust can be used for what it’s intended for, and it would mean that the biofuels mania would have more time to subside. All over the world people are waking up to the perils, false promises, and inherent problems in the biofuels craze — Oregon jumped onto the bandwagon just as the reality of biofuels subsidies is starting to become widely understood (that the biofuels craze, like the hydrogen craze, is more a financial play than anything else).

If the biofuels subsidies are such a good idea, then they will be an even better idea in 2009; meanwhile, Oregon needs every penny in the Energy Trust fund to go to work for us now, helping fund new efficiency and conservation improvements all over the state.

The theft of money from the Energy Trust to pay for long-since completed projects does not just deplete the fund of nearly $5 million. Stealing from the Energy Trust to pay for projects that have already saved OMSI money for years means taking money collected from ratepayers to save energy and help the region meet its obligations for salmon recovery (and its newly recognized obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions). Why? To help the museum recover from poor siting and design decisions that caused the financial tailspin after the museum was flooded. Not to mention the failure to plan for emergencies. People who build things along major rivers, particularly people dedicated to improving our understanding of science, should plan for things like flooding.

By law, a trust fund is supposed to be just that — a trust fund. A trust fund is a pot of money whose use is absolutely restricted to those purposes allowed under the terms of the trust. The trustees have a fiduciary duty to use the funds only for the trust purposes. Normal trustees can be held accountable for spending that violates the terms of the trust. Energy Trust money was taken from ratepayers to fund new conservation and efficiency projects, not pay old debts.

Today’s Oregonian also has an article about the public’s low estimate of politicians, both nationally and in Oregon. Stunts like this — just like using the social security trust fund to disguise the true extent of our current deficit each year — are a huge part of why average people have such contempt for politicians. Legislators should be ashamed for this attempt, and Governor K should line this out of the budget immediately. Deal with OMSI’s problems directly and honestly; don’t break trust with all Oregonians to do it.

Legislature - Groups ask Gov. Kulongoski to veto the payment diverted from an energy-efficiency program

SALEM — In a last-minute deal, influential state lawmakers agreed to divert $4.6 million paid by Portland General Electric customers for energy efficiency to help the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry pay off a 15-year-old state loan.

Environmentalists and ratepayer advocates say they are outraged that the program, run by the nonprofit Energy Trust to help individuals and businesses buy efficient appliances or solar panels is being besmirched by a political grab by OMSI.

Twenty-five organizations including utilities, businesses, and ratepayer and environmental groups wrote a protest letter sent to all lawmakers calling the plan “the equivalent of consumer fraud.”

“Consumers will see a charge on their bills dedicated to energy conservation and new renewable energy projects . . . but their money will be going to pay OMSI debt,” the letter said.

The groups have asked Gov. Ted Kulongoski to use his line-item veto to cancel the payment, and threaten to sue if he doesn’t. Kulongoski’s spokeswoman said Tuesday that he is weighing their concerns.

Lawmakers defend their decision. The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry is a PGE customer, too, and desperately needs the money to pay off debt for energy-saving steps it took when building its current home in the early 1990s, say Sen. Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin, and Rep. Mary Nolan, D-Portland, members of the joint budget committee.

The $15 million, 30-year loan was made in 1992 under a state Department of Energy loan program. The loan was to pay for general construction of the museum as well as energy saving features, such as high-efficiency lighting and windows and a cooling system that used Willamette River to cool the building. The energy savings measures cost about $10 million.

The resulting building uses 40 percent less energy than one that would have been built to code at the time, and continues to be a showcase for the technologies, said Mike Grainey, director of the state Department of Energy.

OMSI made its annual loan payment of $1.1 million for three years before a 1996 flood seriously damaged its building and threw it into financial crisis.

…

Budget writers could not find more than $1 million of general funds, so they turned to the 3 percent “public purpose charge” that utility customers pay toward energy-efficiency grants, Devlin said.

Said Nolan: “This is very much in keeping with the program.”

But advocates for the Energy Trust program, which helps customers take steps to decrease their electricity use, said it’s a violation to pay for energy-saving steps that OMSI agreed to years before the 3 percent fee was added to utility bills in 1999 for that purpose. Ordinary ratepayers can apply for grants if they do something extra — not for steps they took long ago.

Jason Eisdorfer, attorney for the Citizens’ Utility Board, contends that it’s unconstitutional to tax a specific group — PGE ratepayers — to pay off a state loan that benefits everyone in the state.

“You can’t pick a person because of the utility district they live in and say, ‘We’re going to take some money from you for the state’s obligation.’ I think that’s a fairly blatant constitutional issue.”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 27th, 2007 at 7:59 am and is filed under Economy, Energy Future, Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.