Rutgers Again Covers Up Science and Their Role In A Critical Climate and Energy Policy Debate

Rutgers Denies OPRA Request For Key Report To BPU Used In Energy Efficiency Policy

[Update: 5/26/19 – Looks like BPU & Rutgers are violating the NJ Clean Energy Act, which mandates:

 “The methodology, assumptions, and data used to perform the benefit-to-cost analysis shall be based upon publicly available sources and shall be subject to stakeholder review and comment.”   ~~~ end update]

NJ Spotlight today wrote a critical story about a consultant’s energy efficiency study recently  submitted to the BPU, see:

• QUESTIONS ABOUND OVER KEY STUDY OF NJ’S POTENTIAL TO CUT ENERGY USE

But the Spotlight story fails to note that core data, assumptions, and recommendations in that BPU consultant’s Report came from recommendations by Rutgers, in a document that is not publicly available.

But before I get to the Rutgers story, I need to note that I was shocked by this statement of fact in the Spotlight story. Having not followed the legislative debate on the Clean Energy Act, I was not aware that the legislation guaranteed the revenues and profits of the electric and gas “utilities” (corporate PSEG and friends) associated with reductions in energy consumption due to energy efficiency improvements:

More problematic were fears by the utilities that they would not recover all lost sales revenues from customers due to their energy efficiency programs even though the Clean Energy Act clearly entitles them to be made whole for lost revenue.

Are you kidding me? We use less energy, yet utility revenues and profits are maintained? That amounts to another multibillion dollar ripoff.

[Update: 5/26/19- Holy shit, I just confirmed this huge billion dollar ripoff provision in the NJ Clean Energy Act: monopoly revenues and profits are guaranteed! And consumers pay for using less energy! Bizarre and far worse than the nuke bailout:

I find that particularly egregious, because prior legislation capped rate increases required to invest in renewable energy and transition to a decarbonized economy. That cap will cripple the development of renewables.

Here is the language from the Clean Energy Act that caps renewables – the press and the fake green groups are silent about this:

“Any steps necessary” specifically includes gutting the renewable energy requirements!

Renewables get capped while nukes get billion dollar bailouts and monopoly corporate profit are guaranteed.

I have additional criticisms of the energy efficiency study in question which I won’t go into today, – interested readers should check my Twitter feed because I engaged in a twitter storm when I first read the Report in the initial May 13 NJ Spotlight story.

One of those concerns was that a critical underlying set of data and assumptions provided in a Rutgers Report to BPU was cited in the consultant’s Report were not available.

The core assumptions ARE NOT AVAILABLE! “Energy Efficiency Cost-Benefit Analysis Avoided Cost Assumptions Technical Memo,” 1/29/19, Draft. Not available for attribution. Information on avoided energy costs, retail rates, social cost of carbon, discount rates, and line losses.”

“A measure is cost-effective if the net present value (NPV) of the benefits over its effective useful life is equal to or greater than the NPV of the measure cost, based on a societal cost test (SCT), as defined …. assumptions estimated by the Rutgers Center for Green Building”

I had several other concerns:

The assumptions, data and technical foundations of the BPU analyses are fatally flawed and can only perpetuate minor shifts in the status quo. If the Rutgers work & efficiency consultants Report reflect the BPU Energy Master Plan methods, Gov. Murphy’s claim are all sham. Period

So, I filed the following OPRA request with BPU and Rutgers for that Report:

I request the following public record recently submitted by Rutgers to the Board of Public Utilities: Rutgers University Center for Green Building, “Energy Efficiency Cost Benefit Analysis Avoided Cost Assumption: Technical Memo,” January 29, 2019, Update.

That technical memo included critical data and assumptions, including policy related recommendations regarding climate change, the social cost of carbon, technological feasibility of energy efficiency, the scope of energy efficiency programs (e.g. would fossil based residential and commercial heating and cooling appliances be replaced by electric?) and key economic assumptions like discount and interest rates.

I just received Rutgers’ reply today. Rutgers again denied my OPRA request:

Dear Mr. Wolfe,

Please accept this letter as the University Custodian of Records response to your request for records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”). On May 13, 2019, this office received your request for the following:

“I request the following public record recently submitted by Rutgers to the Board of Public Utilities:

Rutgers University Center for Green Building, “Energy Efficiency Cost Benefit Analysis Avoided Cost Assumption: Technical Memo,” January 29, 2019, Update.”

We have reviewed your request and are denying same because the documents you seek are advisory, consultative and deliberative. OPRA specifically states that government records “shall not include inter-agency or intra-agency advisory, consultative, or deliberative material.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

If you have any questions, please contact my office at 973.972.1887.

Sincerely,

I can’t understand how a public university’s technical memorandum that provides crucial facts and assumptions and makes policy recommendations to a public agency engaged in a public process – which is used and cited by a private consulting firm in a Report – can be considered “deliberative”.

The Rutgers technical memo was NOT “inter-agency” or “intra-agency” – it was given to a private sector consulting firm.

We need to hold Rutgers accountable to compliance with OPRA.

The BPU policy decisions are extremely complex, which severely limits public awareness, understanding and participation. Given this reality – and the involvement of economic interests –  the public needs to know that an academic institution is dealing in facts and science in the public policy process.

At the same time, the university has a duty to the public to make this complexity understandable and policy decisions transparent.

That can’t happen when Rutgers denies OPRA requests for their policy recommendations.