Testimony of Joel N. Gordes
97 Eno Hill Road
Colebrook, CT 06021
(860) 379-2430
jgordes@earthlink.net
Good morning, my name is Joel Gordes. I am an independent energy consultant from Colebrook, Connecticut who has been involved in energy for 28 years. I offer these opinions as an individual on behalf of no client. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony to the Committee.
I
am here to testify on SB 1160, AAC Revenue Adjustments and particularly to
oppose sections 17(e) to transfer $72 million from the Energy Conservation
and Loan Management Fund and 17(f) to
transfer $25 million from the Clean Energy Fund.
You
have heard, and will continue to hear, many fine reasons to oppose these
transfers based upon environmental, economic development, employment, lost
revenues and other arguments including some passing references to energy
security. I would like to dwell on that
latter topic for a moment as it is why I originally came to work in the energy
field. There are two distinct ways in which these funds slated for one one-shot
deficit reduction contribute to energy security:
1) These funds through energy conservation and
promotion of renewable energy reduce the amount of oil used in the Connecticut
economy. We have been captive to oil and its effects for too long whether it be
the inflationary pressures it causes, its contributions to funding terrorists
or providing another reason to go to war.
One chart (on page 3) provides the amount of oil in the electric energy
mix which is currently at 35%.[1]
In conjunction with this, we are currently importing approximately 60% of our
oil [~14%-17% of the total comes from the Middle East]. Another, more important
chart (also on page 3) shows the Middle East holds approximately 66% of global
proven oil reserves. This means we will become increasingly dependent upon that
region--unless conservation and renewable energy, in part financed by these two
funds, are implemented. Knowing similar information, just after 9/11, David
Garman, President Bush’s Assist. Sec. of Energy, said:
It is clear that our reliance on imported oil-56% of
the oil we use-has complicated our response to the terrorist attack… There is
also little doubt that some of the dollars we have exported in exchange for
foreign oil have found their way into the hands of terrorists and would-be
terrorists.[2]
It
would be correct to argue that, in the scheme of things, the amount of funding
to terrorists from Connecticut use of oil for generation is quite small. This,
however, is sort of like being “a little bit pregnant” in that the idea that any
of our funds go to such an end is reprehensible. Given a choice, I’m sure none of us wants to see our monies
support terrorist activities but, like it or not, zeroing out these funds will
increase our contribution even if only in a small way. But don’t think that small ways don’t
matter. The old military saying, “for
want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost…” up to
the point the war being lost still rings true. Because of our long-term
dependence and the patient nature of the opposing culture, conflict may go on
for many decades since “winning” in the short
term carries no guarantees of long term safety.
Wearing
flag pins and tying yellow ribbons are fine and symbolic patriotic gestures but
we need to go beyond symbolism by safeguarding these funds that have a more
substantive effect. Being a former combat veteran, I have dwelt upon the
consequences of our energy use and abuse for decades and how it has and could
endanger our troops at some future time.
In July 1981 I wrote in a Letter to the Editor:
On this July 4th, as I sit here and write
this letter I can think of no more patriotic gesture than to urge you to
conserve, to conserve against the day that a drop of blood will be bartered for
a drop of oil on some foreign shore.[3]
We
are at that point---again. Strangely, that 1981 letter was to oppose a
Northeast Utilities plan that snubbed conservation in favor of production
sources. How ironic it is that, today,
representatives of NU and myself are actually in total agreement on this issue
of preserving conservation and renewable energy funds while our elected
officials apparently are not.
2)
The second way these two funds provide greater energy security is through the
work they are both engaged in for the development of what is termed
“distributed generation.” Simply put,
this means the use of small, fuel diverse forms of generation close to the
point of use. This provides reliability
given by redundancy of generators in a decentralized system as well as
lessening dependence upon vulnerable transmission lines and their command,
control, communications and computer dependent infrastructure. I have also been
concerned for decades on this growing energy infrastructure weakness.[4]
President Bush’s Assistant Secretary of Energy, David Garman again offered his
insight:
Distributed generation at
many locations around the grid increases power reliability and quality while
reducing the strain on the electricity transmission system… It also makes our
electricity infrastructure less vulnerable to terrorist attack, both by
distributing the generation and diversifying the generation fuels… So if you’re
engaged in this effort, it is my view that you are also engaged in our national
effort to fight terrorism.[5]
Whether by intended or unintended actions, the
converse of Sec. Garman’s statement must also be considered. By zeroing out
money to technologies supported by these funds we may be inadvertently aiding
and abetting terrorists by maintaining the vulnerable, centralized system in a
“targets for terrorists” program of our own design. The human and economic
consequences of doing this are not acceptable. Additionally, many of these
technologies are Connecticut-built and could bring in revenues not just from
implementation by these funds in our state but from global markets--but only if
leadership and vision prevails here to preserve this funding infrastructure.
I ask you to carefully consider the long as well as
short term consequences of your actions that would zero out these funds. I
would be pleased to work with you to develop alternative funding sources for
deficit reduction that would not involve tax increases or program reductions.
[1] This will decline if more combined cycle gas turbines come on line but gas may need to be imported in the form of LNG--some from unstable places in the world. Some gas-fired plants are bring mothballed or possibly cancelled.
[2] Given on 10/02/01 at the UPEx01 Conference in Sacramento, CA.
[3] Excerpt from a letter to the editor published in the Winsted Evening Citizen on 7/7/1981, attached.
[4] February 1978 Letter to Editor of the Hartford Courant, attached.
[5] Op. Cit