Category Archives: Energy

The Market Path to Green Energy

jesse_morris

Jesse Morris with the Rocky Mountain Institute shows off the headquarters building’s rack of batteries. By storing electricity and drawing upon it at optimum times, RMI qualifies for advantageous rates from its electric co-op.

Economic forces increasingly favor wind and solar. Creating the right regulatory incentives could accelerate the adoption of renewables, says the Rocky Mountain Institute. 

by James A. Bacon

Consolidated Edison, the utility that provides New York City’s electricity, confronted a challenge in the summer of 2014. Forecasts showed that demand for electricity in parts of Brooklyn and Queens would overload the company’s electric grid by 69 megawatts on the hottest summer days by 2018. The traditional solution would have been to build a sub-station at a cost of $1.2 billion.

Wondering if there might be a better way, Con Ed solicited ideas for alternative solutions. So far, it has gotten 80 suggestions. Some were so good that the company plans to employ a portfolio of techniques — mainly energy-efficiency measures, fuel cells and neighborhood-scale solar — to shave off 52 megawatts at a cost of only $200 million, according to Inside Climate News.

Although 2018 is still two years away, early indications are positive. The so-called Brooklyn-Queens Demand Management project is being watched widely as an example of how energy efficiency, solar power, battery storage and other green energy strategies can not only reduce carbon-dioxide emissions but save rate payers money.

That’s just one example of how innovation is blasting apart the traditional electrical utility model, says Jesse Morris, a principal with the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), whom I chatted with when I visited Aspen, Colo., earlier this month. (Sad but true, my idea of a vacation includes meeting policy wonks in the places I’m visiting.) RMI bills itself as a market-oriented, environmentalist think tank. Re-conceptualizing the electric grid is one of RMI’s main missions. And Morris is one of RMI’s leading thinkers on the subject.

I wondered if RMI was thinking about things we should be thinking about in Virginia. Meeting me in RMI’s net-zero energy headquarters building in Basalt, Colo., Morris outlined three “big, disruptive trends” he sees transforming the electric grid.

The Internet of Things (IoT). The Internet is permeating everything; every new appliance, device, sensor and actuator is being assigned an IP address, and each device is capable of talking to the others. As a result, businesses can track energy usage with unprecedented precision, generate unprecedented volume of data to analyze, and control systems with unprecedented precision. When millions of thermostats, lighting systems, hot water heaters and other energy-consuming devices are connected, managing the demand side of the electricity system is getting easier and easier.

Declining cost of enabling technologies. The cost of generating solar power and wind power is dropping steadily. Renewables are economically competitive with conventional energy sources in geographic “pockets” around the country, and those pockets are growing. Meanwhile, progress is being made in related technologies such as lithium ion batteries which can store excess electricity production from wind and solar and release the power when needed most. “The cost trajectory of batteries is incredibly promising,” says Morris.

Corporate demand. Many corporations are insisting upon green power. Indeed, environmentally sensitive companies like Amazon Web Services are driving the demand for solar power in Virginia where the company is building many of their energy-intensive data centers. “Last year,” says Morris, “more solar and wind farms in Virginia and North Carolina were deployed by corporations than utilities.”

While the grid of the future isn’t here yet, says Morris, it is coming. At present most experimentation is occurring in places like Hawaii, California and New York where there is a strong commitment to green power and high electric rates make it easier to justify investing in alternative approaches. But change is occurring everywhere. Con Ed’s Brooklyn-Queens project shows that the potential exists to save literally billions of dollars.

The Brooklyn-Queens approach to electricity infrastructure is not pervasive, he says, because state regulations don’t encourage most utilities to think like Con Ed. Power companies make money by building stuff — power stations, transmission lines, sub-stations, distribution lines, and the like — and earning a Return on Equity on their outlay of capital. Approaching a problem as Con Ed did, which saves the expenditure of $1 billion, doesn’t help a traditionally regulated power company grow. Regulators need to change rate structures to incentivize companies to economize like Con Ed. Continue reading

In Hampton Roads, Life Is Not a Gas

natural_gas

Hampton Roads and other Tidewater communities see proposed natural gas pipelines in Virginia as a boon to economic development.

by James A. Bacon

While debate rages in western Virginia over the economic impact of natural gas pipelines on property values and local economies, we hardly hear a peep from the low country areas of Virginia and North Carolina that would benefit from an expanded supply of gas.

Elected officials claim, and economic developers confirm, that inadequate supplies of gas to Hampton Roads and outlying communities prevent them from competing for energy-intensive industrial customers, crimping efforts to grow their economies and create jobs.

“I’ve heard from cities and developers and builders. … We’ve got to get more capacity here,” says Sen. Bill DeSteph, R-Virginia Beach, chair of the Hampton Roads Caucus, who persuaded the region’s 33 state senators and delegates to sign a March letter supporting the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP).

Voices from Hampton Roads and places like Brunswick and Greensville counties, where new gas-fired power plants are being built, have been quiet during the pipeline controversy. The impact of pipeline construction is less tangible and immediate than it is for, say, landowners in the path of the ACP and the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline. And the benefits are more theoretical — fresh gas supplies would put their communities in the running for manufacturing projects they can’t compete for now, but it’s not as if there’s a big job-creating project waiting in the wings. Natural gas proponents aren’t barraging the media with press releases, filing lawsuits or marching on the state capitol.

Still, economic developers and political leaders have quietly lined up behind pipeline development, especially the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. For DeSteph, the aha! moment occurred about two-and-a-half years ago when demand from a severe cold snap swamped the local gas distributor, Virginia National Gas. The utility had to tell some of its largest customers to curtail their use of the fuel, as called for under contract. “I was shocked that we shut down the gas supply,” says DeSteph. “In my opinion that’s something we should never do.”

While big industrial customers usually can manage such outages, supply curtailments send a signal that gas supplies are limited. No energy-intensive manufacturer would want to locate or expand in Hampton Roads when they could locate worry-free in other communities. Noting that the Norfolk Naval Station was one of the entities that curtailed its gas use, DeSteph even fears that the capped gas supply could undermine the region’s status as a military hub.

The decline in natural gas prices made possible by fracking and the exploitation of the Marcellus/Utica gas fields has driven the re-shoring of energy-intensive manufacturing back to the United States, says Rick Weddle, president of the Hampton Roads Economic Development Partnership. But the areas benefiting from the trend have been those with access to the abundant gas supplies. Hampton Roads isn’t in the running.

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, designed to carry 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day, could change that. The pipeline would run from West Virginia through Virginia to North Carolina. A spur would split off from the main pipeline to deliver gas to Virginia Natural Gas, which has signed a 20-year customer agreement, and whose parent company AGL Resources is one of the partners in the project. The pipeline also would serve Piedmont Natural Gas serving the North Carolina market, which is a partner, too. (Dominion Resources, a sponsor of this blog, is the managing partner.)

A bigger supply of natural gas to the region would expand the prospects that Hampton Roads could compete for. “We would target new industries,” Weddle says.

The same logic applies to smaller communities in eastern Virginia and North Carolina, which also sit at the end of the existing pipeline distribution system.

The big five utilities in the industrial recruitment game are wastewater, electricity, fiber-optic cable and natural gas, says Christopher Chung, CEO of the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina. “Most companies want gas, whether they’re using it for heating or as part of the manufacturing process. Not one hundred percent need it, but most do. It’s really hard for a community to make the case to recruit a manufacturer if it doesn’t have natural gas. Not impossible. But so many locations do have it that you’re at a major competitive disadvantage if you don’t.” Continue reading

How One Gas Plant Can Save Billions

Dominion Virginia Power's gas-burning plant in Brunswick County opened this year. The Greensville power station, scheduled to open in 2018, will be even more cost efficient.

Shown here: Dominion Virginia Power’s state-of-the-art, gas-fired generating plant in Brunswick County. The company’s Greensville facility will be even more cost efficient.

There’s more to the natural gas boom than fracking. Technology deployed at Dominion’s Greensville power plant will squeeze more electricity out of a BTU of gas than ever before. 

by James A. Bacon

Last month Dominion Virginia Power commenced construction of the $1.3 billion Greensville County Power Station. When it opens in late 2018, the facility could well be the most efficient gas-burning electrical power plant in the world. That one facility will save Dominion customers $2.1 billion over its 36-year lifetime, the company says, even as it emits less carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour than other gas power plants and only 40% of that of a coal-fired plant.

Even if stretched out over 36 years, $2 billion represents a significant savings from a single power station. The average savings of $59 million a year compares to $7 billion annually paid by Dominion’s Virginia and North Carolina rate payers.

Rate payers might wonder: How does Dominion calculate that $2 billion in savings. The station will save $2 billion compared to what? Those questions seem all the more germane in light of commonly heard arguments that investing in massive natural gas-fired power plants instead solar panels and wind turbines is a bad idea when the price of gas will only rise in the future and the cost of renewable energy will steadily decline.

“We see the potential for a lot of stranded costs to be put on consumers as emissions of carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions continue to be ratcheted down,” says Kate Addleson, director of the Sierra Club-Virginia chapter. Solar is not just non-polluting but in many parts of the country it’s the lowest-cost energy source. As solar technology improves and the cost per kilowatt hour continues to decline, solar could become the low-cost option in Virginia, too. While natural gas might look like an attractive option today, it may not be as gas reserves are depleted and prices rise. Says Addleson: “Dominion is pointing to the benefits of gas because that’s what they see as the best outcome for their profit margin.”

Dominion defends its commitment to natural gas as the best deal for rate payers. The Greensville County Power Station will save money two ways: (1) by extracting more energy value from each BTU of gas, and (2) by using its access to two pipelines to purchase cheaper gas.

Greensville will be the third “three on one” Combined Cycle plant in Dominion’s generating fleet, using waste heat from three gas-burning turbines to power a traditional steam generator. Incorporating the most advanced Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems turbines, Greensville will squeeze more electricity from 1,000 BTUs of natural gas than ever before.

Combustion at higher temperatures also releases less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere. The Greensville plant will emit 780 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour (MWh), an incremental improvement over the 790 pounds for the Brunswick plant and 2,100 pounds for a typical coal-burning plant. Mike Dowd, director of air quality for the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), noted that the air permit sets the limit at 813 pounds per MWh, the toughest ever set on a combined cycle, natural gas power station. Environmental groups claimed credit for the “stronger pollution protection” they lobbied for. But the real enabler of the stricter environmental standards was the same combustion technology that makes the facility so economical to run.

Glenn Kelly, director of Generation System Planning, walked me through Dominion’s methodology for calculating the cost savings. If Dominion did not build the Greensville plant, he said, the company would have to purchase the megawatts from wholesale electricity markets maintained by PJM, the regional transmission organization of which Dominion is a part. “PJM market is always an option. We can always buy energy and capacity there  – that’s our benchmark. ”

In the PJM wholesale market, utilities purchase capacity (the right to draw electricity, if needed) and energy (the actual electricity consumed) in day-before and same-day auctions. Prices vary by season, time of day, weather conditions, and other factors such as the volume of electricity being bought and sold at any given point of time and the ability of transmission lines to deliver the electricity to the consumer in different parts of the country. In all likelihood, Greensville’s replacement electric power would come from a mix of gas-fired, solar, wind, and other energy sources — whatever other utilities and merchant providers are willing to put on the market.

How does Dominion know what PJM will charge Dominion years in the future? It doesn’t. It relies upon its economic consulting company, ICF, to make realistic assumptions. ICF assumes that prices will fluctuate around the long-term cost (including a reasonable corporate profit) of generating the electricity, and that the cost of burning gas or building a solar panel can be estimated with some degree of reliability. “Gas prices are very volatile short-term,” says Kelly. Right now prices are depressed, running between $2 and $3 per million BTUs. ICF projects gas prices will likely climb to about $5.11 per million BTU by 2025. “We have it going up pretty fast.”

Many people are familiar with the fact that the cost per KWh of solar energy has gone down as solar panels get more efficient at converting sunlight into electricity, but few are aware how the cost of generating electricity from gas has gone down — and not just because of the fracking revolution that has flooded the market with gas. State-of-the-art power stations extract more electricity from the same amount of gas.

The G Class turbines installed in Dominion’s Brunswick County power station, which opened this year, are more efficient than the previous generation, says Bill Newsom, executive vice president-new generation systems with Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas. They are about 59% efficient; that is, they extract about 59% of the energy value from the natural gas. The rest goes up the smokestack or is lost as waste heat. Continue reading

Making Net-Zero Energy Affordable

Kelly Vaughn explains how exterior sun shades adjust the sunlight and energy admitted into the Rocky Mountain Institute headquarters building.

Kelly Vaughn explains how exterior sun shades adjust the sunlight and energy admitted into the Rocky Mountain Institute headquarters building.

The new Rocky Mountain Institute headquarters building in Basalt, Colo., demonstrates how to drive net energy consumption down to zero at a cost that offers a four-year payback.

by James A. Bacon

When the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) decided to build a new headquarters building in Basalt, Colo., it had its own high standards to uphold. The free-market, environmental think tank had set a goal of transforming four billion square feet of building space into smart, energy-efficient structures, enough to reduce energy consumption over five years by 398 trillion BTUs and prevent emissions of 50 million metric tons of CO2 — the equivalent of decommissioning 17 coal-fired power plants.

Doubling as a meeting center where legendary co-founder Amory Lovins could convene with Fortune 500 executives visiting nearby Aspen, the new facility had to push the envelope for passive, integrative design. But it also had to show that investing in energy efficiency made economic sense. There wasn’t much point in demonstrating cutting-edge approaches that were too expensive to replicate.

When the 15,610-square-foot Innovation Center opened in December 2015, it was one of only 200 buildings constructed to net-zero energy standards, meaning that it produced more energy than it consumed on an annual basis. But it was more than an ideological fashion statement. Although achieving net-zero and a design life of more than 100 years added an incremental cost of 10.8%, RMI will recoup that sum, primarily through energy savings, in just under four years.

I gained an interest in energy-efficient buildings when my wife worked at Richmond-based Tridium, developer of a software platform for smart buildings. Buildings account for about 60% of the electricity generated around the world, and energy constitutes a major expense of property ownership. A whole industry has grown up around using technology to wring electricity savings from HVAC and lighting. But the RMI Innovation Center went beyond tweaking its HVAC system — it dispensed with it altogether. Instead of paying for heaters, coolers and ducts, RMI invested in solar energy, sensors, insulation and passive design.

Exterior shot of the Innovation Center. Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Institute

Exterior shot of the Innovation Center. Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Institute

During my visit to Aspen earlier this month, I took a side trip to Basalt a few miles away to check out RMI’s Innovation Center myself. I wanted to see what state-of-the-art energy efficiency looked like and gauge what potential might exist for cutting electricity consumption and CO2 emissions by redesigning the built community. RMI was kind enough to assign Kelly Vaughn, a marketing manager with RMI’s communications team, to give my friend and me a tour.

The building sports many of the features one might expect from an energy efficient building — big windows with a southern exposure to the sun, shades to control sunlight entering the building, and solar panels to generate electricity on-site. Less visibly, the building is so tightly insulated that the Passive House Institute declared it to be one of the most air-tight buildings it ever measured. Heat is stored in concrete floor slabs and other thermal masses such as walls.

Also invisible, more than 120 submeters track temperature, humidity, CO2, lighting and other critical variables that feed into the building’s brain. “The building is so smart,” says Vaughn, “that it saves us from making stupid decisions. You don’t just walk up to the thermostat. The building makes critical decisions based on outdoor temperatures projected out to the next day.”

Most office lighting comes from outside, although RMI does use LED lights as backup.

Most office lighting comes from outside, although RMI does use LED lights as backup.

The building generates solar electricity, some of which it stores in a 30 kW lithium ion battery system. The batteries provide a buffer for periods of peak demand, such as the coldest hours of the coldest days of the year. The storage allows the building to keep peak demand under 50kW, which places it in a lower commercial rate class with its local electric co-op.

Perhaps RMI’s greatest innovation is to re-think the 68º-to-72º temperature zone maintained in most office buildings by taking an innovative approach to delivering thermal comfort. “We’ve thought beyond what temperatures we need to maintain in a building and expanded our ideas about how to deliver comfort on an individual level, allowing us to expand our temperature bandwidth from 67º to 82º,” says Vaughn.  Continue reading

Virginia Energy Bills Slightly Below National Average

energy_billsThe average monthly energy bill per household runs about $284 in Virginia, lower than the national average, according to our list-compiling friends at WalletHub. The Old Dominion ranks 20th lowest of the 50 states and Washington, D.C.. Connecticut households pay the most per month, $404, while residents of the state of Washington pay the least, $218 per month.

WalletHub ranked the states in each of four categories — electricity, natural gas, motor fuel and home heating oil — by multiplying the average monthly consumption times the average monthly price.

Virginia performed best in the areas of home heating oil (13th lowest) and electricity (14th lowest) and the worst in the areas of natural gas (32nd lowest) and motor fuel (35th).

Bacon’s bottom line: The WalletHub ranking provides fuel for thought: How could public policy in Virginia do a better job of reducing energy costs for its citizens? Are we doing something right when it comes to electricity regulation, where we score well, or are we just lucky to live in a moderate climate? Does restricted pipeline capacity push up natural gas prices? And why would our gasoline prices be higher than elsewhere?

One needs to be especially careful comparing electricity and heating oil rates, which vary widely by climate. Massachusetts households, for example, have lower average electric bills than Virginia. Does that mean Massachusetts residents enjoy lower rates or pursue energy efficiency more aggressively? Not necessarily. Massachusetts households are far more likely to heat their homes with heating oil (spending an average of $78 a month) than Virginians ($10 a month), substituting heating oil for heat pumps and electricity. Conversely, because Massachusetts is cooler in the summer, residents need less air conditioning than Virginians, and they use less electricity in summer as a result. But Bay Staters spend more on electricity and heating oil combined ($193 per month) than Virginians ($151 per month).

Another factor not considered here: energy efficiency. Some states have invested heavily in energy efficiency, while others have not — Virginia is frequently criticized on that score. Thus, despite higher electric rates, New Jersey households spend only pennies more on average for their electric bills than Virginians. On the other hand, money spent on energy efficiency is also a capital expense, even if it doesn’t show up in the WalletHub scoring.

The picture gets complicated quickly, so the numbers presented here represent no more than a starting point to think about energy bills.

— JAB

Putting the Clean Power Plan in Perspective

climate_changeby James A. Bacon

Governor Terry McAuliffe has created a working group to recommend concrete steps on how to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from Virginia’s power plants. As the task force undergoes its deliberations, I hope it will consider the tradeoffs between economic costs and environmental benefits.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, noted that implementation of the Clean Power Plan would reduce global temperatures a grand total of 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. From what I can glean from the Internet — readers, please point out if I have missed something — the Obama administration has not disputed that the magnitude of the change would amount to no more than a small fraction of a degree.

Rather than contest the numbers, the Obama environmental team has made two arguments: (1) that the Clean Power Plan regulating the electric power industry is only one element in a package of initiatives, such as promoting energy efficiency and improving better gas mileage for cars, that will have a much bigger impact, and (2) the United States needs to take the lead in order to persuade other CO2 emitters like India and China to accede to the United Nations framework for attacking man-made global warming.

Lomborg contends that the total U.S. package, of which the Clean Power Plan is only a part, will reduce global temperatures by only 0.057 degrees, and if the whole world follows through with commitments to the U.N. agreement, the forecast rise in global temperatures would moderate by only 0.3 degrees.

That’s the big picture. While one can reasonably argue that Virginia must “do its part” to achieve these benefits, it is also worth asking what difference Virginia’s contribution to that effort will make. In 2014, Virginia consumed 112 million kilowatt hours of electricity, about 3% of the national total. Assuming that Virginia’s implementation of the Clean Power Plan accounts for a comparable 3% of the national figure, the Old Dominion will contribute to a .0007-degree reduction. (Implementation of the administration’s other measures would increase Virginia’s total contribution to about .0017 degrees, but those are not an issue at the state level.)

For purposes of discussion, let’s assume that the Clean Power Plan wins the Supreme Court stamp of approval and moves forward as the law of the land. The plan provides states different paths to achieving its goals. The big decision facing Virginia at that point will be which of four broad approaches to adopt: one of four flavors of a “rate-based” plan or “mass-based” plan. (See here for details.)

All four options would reduce CO2 emissions, although one of the mass-based options would reduce it more than the others. Thus, the debate is over the difference between the two plans. When we ponder the trade-offs between the cost to Virginia rate payers, the reliability of Virginia’s electric grid, and benefits to the global environment, we should recognize that the most consequential decision Virginia can make will lead to a reduction (assuming the climate models are valid) of some fraction of .0007 degrees, with a margin of error of a couple ten thousandths of a degree, in global temperatures by 2100.

I fully concede that these are back-of-the-envelope calculations, and I’m sure they can be refined. I may have overlooked important considerations. I’m open to information that anyone can provide to help refine them, and I solicit your input. Consider this a starting point for discussion.

I’m not being a global warming “denier” here. I’m accepting the proposition that human-caused climate change is real, that the net impact to the world will be negative, and that the way to deal with the threat is to re-engineer the global energy economy. But I do think it is important to give Virginians an honest accounting of the costs and benefits. Citizens should press the McAuliffe administration either to acknowledge the rough validity of the numbers I have presented or to present their own numbers.

Republicans and Leftists Are Outraged, Outraged, I Tell You

Nishizaki Sakurako and Bando Kotji in "Yoshino Mountain"by James A. Bacon

Here’s what I missed in yesterday’s quickie post about Governor Terry McAuliffe’s plan to convene a clean energy task force: Both Republicans and leftist environmental groups are attacking the move, though for opposite reasons.

Republican legislators see the initiative as an end run around the state budget, which specifically prohibits any spending on the federal Clean Power Plan for reducing CO2 emissions from electric power plants while it is being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. Normally, such accusations strike me as political blather, but Brian Coy, a spokesman for the governor’s office, confirmed that that was precisely the motive. Here’s how the Washington Post summed up his statement: “The governor did not create the work group to assuage environmental groups but rather as a way to dodge the Republican-controlled General Assembly.”

House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, was not pleased: As quoted by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, he said: “This order is another deliberate attempt to circumvent the legislature and the will of Virginia voters.  The governor is developing a troubling tendency to prefer Washington-style executive action instead of the dialogue and collaboration that Virginians expect and deserve.”

Meanwhile, McAuliffe’s initiative was belittled from the left, who cited his support for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would supply natural gas to Virginia and other Southeastern markets, as evidence that he is not serious about combating climate change. A joint statement by the Virginia Student Environmental Coalition, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and Virginia Organizing called McAuliffe’s initiative “a minor environmental policy” dwarfed by the harm of natural gas transportation and combustion.

The kinds words came from mainstream environmental groups who have been working through the administration to implement the strictest of the Clean Power Plan alternatives available to the state.

The governor is trying to reconcile his desire to combat climate change with his priority of creating jobs. Thus, he defends construction of two natural gas pipelines through the state on the grounds that they will create economic opportunity for the Tidewater region of the state, which is effectively precluded from competing for important categories of industrial expansion due to an insufficient supply of natural gas. At the same time, he has supported the federal Clean Power Plan (CPP), which seeks to curtail CO2 emissions from Virginia power plants. If the CPP passes legal muster, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will be charged from choosing from one of four broad approaches for the state to implement the plan. Environmentalists favor the option that would curtail CO2 emissions the most, although industry consumer groups worry the approach would drive up electric rates. McAuliffe has not yet endorsed an option.

Bacon’s bottom line: I’m still not sure what the fuss is all about. McAuliffe has already enacted a series of measures driving state government to pursue energy efficiency goals and to purchase solar energy. There is not much else that he can legally do. This new working group can recommend anything it wants, but it won’t have power to spend a dime. Meanwhile, the big action revolves around the Clean Power Plan. If the Supreme Court upholds its constitutionality, the focus turns to the already-instated DEQ working group to recommend how to implement it. If the Supremes nix the CPP, regulatory decision-making effectively reverts to the State Corporation Commission, which responds to legislative guidance enacted into law, not to gubernatorial directives.

I regard this whole hoo-ha as political theater — a kabuki production in which the actors rigidly play out their assigned roles.