Unraveling Your Electric Bill in Nashville

As this is the time of year when many are seeing really big power bills, and also since many local power companies are in the process of increasing their retail charges, I recently wrote this piece for a monthly publication I've been doing for my neighborhood. Most of the issues addressed here are also applicable to other utilities, especially those who purchase power from TVA. I hope you enjoy the read.

There is a good chance that the most recent electric bill you got from NES is the most expensive you’ve seen for your Stephens Valley home. It is also likely that you don’t spend a lot of time studying your NES bill. That might be exactly the way you want it, but if you decide to read this issue, you’ll learn some interesting facts about your energy consumption here in SV, the way NES bills you for that energy, and how your billing could be a lot fairer, and more effective.

Looking at the bill, you don’t get a lot of information, and, unfortunately, that is by design. The generic electric bill in the United States only shows you the difference between your meter readings for the current month and the preceding last month. Those readings are used to determine your kWh consumption for the month. The kWh usage is then multiplied by just over eleven cents and that becomes your simple energy charge. The net bill also includes a NES customer charge of $16.90 (unless you’ve had a month in the last year where your home used over 2,000 kWh, which makes your customer charge $24.90) and a TVA grid access charge of $6.66 for a total Customer Charge of $23.56 for an average residential account. This simplistic billing seems to best suit the customers who are not energy experts, but is that reason enough to use it?

Just how are these simple rates derived? If you want to know that answer, prepare yourself for a little mathematical discussion that will reveal some intrinsic, yet bizarre issues with the way NES (and, for that matter, all retail rates presently implemented by TVA’s local power companies) designs its retail electric rates. Where does the 11 cents per kWh cost come from, and what is the deal with the additional customer charge? Well, here goes. Out of that 11-cent charge, about 8.4 cents is collected just to pay for the power purchased from TVA (the TVA wholesale cost varies by time, day, and month, so that 8.4 cent cost is averaged here for simplicity). The remaining 2.6 cents per kWh is retained by NES to help cover their non-energy costs of accomplishing their mission (these are called Fixed Costs in utility speak). So, NES is using a volumetric adder to kWh consumption (which is sort of invisible to the customer) and a Customer Charge to collect the revenue needed to cover their Fixed Cost for serving each account.

Here we should discuss this important difference between volumetric charges and fixed charges, as that is the big argument among retail electric rate experts at the 3,000 electric utilities in the United States. Volumetric charges are derived by measuring the volume of something, then multiplying that volume by a per unit amount. That works fine for kWh, because utilities like NES also buy their kWh from a wholesale vendor that charges them volumetrically. The problem comes when a utility tries to collect a fixed amount, to cover a fixed cost, via an added amount to a volumetric per unit amount. Since the volume purchased varies wildly, it is certain that any volumetric collection of a fixed cost is going to be inaccurate, unjust, and discriminatory. NES, and scores of other local utilities, try to skirt this issue by doing some of both, which guarantees that their rates are not actually cost-based, but it allows them to bury some Fixed Cost revenue collection by disguising it within the cost per kWh. Other utilities serving SV do the same thing. HVUD and Piedmont Natural Gas both employ the monthly fixed charge plus a per unit adder as well. This system isn’t fair because it is invisible to most customers. This situation is just another example of the struggle we all face in the search for equality of treatment from vendors we count on to make us feel secure.

For a residential electric customer of NES, the assigned Fixed Cost is somewhere around $54.00 per month (this is an educated guess from experience). So why are we charged $23.56 (or $31.56) per month for the customer charge? Why isn’t everyone charged $54.00 instead? This is where the commitment to ancient metering infrastructure, ancient rate architecture, and political philosophy rears its head, as discussed above. If everyone were paying a customer charge equal to the Fixed Cost of keeping our home attached to the NES grid, then we should only have to pay that average 8.4 cents per kWh, which is the wholesale cost, for our actual energy usage. Instead, mainly because of the momentum of the way electric utilities have operated for the last century, NES marks up each kWh by 2.6 cents to collect a portion of their Fixed Costs AND they also charge a customer charge which is also intended to collect another portion of the Fixed Costs. As explained above, this is a problem that results in practically no one paying their fair share of a utility’s Fixed Costs.

When NES (and nearly every other electric utility) tries to collect the $54.00 Fixed Cost per residential customer (which covers all their costs that are not directly related to your volume of energy consumption) with a customer charge AND a markup on each kWh, practically no one pays an amount equal their cost of being served. Nearly everyone either overpays or underpays. In Nashville, the average monthly kWh usage is currently about 1,250 kWh, so if we multiply 1,250 kWh by 2.6 cents, we get $32.50, which is more than half of what NES needs to pay their Fixed Coster per residential customer! If you add that $32.50 to the $23.56 Customer Charge, then NES neatly collects nearly exactly $54 to cover the Fixed Cost for the average residential customer (this makes sense because retail rates are designed around the average customer). So, for the handful of residential accounts that regularly consume the average 1,250 kWh per month, the NES rate architecture works quite well. But it gets remarkably unfair (and remember, this is not a NES exclusive problem), when we examine what happens to residential accounts whose monthly consumption of kWh is lower, or higher, than average.

Stay with me now. That 8.4 cent per kWh average wholesale cost has several components besides the varying cost of a wholesale kWh. For example, a very large component of the wholesale power cost is the monthly peak demand charge. This can amount to 40% of NES’s monthly wholesale power bill from TVA, and while modern electric meters like the ones on our houses in SV can determine just how much each home contributes to that peak demand, the local power companies choose to ignore the opportunity to determine that amount and bill each account for their actual contribution to that cost. Rather, the local power companies choose to socialize the demand charge and include that cost as a portion of the 11 cent per kWh charge for a residential account. A residential account’s contribution to NES’s monthly peak demand charge can vary wildly. In the summer, NES’s peak demand will always happen between noon and 6 PM on a weekday. If your home is only using air conditioning during the peak, it is likely that the socialized rate over-estimates your contribution to peak demand such that you over-pay. If you throw a roast in the oven, or wash and dry clothes during the peak hour, your actions might drastically eclipse the amount NES has estimated in the socialized retail rates, which means that you under-pay. This is a demonstration of how no one really pays the true cost of buying electric power using the simple rate architecture employed by NES and most other local power companies.

In summary, NES needs to collect a bit over $54 from each residential customer over and above what the actual wholesale energy cost is for each customer. To accomplish that, they have implemented a Customer Charge of $16.90+$6.66 ($23.56) for those accounts who use something near 1,250 kWh per month, and that works quite well. But this system fails for any residential accounts who use less than the average amount. Those accounts are served at a loss, and it might amaze you to know that many of us in SV fall into that category! For those who use more than 1,250 kWh per month, things go really off the rails. At present NES published retail rates, if an account has used over 2,000 kWh in the last year, the Customer Charge goes to $24.90+$6.66. Also, that 2.6 cent markup would produce about $55 in net income (for a residential account using just 2,100 kWh). For that volume of kWh (an amount used by many homes in SV), NES is thus collecting about $87 to cover its Fixed Cost estimated at $54 per month. As consumption goes beyond 2,100 kWh per month, the problem just gets worse. These customers are being forced to subsidize the Fixed Costs of those who use less than 1,250 kWh per month. That bears repeating. That large home just down the street from you is likely averaging over 2,000 kWh per month of electricity consumption, and they are being forced to pay more than their actual Fixed Cost for being connected to the grid. The Fixed Cost of serving each residence in SV does not vary, but what those residential accounts are being charged for Fixed Cost recovery varies greatly!

Recently NES implemented their Power of Change Program, wherein they round up all energy bills to the next higher dollar (all accounts were automatically enrolled in this program, but all accounts are also allowed to opt-out if they contact NES and tell them) and many howled about this on social media, even though it would only add, on average, 50 cents to their monthly bill. What if those folks knew they are regularly forced to subsidize their neighbor’s power cost to the tune of maybe $30 per month?

Is it fair to make customers who consume more energy also shoulder more of the Fixed Cost burden, even though volume of energy consumed has no impact on Fixed Costs? Is it fair for customers who use less than average to skip by and not contribute their pro rata share of costs? The answer seems to depend on one’s perspective. While this rate practice is not equitable, and it certainly does not accurately ask each account to pay the real cost of the electricity they enjoy, nor does it properly collect NES’s Fixed Costs (no less and no more), it is a very common practice across our country. As stated earlier, a lot of this comes from the attraction to simplicity and history. The whole electric power community is wrestling with this issue now, and other utilities should be. Metering technology informs the utilities of the cross-subsidization issues, and that same technology enables the utilities to move to a time differentiated rate/billing system that would bring accuracy to bear, but it is widely resisted by the utilities and the customers alike, and that is a real shame. All too often, utility consumers would rather pay a socialized rate than endure a change.

We are in 2023, yet we are still consuming electric power, and paying for that power, using the same methods that were being used in 1953. The ancient rate practices dramatically impact the way the grid operates and the way we all use electricity. The signal from the utilities, through these good-old simple rates, is that there is an infinite amount of electric power available, and that we need not worry about how much we use and when we use it. But that signal is wrong, and it creates a feedback loop that just keeps making the grid more difficult to manage. Retail rates that have no cost differentiation for time-of-day result in spiraling consumption during peak hours. During those peak hours, utilities like TVA use generation resources that are heavy on greenhouse gas emissions. The more we use, the more we emit greenhouse gases and, in turn, globally, the hotter it gets. This loop goes on and on, and there is no need for it! In fact, the demonstrable need is for customers and utilities to partner in the goal to change our energy consumption patterns such that less non-renewable generation is needed.

If we moved to a real cost-based retail rate environment, several good things would happen. First, the electric power marketplace would become comply with our capitalistic system. No one would be forced to subsidize other accounts, and everyone would pay their fair share of fixed costs. This simple outcome would make the change worthwhile, but, if you hold the view that we should also be reshaping electric power demand to reduce capital costs of generation and reduce carbon contribution to the atmosphere, cost-based rates can deliver on that as well. In 2023, the technology is readily available in the form of smart HVAC thermostats and smart appliances to take the signals delivered by these new rates and dramatically reshape demand while lowering our energy bills. Those small changes would, when multiplied by the millions of customers modifying their usage, reduce the amount of fossil fuel used to generate on-peak power. Improving the ratio of off-peak consumption to on-peak consumption would reduce the need to build new generation and the greenhouse gas production attendant thereto.

As you can see from the last issues of The Valleyist wherein we have discussed this, the subject could easily become a book, so we will stop here. But the point is that socialized electric power rates were a reasonable solution before time-differentiated metering was available, but that is no longer the case. We deserve true cost-based rates in 2023, and all the improvements attendant thereto.    

There is a good chance that the most recent electric bill you got from NES is the most expensive you’ve seen for your Stephens Valley home. It is also likely that you don’t spend a lot of time studying your NES bill. That might be exactly the way you want it, but if you decide to read this issue, you’ll learn some interesting facts about your energy consumption here in SV, and the way NES bills you for that energy.

Looking at the bill, you don’t get a lot of information, and, unfortunately, that is by design. The generic electric bill in the United States only shows you the difference between your meter reading for this month and last month. Those readings are used to determine your kWh consumption for the month. The kWh usage is then multiplied by just over eleven cents and that becomes your simple energy charge. The net bill also includes a NES customer charge of $16.90 (unless you’ve had a month in the last year where your home used over 2,000 kWh, which makes your customer charge $24.90) and a TVA grid access charge of $6.66 for a total Customer Charge of $23.56 for an average residential account.

But how are those charges derived? If you want to know that answer, prepare yourself for a little mathematical discussion that will reveal some intrinsic, yet bizarre issues with the way NES (and, for that matter, all retail rates presently implemented by TVA’s local power companies) designs its retail electric rates. Where does the 11 cents per kWh cost come from, and what is the deal with the additional customer charge? Well, here goes. Out of that 11-cent charge, about 8.4 cents is collected just to pay for the power purchased from TVA (the TVA wholesale cost varies by time, day, and month, so that 8.4 cent cost is averaged here for simplicity). The remaining 2.6 cents per kWh is retained by NES to help cover their non-energy costs of accomplishing their mission (these are called Fixed Costs in utility speak). So, NES is using a volumetric adder to kWh consumption (which is sort of invisible to the customer) and a Customer Charge to collect the revenue needed to cover their Fixed Cost for serving each account.

Here we should discuss this important difference between volumetric charges and fixed charges, as that is the big argument among retail rate experts as the 3,000 electric utilities in the United States. Volumetric charges are derived by measuring the volume of something, then multiplying that volume by a per unit amount. That works fine for kWh, because utilities like NES also buy their kWh from a wholesale vendor that charges them volumetrically. The problem comes when a utility tries to collect a fixed amount, to cover a fixed cost, via an added amount to a volumetric per unit amount. Since the volume purchased varies wildly, it is certain that any volumetric collection of a fixed cost is going to be inaccurate, unjust, and discriminatory. NES, and scores of other local utilities, try to skirt this issue by doing some of both, which guarantees that their rates are not actually cost-based.

For a residential customer in Nashville, the assigned Fixed Cost is somewhere around $54.00 per month (this is an educated guess). So why are we charged $23.56 (or $31.56) per month for the customer charge? Why isn’t everyone charged $54.00 instead? This is where the commitment to ancient metering infrastructure, ancient rate architecture, and political philosophy rears its head, as discussed above. If everyone were paying a customer charge equal to the Fixed Cost of keeping our home attached to the grid, then we should only have to pay that average 8.4 cents per kWh, which is the wholesale cost for our actual energy usage. Instead, mainly because of the momentum of the way electric utilities have operated for the last century, NES marks up each kWh by 2.6 cents to collect a portion of their Fixed Costs AND they also charge a customer charge which is also intended to collect another portion of the Fixed Costs. As explained above, this is a problem.

When NES (and nearly every other electric utility) tries to collect that $54.00 with a customer charge AND a markup on each kWh, practically no one pays the right amount. Nearly everyone either overpays or underpays. In Nashville, the average monthly kWh usage is currently about 1,250 kWh, so if we multiply 1,250 kWh by 2.6 cents, we get $32.50, which is more than half of what NES needs to pay their Fixed Coster per residential customer! If you add that $32.50 to the $23.56 Customer Charge, then NES neatly collects nearly exactly $54 to cover the Fixed Cost for the average residential customer (this makes sense because retail rates are designed around the average customer). So, for the handful of residential accounts that regularly consume the average 1,250 kWh per month, the NES rate architecture works quite well. But it gets strange (and remember, this is not a NES exclusive problem), when we examine what happens to residential accounts whose monthly consumption of kWh is lower, or higher, than average.

Stay with me now. That 8.4 cent per kWh average wholesale cost has several components besides the varying cost of a wholesale kWh. For example, a very large component of the wholesale power cost is the monthly peak demand charge. This can amount to 40% of NES’s monthly wholesale power bill from TVA, and while modern electric meters like the ones on our houses in SV can determine just how much each home contributes to that peak demand, the local power companies choose to ignore the opportunity to determine that amount and bill each account for their actual contribution to that cost. Rather, the local power companies choose to socialize the demand charge and include that cost as a portion of the 11 cent per kWh charge for a residential account. A residential account’s contribution to NES’s monthly peak demand charge can vary wildly. In the summer, NES’s peak demand will always happen between noon and 6 PM on a weekday. If your home is only using air conditioning during the peak, it is likely that the socialized rate over-estimates your contribution to peak demand such that you over-pay. If you throw a roast in the oven, or wash and dry clothes during the peak hour, your actions might drastically eclipse the amount NES has estimated in the socialized retail rates, which means that you under-pay. This is a demonstration of how no one really pays the true cost of buying electric power using the simple rate architecture employed by NES and most other local power companies.

In summary, NES needs to collect a bit over $54 from each residential customer over and above what the actual wholesale energy cost is for each customer. To accomplish that, they have implemented a Customer Charge of $16.90+$6.66 ($23.56) for those accounts who use something near 1,250 kWh per month, and that works quite well. But this system fails for any residential accounts who use less than the average amount. Those accounts are served at a loss, and it might amaze you to know that many of us in SV fall into that category! For those who use more than 1,250 kWh per month, things go really off the rails. At present NES published retail rates, if an account has used over 2,000 kWh in the last year, the Customer Charge goes to $24.90+$6.66. Also, that 2.6 cent markup would produce about $55 in net income (for a residential account using just 2,100 kWh). For that volume of kWh (an amount used by many homes in SV), NES is thus collecting about $87 to cover its Fixed Cost estimated at $54 per month. As consumption goes beyond 2,100 kWh per month, the problem just gets worse. These customers are being forced to subsidize the Fixed Costs of those who use less than 1,250 kWh per month. That bears repeating. That large home just down the street from you is likely averaging over 2,000 kWh per month of electricity consumption, and they are being forced to pay more than their actual Fixed Cost for being connected to the grid. The Fixed Cost of serving each residence in SV does not vary, but what those residential accounts are being charged for Fixed Cost varies greatly!

Recently NES implemented their Power of Change Program, wherein they round up all energy bills to the next higher dollar (all accounts were automatically enrolled in this program, but all accounts are also allowed to opt-out if they contact NES and tell them) and many howled about this on social media, even though it would only add, on average, 50 cents to their monthly bill. What if those folks knew they are regularly forced to subsidize their neighbor’s power cost to the tune of maybe $30 per month?

Is that fair? Well, it seems to depend on one’s perspective. While this rate practice is not equitable, and it certainly does not accurately ask each account to pay the real cost of the electric power they consume nor does it equitably collect NES’s Fixed Cost, it is very common across our country. As stated earlier, a lot of this comes from the attraction to simplicity and history. The whole electric power community is wrestling with this issue now. Metering technology informs the utilities of the cross-subsidization issues, and that same technology enables the utilities to move to a time differentiated rate/billing system that would bring accuracy to bear, but it is widely resisted by the utilities and the customers alike, and that is a real shame.

We are in 2023, yet we are still consuming electric power, and paying for that power, using the same methods that were being used in 1953. The ancient rate practices dramatically impact the way the grid operates and the way we all use electricity. The signal from the utilities, through these good-old simple rates, is that there is an infinite amount of electric power available, and that we need not worry about how much we use and when we use it. But that signal is wrong, and it creates a feedback loop that just keeps making the grid more difficult to manage. If we moved to a real cost-based retail rate environment, we would have an incentive to reduce our usage during peak hours, while freeing us to use more to cool our homes and charge electric vehicles during off-peak hours. Immediately those small changes would, when multiplied by the millions of customers modifying their usage, reduce the amount of fossil fuel used to generate on-peak power. Improving the ratio of off-peak consumption to on-peak consumption would reduce the need to build new generation and the greenhouse gas production attendant thereto. Discussing that subject could become a book, so we will stop there, but the point here is that socialized electric power rates were a reasonable solution before time-differentiated metering was available, but that is no longer the case. We deserve true cost-based rates in 2023.

Once Upon a Time

 https://www.c-span.org/video/?12188-1/cable-industry-competition

Electric Vehicles as part of the Grid

I am working on a book about what we learned about operating electric utilities, and where I think that journey will ultimately lead...for those who continue the journey. This is an early excerpt about how electric vehicles fit into that future.

Electric vehicles (EVs) have arrived, even though there is a stubborn and hostile contingent of the population that claims they will never have anything to do with one. In 2022 EV sales hit nearly 6% of the total vehicle sales (double where they were at this time in 2021) and there is nothing to suggest that the surge in sales is over. Prices are coming down. Range is growing. The charging options are increasing, and even a non-car person must notice that the best designs and most clever technology is going into the EV offerings of each manufacturer.

All of this is happening as EVs are viewed only through the lens of transportation options, but EVs will soon be much more than a transportation option. EVs will become, once more electric utilities get in the game and offer non-volumetric, cost-based retail rates, fixtures of the grid itself. For the homeowner or small business owner, an EV will become a transactional device that will facilitate exchanges between the electric utility and the EV owner. This dispersed set of battery storage resources will also dramatically improve the efficiency of the grid generation assets. The impact of the coming of the EVs really cannot be overstated.

With modernized retail electric rates, and slightly improved EV chargers, an EV will be capable of entering a matrix of available retail rates, and the user’s transportation needs, to find a solution which will result in taking energy from the grid to store in the EV batteries at a near-zero energy cost. Conversely, if the EV is plugged into an advanced smart charger, and if the EV owner so chooses, the utility will be able to buy energy back from the EV when the utility needs additional resources. This transaction is generally called Vehicle to Grid (V to G) and all the technology we need to deploy this system already exists. That’s right. Your new EV can generate revenue for your home or business! TVA can expedite the availability of these modernized retail rates in the southeast by pricing their wholesale power accordingly. There is not a technology problem, there is only the love of the status quo that separates us from having the electric rate environment we desperately need.

Beyond a new revenue stream for the EV owner, EVs will also transform the grid and help dramatically reduce carbon emissions associated with electric power generation. EVs will perform this magic by reshaping the problem that vexes the utilities and creates a large amount of their carbon emissions. Everyone in the electric utility fraternity knows about the big problem they all share. The problem is that each day the grid must deliver the precise amount of energy required to satisfy the demand of the loads connected to the grid, and that demand, when expressed as a simple graph depicting demand vs. hours of the day, is not a neat flat line. Rather, it is actually a daily sine-wave with the peak of the wave lasting about 12 hours and the valley of the wave occupying the other 12 hours. It is the up and down shape of electric power demand, which has existed for the last one hundred years, that makes the generation of electric power so inefficient.

Up until recently, grid connected batteries simply didn’t exist on any significant scale, so energy storage doesn’t exist on any significant scale. As a result, utilities must follow that sine wave of daily demand up and down, starting generation assets as load increases, idling those assets as load eclipses the capacity  of those units and starting larger units (and if the happen to be starting something like a coal fired unit that was idled 12 hours earlier due to declining load, the starting routine is quite medieval – tons of fuel oil are dumped into the boiler and set ablaze to get it ready to burn coal) resulting in massive carbon emissions, as well as financial cost, every single day. EVs as part of grid can begin to solve the problem. They can utilize the massive excess capacity that is available each night, thus allowing the utilities to keep generation units running, especially non-carbon emitting units like nuclear assets, and renewables, thus stabilizing the grid and reducing the sine-wave daily load shape. Thus, the amateur “analysis” of the carbon emissions density of EVs, wherein some “expert” alleges that all kWh used to charge an EV is directly associated with increased greenhouse gas emissions, is completely and totally wrong, just like so much of what one finds on social media. EVs functioning as grid appliances, as described here, will not only erase the greenhouse gas emissions of today’s internal combustion engine powered vehicles, they will also act to erase smokestack emissions from the generation of electric power, by improving the daily load shape the grid must supply.

At the same time, a charged EV will also become the standby power generator for the home, small business, or even a neighborhood, when a critical mass of EVs is in place in a neighborhood. Indeed, that EV that you are snarling at as you cling to your ancient internal combustion transportation device, is set to make your life better from many different perspectives.  

The Class of 1972 -- May Our Circle Be Unbroken

Figure 1 The Glasgow High School Class of 1972 at their 10-year reunion at the home of Bettie Biggers.

Fifty years ago, the GHS class of 1972 donned caps and gowns and were ceremoniously sent out into the world. Of course, the same thing was happening in thousands of other cities, but I’m fairly certain that none of those other graduates were quite like this group. In support of my theory, let’s stand at 1972, and look back to 1922 for the fifty years before this class, and also look at 2022 – the century that surrounds this cohort.

 1922 and 2022 are equally removed from the high school graduation date of this group. As a member of the class, that statement of fact is easy to get choked on. In 1922, World War I had just ended. World War II would not begin for another nineteen years. In 1972, my class viewed World War II as ancient history, but it had only been over for twenty-seven years. We were more interested in the Vietnam War, as we hoped to not be drafted to fight in it. Luckily that conflict ended in 1975, allowing the male members of our class to escape being drafted by the skin of our teeth. The class of 2022 hardly knows anything about the Vietnam War and the rift it caused in our country. We lived, and continue to live, that rift.

1922 was lived to the music of the roaring 20s. Rock and roll had not been invented, and neither had country music. Though country music began to spring up a few years before we were born, it was our generation that morphed country into rock, and that became the tail that got our dog wagging. We were sandwiched between Woodstock (arguably the beginning of the explosion of rock music) and The Last Waltz (arguably the end of analog creative rock and roll of the 60s and 70s). Our taste in music was quenched by a dizzying array of talented writers, performers, and producers. Their products were served up to us mainly by AM radio, delivered to ancient monaural radios in our cars and homes. In 1922 radios were still too big for portability, and in 2022, no one even remembers AM radio, but we mid-century kids lived by it. We caused the mighty WLS radio in Chicago to change to The Big 89 and hire on-air talent like John “Records” Landecker, just to serve the mid-continent the kind of cutting-edge rock music we demanded. Weather conditions often combined with low quality antennae to make it hard to pick up WLS, so we adopted the cutting- edge technology of 1970 – 8-track tape players to supplant our appetite for music. We rocked, and so did the artists we worshipped. WLS and John Landecker brought us to this religious fervor. We worshiped at the altar of Pet Sounds and Led Zeppelin II.

Many of the artists that provided the soundtrack of our youth appeared at Woodstock in 1969. The information about this festival didn’t really make it to us until after the event. We were just a bit too young to attend anyway. The Woodstock t-shirts started to appear in Glasgow a couple of years later, but, fifty years later, they have never left. Check through the t-shirt collection of a member of the class of 2022, and you will likely find one. Also, if you rifle through the music collection on their Spotify or Pandora accounts, you will find music by a lot of those artists who first started singing to our class. Our music did not fade away, and it never will. New music comes and goes, but our music (as well as our t-shirts) remains. Go to a wedding or a bar mitzvah today and you will hear our music. Sometimes kids today are listening to our music without even knowing it. American Woman was not written and first recorded by Lenny Kravitz. Aerosmith didn’t write Come Together. Landslide was around long before the Dixie Chicks. Marilyn Manson cannot claim You’re So Vain, and Your Song isn’t Lady Gaga’s – it is ours and Elton John’s. Will our Circle Remain Unbroken, as our music has?

In 1922 the most popular car sold was the Ford Model T. That popularity remained unchallenged until we came along. Our generation made the Volkswagen Beetle number one. It was affordable, reliable, and marginally better than walking, but the radios worked great! Still, it wasn’t a Beetle that we really wanted. Our car lust was reserved for a Chevelle, Corvette, MG, Spitfire, Road Runner, Mustang, Olds 442, or a GTO. The parking lot at GHS was not full of these machines because few of us had cool enough parents to help us get one, but Wade Barton had a 1970 Chevelle SS, and Craig Johnson had a 1966 GTO, and they were the coolest. In case you might think that was just a 1972 thing, just check into any auto auction at the prices people are paying to get one of these cars of our era. Just like our music, today’s car market wants our cars too!

The class of 1972 was a lot more than music and cars. The mid-century babies came along at an inflection point of our country’s history. We wanted the Vietnam War ended. We wanted President Nixon out. We wanted discrimination ended. We wanted equal rights for women, and we became participants in all these movements. In Glasgow, we might not have always understood all of these changes, but we were quick studies and learned from outstanding teachers. We didn’t invent electricity or telephones, but our contemporaries made them what they are today. Our cohort includes Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Bob Metcalfe, and Vinton Cerf. Together we built the internet, the software that makes it work, and the devices we use to communicate and learn. We are more than a list of people who were born in the middle of the 50s. Our works will endure throughout the generations to come, and I expect our circle – our bond with each other – will similarly endure.

A close bond isn’t something that exists in every graduating high school class. We have each likely noticed this in our children and their very loose bond to their class. We are different, and that is one of the things that makes us special. Fifty years after our graduation, we’ve learned that our lives didn’t pan out exactly as we expected, and as depicted in Brian Wilson’s masterpiece – Pet Sounds.  As the years roll by, our circle has shrunk by a series of painful departures, each of which brought us sorrow.  Still, it seems that our bond will remain. We will mourn the passing of one of our own and then reform our circle by grasping the hands that remain. So, here’s to the class of 1972. Have a great 50^th anniversary celebration. We’ve earned it! Let’s keep our circle unbroken – by and by Lord, by and by.

Wouldn’t it be nice?

The Ending of My EPB Career - A Diary of the Events

I''m just putting this narrative here because it is easier for me to find after the many changes to what is accessible on Facebook.

Although there were two (but now only one) local media outlets that were doing a good job of keeping the community informed on the factual events regarding their Glasgow Electric Plant Board, they have a lot of other work to do, and keeping up is hard. As a result, many questions about the events come to me, and, frankly, there are so many events that even I am losing track of the timeline. This document is furnished, without any sort of opinion or editorial comment, to establish the chronological list of events, and give me a place to refer folks to when they have questions. I will attempt to edit this as the situation continues to unfold.

In the beginning, circa 2013, my team and I began to do big data analyses of the hourly electric power consumption data that was becoming available to us through modernized electric metering devices. We began to compare individual customer consumption data to the retail billing and wholesale billing from TVA. We began to make very big discoveries.

We learned that the century-old electric rate habits of 3000 utilities in the United States, and also used locally in Glasgow, were faulty. We found that actual comparison of retail billing vs. wholesale costs revealed that some classes of customers were being under-charged (when compared to real costs of service) and other classes were being over charged and were being forced to subsidize the below-cost rates of others.

After many months of examining the data and the study results, the EPB Board was ethically driven to ask my team to develop new retail rates that assured no customer is served at a loss, and no customer is over-charged so as to force them to subsidize others.

That sounds simple, but the work was completed, approved by the EPB and TVA, and implemented on 1.1.2016. After that, it wasn't long until those who were formerly being subsidized began to demand my head on a platter...as if that would change the solid scientific and mathematical basis for the changes.

There were many events in this story that happened, in the pursuit of removing my head, beginning in February 2019, but this listing will mainly concentrate on the 2020 events, beginning in May. Going back to the beginning, when D.T. Froedge first presented himself in my office, asking for my resignation and telling me that he and two other board members had already agreed to fire me (a violation of Kentucky Open Meetings law) should I refuse to resign, is just too much research for me to accomplish at this time, and it would be too much for you to read!

May 5, 2020 – This was the first of Froedge’s attempts to convene a Special Meeting with an agenda that had 7 or 8 items, which included electing new Board officers, Hiring consultants and law firms to accomplish reviews of the TVA power supply agreement, and removing me as Superintendent. The call for a meeting was not recognized by the EPB officers, due to their belief that Froedge had resigned from the Board in 2019, so there was no official notice of a Special Meeting of EPB, but three members did meet in the EPB parking lot in an attempt to act on the proposed agenda.

May 14, 2020 – D.T. Froedge engaged counsel and filed a complaint against the Glasgow EPB and the four confirmed Board members, seeking a declaratory judgement on whether he was still a board member.

May 18-20, 2020 – I was not copied on it, but somewhere in this date range, Tag Taylor contacted Cole and Moore, PSC, who had already done litigation work for EPB, and they filed a response, on behalf of the EPB, to the Froedge complaint.

May 19, 2020 – Froedge, through his attorneys at Bell, Orr, Ayers, and Moore, PSC, filed an Emergency Motion for Early Relief relative to his May 14 complaint.

May 26, 2020 – Through my counsel at Broderick and Davenport, PLLC, I filed a Motion to Intervene in the Froedge complaint, and to expand the complaint to also ask for a ruling on the legality of the May 5 meeting.

That evening the regular meeting of Glasgow EPB was held, but no business could be conducted due to the absence of all members except Taylor and Short.

May 28, 2020 – The first hearing before Judge John Alexander in Barren Circuit Court was conducted via Zoom. All motions filed relative to the complaint filed by Froedge were argued.

May 29, 2020 – Judge Alexander issued the first Order relative to the matter, which allowed me to intervene in a limited fashion.

June 3, 2020 – Judge Alexander issues the second Order on the matter, setting June 18 as deadline for briefs to be filed by the parties to the complaint and action.

June 23, 2020 – The June regular meeting of the EPB was held. Again, no business was conducted due to the absence of all members but Taylor and Short.

June 30, 2020 – A Special Meeting of EPB was called and conducted, to accomplish essential business before the end of the 2020 fiscal year.

July 2, 2020 – Judge Alexander issued a ruling based on the original hearing and the briefs filed by counsel for all parties. The ruling concluded that D.T. Froedge remains a member of the EPB, and that the May 5, 2020 Special Meeting was not legally noticed and held, such that all actions taken were moot.

July 7, 2020 – Another Special Meeting was requested by D.T. Froedge, to consider the same agenda items called for in the May 5, 2020 meeting. The meeting was not noticed by an officer of the EPB and was not held.

On the same day, attorneys for Cole and Moore filed a motion on behalf of EPB amend the July 2 ruling and order by Judge Alexander, or to vacate same.

July 10, 2020 – Judge Alexander issues Order for a hearing on motions for July 24, 2020.

July 10-22, 2020 – Lots of motions filed by counsel to all parties in the action.

July 24, 2020 – Second hearing held in front of Judge John Alexander. All motions were argued and considered by the parties. No official Order yet written from that hearing.

July 28, 2020 – The regular meeting of the Glasgow EPB was convened, but even though the proposed agenda had been delivered to the members a week earlier, inviting suggested changes or additions, and none being offered, Froedge attempted to add two agenda items that night. He asked to hold an election of Board officers and he wanted to consider the dismissal of Cole and Moore, PSC, counsel to the EPB. Discussion ensued relative to the legality of such an action. Eventually, after there was no successful vote to approve an agenda, the meeting adjourned without business being conducted.

July 29, 2020 – Motion filed by EPB counsel to stop further attempts by Froedge to call Special Meetings or otherwise circumvent the perceived law on meetings and agendas during the pandemic state of emergency in Kentucky.

August 3, 2020 – Another Special Meeting was called by Froedge, Witcher, and Pritchard, with the agenda items of Board Officer elections and consideration of the dismissal of Cole and Moore as EPB counsel. While the officer election motion was not recognized by Chairman Taylor, the Cole and Moore matter proceeded with a 3-2 vote to dismiss Cole and Moore as counsel.

August 6, 2020 – Hearing in front of Judge John Alexander to consider additional motions since last hearing. Arguments held on all motions, including the motion of Cole and Moore to withdraw its representation of EPB, due to the action of the Board. Cole and Moore informed the court that they would continue to represent Taylor and Short as individuals.

An Order was issued by Judge Alexander granting the motion of Cole and Moore to withdraw, and directing EPB to engage new counsel for their representation within 60 days.

August 7, 2020 – Another call for a Special Meeting was proposed by Froedge, Witcher, and Pritchard, with three agenda items, all related to the intent of removing Taylor as EPB Chairman and replacing him. This call was not noticed by an EPB officer until after the 24-hour minimum notice before the proposed 4:00 pm meeting had elapsed. The meeting was not held.

Judge Alexander issued an Order resulting from the July 24 hearing. He re-confirmed that Froedge is a member, he issued a stay to prevent additional Special Meeting calls unless something of a very large significance materializes, and he directed the parties to go into binding mediation in Executive Session. That mediation was scheduled for October 20, 2020.

August 11, 2020 – Froedge, Witcher, and Pritchard, again requested a Special meeting at 4:00 pm on this date, to consider the same items proposed for the August 7 meeting, however the Order entered as described above caused cancellation and withdrawal of the request.

August 25, 2020 - The regular meeting of EPB was held via Zoom. At this meeting Froedge tried repeatedly to add certain items to the agenda, especially items relating to a new election of board officers. This effort was not allowed by Chairman Taylor, who repeatedly stated his contention that the October 20 scheduled mediation between the parties to the lawsuit filed by Froedge, would be the proper venue to hammer out such matters. Eventually the Board did take up the printed agenda and a relatively normal meeting ensued.

September 22, 2020 - The regular meeting of EPB was held via Zoom. The agenda was approved in a normal fashion. Under the agenda item of considering EPB’s required annual review of retail rate effectiveness, things got bizarre. As I tried to explain why we recommended another annual step toward accomplishing 100% non-volumetric collection of revenue to cover fixed costs, and as I also began to explain another optional approach to this end -- an approach with a dramatically reduced Customer Charge (because that was the request of a member of the Board at the August meeting), Froedge interjected his personal ideas for a rate architecture that would socialize all costs for five tariffs, dividing kWh consumption into the socialized sum and producing a new tariff wherein all costs would be shared volumetrically by nearly 100% of EPB electric customers. He also proposed the dissolution of the variable rate tariffs that are enjoyed by 68% of the residential customers and 80% of the small commercial customers. I also reminded him of the graphic, shared with the Board many times, which shows how volumetric sales are in a continuous and long-lasting slide, making volumetric collection of fixed costs a death spiral for EPB. Undaunted by these facts, they forged ahead and voted to submit Froedge’s rate outline to TVA for approval.

October 20, 2020 - A Special Board meeting was held to facilitate, and make legal, the board assembling to conduct mediation, in compliance with the Order of Judge Alexander. Discussion in closed session lasted for hours, but nothing that could be voted on in open session was found through the process. The meeting was called back in to open session and then adjourned.

October 27, 2020 Regular Meeting - Days before this meeting six different motions seeking different kinds of relief were filed by attorneys representing me, the minority group of the Board, and even one from the majority’s attorney asking to be allowed to withdraw from representing them! Due to time crunch within the Court system, only one of those motions was considered and granted before the meeting. This ruling granted a restraining order to prevent the Board majority from taking employment actions against me during the meeting. The order lasts until the Court can find time to hear and rule on the other five motions.

During the meeting Lanny White with CRI CPAs delivered a stunningly good report on the financial operations of EPB during fiscal 2020. The Board also approved our recommendation for restarting non-payment disconnections of service according to a recent Executive Order from the Governor, and directed me to continue to work with TVA in pursuit of the radical changes to EPB retail electric rates proposed by Froedge and approved by the Board on a 3-2 vote. The Board majority also moved to elect a new Chairperson - DT Froedge.

November 19, 2020 Special Meeting - Just four days prior to the regular meeting for November, Chairman Froedge called a Special Meeting of EPB to consider two motions he wanted to make, relative to Counsel for EPB, and the Long Term Partnership Agreement between TVA and EPB. During the meeting held via Zoom, one member lost connection to the meeting, causing the meeting to be ended without actions taken.

November 24, 2020 Regular Meeting - The meeting proceeded in a normal fashion, with Matt Baker being appointed counsel to the Board relative to the ongoing litigation filed originally by Froedge.

November 30, 2020 - A status conference was held among the parties to the litigation before Judge Alexander via Zoom. After discussion of the issues and how Matt Baker could take over representing EPB in the litigation, even though he had previously filed a motion with the Court on behalf of Froedge, an evidentiary hearing was scheduled for December 11, to discuss and hear testimony on all of the outstanding motions relative to this litigation.

December 18, 2020. Circuit Court Judge John Alexander issued a ruling and order relative to the motions heard on November 30. The ruling found Froedge in Contempt of Court, and directed the parties to resume mediation on the contentious issues. The Court also directed Froedge to personally pay the new costs associated with the resumed mediation.

December 22, 2020. At the regular EPB meeting, Froedge led the board majority to hire a law firm to act against TVA in the matter regarding the Flexibilty Agreement. Copious warnings were given to the three about how this agreement had been a lynchpin in the effort to attract CATL to acquire the old RRD/LSC plant and build their US products in Glasgow. These warnings were clear, factual, and passionate. They voted to go after TVA anyway.

Then they discussed the recent Circuit Court ruling, finding Froedge in contempt of court. They decided to hire Matt Baker to help arrange the mandated mediation...at Froedge's expense.

Luckily, the Board voted to approve my 2021 Pay Plan, but declined to consider my salary. This was no surprise, but the important business was approving the pay plan for the EPB team.

There was discussion of TVA's disapproval of a new retail electric rate architecture imagined by Froedge. The board then voted to have me design a finished rate plan using the very architecture that TVA had already rejected. That was about it.

January 5, 2021. Instead of proceeding with the resumption of mediation, as ordered by Judge Alexander, attorney for the board filed a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition. This is an appeal to Kentucky Court of Appeals, seeking to have Judge Alexander's rulings in this matter overturned. It is unknown how this Writ might impact the process of Justice in this matter.

January 19, 2021. Judge Alexander entered an order, amending his previous order, which stipulated that no Special EPB Meetings could be called to consider anything other than emergency business. The new order removed that restriction.

January 26, 20121. The Regular EPB meeting was held and, well, I cannot really describe it. Just look for yourself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd70FE2S5J0...

February 8, 2021. At a "special" meeting of Glasgow Common Council, Mayor Armstrong first nominated Mark Lane to a position on EPB Board. The nomination was rejected by a majority of the Council. Next, a joint letter from BCEA and Glasgow Barren County Chamber of Commerce was read aloud. The joint letter urged the elected officials to use their influence to return wisdom and order to EPB decisions as they relate to Glasgow's economy. The letter resulted in a resolution proposed by Terry Bunnell, urging the Mayor to use his powers as requested by the joint letter. This resolution passed unanimously.

February 11, 2021. In a Special Meeting of the EPB, Court-ordered mediation relative to my employment was conducted. A settlement agreement was reached that provided for my stepping down from my position as Superintendent and my assuming a temporary role as Advisor/Consultant to EPB.

February 12, 2021. Another Special Meeting was held with only one thing on the agenda. The board reconsidered its action to authorize Frost Brown Todd to take action against TVA. The previously authorized complaint which sought to dissolve the Long Term Agreement with TVA, was retracted and FBT was directed to immediately withdraw the lawsuit.

 

Chapter Seven of Seven

 Being There

An Autobiographical Account of My Life and Times at Glasgow EPB

William J. Ray

CHAPTER SEVEN - The End

So, I do have regrets, and my departure due to the unpopularity of doing my job by recommending actions to a board, based on the knowledge gained by my team, still stings...a lot. I spent the last 40 years head-over-heels in love with Glasgow. Being spurned by it is the unkindest cut of my life. I regret not being politically savvy enough to recognize the development of a new resentful and angry mentality of some in the community. Further, I am ashamed of being blindsided by the possibility that their discredited ideas and beliefs could be embraced by local elected officials. While this malady did not originate in Glasgow, I should have had my ear to the ground enough to predict its emergence. I am sorry for not setting a better example for my families and my supporters. In my position, it is not enough to talk the talk. I was supposed to make sure that my walk was successful, not just accurate. I cannot help but feel sorry for giving others the assurance that doing the right thing, would always save one from injustice; and that discovery would not always lead to implementation. I learned that being right can sometimes just not be enough. I can only hope that they learn from what I failed to accomplish and move forward with the resolve gained from experience.

I did not mean for this to be so long. But I left out a lot of stuff about those 40 years, so maybe this should become a book. I left out the part where my blood children were born, grew up in Glasgow, and went on to make me the proudest Father ever known. I also left out a lot about the 124 other children – the total that worked with me during those years. I consider them my family too, and I am really going to miss them. I am a committed introvert (true, I swear), so it has always been hard for me to let both of my families know just how dear they are to me. Way back in 1984, when I was new to the EPB job, I discovered it was much easier for me to communicate my feelings to the team in writing. To make those writings personal, I began observing everyone’s employment anniversary by putting my feelings about them into a hand-written note. I guess I chose that method because I am always moved by a hand-written note from a friend, so I hoped the work family would feel the same. During my tenure at EPB, I wrote a lot of those notes – an amount commensurate to the love I have for my team. They are important to me. I believe those notes were important to my precious team, and I am really going to miss that process of making sure they know how much I care for them. 

I do not want to fail to mention a couple of stalwart Board members who, in my mind, qualify for mention like those I have already bestowed upon several other community leaders I got to work with. John “Tag” Taylor and Libby Pruitt Short joined the Board when the battle was already raging. They do not have the years of experience of some of the citizens I mentioned above, but they were quick studies and refused to accept the popular beliefs about me, my team, the rate design we created, or the sustainability discoveries we made. They might have had the toughest job of all of those who came before them, and they did that job with conscience, study, and honor. I salute them.

As mentioned earlier, I was born in Glasgow and came back to Glasgow in 1983, mainly because of the rotten political environment that existed in Bowling Green at the time. I did not intend to stay in Glasgow a long time. Over the years, there were many offers of bigger jobs and equally bigger salaries, but I just never could come up with a complaint about my job at Glasgow EPB that was big enough to give me a reason to leave. I also loved the way Glasgow was growing and changing, and that I was a part of that transformation. All of the friends I have now, and hold dear, came as a result of my time at Glasgow EPB, and the gravity created by those friends held me to Glasgow. Most of all, I loved the team that I worked with, and I still do. While I still have not found a good reason to leave, it seems that my departure is the will of the majority. While I refused to grant their wish without a fight (I’m not throwing away my shot!), sheer numbers and the clear intention of a majority of Glasgow’s voters made it certain they would prevail. So, with this narrative I bid you adieu, with my heartfelt thanks for letting me spend my life trying to make the world, starting right here in Glasgow, better. I know those who befriended me in Glasgow made my world better.

It is neither the calendar, nor the clock, that urges me to depart. Rather, it is the compass – pointing out the direction to destinations I crave – ethics, justice, and respect for science, that directs me to journey away from Glasgow EPB. This narrative should answer a lot of questions about my tenure in Glasgow, but one still remains – what comes next? Tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?

Chapter Six of Seven

Being There

An Autobiographical Account of My Life and Times at Glasgow EPB

William J. Ray

CHAPTER SIX

It was with the scars from the battles we already fought, and the losses we incurred therein, that were with us as we trudged into the biggest conflict of my career. We were driven by the injustices we found, and the understanding that someone had to confront the problems we discovered. The creation of a new rate structure for electric power was not a fight we went looking for. Rather, it came looking for us. The rate issue arrived in the data gathered by one of our big research projects that tested the viability of advanced energy meters using our broadband network and allowed us to gather several years-worth of data about how Glasgow customers use the energy we sell. Instead of gathering only 5 digits of data from electric meters, once very thirty days, suddenly we were gathering that data every 15 minutes. As exceedingly bright members of the EPB team began to analyze that data by comparing our sales data for nearly 8,000 customers to the wholesale energy data provided by TVA, a story began to materialize – one that could not be ignored – one that held the key to upending the century-old electric power business.

In 2014, the brave Board that existed then (Norma Redford, Jeff Harned, Cheryl Berry Ambach, Jim Lee, and Karalee Oldenkamp) began to delve into the facts that the team was unveiling in the data we mined.  The findings included many inconvenient truths. We discovered that the existing rate architecture resulted in only those customers using the “average” amount of energy, and the average amount of coincident peak demand each month, were paying an amount directly connected to the wholesale cost of delivering that energy. Our discovery showed that very few real customers actually used the mathematical average amounts for a given rate class. Further, the facts revealed that customers using less than the average volume of energy, paid far less for their electricity than the actual cost of purchasing and delivering that energy. Conversely, we found that customers using more than the average volume of kWh (while using an average amount of coincident peak demand), were being forced to pay much more than the actual cost of the power delivered, and those were only the results within the residential rate class. Over the months, the facts also revealed that customers in the large commercial and industrial rate classes, when actual hourly consumption was compared to actual hourly wholesale cost, were paying much, much more than the cost of serving them. 

There were other previously hidden truths discovered. We found that large companies were being forced to subsidize other classes of customers. Perhaps the biggest discovery, and the one completely ignored by my vocal critics, is that there really is no significant relationship between low energy usage and household income. None. The image of cost-based rates bringing hundreds of older folks into a life of misery is conjured from nothing but misguided imagination. Much more common, and where a direct relationship was found to exist, is that a significant number of customers with low household income find themselves living in substandard housing, and those households were found to use more than the average consumption upon which the old rates were designed. The poor, in substandard housing, were paying more than their fair share of EPB fixed costs under the pre-2016 rate design.

These findings were considered by the EPB Board throughout 2013, 2014 and early 2015. I can assure the reader that no one on that Board wanted to be placed in the position of having to deal with this issue that permeates all 3,500 electric utilities in the U.S. They faced the old energy utility habit of ignoring the fact that the rate architecture, the one in place since the early 1900s, did not accurately produce billing that was connected to actual cost of service. They could have adopted that common industry habit and hoped that their terms on the Board would expire before those facts leaked out to the customers who were being treated unfairly, but they did not do that. Instead, driven by their wisdom, integrity, and ethics, they pursued a course of “good trouble” and followed the words of Martin Luther King from his March 1965 speech in Selma, Alabama, “A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.” That EPB Board rose up, and they directed my team to develop a rate that brought accuracy and justice to the way people in Glasgow purchase their supply of energy, because anything else would not be right. My team followed their direction and developed what energy and rate experts who have examined it call, the most simple and elegant solution to electric power retail rate design which exists today. Although that move was largely misunderstood, and although that action of standing up for what is right ultimately caused their departure, and mine, I am proud of what the Board and my team accomplished then, and what they are still accomplishing now. If given the chance to go back and do it all again, I would not change a thing, because it was that new relationship between electric power production and the retail sale of the product that revealed the most powerful truth of my career.

For over a century, the electric power systems have operated on the belief that the daily demand curve for electric power was unalterable. This belief drove the industry to over-build generation capacity and over-mine the fossil fuels that have long been used to burn to produce the steam necessary to create the flow of electrons we hold so dear. But our work in Glasgow began to show that the daily peak demand could be flattened. It showed that off-peak power could be stored in batteries, and that our broadband network could be used to organize electric power production, storage, and consumption, into a shape which could be satisfied using mainly renewable energy sources. Before some very angry and backward voices organized to put the kibosh on research projects in Glasgow, using misunderstanding and a shocking disdain for expertise, we gathered enough data to glimpse a world with dew still on it. We discovered and demonstrated how the ratio of energy usage to peak demand could be drastically improved, using technology and cost-based rates. We saw a way toward a sustainable energy system that stole the ideas of energy conservation and storage from nature. We revealed those things before a few misguided people, promoting their local brew of uninformed populism, killed the appetite for research and discovery in Glasgow. Allowing them to do that is my greatest failure.