(Editor’s note: This is one of a series of articles in the months to come on candidates for statewide office.)
Patty Durand
Patty Durand, Democratic challenger to Public Service Commissioner Tim Echols, is a longtime consumer advocate in the energy industry who owns a consulting business that focuses on consumer engagement and education in energy and technology. She previously served as president and CEO of the Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative, helping it double in size and expand energy stakeholder knowledge about consumers through many pieces of foundational research. Durand sat down with InsiderAdvantage this week to discuss the issues that compelled her to run for the PSC and what she has planned if elected.
Question: What were the factors or motivations that led you to announce your campaign for Public Service Commissioner?
Answer: I decided to run for a seat on the Georgia Public Service Commission as I approached my 10 year anniversary with my position as President & CEO of the Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative. Georgia has not been a leader on energy on any level, and is one of only 11 states with no clean energy goals or mandates. In addition, Georgia recently moved from 5th to 4th place for highest energy bills in the nation. Georgia remains in the bottom five of state rankings for energy efficiency spending and has no meaningful bill pay assistance for people experiencing energy poverty. I have been frustrated for several years watching the Georgia Commission make decisions in the interest of utility profits that harm Georgia’s people and that do nothing to address climate change, while watching other state commissions make meaningful progress in these areas.
The last straw was in December of 2019 when I watched the commission approve a residential demand charge rate plan which raises electric bills 30-45% for people moving into newly constructed homes and apartments, including low income units. The commission had done no studies on the impact of this new plan on people and clearly did not care how this impacted people struggling to avoid homelessness.
Q: Speaking of frustrations involving energy in Georgia, you have been vocal in your opposition to Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle. Can you explain why you believe the costs will outweigh the benefits of it finally being developed?
A: I am not an opponent of Plant Vogtle. I am opposed to how the Georgia PSC has provided regulatory oversight to this project. Plant Vogtle is now documented to cost $33.2 billion. It will produce only 2200 MWs of electricity annually which is a tiny amount for that much money. That is why no other state is building nuclear -the cost is so much higher than other choices of generation that could have been chosen, and this was true in 2017 when the commission had an opportunity to cancel this plant. Plant Vogtle is the most expensive power plant ever built on earth and will produce the most expensive electricity in world history. $33 billion is federal level money spent in one state on one power plant.
Q: Tim Echols has been in this position for a while and has established himself in the state and among his supporters. What is the primary issue you plan to run on against Echols?
A: I plan to run on a platform of transparency and respect for Georgians, neither one of which Echols demonstrates.
Q: How can the PSC be more aggressive when it comes to developing renewable energy?
A: The commission can remove policy barriers to the development of renewable energy – among them remove the cap on monthly “netting” so that as many people as wish can have rooftop solar. The commission also needs to adopt policies to allow off-short wind energy to be studied and planned – Georgia has a lot of potential for offshore wind that is not happening because Georgia Power has blocked it.
Q: If elected, what would you establish as Georgia’s goals for renewable energy and a solid climate plan?
A: As commissioner I would create a committee to make recommendations and write a report on how Georgia can reduce carbon emissions, and set goals based on citizen input. I think the state could easily adopt a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2035 based on 1990 emissions numbers, but I would need to study that further before I would say that is what I would do.
