June 19, 2006

Special Session:
An excuse to do little - Part 1
Richard B. Weldon Jr.

Here we go again, wrestling with a complex and confusing issue in a very compressed timeline. Last year it was medical malpractice, and given the time and ability to focus, the outcome did very little to solve the problem, but both sides ended up claiming victory.

Before writing about what happened, we need to unravel the great Special Session mystery. Who called this special and extraordinary gathering? Speaker Michael Busch (D., Anne Arundel) and President Mike Miller (D., Calvert/PG) asked members of their respective chambers to sign a petition to require the governor to "call" the Special Session. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., issued an Executive Order before he received this petition.

The General Assembly leadership claims he only did so to get his order out before the leadership could require him to do so. We´ll never know the truth, but the claims make good entertainment on both sides. The discussions started off in a political context, not a policy context. If there is one sure way to doom a common sense, rational approach to settling a pressing policy issue, it is to hold a Democrat and Republican caucus meeting as the initial point of discussion, as happened here.

The Democrat mission was to pass a bill that: deferred the BG&E rate increase (for 11 months); eliminate the current Public Service Commission; replace PSC members which people selected by General Assembly leaders, not the governor; and force consumers to participate in an interest-payback program that lasts 10 years.

A subliminal message of Democrat legislators was that anything wrong with the electric utilities, from pricing to regulation, was the fault of Governor Ehrlich. Republicans, on the other hand, had a few fundamental concerns of their own.

Any discussion of rate caps or deferrals raised the specter of the failed 1999 deregulation scheme that brought us here in the first place. If the six-year rate cap is one of the causes of high electric rates now, how does implementing another 11-month rate cap bring us lower electric rates in the future?

A more significant concern is the fact that consumers will be forced to participate in the interest-payback during the 11-month deferral. Even the 140,000 BG&E customers, who have already "opted out" of the plan, willingly paying the full 72% rate increase, will find themselves stuck with a monthly interest payment.

It is in that context that the two warring parties gathered last Monday evening. In a weird twist, the two groups meet in large conference rooms that are separated by a 15-foot hallway. In terms of ideology and outcomes, the philosophical gulf couldn´t be wider.

So, call Monday night a gathering of the troops and an issue of the order of battle. Both sides were fed the party line, or offered the particular flavor of Kool Aid for partisan consumption.

Tuesday brought the public hearings before the appropriate legislative committees. Usually, such hearings are held on a bill, and that bill is available well in advance for both the legislators and the public. In this case, the bill drafting attorneys were working through Monday into the wee hours of Tuesday, and the draft of the bill was not available for distribution or review in advance of the hearing.

How in the world can you expect a citizen or legislator to grasp the complexity of this issue without the courtesy of an advanced review of the language that would be enacted into Maryland law? Presumably, our committee members are the issue experts. They deal with the utility industry and they regularly review the sections of the Maryland annotated code that deals with electricity service and regulation. During a regular General Assembly session, bill hearings on complex bills are excruciating affairs: lengthy, rambling, and wide-ranging.

On Tuesday everyone was flying by the seat of their pants. That isn’t a good policy when you know what you´re doing, and it´s a terrible policy when you really don´t have the faintest idea of what you trying to do.

The advance billing from the House and Senate leadership also indicated that the body would reconsider child sexual predator legislation, including the language known as Jessica’s Law. You might recall that this issue died on a silly procedural maneuver orchestrated by Del. Anthony Brown (D., PG) during the regular session. Delegate Brown is serving as Baltimore Mayor Martin O´Malley’s running mate and had been since last fall. No self-respecting lieutenant governor candidate could be stuck with the reputation as the guy who killed the bill to protect children from sexual predators.

At the GOP Caucus meeting Monday night, it was unclear as to whether the Democrats would deal with the child sexual predator at all. No committee hearings were scheduled, and no bill text was available. The actual House session was scheduled to begin Wednesday morning at 10 A.M. Work actually got underway around 10:35, and between 10:45 and noon the only thing that was done was to get the BG&E rate bill read over the desk and referred to the Economic Matters Committee.

Sometime between the morning and afternoon sessions, the practical political reality of Delegate Brown’s procedural execution of Jessica´s Law must have dawned on the majority. Suddenly, the Judiciary Committee had a bill before them. The House recessed at noon, and committee hearings were scheduled for 2 P.M. The House came back to the chamber at 2, and the only significant work was the first reading of the Child Sexual Predator bill.

Before recessing at 4 P.M., Speaker Busch suggested that delegates might want to arrange hotels for the night. He planned to get through the legislative calendar during the course of the evening, and implied it would be a long night. That suggestion might help a delegate that had the foresight to pack an overnight bag, but for a delegate from Brunswick who has to drive home, an overnight stay isn´t much help. Tomorrow, in Part Two, the House reconvenes to discuss the Senate bill on the BG&E rate increase and the House measure on child sexual predators.

June 20, 2006

Special Session: An excuse to do little – Part 2

Richard B. Weldon Jr.

In yesterday’s column the stage was set for General Assembly action on the Baltimore Gas & Electric rate situation, and consideration of a child sexual predator law. It was a long day.

The final Wednesday session was scheduled to begin at 8 P.M. At 8:30, the Speaker’s office announced the session would actually begin at 9. In fact, it didn’t really start until 10.

After a few technology glitches and delays, the second reading process got underway on the BG&E bill. Republicans offered several amendments, most notably:

- Stripping away the mandatory participation provision;
- Eliminating the provision requiring any appeals to this new law to be filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court;
- Stripping the provision that allows the Maryland attorney; general to appoint the People’s Counsel, a right currently granted to the governor.

Even Democrats got into the act, offering a very controversial amendment to the bill to allow municipal aggregation. Aggregation is the practice of a local government acting as a middleman between the consumer and the power company. Thurmont is an aggregator, as is Hagerstown.

The aggregation amendment presented an opportunity for the strange bedfellow thing, as a number of Democrats supported the bill for policy reasons, while Republicans voted for the amendment in order to put the House bill in a posture different from the Senate bill. In the end, the aggregation amendment failed.

The final House vote on the Senate bill occurred around 12:45 A.M., with 27 Republicans voting against the bill. That means that almost half of the Republican Caucus voted for the bill. Most Republicans that have a majority of their constituents served by Baltimore Gas & Electric voted in favor of the bill in spite of the obvious objections of the Ehrlich Administration.

The Child Sexual Predator bill, sponsored by every single member of the House, zipped through on a unanimous vote. The second reader vote tally was taken at 1 A.M., but the House and Senate versions were slightly different. The House was recessed until 1:30 A.M. to buy time for printing the third reader version. As previous Journal entries have proven, time seems to stretch here in Annapolis. The House reconvened at 1:45, and passed the bill on another unanimous vote. With two different versions, we adjourned again in order for the Senate to act. The planned reconvening time was 3 A.M.

So the House reconvened a little after 3:45, and by 4:37 A.M. we were able to pass a bill that includes a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for a first-degree sex offense against a child.

The major unresolved question is whether Governor Ehrlich vetoes the bill, signs it, or allows it to become Maryland law without his signature. He plans to hold a hearing today to allow BG&E ratepayers to come and express their opinion. I really like that idea, since the General Assembly hearing featured Martin O’Malley and Doug Duncan, and turned into a silly political show, not a true public airing.

So, here’s your chance to play governor. What follows are the promises made by Senator Miller and Speaker Busch, and my analysis of the actual affect of the legislation. At the end, you decide whether a veto is warranted or not:

Promise: Senate President Miller was quoted before the Special Session saying: "The 72% rate increase will not stand." Speaker Busch said something very similar.

Analysis: The bill that passed both chambers allows for 15% rate increase, with as much as a 57% increase next June when the new temporary rate cap is lifted. I don’t know about you, but my arithmetic says that adds up to 72%.

Promise: Both Senator Miller and Delegate Busch attacked the PSC and the governor’s rate plans, disparaging both plans as far too little in terms of rate relief.

Analysis: The bill that passed both chambers represents a 4% improvement over the governor’s plan, and a 6% improvement over the PSC plan. Wow, what a staggering improvement. What would we do without these guys?

Promise: Senator Miller and Delegate Busch both criticized the PSC and the governor’s plans for creating a debt that had to be paid off by BG&E customers.

Analysis: Under Ehrlich’s plan, the debt would be financed through 15 months of interest payments. Miller/Busch, intent on doing better, crafted a plan that lowers the amount to be paid monthly, but stretches the payments out over 120 months. For a BG&E customer, the electric they use for the next 11 months will be paid for over the next 10 years! That sounds like a Mafia deal!

If I were Governor Ehrlich, I would veto this thing so fast a sonic boom would rattle Annapolis. Force Senate President Miller and Speaker of The House Busch to bring their automatons back to the State House, require them to muster the votes for an override, and then watch the outrage when BG&E consumers realize how badly they were misled by the majority.