Proposition 80
My take on CA Proposition 80 -
No
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 80 - No
Summary - This proposition would change a number of the laws surrounding the state's electrical policy, regulation of electric providers, and the extent to which renewable energy is used. Specifically, it would put far more power in the hands of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to regulate electric providers and require that all electrical providers have at least 20% of their energy from renewable resources by 2010.
Commentary - This is another definite No vote. This proposition is a great example of what I'll call "ballot measure hubris." It's the idea that representative government is completely unimportant and that by taking things directly to the voters we can make all policy for the state. While it is true that some things in this state must be brought to the voters (see prop 77, for instance), most of the time we should leave things to our representatives - after all, that is their job. We elected them so that they can spend all their time concentrating on the difficult issues that face CA, and we simply don't have the insight into some of these processes to be able to know what's best. Probably the second largest issue facing CA right now (second behind getting the budget fixed and the state solvent), is our electrical policy. If our representatives can't fix the second largest issue, and we the voters must fix it for them, what good is it to even have a legislature?
The other reason why this is ballot measure hubris is that it is a pendulum swing, knee jerk, 180 degree turn from the previous attempt to deregulate our electricity. So we move from one hasty ballot measure, in which we really screwed ourselves over because deregulation was done improperly, to another hasty, knee jerk reaction ballot measure in which we now throw everything under regulation. There is certainly a middle ground here between regulating nothing (and allowing outside of CA utilities to play around with our supply without consequence) and regulating everything - but it probably won't be found through ballot measures because that sort of solution requires a back and forth that is suited to representatives handling it.
But there are plenty of other reasons to hate this prop as well. As I mentioned, it throws all electrical utilities under the rule of the PUC. Government is simply not suited to doing anything in an agile, swift or thrifty manner, and having a monolithic government entity ruling over an entire industry ensures that all providers will be infected with the same governmental sluggishness. This is because they must go to the PUC when they want to change their rates, or create new plants, or do just about anything which brings everything to the speed of the PUC - i.e. government, and therefore, slow and expensive. In addition it creates difficult rules for consumers, preventing them from changing their electrical providers and locking them in by priority to local government electrical providers. So not only does it ensure that all agencies will be slowed down to government rates, it also requires consumers to choose government first (or worse, have no choice but government).
Another disturbing aspect is the requirement on renewable energy by 2010. It is almost 2006, meaning this leaves us a little over 4 years to make one-fifth of our energy in a renewable fashion. This is a dangerous policy for one simple reason - what if its not cost-effective to do so? What if we can't build enough wind plants, or solar farms in 4 years (both of which would probably take more than 4 years to get through the government approval process)? The simple answer is that we'll just pay more. If you don't think we pay enough already, plan on that going up significantly if this prop passes. I don't know about you, but electricity is by far our single most expensive utility - gas and water aren't even close in their most expensive months.
To top it off, it doesn't even do renewable energy well. Look at who opposes this measure:
Proposition 80 - No
Summary - This proposition would change a number of the laws surrounding the state's electrical policy, regulation of electric providers, and the extent to which renewable energy is used. Specifically, it would put far more power in the hands of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to regulate electric providers and require that all electrical providers have at least 20% of their energy from renewable resources by 2010.
Commentary - This is another definite No vote. This proposition is a great example of what I'll call "ballot measure hubris." It's the idea that representative government is completely unimportant and that by taking things directly to the voters we can make all policy for the state. While it is true that some things in this state must be brought to the voters (see prop 77, for instance), most of the time we should leave things to our representatives - after all, that is their job. We elected them so that they can spend all their time concentrating on the difficult issues that face CA, and we simply don't have the insight into some of these processes to be able to know what's best. Probably the second largest issue facing CA right now (second behind getting the budget fixed and the state solvent), is our electrical policy. If our representatives can't fix the second largest issue, and we the voters must fix it for them, what good is it to even have a legislature?
The other reason why this is ballot measure hubris is that it is a pendulum swing, knee jerk, 180 degree turn from the previous attempt to deregulate our electricity. So we move from one hasty ballot measure, in which we really screwed ourselves over because deregulation was done improperly, to another hasty, knee jerk reaction ballot measure in which we now throw everything under regulation. There is certainly a middle ground here between regulating nothing (and allowing outside of CA utilities to play around with our supply without consequence) and regulating everything - but it probably won't be found through ballot measures because that sort of solution requires a back and forth that is suited to representatives handling it.
But there are plenty of other reasons to hate this prop as well. As I mentioned, it throws all electrical utilities under the rule of the PUC. Government is simply not suited to doing anything in an agile, swift or thrifty manner, and having a monolithic government entity ruling over an entire industry ensures that all providers will be infected with the same governmental sluggishness. This is because they must go to the PUC when they want to change their rates, or create new plants, or do just about anything which brings everything to the speed of the PUC - i.e. government, and therefore, slow and expensive. In addition it creates difficult rules for consumers, preventing them from changing their electrical providers and locking them in by priority to local government electrical providers. So not only does it ensure that all agencies will be slowed down to government rates, it also requires consumers to choose government first (or worse, have no choice but government).
Another disturbing aspect is the requirement on renewable energy by 2010. It is almost 2006, meaning this leaves us a little over 4 years to make one-fifth of our energy in a renewable fashion. This is a dangerous policy for one simple reason - what if its not cost-effective to do so? What if we can't build enough wind plants, or solar farms in 4 years (both of which would probably take more than 4 years to get through the government approval process)? The simple answer is that we'll just pay more. If you don't think we pay enough already, plan on that going up significantly if this prop passes. I don't know about you, but electricity is by far our single most expensive utility - gas and water aren't even close in their most expensive months.
To top it off, it doesn't even do renewable energy well. Look at who opposes this measure:
LES NELSON,
President
California Solar Energy Industries
Association
KARL GAWELL,
Executive Director
Geothermal Energy Association
JAMES SWEENEY,
Co-Director of the Energy,
Natural Resources and the Environment Program at
the
Stanford Institute for Economic Policy
Research
Why would leaders of the renewable energy industry oppose a law that mandates we get more renewable energy? Because this law does it poorly. And because the best way of supporting renewable energy is by allowing swift and thrifty energy providers to do it well. It may not be viable for some huge electrical provider to do an all-solar solution, for instance; but a small, focused company might easily be able to carve out a nice niche - giving consumers environmentally-friendly renewable energy at budget-friendly affordable prices. Such small providers would basically be destroyed by this legislation - government regulation tends to encourage large corporations because they are the only ones with the time and money to jump through the hoops.
All these reasons, and only one chance to vote No - *sigh*.
Why would leaders of the renewable energy industry oppose a law that mandates we get more renewable energy? Because this law does it poorly. And because the best way of supporting renewable energy is by allowing swift and thrifty energy providers to do it well. It may not be viable for some huge electrical provider to do an all-solar solution, for instance; but a small, focused company might easily be able to carve out a nice niche - giving consumers environmentally-friendly renewable energy at budget-friendly affordable prices. Such small providers would basically be destroyed by this legislation - government regulation tends to encourage large corporations because they are the only ones with the time and money to jump through the hoops.
All these reasons, and only one chance to vote No - *sigh*.
Posted: Sun - November 6, 2005 at 04:05 PM | | | | | | |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Highlighted posts
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 07, 2005 08:01 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 07, 2005 08:01 AM
Search
The Tip Jar
Counter provided by
Brought to you by
