Centralized Planning
-- A Guest Commentary
July 15, 2005 — By Steven J. Moss, San Francisco Community Power
We pretend otherwise, but
California’s energy sector is planned as centrally as any old line
communist state. Every aspect of our complicated electricity system has
to be approved by a state bureaucrat, usually at the request of a
monopoly utility that has its hands permanently in our pockets. And
virtually every fuel source, from solar to nuclear, is heavily
subsidized.
The results are decidedly mixed. When we flick a switch, the lights go
on, which is way better performance than lot’s of other countries. But
the system’s expensive and overly polluting. Residential rates will soon
likely pop above energy crises levels; high industrial and commercial
rates are in part what’s kept the state’s economy in the doldrums. And
decades-old power plants continue to pollute the air and water because
no one’s in charge of closing them.
The 20th century solution to state-run enterprises was privatization. We
tried that with the electricity sector as the century turned, with bad
results. So here’s a novel idea to cure what ails us: give fewer
government bureaucrats more authority; and have more active and informed
public conversations about how best to achieve conflicting goals.
The electric industry is currently regulated by a cacophony of state
agencies, each in charge of a different part of the elephant. Governor
Schwarzengger has proposed consolidating these into a single uber-agency.
That’s a good idea, but needs to be a part of overall regulatory reform.
Utility spending -- billions of dollars a year on everything from poles
to meters -- needs to be examined more carefully and comprehensively, by
top-notch staff, to ensure it’s warranted. Right now ratepayers are
essentially “taxed” billions of dollars to pay for a variety of electric
services, some of which power our refrigerators and hot tubs, but others
that pay for research into advanced technologies, energy “education”
programs, and other initiatives that are only remotely related to
producing another kilowatt of electricity. Virtually none of these
expenditures are regularly examined by an elected official. As a result,
we’re dependent on civil service staff to ensure that energy spending is
“just and reasonable.” These individuals need to be the smartest people
in the room when the meet with utility staff and technology advocates,
which means they also need to earn something more than a lobbyist’s
annual entertainment allowance.
Likewise, the trade-offs between ensuring the lights stay on and other
societal goals must be made more explicit. To do so will require us to
determine what our priorities are in the face of changing global
environmental and economic conditions. For example, do we want low
electric rates, cleaner air, or the minimum number of outages possible?
All three of these goals are not simultaneously obtainable, yet under
current governance structures we act as if they are. Worse yet,
autonomous agencies which rarely communicate with one another are
responsible for achieving different goals. Horses pulling in different
direction rarely get very far.
We currently spend more than $200 million a year keeping old polluting
power plants in the Bay Area going. We also subsidize low income
families’ electricity use. Since low income households are
disproportionately located close-by power plants, we’re essentially
paying people to suck on the exhaust pipes we’re also paying to keep
chugging along. We can do better than this.
Steven Moss is the publisher of the Neighborhood Environmental
Newswire. He serves as Executive Director of San Francisco Community
Power,
www.sfpower.org.
Source: An ENN Guest Commentary |