Who can forget the power crisis of five years ago. Energy
deregulation in California had made it possible for power companies
to manipulate the market with rolling blackouts and gouge the
rate-paying public.
Who can forget the power crisis of five years ago. Energy deregulation in California had made it possible for power companies to manipulate the market with rolling blackouts and gouge the rate-paying public. Remember Enron?
It is time to re-inject a little sanity into the marketplace. We believe Proposition 80 is a good step in that direction.
Proposition 80 would require power companies regulated by the Public Utilities Commission to show that they are able to meet peak demand with adequate reserves, to discourage the kind of panic that resulting in huge run-ups in costs a few years ago.
It would require investor-owned utilities like PG&E to fundamentally alter the ways they provide power by making cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation programs their first priority. Number two would be buying power from renewable resources. Traditional sources of power, such as fossil fuel, be third on the priority list.
The measure also accelerates to 2010, from 2020, the deadline for companies to meet the state requirement that 20 percent of all power come from renewable sources.
Proposition 80 would also prevent large electricity users from leaving the public grid in favor of an independent electric service provider, or ESP, which generally serve large commercial interests and some public institutions, such as state universities. Current ESP users would be grandfathered in.
This would eliminate some choice, but it would also have the effect of keeping costs spread over the widest possible user base – and that will tamp prices down for the general public.
Proposition 80 would also place regulation of the ESPs under the purview of the Public Utilities Commission for the first time.
The last major provision of Proposition 80 is the writing into law time-differentiated rates, so that times of peak use can be charged at higher rates to encourage conservation.
Proposition 80 opponents claim energy policy is too complex to be done by initiative, and that public hearings are a better route to go. That would be a more persuasive argument if Proposition 80 was a bad law, and we don’t think is the case.
They also argue that Proposition 80 will discourage investment in new power plants. That is a possibility, but what will be unquestionably encouraged is conservation and greater use of renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar.
Proposition 80 provides common-sense regulations that will once again show California leading the nation in energy matters. In the absence of real leadership from Washington, where drilling for more oil seems to be the answer to most energy questions, it is a course we should take.
