Cities on the forefront of energy freedom
Anne Butterfield, January 14, 2010 (NewEnergyNews)
Critics of the coming climate bill say it would cripple our economy, restrict personal freedom, attack property rights, ignore real pollutants, create corrupt political bureaucracies for offsets and trades, and put billions into research and technologies that won't improve our lives.
In such coded speech we hear the sound of the thick-skinned species known as talkingpointapotamus, those undying creatures of sci-fi which thrive in echo chambers and have no viability apart from the money-fueled fictions which drive them.
Telecom, tobacco and insurance interests fund the FreedomWorks organization, headed by former Speaker for the House Dick Armey, who alleges that the Tea Party movement is all about grass roots in its opposition to health care reform and a cap and trade bill. In reality it's Astroturf and it's very appealing to pundits such as Glenn Beck who has woofed: "They are going to take our financial systems, and then they are going to nationalize industry, and then they are going to nationalize energy."
Beck got it backwards. The threat with real ballast behind it is not nationalization of industry but the longstanding corporate manipulation of government.
Boulder's radio pundit Duncan Campbell paints the picture as one in which we need to go beyond both major parties and (the compliant Big Media) that are in collaboration with the eight other "Bigs" that are preventing the change needed to prevent the nation's ongoing decline. Those Bigs are finance, military, oil and gas, coal, utilities, pharmaceuticals, insurance, and agribusiness. Campbell adds, "our U.S. Congress and
Government are not included among the Bigs -- the ignorant angry citizens' nostrum -- as Big G is already subsumed, owned by, the controlling other, agenda-setting Bigs.. ."
In "Gangs of America," Ted Nace shows that the political power of corporate interests is greased with old-fashioned money, but not usually cash in the cloakroom. Instead, "smart lobbyists direct contributions strategically rather than tactically, giving year in and year out to the members of the crucial committees of both political parties and sometimes to a politician's pet causes..." It's not hard to see how the lever works: when the politician misbehaves, funding is withdrawn.
It is against this backdrop that we should consider the most privileged corporate sector of all, investor owned utilities which, unlike the other "Bigs," do not even face competition.
They are monopolies grandfathered in from the dawn of the last century on the pretense that being regulated would render justice to communities. With the municipally owned utility, on the other hand, the wealth and the choices of how to produce power stay in the community. But with the investor owned utility, the wealth is transferred to shareholders anywhere in the world with the decisions made at a corporate office, then often rubber stamped in the regulators' office, with priorities that do not match those at home.
Investor-owned utilities traditionally pay a high dividend due to being granted a guaranteed return on investment for their installed generating plants. It is those central, thermal, fossil fuel burning plants that utilities most want to build -- and which have put our oceans, climate, energy security, and our politics into a stranglehold.
So how to we democratize our energy supply and bring power generation closer to the functioning of the internet with its dynamic delivery of goods from multitudinous providers?
It is not easy, but the legal pathway does exist through a construct called community choice aggregation. The most successful example of this model is in Ohio where 800,000 customers decide through their cities what their mix of electricity shall be based on their energy policy goals.
For a home rule city like Boulder, with its moral and civically endorsed commitment to reducing its fossil fuel emissions, and with its franchise agreement with an investor-owned utility up for renewal this summer, the pathway to becoming a community choice energy aggregator should be compelling. According to Susan Perkins, a 34-year veteran of energy law, to make the new status as an "aggregator" operational is not automatic, but it is a credible pathway to self rule. And it brings the legal assurance of continued stable electric service due to the utility's obligation to serve well past the expiration of the franchise.
Many have said that federal climate legislation can only improve the trailing edge of policy change, while the cities, counties and states are out in the forefront exerting the true leadership that is needed. For communities such as Boulder to know and assert their legal rights as home rule cities is a very good thing. And it sure beats listening to the morbid calls of talkingpointapotamus.