Field, who did not run for reelection and will be replaced by Scott
Angelle next year, as his final vote in a 16-year career joined Commissioners
Foster Campbell and Lambert Boissiere in puckering up through hiking
the rates of anybody who buys electric power outside of Orleans Parish except
for the largest manufacturers, even those of the most impoverished households.
Commissioners Clyde Holloway and Eric Skrmetta opposed, and even tried at a
previous session to get residential households exempted from the final regulation,
but were thwarted by the other three.
The increase goes to subsidizing firms that sell equipment designed to
increase energy efficiency, through a tax rebate to ratepayers who contract for
those services. Eventually, a mechanism would be created to allow power sellers
to recoup lost revenues from the hike, estimated to be in the range of 50 cents
a monthly bill for the typical household. Only a vague outline of this program named
“Quick Start” has surfaced and was approved last PSC meeting, despite it having
been introduced more than three years ago, and it may be another two years
before the specific details are worked out. At this time, it is estimated to
cost ratepayers $25-30 million annually.
Six bucks a year is not a whole lot (although none of the three who
voted for the hike are hurting financially, according to their 2010 financial
disclosure forms; none have turned in a complete 2011 form which was due in
May), but the larger principle is that this is the people’s money first and
foremost and government should have no claim on it to transfer it to some
ideologically favored program. A program, in fact, that will do little if
anything as far as affecting energy consumption goes except to help line the
pockets of a favored few.
Similar kinds of programs in Arkansas and Orleans, where power is
provided by Entergy that also provides much to the rest of Louisiana, show
about a one percent savings of energy used. The theory here is the program
reduces overall use and delays the need for increased generating capacity, which
eventually ratepayers finance. But the history shows even in the long run it is
a pittance, counterbalanced by the cost to society of government taking more, in
favoring certain interests, and in expending the resources put into creating and
maintaining the regulatory apparatus.
So what’s wrong with giving citizens choice in the use of their
property instead of using confiscation to steer them towards an
ideologically-acceptable behavior? The market will signal correctly to
households whether they want to pay more now for efficiency in the hopes of
saving more later. What’s so intrinsically good about slightly less power being
generated? If energy efficient practices are the way to go, people will choose
them compared to alternative uses of those funds, which the market would direct
to more efficient uses of them absent the PSC’s intervention.
No comments:
Post a Comment