Along with this month’s power bill came an interesting letter from the utility…interesting in how politically incorrect it is:
How long we will be able to freeze our rate depends upon federal and state energy policies. Many in Congress see a CO2 cap and trade scheme or carbon tax as a lucrative source of potential government revenues, payable by electricity consumers. Special interests at the state and federal level are pushing to require subsidization of uneconomical and inefficient power sources.
During the first quarter of 2008, we conducted a survey seeking our members’ views on subsidies proposed by lawmakers. A carbon tax – which would increase energy costs across the board – was opposed by 84% of the questionnaire respondents. 77% opposed a tax to fund energy conservation, and 65% of our members opposed paying for solar subsidies. They agreed with the Board of Directors that consumers benefitting from lower electric bills after installing a solar array should pay for the system themselves rather than requiring their neighbors – many of whom are already having difficulty paying their bills – to pay for it.
This year, new legislation is being proposed that would promote tiered rate structures. Such rates would cause the per kWh cost to increase as you use more energy… The purpose of the tiered rates is to impose energy conservation. However, the effect is to reduce the revenues needed to run the business [ie: the utility company] with the end result being rate increases for everyone.
Our members’ comments clearly indicate they can’t afford higher taxes and they want IREA to keep rates low; also that “rebates” (in fact, subsidies) disproportionally affect the poor and those on fixed incomes. Since these new proposals – cap and trade, tiered rates, or a carbon tax – would result in trillions of dollars of additional power costs nationwide, devastating our economy and quality of life whil yielding little or no practical benefits, we plan to actively oppose such proposals.
The letter goes on to rally members to help the co-op fight such measures.
Nice to see a company whose business is targeted by environmentalist do-gooders actually fighting back against the directives and non-value-adding costs said do-gooders are trying to impose on them — and us.
I see nothing wrong with “alternative” energy, but I do think it’s wrong to mandate the adoption of alternative energy when the technology is not yet (and may never be) capable of competing with existing sources through equivalent or better reliability, availability, and affordability. If subsidies are required to make such technology even remotely economical, and if significant, economy-wrecking penalties need to be applied to existing sources of energy to “incentivize” the switch to alternatives, the alternatives are clearly not ready for widespread adoption.
Environmentalists who are sincerely concerned with CO2 emissions and environmental damage from the extraction and use of fossil fuels, and who want to actually make headway against those things, would be taken much more seriously if they endorsed nuclear power – the real alternative energy. It’s a pity that our local co-op is too small to build a nuclear reactor of its own.
