June 3, 2013 – It’s interesting, on a number of levels, that
leaders of the Atlanta Tea Party (ATP) are challenging utility company Georgia
Power over its reluctance to increase use of solar power. That, and the escalating costs of
construction of a new nuclear power plant.
First and foremost, I’m perplexed that ATP co-founder Julianne Thompson
found it necessary to assert that the organization’s position “certainly isn’t
anything personal.” Why is she denying
what no one thinks is true to begin with?
Does she believe she is pre-empting other questions as well, by making a
rhetorical statement? She goes on to say
that ”one of our core values is promoting the free-market system.”
The San Francisco Chronicle expands on this remark by pointing
out that the electricity market in Georgia is not free. Electric utilities have exclusive rights to
serve customers in designated areas of the state; the majority of customers
cannot choose their provider. While this
type of monopoly works well insofar as eliminating duplication of effort (the
state does not need more than one system of wiring and pipes to deliver electricity
and gas), the state must also be careful to regulate price when competition isn’t
present.
A number of states, including Texas and most of the
Northeast, regulate power delivery, but customers can select their
provider. Customers can select companies
that provide options like renewable power or a slate of pricing categories (the
state in which I live, Ohio, offers these options). Not only do ATP members relish this
opportunity, but polls reveal that Tea Party members distrust centralized
authority, believing it to be an inevitable invitation to price increases. Tea Party members also do not like prices to
go up even when there is a commensurate benefit.
In May, another ATP co-founder, Debbie Dooley, lobbied
Republican utility regulators to mandate that Georgia Power use more solar
energy. ( Solar energy’s connection to
free markets and competitive pricing
remains very unclear to me. ) The state’s
Public Service Commission, of which regulators are a part, is currently
deciding if Georgia Power’s long-term plans to meet state energy needs is
viable. ATP members would actually like
to see Georgia Power’s monopoly revoked, something which at this point is
considered unlikely.
Commissioner Stan Wise (R) is doubtless typical in his
reaction to ATP’s demands. Like so many
in his party, he believes the choice between conventional energy sources and
solar energy should be based solely on economics . The fact is, neither he nor ATP members take
into consideration the environmental benefits of solar power. Commissioner Wise goes so far as to accuse
unnamed others as displaying a “kneejerk reaction that says if it’s solar, it
has to be good.” While I applaud ATP
members’ insistence that nonconventional sources of energy be included in
Georgia Power’s mix of generating possibilities, the collective ignorance of
all parties concerned with regard to solar power’s most beneficial aspect
cannot bode well.
To my way of thinking, ignorance is a vacuum that ought to
be filled with information. As you and I
both know, nature abhors a vacuum.
Comments
Post a Comment