Electricity: Good policy can produce bad results

Sometimes, bad things happen to good people.  Take electricity.  The more you save, the more it may cost.

You reduce your consumption of electricity by using more efficient equipment and appliances and changing all your light bulbs.  Because you now use fewer units of electricity – kilowatt-hours or kWhs, you expect lower electric bills. 

Now look at this situation from the viewpoint of your electric utility.  It owns the poles and wires used to bring electricity from the generator to you.  In many parts of the country, though not in Maine and most of New England, it owns the generator.

Regulators allow the utility to charge for the use of its grid by the amount of kWhs you use. The owner of the generator gets paid much the same way for the power itself.

With new wind generators coming on line, the utility may have to build new transmission lines to connect suppliers in remote locations.   Federal regulators have ruled that customers rather than power developers should pay for the cost of the new lines.

To try to avoid such rate increases, the Maine Public Utilities Commission is now considering how to develop non-transmission alternatives (NTAs).  It seems to be headed toward some sort of central control rather than requiring that NTAs be considered whenever new transmission is proposed.  Utilities themselves might be allowed to offer NTAs for their own customers

But there is also the problem of wires costs increasing even with no new transmission, because customer use is decreasing.  Utilities face a problem under the current rate system.  By raising kWh rates to recover their costs, utilities run the risk of encouraging customers to cut their use even more.

You can reduce your consumption through conservation and efficiency, but your bill will not decline.  In fact, it is likely to increase because of reduced sales, some customers quitting the grid entirely to self-generate or when remote renewables are added.

The trade organization of the investor-owned utilities has said its members face a “death spiral.”  The obvious solution from the utilities’ perspective is to charge for the wires without linking the rate to the number of kWhs. 

The utility reasons it was authorized by regulators to build new transmission lines and to recover their costs from customers, and it went ahead based on that assurance.  The regulators should honor that deal by allowing a new way to recover costs.

The problem exists for wires, but not really for generators.  The owners of power plants are supposed to be investors taking on the risk of a competitive market.  The wires companies operate regulated monopolies where there is no direct competition.

One solution would be to charge each customer a fixed fee while reducing the unit charge. A Wisconsin utility proposed that plan, but was forced by consumer protests to drop it.

This looks like a serious problem with nobody at fault and no way out.  But, realistically, the wires companies cannot be allowed to fail.

Perhaps the solution comes from how you look at the problem.  The current model is based on the electric utility as it was invented in the Nineteenth Century.  But the world has changed, even if the industry lags behind.

People are increasingly interested in avoiding the grid and the costs of power supply, even if competitive.  An executive of NRG, a generation company, says the country faces the “era of personal power.”

People are reducing their use of electricity from the grid.  Efforts to promote renewables and efficiency are paying off.  Most important, people accept change far more readily than in the past.

The new smart meters and the smart grid, already paid for by customers, can realize their potential and integrate power coming off utility lines with local measures.  That should be done automatically without the customer having to control switching.

In an important new development, Tesla, the battery powered car company, has just announced that it expects to launch home-level electric storage in about six months.  That would make renewables more reliable and encourage purchasing from the grid only when low-cost power is available.

Answering the problem of falling customer demand could turn out to be the salvation of utilities.   If they get fixed fees, these charges should be phased out over a set period, and the utilities should be allowed to try to make up for lost revenue by setting up unregulated affiliates to compete with others in providing “personal power” and NTAs.    

This is the new world for electric customers and utilities, and both could benefit from it. 

Measles issue: Can you trust government, science?

The argument over measles shots is really about bigger questions – if citizens are free to reject government authority and if science merits the public’s respect.

By now, most people are aware of the political debate about the proper role of government.  These days, it focuses on the size of government budgets, taxes and the effect of government regulation on private enterprise.

The measles controversy, caused by the unwillingness of some people to let their children get shots and the willingness of some politicians to support them, goes far beyond that familiar debate.  It goes to the core question of the relationship between individuals and their government.

This question was at the heart of the American Revolution, caused to a great degree by British suppression of Americans’ human rights and freedom.

Take the Third Amendment to the Constitution, which just about everybody likes.  It bans the government from lodging soldiers in private homes in peacetime, and only by law in wartime. Previously, the British, when short on barracks space, had simply required soldiers to be lodged on private property.

The British imposed government demands over people’s rights.  The Bill of Rights was meant to deny government such excessive power.

One reason that some parents fight measles vaccinations is simply the historic opposition to governmental power.  With all the political campaigning against big government, some people have come to see the requirement for measles shots as just another example of its excesses.

Government exists to protect public health and safety, and it alone can carry out that responsibility.

Conservative advocates say people should not get government aid, but should be left to sink or swim economically in the marketplace.  But public health and safety cannot be a matter of sink or swim.

The initial reaction of some potential Republican presidential candidates, saying that parents ought to decide on measles shots independent of government control, amounted to pandering to GOP primary voters who oppose “big” government.

These same Republican leaders backed off, at least to some degree, perhaps because they realized there are many parents whose children might be unnecessarily exposed to measles carried by unprotected school mates.  Maybe they also recognized that government has a legitimate and necessary role to play.

Resistance to government requirements results not only from a desire to limit government but also from distrust.  If you believe it is bloated, corrupt, all about self-enrichment, and, worst of all, consciously seeking to substitute socialism for freedom, can you trust anything it says?

Having grown to distrust government authority, some may end up distrusting any authority whose word they must accept. Good science, which does not do government’s bidding, gets the same lack of deference as government itself.

In good science, ideas are advanced and tested, and the results of carefully designed tests are used to reach conclusions.  In addition, any finding can be challenged by new discoveries and research, and challengers are encouraged.

Some findings are continually tested.  Did dinosaurs walk the earth millions of years ago?  Is the universe getting larger? Are measles shots effective and do they cause other illnesses?

One of the benefits of good science is that scientists spend years learning how to design and conduct reliable tests to make sure they are correct. They often collect massive amounts of data and subject it to careful analysis. That ensures that scientific findings are not a matter of opinion, but an effort to get as close to absolute truth as possible.

If people worry about the side effects of measles shots, science must try to find out if there is any basis for these worries.  No problems have been found and the benefits of the shots are well known, so they continue being given.  The known and proven benefits far outweigh the unknown and unproven risks.

The problem with measles shots may have been caused by one study of 12 children in Britain years ago.  Based on phony data, it sensationally claimed the shots caused autism.  The author sought fame, but, while it took years, he was finally caught in his lies and his conclusions rejected.

The unfounded prejudice against good science is fostered by politicians whose stock-in-trade is causing distrust and who are willing to assert their politics-based opinions as having equal weight with research-based science.  People may get to pay the price.

Government and science each have legitimate and necessary jobs to do – public health and safety and searching for the truth -- and, to that degree at least, both are worthy of respect. 

Right now, that means children should get measles shots.

“First 100” votes: Congress’ conflict continues

Political life is often marked by milestones.  A president’s first 100 days are often regarded as a forecast of his ultimate success in office.

This year, the Republicans took control of Congress with solid majorities in both the House and Senate.  During January, they were in charge for one month out of the 24 months in this Congress, and there had been 99 votes in the two houses combined, close enough to the “first 100” milestone.

And these votes may signal how Congress behaves through its term.  They offer little reason to hope for bipartisan compromise.

In its 49 votes, the Senate has dealt almost exclusively with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.  After an initial failure to cut off debate, the bill faced a myriad of amendments.  The Keystone votes provide a good picture of how the Senate is working.

The GOP wants to force approval of the pipeline to run from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, because President Obama has failed to take any action either way.

In the previous Senate, controlled by Democrats, Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked the consideration of amendments to bills.  He feared the GOP would propose amendments to embarrass any Democrat who opposed them in an effort to prevent the bill from being watered down.

Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised he would take a different course and allow amendments, and he has kept much of that promise.  The Democrats could offer amendments and to try to embarrass Republicans, who wanted no changes to the bill.

The Democratic strategy seems not to have worked, suggesting that Reid was wrong in the first place.  Amendments ranged from protecting funding for home heating assistance to mandating that use of Keystone oil reduce dependence on Middle East supplies to requiring only American-made materials in the pipeline.  They were defeated.

Only rarely would a Republican senator break ranks.  On the home heating amendment, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire voted with the Democrats, because of the heavy reliance on home heating oil in their states.

On the final Keystone vote, nine Democrats lined up with the GOP.  Almost all came from states where they could be vulnerable to a GOP challenger.  They would not risk their seats out of loyalty to the president. 

Only in a couple of cases did two senators from the same state and party split – all Democrats.  In states where the senators were from different parties, like Maine (independent Angus King votes with the Democrats) and New Hampshire, senators predictably split on the final vote.

The Democrats’ defection is not unusual.  Their party has a long history of members freely departing from the party position, unlike the far better disciplined GOP.

Does the Keystone XL vote suggest the development of greater bipartisanship?  Probably not, because Democratic support likely resulted from pressures caused Obama’s failure to act more quickly.  And their resistance to amendments shows the GOP is unwilling to compromise when it sees no need.

But Obama still gets the last word.  The Keystone majority lacked the two-thirds vote necessary to override his promised veto.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives, which easily limits debate on bills, churned out 50 votes on several issues.  On Keystone, 28 Democrats joined the Republicans in support, but no Republican defected to the opposition.

The truly symbolic bill so far was to ban federal government funding for abortions, which is already part of the law.  Only three Democrats and one Republican among the 435 representatives, voted against their party.  It’s uncertain if and when this bill will be considered in the Senate.

In bill after bill, a few Democrats might defect, but the Republicans held remarkably firm.  The expectation that new GOP House members, elected from swing or Democratic districts, would be forced to depart from strongly conservative positions has not been realized.  Maine’s two representatives always voted along party lines.

The House GOP, just as it did in the last Congress, continued to pass bills that have no chance of becoming law.  These proposals might not make it through the Senate and almost certainly could not withstand Obama’s veto. 

Instead of trying to prove it can govern by passing compromise bills, the House seems to be determined to continue as the conservative stronghold.  That could sustain continued partisan wars through the 2016 elections.

Bipartisan compromise would depend on some Republicans breaking ranks, but GOP majorities make deals unnecessary and compromise unappealing.  The new Congress’s first month suggests only more of the same partisan conflict.

Partisans mistakenly seek constitutional reform

The American system of government, enshrined in the federal and state constitutions that are two centuries old, is challenged.

 

Is change needed?  Do Americans want a stronger legislature or more powerful executive?

The federal system, with Congress and the president elected separately, is unlike the British parliamentary system where the prime minister is a member of the legislature.

At the time of the American Revolution, King George III shared political power with parliament.  The United States rebelled against the British system.

The Founding Fathers wanted a chief who was not a legislator, yet not one with royal powers.  Congress, which predated the Declaration of Independence, was meant to play a major role.

Because the trusted George Washington was to be in charge, the new Constitution gave the president some real authority but often subject to congressional oversight – the famous checks and balances.

In the years since then, the president has gained powers, often given by Congress or the courts.  Congress is an equal branch, but usually lacking the party discipline characteristic of the parliamentary system.

Newt Gingrich, when he was GOP Speaker of the House in the 1990s, came the closest to changing the system to a parliamentary regime.  He induced his party to accept a unified and disciplined approach with leaders doling out penalties for non-compliance.  That made Congress a stronger negotiating partner with Bill Clinton, a Democratic president.

What has held the Republicans together in recent years is their common conservatism.  Now, political pragmatism is undermining the GOP try for a parliamentary system.

Ever since the Gingrich quasi-parliamentary system was installed, the popularity of Congress has declined.  Strict partisanship has brought fewer and fewer results, though many voters want results more than ideological purity.

The big GOP win in the 2014 congressional elections brought to Washington many Republican representatives elected from districts that would usually be expected to choose Democrats.  To keep their seats in 2016, some newcomers and even some old-timers will need to become more moderate.

Strict discipline is already slipping.  The GOP House leadership wanted to pass a bill, sure to be vetoed and thus only a political gesture, to outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.  But GOP women representatives balked, forcing the leadership to back off in a single day.

It is now possible that the all-but-invisible moderate group in Congress will return.  Composed of Republicans from states that could elect Democrats and Democrats from states that could swing to the GOP, this group might be large enough to force Congress to compromise and deal with President Obama.

All of this may reflect the political will of the electorate and not be caused by any constitutional reform.  The country’s most sacred document is general and flexible enough to accommodate the changing political system.  It could be better, though different definitions of what’s “better” would be sure to arise, but it continues to work as the country evolves.

Meanwhile, Maine Gov. Paul LePage would like to move the state constitution away from a parliamentary influence more toward the federal, presidential system. 

The drafters of the Maine Constitution limited the governor’s power and sought to buttress checks and balances.  Gov. LePage does not like living with constitutional officers – Secretary of State, Treasurer and Attorney General – elected by the Legislature, a system involving real sharing of political power.

Because of his frustration in dealing with an attorney general elected by legislative Democrats, he would prefer either to appoint the occupant of that office, removable like any department head, or have the person popularly elected.  An elected attorney general could produce the same conflicts LePage dislikes.

Over the years, there have been many political party splits between Maine governors and attorneys general.  They found ways to work together and rarely required the governor to hire his own lawyer using taxpayer money.   

LePage is also worried that, if a state chief executive left office early, his or her replacement, now the Senate president, could be of a different party, rejecting the elected governor’s program.  He wants a governor to pick his own lieutenant governor.

In 1959, a Democratic governor, who died after less than a year in office, was replaced by a Republican.  Back then, the governor had a two-year term, so the voters soon chose again.  

If LePage’s worry merits concern, Maine could go back to two-year terms, like New Hampshire and Vermont.  Or it could require a new special election for the rest of the governor’s term.

Still, the current system, nationally or in Maine, really isn’t broken, so why fix it?