Lights out?

As Laurel and Hardy used to say in their comedic routine, “This is a fine mess you’ve gotten us into.” They could well be referring to the energy crisis in California. That situation is a perfect example of why I prefer to be referred to as a conservationist, rather than an environmentalist. The mess in California was caused by the far-left fringe of the environmentalist movement and their handmaidens, liberal politicians.

In the past nine years, the population of California has exploded. The goods and services produced by the state increased dramatically. This was going on while the environmentalists and politicians combined to prevent any meaningful new electric generating facilities to be built. In that state it takes forever to get approval for an electrical generating plant to be sited.

In Texas, the average is a mere 13 months. This has resulted in the state of Texas selling electricity to the energy-starved Californians. I am tired of hearing how big, out-of-state electrical producers are at fault for California’s woes. When the citizens of that state look in the mirror, they are viewing those at fault. They listened to the extreme rantings of the environmentalists and they elected the politicians who wrote the law regarding energy deregulation. The brilliant legislature allowed the cost of out-of-state energy to be deregulated, but capped the price which utilities could charge consumers. Thus, they could claim that they had deregulated energy costs but had protected consumers from “price gouging.” Why would any legislature in its right mind write such lopsided legislation? The answer is obvious. There are far more voters who consume energy, than there are voters who produce energy. The politicians were pandering to the consuming public, attempting to make it appear that they were looking out for the little guy. The result is that two large, well managed utilities have been brought to the brink of bankruptcy. This, because they were forced by the state to pay more for electricity than they were allowed to charge the consumer. No business can do this for long and remain viable. The result is that the state now must suffer rolling blackouts. If Californians think they have a problem now, wait until the summer heat arrives.

The California Public Utility Commission has finally suggested raising electricity rates by 46 percent, hoping to encourage people to conserve energy. However, the liberal Democrat Governor, Gray Davis, says he sees no reason to raise rates. Attaboy, Governor, keep the voters happy, even if they wind up in the dark.

Meanwhile, on the other coast the conservative Mayor of New York, Rudolf Giuliani, is suggesting a “temporary imposition” of price controls on wholesale electric power rates in New York State. Good grief! Will someone remind the Mayor what happened in the early 70’s, when President Nixon attempted price controls. It was an utter failure then and there is no reason to believe that price controls would work now.

The answer is quite simple. First, we need to be able to produce more energy. Secondly, we need to do a great deal more to conserve the energy we have. Ah, but how do we get this done? The devil is in the details. Is it possible to conserve enough energy to solve our problem? If Barb and I make sure we turn off all unused lights and use our appliances wisely, will that cause our energy woes to go away? Of course not; however, if EVERY home, apartment and business location really went all out to reduce the use of electricity, it would have a tremendous impact.

Remember the flood of 1996? What caused it? Hundreds of millions of very tiny snowflakes that had fallen, combined with the same amount of tiny rain drops. These tiny, insignificant snowflakes and raindrops combined to cause a 100-year flood event. Taken individually, each was only a tiny drop in the bucket. In combination, they created an awesome force. Can the problem be solved solely through the conservation of energy? I am afraid not. We must find more natural gas. We need to build more natural gas pipelines. Yes, and we must drill for more oil. We must build more generating facilities.

Some of these new generating facilities will probably be oil fired. Unless the technology can be further improved, this will produce more acid rain, which is detrimental to trout fisheries. Building more gas transmission lines will mean that, somewhere, the beds of trout streams will be disturbed, as these lines will have to be buried.

As a trout fisherman and a lover of trout streams, I wish I could come to a different conclusion. The demand for energy is constantly increasing. Either that demand will be met, or our culture must suffer extraordinary, even unimaginable changes. If we do not take a dual approach to solving our energy crisis the day could come when we will all have to accept the rationing of energy. The harsh facts of our situation leave this conservationist feeling gloomy. Yes, Ollie, it’s a fine mess you’ve gotten us into this time.

For the moment, I have only one reaction. I think I’ll go fishing.