Las Vegas Review-Journal (Sunday)
Against choice?
Greens embrace monopoly energy market
The green energy industry has never been much for markets. In particular, solar and wind production have been goosed by taxpayer handouts and government portfolio mandates, justified as a small price to pay to wean the country off those evil fossil fuels.
But even as technologies improve and the cost of alternative energy comes down, the fact remains that the price of eliminating clean coal, natural gas and other “dirty” sources of energy from the nation’s mix would be massive, untenable and economically disastrous.
Green energy producers insist many consumers profess a desire to use renewables. That’s no doubt true. The real issue is whether they’re willing to pay the actual costs of going green. Which brings us to Question 3 on the November ballot.
Question 3 would amend the Nevada Constitution to direct the Legislature to create an open energy market that would allow consumers to select their own electricity provider. Currently, NV Energy enjoys a monopoly on providing power in the state. The proposal passed with 72 percent support in 2016, but it must be approved again in November to become law.
As the election approaches, a coalition of progressive special interests — with help from NV Energy, looking to preserve its domain — have ramped up the campaign to scare voters into thinking the change will force them to endure dark, sweaty nights during the hot Las Vegas summers when the lights and air conditioning fail due to corporate greed and deregulation.
Ominous words — uncertainty, disruption, threatening — now swirl around the debate in an effort to convince thousands of Nevada voters to rethink their support for Question 3 or risk death and massive destruction.
On Thursday, four environmental groups joined the party and came out against the ballot initiative. Officials with the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project and Western Resources Advocates say they’re worried that paving the way for consumer choice would threaten the state’s emerging renewable energy market.
“If Question 3 passes,” said Ann Macquarie, chair of the Sierra Club’s Toiyabe chapter, “it will upend the clean energy progress we’re making here in Nevada.”
That’s odd. If consumers want green energy, wouldn’t giving them the choice to buy it advance the cause?
In fact, what many green activists fear is that price-sensitive electricity users will go with cheaper fossil fuels rather than expensive renewables once they see a menu of options and the costs. Witness how Nevada’s rooftop solar industry went kaput when net-metering subsidies for homeowners evaporated.
Of course, there’s “uncertainty” about what would happen upon passage of Question 3. There’s uncertainty about everything — including whether green energy can ever entirely meet the state’s needs at a reasonable cost. But other states — including Texas — have opened their electricity markets without disruption. Competition reduces costs in the long run, contrary to fearmongering about soaring prices. (Full disclosure: The Review-Journal is owned by the family of Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson. Las Vegas Sands has helped fund Question 3.)
The Sierra Club and other environmental interest groups prefer the heavy hand of the regulatory state to markets and consumer choice because it’s easier to manipulate. They reject Question 3 because it threatens to empower electricity users, energy producers and the marketplace at the expense of politicians and bureaucrats handing out taxpayer subsidies to green interests and imposing onerous and expensive edicts on energy providers regarding renewables. In short, they worry that electricity users won’t make the “right” decision if they have the freedom to choose.