A bolder vision for American energy
I recently had an interesting debate with an energy policy expert, where I argued that electricity prices are high in California, and he countered that it's actually quite affordable, citing average household electricity bills. However, his point is valid because California residents use less electricity compared to other states, partly due to energy efficiency standards and partly due to weather and infrastructure factors.
The debate highlights the environmental movement's roots in conservation. The core goal is to reduce the human footprint: using less energy, building less, and living more modestly in harmony with a 'nature' concept. This is evident in the Sierra Club's stance on immigration, which they once opposed due to degrowth values, but later adopted a more progressive stance.
However, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups haven't fully abandoned degrowth ideology. They often claim to have done so, but their actions suggest a focus on reducing energy use rather than developing abundant clean energy. This becomes a challenge as the movement grapples with rising electricity demand.
Building a clean energy economy requires significant new electricity generation and transmission infrastructure. Instead of prioritizing rapid and clean electricity development, environmentalists advocate for tighter price controls, reduced infrastructure investment, and rationing to meet household energy needs.
The non-competitive nature of electrical utilities is a concern. Public power, electric co-ops, and regulated utilities are potential solutions. Regulated utilities, in particular, have two models: vertically integrated and deregulated. The goal of utility regulation is traditionally to make electricity abundant and affordable, encouraging utilities to sell more electricity while preventing gouging.
Environmentalists, however, prefer conservation over abundant energy. Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute promote the idea that the cheapest and greenest kilowatt-hour is the one you never use. They advocate for reducing per capita energy consumption as part of the energy transition.
The progressive community raises valid questions about the regulated investor-owned utility model. Public power is an alternative, but the end goal should be to promote emissions reduction by making electricity cheaper and more abundant through a mix of natural gas, renewables, and transmission, while exploring nuclear and geothermal breakthroughs.
The author emphasizes the need for a dynamic and optimistic approach to climate change, involving more electricity and supportive infrastructure. They argue against the degrowth vision embraced by green groups, which focuses on rationing to avoid new infrastructure. The goal should be to make electricity cheaper and more abundant, ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future.
