The Democratic Party's internal fight against the future

by: Eric B.

Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 11:32:16 AM EDT

Of all the things on the November ballot, none make me more angry than the 25x25 proposal. It's not a matter of being made angry by the content of the policy, mind you, but the nature of the thing. It makes me angry that it's come to a ballot proposal and it makes me angry that it's a proposed constitutional amendment rather than a simple ballot question like medical marijuana was in 2008. Now, it makes me angry because it's got the Democrats fighting about it internally (you can ignore the stuff about there being no internal divisions ... the Building Trades people backed Andy Dillon back in 2010 not just because Virg Bernero sucks, but because Dillon backed building new coal plants ... and more on this in a second).

First things first, 25 percent by 2025 is good policy. The current standard was watered down in the first place to make it politically palatable to people who get support from the state's utilities. The utilities were also given back their de facto monopoly over energy production in the state as a result, also (and, if you've had to deal with the utilities since then over bills, they've started to once again act like monopolies when it comes to customer service). At the time, the weakened standard was sold on the grounds that in a couple of short years economic recovery would be well underway and we'd need a bunch of old-style coal plants to supply cheap energy for large manufacturers expected to be pushing it.

None of it panned out (this was entirely predictable, mind you, because the estimates on which the law were set were already out-of-date when the law was passed), and the cost of coal energy went up while the cost of natural gas (and natural gas plants) plummeted (based on inflated hopes about fracking, only a few of which themselves have panned out terribly well).  The price of renewables was high mostly because of technological costs, and those have since come down dramatically (thanks, in large part, to the fact that the Chinese subsidize renewable energy so they can capture primacy in future energy markets). So, fossil fuel energy costs (except natural gas) went up, while demand didn't, and the costs of renewable energy has come down. We will probably one day rue the day we ceded the initiative to the Chinese under the silly, "Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the marketplace" thinking (mostly because government has always done that and will always have to do that), but that's another story.

Anyway, if you talk to anyone in the alternative energy field, what they require to get things kicked off is a price. Government action needs to establish costs so the market can function as intended.  Also, fossil fuels are already heavily subsidized directly and through cost externalization, which is something that the free market conservatives have never bothered themselves with, but that's another story. 10 percent was a weak objective, easily achieved, and in other states the experience has been that the more aggressive the goal the more successful the program (there is, of course, always a point of diminishing returns, but setting the bar for energy the costs for which is going down is apparently higher than 25 percent in 25 years (or, 13 years).

So, a bigger goal isn't government picking a theoretical winner, it's government going with something that is already working (and driven, in part, by businesses and government institutions that have realized that paying energy costs they don't need to is dumb). You can see this trend at work nationwide ... for every Solyndra conservatives whoop and holler over, there are two Dow Powershingles (and for all the yelling, there's no recognition that companies like Solyndra failed because the Chinese drove prices down through market subsidies).

Unfortunately, the state Legislature is led by people who govern according to rightwing fantasy rather than reality. Rather than do the smart thing and strengthen the standards, the only action undertaken in Lansing has been by the nutty, Ray "English common law traditions are a form of communism" Franz fringe of the Republican Party who want to see the standards simply repealed (opposed, I believe, by the utilities, both of which have seens green energy success while having to shelve new fossil fuel plants over costs, which they promptly blamed on hippies). So, there isn't really any hope that they could possibly have a useful contribution to the conversation, leastways not currently.

Fortunately, the people were given an opportunity to dodge around an ineffective state Legislature. Written into the constitution is the citizen initiative process. In the past, it's been an effective way to push the Legislature into taking up matters it didn't want to -- the bottle deposit law, higher minimum wage. And, so we have the 25 x 25, except the Legislature is hostile to the idea not on firm, factual grounds, but because of ideological hostility (i.e. boneheaded stubbornness). So, it'll have to go to a vote, despite the fact that this annoys Brian Dickerson and others in the media, because the Legislature just simply refuses to do its job.

Here's where an internal conflict comes in.  I don't think the state constitution is the place to do this. The constitution is supposed to provide a basic framework, not specific policy goals, even those that are good, solid and necessary. The conflict is good idea, but not the proper execution.

I'm still trying to figure out why backers for this thing went for a constitutional amendment and not a simple statute, as they did with medical marijuana in 2008. I've asked, but haven't gotten any answer.

I do have suspicions, however, and it starts with implementation of the medical marijuana law. It was, again, a law that the state's political elite didn't want. And, the current state's attorney general in fact led the campaign in opposition, claiming during the course of the campaign that the law was vague and that it would lead to the opening of California-style dispensaries. Once the thing was passed, however, the state's political elite started trying to water it down immediately. The state's attorney general, for example, told a court that no one foresaw the law's passage leading to the opening of California-style dispensaries, and now the matter is before the state Supreme Court. Something tells me that a citizen's iniative on renewable energy, passed by the people, would immediately face challenges from a Legislature hostile to it in the first place (and passage by people who aren't Republican primary voters). That's just speculation, however.

What is pretty clear, however, is that this isn't just a problem created by a bunch of activist hippies who want their ideas to be above challenge, but because it's a symptom of a deeply broken political system. We've gotten a number of lectures from more responsible quarters about how adults work within the system rather than railing on it from without, but very little attention has been given to the fact that there is no reason to expect movement from within, because those within are actively hostile. Meanwhile, polls say the ideas behind this are popular. The question, here, for the respectable press is why ideas that are apparently popular with the public and now on the ballot not generating action in Lansing the way that past popular ideas that were put on the ballot did among hesitant lawmakers.