Introduction: my conclusion.
It's a non sequitor, I know. Many questions were asked at the meeting held 20 October '14, and frankly, there was a lot of dispute over the answers- factual and subjective. As far as I'm concerned, the Board has not done a good job of explaining a beneficial reason for pursuing the buyout of electrical power utility from United Power.
_______________________
Throughout history, we find a principle repeated in science, math, philosophy, and life in general. Even the U.S. military has made official statements of design philosophy (attributed to the Navy in the early 1960s): K.I.S.S.- Keep It Simple, Stupid. Is it eloquent? No. Effective? Yes.
A bit more sophisticated, let's follow the concept to William of Ockham. Our friend Bill was a philosopher and logician in the 14th Century, but one simple theory of his has become almost universally accepted in scientific research, theory, and even engineering. The latin, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate", is literally translated “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” This is what is referred to as Occam's Razor (yes, it's spelled differently.) Certainly the semantics could be debatable, but I think a fair interpretation might be:
Between two options, the one that requires fewer assumptions is always going to be best.
We heard more than once in the meeting last night that, "analytics are not available..."; (from engineers) "once we have more data points we'll have a better idea"; and "we [anecdotally] think we can provide better and faster customer service." I don't demean the efforts of these professionals, but these statements don't encourage confidence in the claims presented.
I believe that with current information, Occam's Razor leads us firmly to another principle that-- thus far-- I've not heard an answer to within the current debate:
"If it's not broke[n], DON'T FIX IT."
_______________________
All of the above being said, this is not by any means a settled issue, in theory or in practice. Among other important considerations is that the Town is currently researching this option. Though I think there was a lot lost in translation (and the rumblings of aptly concerned citizens), the critical fact is that nothing has been decided yet.
The Board provided a basic timeline of what would come next, and committed to keeping the community apprised. (See the 2nd-to-last paragraph here.) As to what's next, they were very clear:
- Inventory- Where we are now
- Appraisal- 3rd party appraiser [by both FP&L and UP independently]
- Negotiations- An agreed upon purchase price will be shared with the public
- Purchase- No other city services would be affected, we can't shift money from one service to fund another and we can't use this money to improve other services [or infrastructure]
[Additions in brackets mine.]
This plan of action is clear, if not detailed. If we're fair, we'll admit that if the board DID have every single detail ironed out, we would be in a far worse position of being in the final stages of implementation. That said, I personally requested additional documentation from the City, and am happy to share the results here. Lest you think something like that would get their hackles up, I'll note specifically that the staff was courteous, competent, timely, and pleasant to work with throughout- including my own revision of my original request. Frankly, they gave me even more than they were required to legally by the strict reading of my request. The result was beyond a good-faith response.
As concerned citizens, we must remain the impetus for informed (let's not forget diplomatic) interaction. Community meetings should not be adversarial proceedings.
Read, write, and speak: I encourage you to STAY INVOLVED; sign up for meeting alerts, read what's available, and stay vocal.
- Contact the board. Attend meetings. Bring all your neighbors.
- Contact United Power by way of our very own "Frederite" Brian McCormick, who is Vice President of the Board of Directors.
_______________________
Though I've heard quite contrasting opinions on the matter, I've no lack of respect for those elected and appointed individuals that WE as citizens have entrusted with these important duties. Without diminishing any past frustrations, do we REALLY believe that these folks intend to work against citizens and against the greater good of the community?
Though admittedly an eternal optimist, I am NOT naive in political proceedings. Pardon the electrical pun, but I also urge you to examine your own thoughts that we're currently within a highly charged and polarized (ha!) political climate immediately prior to a national election.
If we can't set aside our differences within a small community where everyone actually cares, I'm sorry-- we are screwed when it comes to stepping up the proverbial ladder to higher governmental issues.
We have abundant opportunities HERE to have our voices heard (not the least of which is opinion pieces like the present), and if we don't like the results, we'll have the opportunity to vote 'em off the island (of Trustees, that is.)
It appears to be pretty widely agreed that municipal utilities, especially those that generate their own power (Frederick will NOT) can provide a great deal of benefit in URBAN areas. We're not urban, and many of us don't want to be.
Size of the entity is a consideration as well. Stick around here long enough and you'll probably get the chance to find that I'm a fairly devoted capitalist. My personal theory holds that self-interest leads to pursuit of profit, and that a properly free market will regulate itself with the best possible result for interested parties. Now seems like a perfect opportunity to point out that a city is not an entity that is an interested party from within. Let me clarify: I'm convinced that those we have charged (read: ELECTED) with making decisions on our behalf will make what they believe to be the best decisions. However, these parties end up being the appendages of an entity, not an actually interested party who stands to directly benefit (or lose) from the decisions they make.
I digress.
By Saveonenergy.com (emphases mine):
What is a cooperative?
A cooperative is a nonprofit electric utility that is owned and operated by the same consumers it serves. It ensures that residents receive power for the lowest price possible by purchasing power wholesale from a generation facility. Co-op rates are set just high enough to put profits back into the cooperative to fund expenses. If the co-op ever has excess margins, it returns the money to its members through patronage or capital credits.
Though each member has equal ownership of the utility, policies for a co-op are determined by a consumer-elected board, typically consisting of seven people. Any member of the cooperative's service area has the opportunity to run for the board. Elections are held on an annual basis and all members are invited to participate in the meeting and vote in the election.
Co-ops are mainly located in rural areas of the United States. They were formed in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal to help distribute power to residents in remote locations. Investor-owned utilities refused to deliver power to these areas because they could not turn a profit by providing electricity to areas with only a few customers per mile of power lines.
When electricity markets deregulated, legislators recognized the democratic system that a co-op operates in. That's why co-ops generally weren't required to open up to retail competition. However, co-op members can collectively decide and vote to enter into the competitive energy market.
What is a municipal utility?
Similar to an electric co-op, city-owned utilities in general weren't subject to deregulation laws. Municipal utilities are mainly located in urban areas and are owned and operated by the cities they serve. Residents of a municipality don't have a direct ownership in the city-owned utility, but they can vote for city council members that will either operate the utility or appoint a board to do so. The board decides on where to buy energy, though some municipal utilities may also be able to generate their own power. It's also responsible for deciding what rate to charge consumers, with minimal regulations from the state public utility commission.
Under deregulation laws, municipal utilities usually have the choice to participate in the competitive energy market or not. It's up to the board of directors to determine whether or not a municipality should participate in the competitive market. However, residents have the opportunity to voice their options through public forums, such as city council meetings.
According to a public policy study conducted by Adrian T. Moore, Director of Economic Studies and Deputy Director at Reason Public Policy Institute:
"Municipalization is an antiquated policy tool devised as a substitute for competition. In today’s increasingly competitive electricity market, there is no justification for municipalizing more electric utilities. Municipal governments should no longer be allowed to get into the commercial and competitive business of providing electricity. Taxpayers should not allow their city governments to municipalize electric utilities; nor should federal tax policy encourage it."
and
"As with municipalization, there is no compelling public interest that justifies government-owned utilities embarking upon commercial ventures such as appliance repair and cable TV service. Already, we see two inimical results of utilities’ commercial ventures:
ƒ - Taxpayers and electricity customers are footing the bill for losses in utilities’ commercial ventures, which are inherently risky; and
ƒ - Government enterprises inherently distort competition. They are often exempt from regulations that constrain private firms; they have access to taxpayer funds in ways private firms do not; and they are
often politicized in their management. Consequently, they never really compete on a level playing field with private firms. The solution to this set of circumstances is to require government utilities to stick to their core mission—providing electricity. A lead might come from the Texas legislature and Georgia regulators, who have not allowed munis to get into commercial telecommunications businesses."
_______________________
From United Power:
BE INVOLVED:
Ask the Board of Trustees:
From where I sit having just moved to town Built on What Matters, I think we ARE on to something.
L. Weimer
No comments:
Post a Comment