 he
monsoon of data and analysis and ululation over the energy problem
has the effect of obscuring first principles. First principles,
to be sure, don't always work. They are largely ignored in wartime,
for instance. But since we are not at war, we tend to magnify lesser
problems, and to appropriate military rhetoric in discussing them,
as of course the wars on poverty, drugs, racism, etc. If we were
at war, we would reorder our priorities and subordinate our complaints.
Gratefully we aren't at war, but this shouldn't mean that we have
license to neglect priorities that are built into the market systems.
Here is a
recitation of evolving considerations:
 Power,
except in Arctic circumstances and surgical operating rooms, is
not indispensable to life, in the sense that food and water are
indispensable. But it is on the order of a necessity. That is the
reason why it worked its way, in social-economic history, to qualify
for state superintendence.
Power
has been thought of, and dealt with beginning about 100 years ago,
as a commodity produced by monopolies. The political reaction to
monopolies came in two parts. The first was to break them up, as
was done to such as Standard Oil. Where this was not feasible, regulation
was invoked. Social life could not tolerate a water distributor
to charge what it liked for water, let alone to estop its delivery.
The principle of a "utility" arose, and the sale of power
was, accordingly, regulated.
But
the sources of power proliferated. The generation of electricity
is done by myriad, though not countless, forces. Hydroelectric dams
generate electricity. So do coal, oil, and gas. So does nuclear
power. In the next wave of social adjustment to energy consumption
the tendency was to order monopoly power distributors to break up,
intending competitive offspring. Con Ed in New York, as an example,
was told to sell off its power-generating plants, and restrict itself
to distributing power. In California, as we are up-to-our- keister
informed, legislative fine-tuners approached the problem by attempting
to square a circle: Companies that generated power could buy and
sell as they liked, but consumer prices could not be affected. What
happened was bankruptcy.
Came,
then, the question of environment. Many years ago, economists thought
through the social cost of an automobile. The consumer in the 1920s
thought the whole thing wrapped up when he paid $l,000 to the automobile
dealer. But derivative economic questions of course arose. What
is the use of an automobile if there are no roads to drive on? And
what are the responsibilities of the automobile driver when he runs
over somebody? The auto gave rise to the construction of highways
and the proliferation of insurance companies. Similarly, the expenditure
of energy, whether to generate heat or cold or computer life, let
alone travel in automobiles, threatened, and indeed caused, such
malevolences as Los Angeles smog and whatever it is that is happening,
or is threatened to happen, to the ozone layer that regulates planetary
heat.
The
concern for the environment became, in the hands of enthusiasts,
something of a theological movement, i.e., worshiped, as in the
religious wars, without sufficient thought given to contextual frames
of reference. Vice President Cheney regrets that "the government
has not granted a single new nuclear power permit in more than twenty
years." One reason for this is that no utility company has
submitted such an application for 20 years. In California,
notwithstanding the predictable rise in energy needs, no new power
plants were built.
The
attempt simultaneously to close in on multiple fronts of concern
has resulted in political/economic hybrids and miscalculations as
in New York, where electrical costs are up almost 40 percent for
reasons including, but not limited to, market manipulation.
Politics
can't be pulled away, leaving us with crystalline adjustments governed
by supply and demand in the conventional sense. The reason for it
is that supply is substantially decided by the vote of a few foreign
producers, notably Arab states, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Mexico.
And supply is reasonably affected by factors extrinsic to reserves
of oil, gas, coal, and nuclear plants.
But guiding
stars are there to help us penetrate the fog. Most relevant is this,
that high energy prices are going to result in greater supplies
— in the long run. Meanwhile there is no alternative to submitting
to them either by paying the extra costs, or diminishing consumption.
At current production rates, 90,000 megawatts of new electricity
are scheduled to come in by 2002, twice that by 2004.
Moral.
Interfere with the market only as thoughtfully required for corollary
satisfactions, but always remember the abiding satisfactions of
energy consumption.
|
