As we race toward another election, the deluge of candidates, propositions, and advertisements for or against any of the aforementioned can tend to blur together, causing many — of the few people who even bother to engage in voting — to throw up their hands and remain relatively uninformed when they enter the voting booth or fill out their mail in ballot. This is always unwise, but it is especially so when it comes to Proposition 127.
The main thrust of this voter-driven initiative is that it would require all public service utilities to get 50 percent of their energy from renewable sources, i.e. wind and solar, by 2030. It has a lot of support, or so we are told by pollsters. Sadly, it seems all one has to do to get some people on board is attach the name “renewable” to a proposal, and people will believe they are saving their future, and that of the planet, and readily approve.
With this initiative though, the renewable energy line is a ruse to get voters to back something that will have disastrous effects if implemented. Good intentions do not in themselves good policy make. A quick analysis of key issues easily shows that the naysayers have well-founded reasons for their opposition. A major advocate against Prop. 127 is Arizona Public Service, our state’s largest public utility. Their opposition may be less than altruistic, as Star columnist Timothy Steller made clear, but their criticism is nonetheless a valid one. Prop. 127 will see utility rates rise, and fairly significantly at that.
This point is not even challenged by 127 defenders. It can’t be. This proposed constitutional law is bad at all levels. Firstly, it was financed and paid for by California billionaire Tom Steyer. Why should someone who doesn’t live here be helping determine this state’s future? Where are all those who decry the use of big, “outside” money in politics?
Then there’s the reality of the economic disaster this plan will very likely wreak on the state. The Seidman Research Institute at ASU published a March report that laid out the devastating effects to our economy as a result of the passage of 127: $72.5 billion gross state product lost, 574,000 job years lost, $42.5 billion less in disposable income, $1.7 billion lost in property taxes, and specifically, $858 million in lost revenue for schools.
As the study showed, initially things would actually get slightly better because there would be a job boom related to building all the new solar panels and wind turbines! This would increase labor and help the economy. Afterwards though, it’s all downhill! Why? Because the new high-tech solar plants and wind farms wouldn’t need the workforce that traditional plants utilize to stay up and running.
Then there is the fact that in the long term, solar and wind tend to be more expensive. Ask Californians! Advocates for the “green” renewable energy sources there don’t even deny this fact.
Even if we swallow the “renewable” energy line and the cost that goes with it, they are also the most inefficient means of procuring our energy needs. Things like natural gas facilities, for example, can have their outputs and inputs lowered based on demand. Not so with wind and solar: you can’t store the energy produced.
Wind only works well when windy! On this planet, it’s actually windier at nighttime; just the time when you need less energy, not more! Solar only works when sunny. You don’t have the sun at night, and what do you do about cloudy days! Shut everything down? No, they’ll have generators. Great, that means even more costs to the consumer!
Considering the facts, the only sensible thing to do is vote no on Prop. 127.
