Energy Update #22 - Suscribe / Unsubscribe
30 November 2006

Dear friend,

 I have been thinking about the results of the latest election on the island and how we have in the last year rejected both a hospital district and a public utility district on Vashon Island. What motivated the decision of most of us to reject these proposals?

 What set me down this train of thinking was a letter in the Wall Street Journal, whose author wrote “…Taxation other than for the proper role of government, which is to protect individual rights and provide for the common defense is always immoral.”

 How interesting. The preamble to the US Constitution states “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” It seems that our interlocutor has quite a different view of the role of government than our founding fathers.

 What happened to general welfare as a primary role of government? For the last 25 years the conservative forces of our country have worked hard to get us to where we think that taxation for the purpose of general welfare is “always immoral”. Even on this true-blue most liberal corner of the country, we appear to have voted our individual pocketbooks rather than our collective good, not once but twice.

 And what will that mean? Let’s look at the cost of health care. My own experience is illustrative. Ten years ago, I had full family health care coverage for a family of five. It cost about $3500, and seemed like a lot. If we account for inflation, that is about $4500 in today’s dollars. The same coverage now would cost over $12,000. Needless to say, we can’t afford and don’t have this level of coverage today.

 Why is this happening? The Clinton administration tried to provide a single-payer system, but the insurance industry came out in force to demolish that option, saying that the cost of socialized medicine would bankrupt our government. The insurance industry now takes more than half of every medical dollar spent. To put this in context, a study was published early this year comparing the health of Americans with the health of the English, who have socialized medicine. It turns out that the poorest people in England have better health than the richest people in the US. We pay much more for health care than the British do, with poorer outcomes, because we are afraid we will have to pay more taxes. The common welfare is surely not served by the failure of the government to provide socialized medicine.

We can see the same pattern in energy costs. Here on the island, energy costs are rising by 20 percent per year. We already pay over $10 Million per year to heat and power our homes and businesses. Our study showed that we could save 70% of the energy we use here, about half through weatherization and the other half through the implementation of energy efficient technology. And, we showed that the savings would be more than enough to pay for renewable energy to power our homes and businesses.

 But the opponents of the PUD pointed out the ability of the PUD to tax, and no one believed that the PUD would operate without taxation. So our fear of personal cost (taxes) made us vote down a proposal that was clearly in the common good. So what does this mean to islanders? If energy costs continue to rise as they have in the past, the cost of energy on the island will increase about $4 Million per year over the next two years, and there is no end in sight on these increases.

Who wins? Our investor-owned utility and coal and gas companies. The week of the election, PSE announced that its profits had doubled from the previous year (based on their three rate hikes & their better-functioning coal-fired power plant). And Seattle Light, publicly owned and operated by the City of Seattle, announced a rate drop (because the Enron expenditures have made it through the system). One can scarcely imagine a clearer statement of the energy situation.

So here we are. Evidently, we believe that taxation for the common good is immoral, and that issues of the general welfare should be taken care of through charitable institutions, the solution proposed as counter suggestions to both the hospital district and the utility district.

 As an executive director of a not-for-profit for nearly ten years, let me comment on the not-for-profit route for providing general services. It does not work. Charitable contributions are almost impossible to find when your work provides assistance to the general public rather than to the poor or disadvantaged. In the field of energy services, there is a substantial network of not-for-profit service providers in the State of Washington, for example the King County Housing Authority. They do weatherization work for low to moderate income families—and they are continually under-funded and have a long waiting list for services. Even funding for the disadvantaged is hard to come by. Oh, and by the way, the other half of the energy equation, generation and sales of renewable energy is illegal for not-for-profits in this state.

I have often heard that we have the government we deserve. For all the almost 2,000 people who voted for the PUD this November, thank you. Your vision and simple charity towards the common good give us hope for the future.

 Best wishes for this holiday season.

Rita Schenck

Institute for Environmental Research and Education
PO Box 2449
Vashon, WA 98070

Phone 206-463-7430
Fax 206-279-1570
www.iere.org

We invite you to share this note with anyone you believe would be interested. You can subscribe and unsubscribe from the newsletter page: http://iere.org/energy/updates.html