We need a government that works
A bill currently being considered in the Colorado House exemplifies a deep concern I have with corporate influence on our government, and calls out public scrutiny. HB19-1037, the "Colorado Energy Impact Assistance Act" is ostensibly about the retirement of coal-fired power plants owned by public utilities in Colorado, and the economic impact this will have on the communities that are heavily dependent on employment related to them. As climate change barrels down upon us, anticipating the issues associated with closing such plants is certainly a legitimate concern.
But this is not a good bill because it shunts all costs onto the customers and does not mention the role of the regulated utilities responsible for the construction of the plants. Those corporate utilities and their managers, Xcel in particular, should be made to bear their fair share of the responsibility for the construction of those plants and their unwitting impact of their environmental effects and how their closure will affect its workers.
But the deeper concern I have is this: the approach that this bill takes will perpetuate a pattern that pervades our legislative process, and gives us a government that does not work. What we want, and urgently need in this time of growing awareness of the real impact that climate change will have on society, is a government that does work, and is capable of solving such problems. A government that listens, and recognizes, the problems which the people have expressed.
What we have, all too often, is a government that doesn’t work — which is by design — so that it’s essential functions can be outsourced to a corporation in the private sector. Of all the destructive effects that the Republican Party has on government, this lies at its root; so it is especially ironic that this bill is being sponsored by a Democratic representative.
It is by such laws and regulations written by lobbyists for their corporate clients, sometimes even for themselves, that this insidious act is accomplished. It is insidious because it turns the purpose of the government — to serve the public — inside out. Such laws and regulations, so arcane in their language, buried deep in the pages of a lengthy bill, steeped in jargon only those specialized in it can fully understand it, are a perversion of the purpose for which government exists.
Our government should exist to serve us, the public; but what do we see all too often today? A law written to serve, first and foremost, a private interest. A law written not to serve the public, but only to seem to serve the public, while silently enriching a few. Of course, there will be some public benefit, some semblance of accomplishing a public goal, because without that the law would be too naked a crime.
Why does HB19-1037 propose only that ratepayers pay for this through new bonds and a new bond authority? And that only "expert consultants" be hired for this purpose, and that they be paid before any real work on the project really begins? Because the bill was written by the very lobbyists who will be involved in the hiring of such "experts".
I don't want to outsource this kind of "expertise", because what is so expert about issuing bonds? This happens all the time in Colorado government. And why should outside consultants be hired for a "temporary" fix to this problem? I have news for our Colorado legislators: climate change is not going away any time soon. There needs to be an entire new agency created, sure, but not just for the retirement of our coal-fired power plants; we need a more comprehensive, and long range focused agency, one where power plant closure is just one operation among many that will be needed in government to fully address the impacts that climate change are certain to bestow upon us.
In short, I want a government that works for us, not a government that outsources the critical expertise that is needed, and keeps enriching a select few at public expense.
But this is not a good bill because it shunts all costs onto the customers and does not mention the role of the regulated utilities responsible for the construction of the plants. Those corporate utilities and their managers, Xcel in particular, should be made to bear their fair share of the responsibility for the construction of those plants and their unwitting impact of their environmental effects and how their closure will affect its workers.
But the deeper concern I have is this: the approach that this bill takes will perpetuate a pattern that pervades our legislative process, and gives us a government that does not work. What we want, and urgently need in this time of growing awareness of the real impact that climate change will have on society, is a government that does work, and is capable of solving such problems. A government that listens, and recognizes, the problems which the people have expressed.
What we have, all too often, is a government that doesn’t work — which is by design — so that it’s essential functions can be outsourced to a corporation in the private sector. Of all the destructive effects that the Republican Party has on government, this lies at its root; so it is especially ironic that this bill is being sponsored by a Democratic representative.
It is by such laws and regulations written by lobbyists for their corporate clients, sometimes even for themselves, that this insidious act is accomplished. It is insidious because it turns the purpose of the government — to serve the public — inside out. Such laws and regulations, so arcane in their language, buried deep in the pages of a lengthy bill, steeped in jargon only those specialized in it can fully understand it, are a perversion of the purpose for which government exists.
Our government should exist to serve us, the public; but what do we see all too often today? A law written to serve, first and foremost, a private interest. A law written not to serve the public, but only to seem to serve the public, while silently enriching a few. Of course, there will be some public benefit, some semblance of accomplishing a public goal, because without that the law would be too naked a crime.
Why does HB19-1037 propose only that ratepayers pay for this through new bonds and a new bond authority? And that only "expert consultants" be hired for this purpose, and that they be paid before any real work on the project really begins? Because the bill was written by the very lobbyists who will be involved in the hiring of such "experts".
I don't want to outsource this kind of "expertise", because what is so expert about issuing bonds? This happens all the time in Colorado government. And why should outside consultants be hired for a "temporary" fix to this problem? I have news for our Colorado legislators: climate change is not going away any time soon. There needs to be an entire new agency created, sure, but not just for the retirement of our coal-fired power plants; we need a more comprehensive, and long range focused agency, one where power plant closure is just one operation among many that will be needed in government to fully address the impacts that climate change are certain to bestow upon us.
In short, I want a government that works for us, not a government that outsources the critical expertise that is needed, and keeps enriching a select few at public expense.
Comments