Brittle Power- PARTS 1-3 (+Notes) - Natural Capitalism Solutions

296National Energy Securitydoes not need support. The latter argument is, after all, the rationale beingcited for the virtual elimination of federal funding for efficiency and mostrenewables. And if the competition were unbiased, that argument would befair enough. The resilient alternatives can in fact hold their own in fair competition—butperhaps not against technologies which receive far larger subsidies.As the Executive Director of the California Energy Commission recentlytestified to Congress, the Reagan Administration hasbanished the energy success stories of the 1970s—conservation measures and therange of solar technologies-to the most distant exile of their holy realm: the so-calledfree market, [where they are] condemned to “compete” against heavily subsidizedfossil and nuclear fuels in the way early Christians “competed” against the lions. 9The Christians in this case have in fact done surprisingly well; but in fair combatthey would consistently triumph.The distortion of investment patterns by federal intervention is a continuingimpediment to resilient alternatives. It encourages proponents of failedtechnologies to continue to believe in a Santa Claus who, in the guise ofnational security, will subsidize and rescue their favorites even after the marketplacehas rejected them. In early 1982, for example, representatives of thenuclear and utility industries proposed that a “Federal Nuclear FinancingBank” offer them fifty billion dollars in low-interest loans to bail out, via a“National Nuclear Energy Pool,” about twenty nuclear projects that WallStreet is unwilling to finance—all in the name of providing a sort of strategicreserve of electrical capacity. 10 Even if it is currently unsaleable, they argue, wemay need it someday. They have presumably not examined the alternativeinvestments which, as earlier chapters showed, would provide far greater security,sooner, at a tenth of the cost.From a preparedness perspective it is regrettable that recent budget shiftshave tended to maintain or increase support to the costliest, more vulnerable,and most heavily subsidized technologies while reducing support to thecheapest, least vulnerable, and least heavily subsidized. Eliminating all thesubsidies would be better economics and would speed recent trends towardresilient systems. At least providing “market parity”—equal subsidies, if onemust have any at all—is a prerequisite for efficient investment. Attacking subsidiesto resilient technologies while augmenting those for the most vulnerabletechnologies is a course than can only damage national security.There is also a strong case for compensatory programs (such as the Solarand Conservation Bank) which help the most vulnerable members of societyto achieve lasting energy self-reliance. Such one-time investments, replacing