As a former OGJ West Coast editor, sometimes it's tough to resist the temptation to again indulge in a little Lotusland-bashing, especially when it's so timely.
It's a cliché by now that everyone regards California as the US bellwether state: Whither go the Californians, so go we all, in due time. Even President George W. Bush's energy plan specifically noted the state's repeated self-inflicted damage to its energy sector and warned darkly of similar consequences for the rest of the US in taking the wrong path on energy.
With that grim specter in mind, it's worth analyzing the psyche of Californius energeticus.
Has anyone else noticed a parallel between the recent rash of drug crime recidivism among Hollywood celebrities and that state's energy problems? Bear with me.
California energy facts
Consider these California energy facts:
- If California were a nation, it would be the No. 2 consumer of gasoline in the world. Only the rest of the US combined consumes more. Yet an inability to meet its strict fuels standards has shuttered many of its refineries and thus driven gasoline costs to the highest level in the US.
- California imports over half of the crude oil and 84% of the natural gas it consumes. Yet oil and gas development projects-especially offshore-continue to be blocked. And its production of both commodities declined again in 2000.
- Offshore California's unproved (undeveloped) remaining oil and gas reserves and estimated undiscovered oil and gas resources together total 14.45 billion boe (mean estimates). Yet the state continues to successfully oppose leasing in federal waters off its coast (note the use of the word "federal"-as in belonging to all Americans).
- California imports 18% of the electricity it uses. And while its power consumption grew by 12% during 1996-99, the state's power supply in that same period grew by only 2%. The state takes twice as long to permit a power plant as do other states, and it has constitutionally banned nuclear power. Its two existing nuclear plants-which reportedly could eliminate the state's current power shortage-are being decommissioned.
California attitude
Given these disparities, wouldn't it seem time for a change of attitude by California toward its energy suppliers and energy development in the state?
Now consider these observations:
- California, the mecca of energy conservation, insists on securing wholesale power price caps instead of allowing full pass-through of higher energy costs-such caps being a sure way to squash the incentive to conserve energy.
- California, the birthplace of the environmental movement, demands exemption from US air quality rules that effectively mandate the use of oxygenates in gasoline, while at the same time banning the only unsubsidized, commercially feasible oxygenate, methyl tertiary butyl ether (because a few tanks or pipelines leaked, and the stuff stank up some drinking water).
- California lawmakers are pushing legislation to criminalize ("felony energy-gouging") conventional commodity market behavior that is a response to the (almost) universally accepted laws of supply and demand. They also want to im- pose a "windfall" profits tax on energy producers.
- California officials have described the heads of out-of-state energy suppliers as "buccaneers" for their role in the state's energy woes. Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer told a reporter-and later repeated it for ef- fect-that he would like to escort Enron Corp. Chairman Ken Lay to an "8 ft by 10 ft prison cell with a tattooed inmate named Spike, who would call Lay his 'honey.'"
A modest proposal
It seems as if Californians are pointing fingers of blame everywhere but at themselves while continuing to deny that they might be the source of the problem and even continuing to engage in the behavior that perpetuates it.
There is a name for this phenomenon given by clinical psychiatrists who deal with perpetually relapsing drug addicts: acquired situational narcissism.
Or as a sitcom character might put it: "It's all about me."
There are solutions for those who can't seem to stop doing harm to themselves-with the collateral damage that often brings-whether it's addiction to drugs or to the nonsensical notion that obstructionism on energy projects won't have consequences. They include taking time to bottom out into sobriety, developing a sense of personal accountability, and mustering a clearheaded resolve to embrace permanent change.
Don't be surprised to see some of those same very talented actors, writers, and producers recently under the tabloid spotlight over repeat drug offenses being required to create antidrug public service announcements for television as a condition of their probation or sentencing.
Is it too much of a stretch to think Californians might similarly be persuaded to, say, drop their opposition to offshore exploration and development and to nuclear power in order to atone for their repeated offenses against their own energy security?
We could even call it "community service."
