Local opinion: Tucson’s TEP deal highlights concerns over costs and city response

It is interesting how the government of the City of Tucson went from threatening to run Tucson Electric Power (TEP) out of town to announcing yet another special election to give TEP a multi-decade contract to stay in town. The stick versus carrot approach seems familiar.

Part of this plan is to include $2 million from TEP for use by the city to mitigate to problems caused by climate change. This cost to TEP, in a market economy, will surely be passed on to customers. So, like a tariff, the initial payment may come from the source, but that $2 million will ultimately be paid by the consumer. Our state government and Corporation Commission will surely make it so.

Here is a tale of a novel idea, a preannouncement counter proposal regarding that piece of the legislation. On March 3rd I penned an article that the Star was kind enough to publish on this very subject. My idea used an example that would cost $350,000 to start a perpetually growing program that sought to zero out the city’s electric bill that is currently around $25 million a year. Starting with more would speed the growth of the system. The kicker is that past the initial investment, the project would fund itself by simply lowering the city’s electric bill.

The idea is based upon a simple idea. Good, fast or cheap, we can have any two of these. America has been built of the fast and cheap. Tucson is a prime example. If you look around town, you’ll find that the city has been developed and built on “affordable” housing that simply became more expensive with time. Now we cry out for more without defining the term or proposing a true solution. With $2 million a year for undefined “climate” projects, we could be expected to do the same if the past is prologue.

Be that as it may, there is good hard work going on within our city’s civil service. What I would like to relay is what occurred after the March 3rd proposal was made.

In a word, “crickets.” I sent the article to Mayor and council, in the off chance that they don’t read the Star. In return, three ward offices notified me that they had received the idea and would forward the article to the council member. I later received notification that council for my ward would get the article only after a message that I was cc’d on was received. Crickets.

I’ve written before about the blank stare that comes from our city’s elected officials when presented with a liberal or freethinking idea. It’s almost as if there is a belief that “presented” is directly equal to “confronted.” Big organizations are often afflicted with such an attitude where ideas are only important if they come from the headshop. Roughly translated, this is called “Groupthink.”

I have no belief that only I have ideas or that only I see this happening. It follows that this is policy. Understanding that our elected officials are quite busy, there’s a problem that affects any citizen with true solutions and the energy to put them forward. Elected officials who don’t listen diminish democracy.

Here’s the thing. If the idea of putting in a program that would eventually eliminate the city’s electric bill, that is free to the taxpaying public, is unworkable, just say so. Tell us why. Inventive minds throughout the city would like to know. It not only shows that our government is listening but considering as well. Dumb ideas are a force of nature and perhaps a free program to build resilience versus climate change is unworkable. There is an answer. Okay, tell us. Let us in.

If representative democracy is to stand, our elected officials must actively listen and be seen doing so. Reliance upon low-turnout elections for governmental power is akin to fiddling as the Earth warms. Perhaps promoting a tariff that would raise $50 million over 20-plus years versus an idea that could eventually net $25 million a year for free is simply adding a bass note.