mtpolitics.net

Montana Climate Change Commission, Part IV

(This is part 4 of an ongoing series: Part I, Part II, Part III)

Part IV, Why it Matters

Imagine the following hypothetical (as far as I know) scenario.

A decidedly pro free-market think tank is formed by ExxonMobil, Shell and Halliburton to combat AGW hysteria. That think-tank spins off a group that is a “neutral third party,” and helps governments write public policy in that vein. They suggest boilerplate executive orders and other items designed to skirt the deliberative process of the legislature, in the name of taking action that Washington is too slow to take Further, what if that think tank had final say on who got to be involved in the process?.

Now that’s not entirely hypothetical, as we did have some out of state money in here last election cycle trying to get some initiatives passed, and our sinestra pals were apoplectic with rage about out of state money trying to get policy passed in Montana, by actually using the initiative process, which allows citizens to vote for themselves on whether or not this is good policy.

So what’s the difference between Howie Rich’s failed attempts, and what the Center for Climate Strategies has done?

Well, for one thing, Howie’s efforts were presented as ballot initiatives. For those of you who worship at the altar of vox populi, this should actually be a model for how things are done. Even though it was bankrolled out of state, the issues were put up for vote, and roundly defeated. CCS, on the other hand, is sneaking through the back door, serving up policy from an advocacy group, as if it were a grassroots movement.

Some people seem to think that I’m bent out of shape because the “deck was stacked” from the get-go. That’s not so true. I did say that it was the governor’s committee, and he can appoint who the hell ever he wants. As long as the process is transparent, and passes the smell test.

Surely, transparency in government is something that transcends ideologies and party lines.

Consider, if you will, the contract between the state and CCS, as well as the processes and justification.

The contract itself is pretty plain vanilla, but when you get into the scope of work, justifications, and so forth, that’s where it becomes interesting.

Here are some points of interest:

1. The Center for Climate Strategies approached DEQ with the offer of approximately $320,000 that it has secured from foundations to fund this project, with DEQ providing the remaining $50,000. This is interesting for a couple of reasons: 1.) CCS approached DEQ, not vice-versa; and 2.) $320,000? That’s a lot of coin for work that has been templated and re-worked in many other states.
2. The Deliverables section is interesting, mainly because the onus of developing and facilitating the meetings is on CCS, not DEQ. Which, in my mind, bypasses at least the intent of having the agencies do our work on our behalf. Again, keep in mind that all of this stuff has come pretty much from standard templates.
3. From the “Best Source” Procurement Justification:
   

   4.) What evaluation of other product suppliers or service providers was made? (Please furnish names, addresses and other documentation.

   No other suppliers or services were evaluated - this provider has secured $320,000 in foundation funding that is only available if CCS/EESI is the contractor and CCS/EESI approached DEQ with the request for DEQ to fund the remaining $50,000 of the project

   [...]

   6.) How did you determine that there was only one source that was suitable or acceptable for the product or service?

   Determination was based on the fact the CCS/EESI will be providing the majority of the funding through foundation grants that would be unavailable to another contractor.

   [Church Lady] Well, isn’t that conveeeenient? [/Church Lady]

Look, you can be for or against this policy. Personally, I have a hard time finding anything to bolster their economic projections. Even the learned professors hedge their bet in their recent op-ed.

…it’s probably correct to expect some price increases. But it’s important to understand that it is higher prices that provide the incentives to both households and businesses to adapt, to become more efficient and to innovate, and efficient and creative responses to high energy prices can actually reduce our overall energy costs.

If only there was a mechanism in place that reacted to increasing costs by spurring conservation…

The bottom line is this, though. Is this the way we want government policy decided? By outside interest groups? With no accountability to the public?

Again, I ask my sinestra friends: Would you be so silent if this were policy you didn’t like? There are many things we can disagree on, but one overarching principle should be that of open and honest government. Remember: CCS/EESI approached Montana, not the other way around. They provided the big money, not us.

Is that how you want your government to operate?