Do changes to homeowners' insurance hold the promise of making housing more affordable? Is Craig's transition more "just" if it's faster? And, because it's Friday, meet asparagus' distant cousin.
Looking at homeowners' insurance as a way to housing affordability?
I've written about our state's insurance commissioner in the past, mostly in the context of him hauling health insurers up for public hearings to pillory them for not achieving the state's mandated price controls.
In case you weren't aware, he handles more than just health insurance. In fact, his office has a range of insurance products they interfere with, including homeowners' insurance.
And, after the unmitigated success our state has had in controlling both health insurance costs and access, his office is ready to move that success over to the realm of housing affordability by stepping in on that market.
Said in a less sarcastic way, the state's insurance commissioner held a series of public meetings to look at the drivers of the increase in homeowners' rates over the last few years, and the loss of insurers in general from our state's market.
The article linked first below highlights some ideas that came out of that series of meetings excerpted below. The first two ideas come from our state's insurance commissioner with the remainder coming from the insurance industry.
1. having CO incentivize mitigation steps that would help reduce insurance claims
2. "parametric" insurance, essentially a new way to define and handle insurance payouts. I put a link below the story with more context if you want it. I have to be honest here and say that I fail to see from reading the article how this would save anyone money. Perhaps having money out to people sooner reduces the long-term costs to insurers? i.e. paying quickly means paying less in the long term?
3. streamlining things like debris removal after large scale disasters so insurers don't pay for temporary housing for as long (e.g. after the Marshall Fire, debris removal and rebuilding took a long time and insurers have to shell out cash while everyone waits).
4. allowing some flexibility in Colorado's law that says insurers must pay two to three years of expenses for people displaced from their homes. This flexibility could include a dollar amount cap on the payouts.
I say this as someone whose eyes popped out of his head when I read this last year's homeowners insurance cost, so please understand I'm not advocating on insurer's behalf.
In the end, however, reducing insurance payouts makes insurance companies feel better. Having them feel better means more companies here offering insurance and more companies offering means lower prices.
I think 1 and 3 above feel pretty achievable and probably won't cost taxpayers too much. 2 is weird and I don't see much there. 4 feels like it would help, but my sense is that it would be a hard sell politically.
What I don't think would be helpful (and what, to be fair, I do not think is on the table right now) is more laws and or interference in the market by the insurance commissioner a la what we've seen with health insurance.
Put what I just said about making insurers feel more comfy alongside the idea that they'd be required to have the government stepping in on their ability to set premiums and I think insurers would either raise prices some other way or leave the market here in Colorado. Just like they've done with health insurance.
Not what we want. Let's hope the Democrats running things don't get too interested in this market or they'll be clamoring to wade in on this too, to all our detriment.
https://tsscolorado.com/colorado-examining-whether-changes-in-homeowners-insurance-laws-could-boost-housing-affordability/
Is the transition more just if it's faster?
First, let's look back for some quick history and context.
Since 2019, the Democrats were planning the early retirement of coal-fired electrical plants in this state.
To soothe the completely-understandable fears and obvious economic dislocation that this would cause, they in 2019, began an Office of Just transition, gave it money in 2021, shifted money around (and away from workers) in 2022, and then put yet more money into the effort in 2022 again.
A quick summary of the ins and outs is in the screenshot attached. This comes from the first link below (which is in turn from the budget hearing sheet for the Department of Labor and Employment--the budget links in yesterday's post on the budget).
I also put some other context second and third below:
--a Gazette article from 2022, just after the second round of money which estimated an eye-popping $100 million to fully implement the state's just transition plan
--and a recent post I did on just how well things are going.
Now to the present. According to the Craig Press article linked last below, Tri-State Generation and Transmission wants to close down its plant roughly a year early. There are more details in the article, but I gather from reading that the company is citing increased coal costs plus their partners backing out early as reasons (though they'll likely try to spin this a little too by saying it's an effort to "go green").
In short, the fuel costs are up and the folks that used to buy ain't buying as much. I'm also left wondering if, like people leaving a party, if some aren't trying to get out early so that they're not stuck helping to clean up. I can't point to something specifically here, no definite source that says that the last utility standing has to pay the bills, but that is the feeling I get.
The plan still has to go through the PUC, and it's not left the Moffat County Commissioners too happy. Not only would this early withdrawal mean a loss of jobs, it also has implications for what becomes of the remaining debt the power company still has when it closes, the cost to local customers who are now likely to pay higher prices for power that isn't nearby, and even things like water rights (coal fired plants use a lot of water and in dry Colorado what becomes of those water rights ain't no small thing).
There are two things to take away all this in my view.
1. Given what I've seen of the just transition work so far, I'm not so confident that they'll be ready to offer much help and this is at the predicted, not accelerated, schedule. How much better are things going to go if people are shutting down sooner?
2. I thought it interesting to note that the Moffat County Commissioners have to hire an attorney to help plead the case of their county and city to have hopes of getting their position in front of the PUC in a meaningful way. Was there no just transition provision for this? Further, this is all the more ridiculous when put next to the fact that CDPHE works to maintain a list of attorneys who work pro bono to help represent people at rulemaking hearings. Yet another example of how well our government works to help the folks that it injured in the first place.
I emailed the Moffat County Commissioners and told them, half tongue in cheek, that they should email and get the list of pro bono attorneys to see if one would help them.
If you would like to do the same, the way you get the list of attorneys is by sending an email to climatechange@state.co.us and asking. Why you might even be a party in the PUC decision yourself.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy2024-25_labhrg_0.pdf
https://denvergazette.com/news/business/polis-signs-15m-bill-to-fund-transition-efforts-for-coal-power-workers/article_f5117a6e-e77b-11ec-b0d9-83ca7cda4ed7.html#google_vignette
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/this-may-shock-you-but-polis-appointees
https://denvergazette.com/news/business/polis-signs-15m-bill-to-fund-transition-efforts-for-coal-power-workers/article_f5117a6e-e77b-11ec-b0d9-83ca7cda4ed7.html#google_vignette
Asparagus is related to ... aspargus?
That time of the week again. Last post of the day (I actually do have some things for tomorrow so it won't be the last post til Sunday, just the last for today) and that means time for something unusual.
I was watching a series on botany recently and the lecturer was discussing how recent genetic research is adding to and/or changing the different groups into which botanists had put plants; it's revealing some hitherto unknown, and unusual, connections.
One of the odder connections made is between asparagus and agaves! Yeah, I know, I wouldn't have thought so either, but they are actually cousins.
I put a couple links below if you want to read more. Neither is very academic; if you wanted heavy duty botany, go poke around on Google and you'll get more.
I also attached a picture of the flower stalk of a giant agave from one of the links.** Look familiar? See the resemblance now? Like a giant asparagus.
As to the top line, I sent a text to a friend (former colleague who taught soil science and precision ag and now works for a precision ag company but we text about plants) to let him know this.
In my mind my text read: "Hey, found out something cool. Asparagus is related to agave."
The response was: "huh, I wonder how much we paid the government to figure that out."
I thought this quizzical and made some remark about well it was a private research group or some such.
And then I re-read my original text. It actually read "Hey, found out something cool. Asparagus is related to asparagus."
And that explained his retort.
Have a good Friday!
**Agaves are often also called Century Plants. They take forever to send up a flower stalk, and, once they do, they die.
https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=50259&postnum=50259#:~:text=Agave%20is%20related%20to%20asparagus,an%20alcoholic%20drink%20called%20pulque.
https://www.thesmartergardener.com/asparagus-agave-are-cousins/