Unintended consequences of policy not revisited. Unforeseen consequences (well, sometimes unforeseen) thus far not revisited. Guess who'll get stuck with the bill ultimately?
Unintended Consequences....
The video linked below goes through some government programs and their unintended consequences. It's short and pretty entertaining, though not directly related to Colorado policy per se.
The reason I posted it is not so that I (or you) could scoff at the stupidity inherent in government programs (though I admit that this is real).
The reason I posted it was to ask the question: whether the consequences could (or should) be reasonably foreseen, how often are unintended consequences of policy revisited?
This DOES have relevance to Colorado policy because, I do genuinely wonder how often the Democrats running this state do this. It feels like "not often" frankly.
Amid all the whirl of fixing society's ills, where is the room to go back and, say, look again at the climate goals this state has and what it might be doing to business (a clear example being the soda plant in NW Colorado that will not be able to expand and offer jobs to those that lost theirs to climate policy because of ... you guessed it, climate policy)?
Where is the thought to go and revisit some of those laws that were passed long ago that might hamper things today? Say, the example I wrote about earlier where there is a state law preventing counties from diverting their own general fund dollars to fixing roads and bridges?
And the (sometimes) unforeseen …
And now for Unintended Consequences' cousin, the unforeseen consequence (which, incidentally, doesn't cause any sort of pause in policymaker's thoughts either).
Let's pretend that everyone in your town above 45 years of age was required to buy one piece of yellow clothing. Could be a shirt, pants, what have you, just needs to be yellow.
What do you think would happen to the availability of yellow clothing and the prices you might see?
The government, after passing this law and with an abundance of sympathy for the problem it caused, said that yellow clothing is so important for those over 45 that they'll give you $50 incentives to buy said clothing.
So you get your voucher and go the store and find ... nothing.
See the demand is high enough that the yellow clothes are on backorder for the immediate future.
That is the exact problem that building owners are going to face as Denver (along with the state) start clamping down on efficiency and require electrification of large buildings, defined for Denver as anything above 25000 sq ft (50 for the state).
Except that it's worse than my toy analogy above. It's worse because the government will start fining buildings for not complying AND the work requires permits (which are a couple of years in the getting).
Yeah.
And about all I could find in the article coming out of the Denver officials' mouth that was quoted were platitudes about "resources" from the City.
Not what I'd call a solution to the problem.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/local-government/denver-fines-for-missing-big-building-energy-saving-goals-could-add-up-fast/article_f793b4c4-e5f3-5c8a-9650-d1e5d273b7bb.html
Related, and the reason I say “sometimes” …
One more on energy policy and the consequences thereof.
Consequences of policy are bad when they're unintended and unforeseen (see the posts prior), but they're downright detestable when they're neither and no one seems inclined to want to change course.
I think the quote in the attached screenshot (from the story linked below) pretty well puts a pin in the idea of a smooth, consequence-free transition to renewables in this country. As you can see, it isn't just a fossil-fuel industry shill making the claim that we will face genuine issues with grid stability on our current trajectory, it's someone from the federal government**.
In response, the article cites Denver and state officials as saying (quoting the article):
"Denver and state officials are confident the technology will advance and make cold climate heat pumps more affordable. They insist that fast decarbonization in Colorado is necessary to achieve an obligation to meet global greenhouse gas reduction goals. They note that numerous programs at both the state and local levels exist to help property owners pay for the upgrades."
Before signing off this post, I'd just like to remind you that the obligation cited above is completely arbitrary and a choice the Democrats running this state made.
That is, this is policy that we now know will likely lead to problems in the future and yet, for some reason, we don't seem able to change it. Remind me why?
**Another happy prediction by the Feds? A 77% increase in price for electric heat vs. gas.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/legislature/federal-agency-predicts-a-77-jump-in-electric-heating-costs/article_ef012af1-8474-5819-8d52-d0f2a5703cd9.html