EDITORIAL: Question 3 could save schools millions on energy costs

In the latest progressive attack on Question 3, the state teacher union trots out an old standby — the children.

Unshackling Nevada consumers from the electricity monopoly, the TV ad asserts, would increase energy rates for schools. That, a local teacher tells the camera, would force districts to siphon money out of the classroom in order to cover soaring energy costs.

The spot follows the tired talking points repeated by the various green and union interests that have aligned with NV Energy in an attempt to block Nevadans from having the freedom to choose their own energy provider. In September, Ruben Murillo, president of the Nevada State Education Association, said his union would oppose Question 3 because, “At a time when education budgets are already squeezed, our school districts simply can’t afford to have our limited resources diverted from the classroom to pay for increased electricity costs.”

Never mind that the NSEA’s premise is false: As Young Kim of the Energy Research Consulting Group points out in an op-ed elsewhere on these pages, consumers who availed themselves of choice in 14 states that enjoy competition have saved $25 billion over the past six years thanks to increased market efficiencies. If NSEA officials were truly concerned about children and classroom funding, they’d jump to embrace Question 3 so school districts could potentially save millions of dollars on their energy costs.

MGM Resorts, Wynn Resorts and Caesars Entertainment have paid more than $145 million in exit fees to get out from under the NV Energy monopoly. Switch and Las Vegas Sands Corp. — which is owned by the family that owns the Review-Journal — did the same. They did so because they will realize large savings when it comes to energy expenditures. Why would the NSEA and Clark County School District ignore the potential for such a windfall?

The answer is that, on many levels, union and green opposition to Question 3 is about a fealty to progressive politics, a deep mistrust of free markets and a fear that consumer choice will disrupt efforts to impose costly bureaucratic directives on electricity providers in the name of advancing fashionable green energy initiatives.

Consider that as the NSEA is warning consumers that choice is a “risky” scheme that will raise electricity rates, the union has also come out in favor of Question 6, which would force the state’s utilities to purchase 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. This makes no sense if prices are a concern. While the cost of renewables has indeed come down as technologies have matured, such mandates by definition will artificially distort the cost of electricity and keep consumer prices higher than they would be otherwise.

So much for fretting over the nexus between classoom spending and high electricity costs for school districts. In reality, the NSEA prefers politics and incoherence to rational, consumer-oriented energy policy.