Editors’ note: This column on sports & energy policy launched an internal gender-based colloquy at Current over whether sports talk is too much, or simply a means to lighten the regulatory load. Are regulators’ sports leanings really among the issues deserving transparency? Readers, please let us know your thoughts editorial@cacurrent.com Another sports season is in the soft April air. Green fields. Oiled catchers’ mitts. Ash bats. March Madness is over. Soccer in the states went from the fields to the bars. Meanwhile, the energy season is in play. Wondering what sports and energy policy have in common? You are not alone. There is an internal debate at Current over the issue. That includes whether sports talk during public meetings adds levity or is inappropriate. Disclosure: the female editors dislike sports, not only because of personal coordination challenges. For us, sports talk hits a nerve. That is because of the excessive emphasis, money and time dedicated to sports in this state and country, often to the detriment of the education system and developing bodies. But we two editors are a minority, albeit an opinionated one at that. (Admittedly, we used to work for a male editor who loathed sports, so much so that he slashed all sport analogies from our stories—be it legislation being “KO’d” or a policy decision “landing in the other court.”) Yet, policy leaders on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and California Public Utilities Commission are enamored with sports. At the federal level, commissioners during business meetings speak about their favorite franchise at length. They have even worn their teams’ jerseys on the dais as they debate the reliability of the electric grid. At the federal level it’s more a diversion, according to insiders. There’s dozens of teams on the Eastern Seaboard. It’s not like Princeton v. Yale crew. It’s more hometown, tailgate banter—a brewski and a dog. At the state level, commissioners banter about Cal v. Stanford. That is, the public University of California, Berkeley, v. the private Stanford. Some may find it folksy and charming—like introducing one’s extended family—a time enduring process to which both agencies endure. But the debate over the superiority of sports teams is not limited to meeting auditoria. With webcasts it extends far beyond those walls. For those of us watching our regulators in person and online, the Cal v. Stanford debate also is a cultural and economic divide. Stanford v. Cal is snooty and exclusive. The 1 percent-er. Although, we have to admit that the men and women on the state regulatory dais are smarter than we are. Ouch. The crux of the issue is perception. As observers of policy makers, we question the appropriateness of bantering about sports teams during public meetings paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers. It’s not just because of our editorial dearth of hand/eye coordination and reaction to sweaty people wearing corporate logos. Us down here in the cheap seats hear our regulators’ implications: My elite university is better than your elite university. Policymakers are more educated than the masses and their sports teams carry the ball for alleged intellectual advantage. Imagine, if you will, someone who’s about to lose a job at a power plant because regulators mandated divestiture or the fuel costs are uneconomic. That person does not have an elite university education. That person may not have any college education, let alone be a sports fan. Imagine the consternation when that he or she hears appointed regulators yak about their teams when s/he’s waiting impatiently to determine whether regulators’ decision will effectively end his or her job. Over on the East Coast, the sports talk probably adds some lightness to the colorless meetings and/or is a proxy for boredom. Yet, it is still on the taxpayer clock. Commissioners do go on endlessly about their sports teams and their staff affiliation with franchises. A rough estimate is that about one-tenth of FERC’s public meetings are spent on armchairing sports. As a West Coaster, I don’t have a clue what franchises they’re discussing during public business meetings. Imagine if you’re in another state and curious about energy policy. The webcasts don’t post your local statistics—either in baseball or the grid. The banter is harmless, I know. It’s not like they’re talking market manipulation, unless, of course, there’s some bets on the side. Back here in the West, sports don’t show up in Sacramento during public meetings. Perhaps it’s because once voted in, politicians are averse to being benched. They avoid sports affiliations other than weekend Little League. That way, there’s no offense from future votes. While lawmakers may lack the energy know how and institutional memory of energy regulators, we don’t have to listen to the scores of their sports teams—at least while official business is being conducted. For example, this week the cost of continuing subsidies to select companies providing small alternative energy projects was raised. Lawmakers also have spent considerable capital to ensure energy efficiency and solar subsidies land in polluted, low-income communities. It’s spring. Slipping in the mud is glorious. Sports are great fun—for some. With or without the one-up-person-ship of our extremely smart and well-educated policy makers, debates about sports do little more than highlight the un-level playing field.
