Second, there is something philosophically bizarre about the ruling. City Light is unique in that it is "municipally owned." That is, it's actually owned by the city of Seattle. Its chief is appointed by elected officials and its operations are likewise overseen by elected officials. So it's not as if some nefarious external force is imposing itself on city ratepayers. Quite the opposite: citizens have chosen, via their elected representatives, to reduce their utility's greenhouse-gas emissions to zero. That's a laudable goal; and the cost, roughly $750,000, is actually fairly small in the context of the utility's operations.

Moreover, the citizenry's commitment to reducing emissions has been affirmed in plenty of other ways too, not least of which is Mayor Nickels' pledge to bring the city into compliance with Kyoto. So, again, it's not as if the City Light offset program is some strange and oppressive aberration. No, it's precisely in line with how the citizens of Seattle -- the owners of the utility, that is -- want to conduct their business.

I will allow that it's painfully obvious these day that democratically elected officials may sometimes overstep the law and require judicial oversight (even if they're carrying out the will of the majority). But this ruling against City Light seems more like an instance of the law thwarting the public good than protecting it.

So I hereby propose a reform: policymakers should get busy changing the law governing City Light's operations. We simply need a narrow new stipulation that minimizing greenhouse-gas emissions is, in fact, sufficiently related to the utility's fundamental purpose.

Easy, no?

Or am I missing something?