The explosion that killed eleven workers at the British Petroleum-leased Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana has opened our eyes … to missed opportunities.
“Drill here, Drill now” may be part of the solution to America’s energy needs, but risks are now more clearly seen. That said, it is estimated that by the time that the well is capped, America will have lost the equivalent of what it consumes in 3 hours.
Our future is still the same as it was in 2005, when John Kline (R-MN-02) so proudly suggested that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was the solution … as it will take “unprecedented steps to promote greater energy conservation and efficiency and help lower energy prices for consumers.” Specifically, he mentioned it will “Provide incentives for clean coal technology and renewable energies such as biomass, wind, solar, and hydroelectricity.”
Those were the days, when Mr. Kline actually worked to address the needs of the Second District … as illustrated by his other press releases in the 30-day time period highlighted by :
Kline Announces $1,782,330 for Dakota County Hydroelectric Facility,
Kline Announces $45,600 for New Prague water system predevelopment activities.,
Kline announced a federal grant of $70,821 for the Dakota County Drug Task Force,
Kline Announces a federal grant of $222,941 for the Lakeville Fire Department,
and Kline Announces a federal grant of $11,160 for the Cottage Grove Fire Department.
Of course, today, Mr. Kline speaks of the evil of “earmarks” as they were only available based on a member's seniority, committee assignment or party affiliation yet, somehow a newcomer like Mr. Kline was able to get a return on some of the Second District taxpayer’s monies.
Mr. Kline was right in 2005 when he acknowledged the need for greater energy conservation and efficiency and help lower energy prices for consumers but like his walking away from “earmarks”, Mr. Kline seems to have walked away from helping Minnesota developing jobs in “green industries.”
The Bush Administration set goals based on the 2005 legislation, including investing to
make solar power cost-competitive with conventional sources of electricity by 2015.
And to make that happen, the Bush Administration awarded $168 Million in grants through the Solar America Initiative Funding … but Minnesota-based companies are lacking from the list.
Since then, Mr. Kline seems to have rejected solar and wind as he voted against various bills that would have helped Minnesota and the nation create jobs.
But that doesn’t mean that some of those Bush investments won’t start coming to the market. This year, solar shingles should available for new home construction. These are shingles – not the big solar panels of yesterday – and 250 shingles covering a 1,000 square feet of roof will generate 3.5 kilowatts of energy. That's renewable energy ... that's efficiency ... that's lower cost ... that's a step toward energy independence.
The concern is that even as these new products come on line, Minnesota will be left out in the cold with Mr. Kline standing in Washington.
The Second District needs someone with passion for the potential of renewable energy. Mr. Kline gave it lip service and has walked away.
Conversely, DFL-endorsed candidate, Dan Powers speaks of “energy independence” as “a goal that everyone can see. They can grab hold of it and work on it. ” Powers is an advocate for energy independence for both environmental and economic reasons. Part of the reason Powers says "we can't wait" to implement technologies which will lead towards energy independence, is that "we have so little control over our own economy... [and] our economy cannot increase without reliable and cheap energy. "
Being a contractor, Dan Powers understands that “solar shingles” maybe part of our homes futures, but that for older homes energy efficiencies can be obtained with more insulation and better windows … these types of programs were key components of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka the Obama stimulus) … which Mr. Kline opposed.
The cost for solar shingles may be an increase of $5,000 on a typical home … and some tax incentives may be necessary … but will Mr. Kline once again oppose it just as he did with the Obama stimulus ?
Mr. Kline has had too many missed opportunities … it’s time to give Dan Powers an opportunity.
Showing posts with label Alternative Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alternative Energy. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Monday, September 08, 2008
Did Bachmann Lead the Platform Fight Against MN Farmers ?
Michele Bachmann convention speech focused on Minnesota Nice …so, how did our guests respond ?
The RNC enacted a platform that says the "U.S. government should end mandates for ethanol and let the free market work." (Note: As previously stated , Congresswoman Bachmann was part of the Platform Committee.)
Responding, Bruce Stockman, executive director of the Minnesota Corn Grower’s Association (MCGA), said "Here in Minnesota I don't know how you could say something more devastating” He said that the policy was seen as somewhat of a slap in the face to Minnesota and the entire Midwest. “It’s my view that so-goes the Midwest goes the election of the president, ” Stockman continued. “To be so opposed to the renewable fuel standard as a platform seems like not a good decision.”
The position marks a major change from the 2004 platform, and ethanol is a key part of reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil yet John McCain supports cutting the mandate that requires 9 billion gallons of biofuels, such as ethanol, be blended into gasoline this year and about 11 billion gallons next year.
What’s the motivation for this change ?
The amount of the subsidy (which was reduced in the last Farm Bill) ?
The Food –versus – Fuel debate ?
The desire to promote domestic drilling versus renewables ?
Since the Farm Bill was so contentious and will be in effect for a few more years, the likelihood of changing the subsidy is not realistic.
There is no easy answer to the Food –versus – Fuel aspect of the debate, but reducing tariffs could increase supply.
That leaves “Drill, Baby, Drill”.
The debate should not be whether to provide subsidies for the ethanol industry, but whether we should be providing sweetheart deals for the established oil industry. Bachmann, who voted against the Farm Bill, and the RNC are picking the international oil industry.
As the New York Times reported “… industry analysts who compare oil policies around the world said the United States was much more generous to oil companies than most other countries, demanding a smaller share of revenues than others that let private companies drill on public lands and in public waters.” [SNIP] “ “They are giving up a lot of money and not getting much in return,” said Robert A. Speir, a former analyst at the Energy Department who worked on the report. “If they took that money, they could buy a whole lot more oil with it on the open market.”
Some Republicans see the inequity of the subsidy / royality question. As I noted Alaska has raised its tax rates that it collects from the oil industry. Alaska is not alone, Canada’s Alberta province will require oil and gas companies to pay $1.4 billion more a year in royalties.
Why does the GOP pick the oil industry over farmers ? That will be for the voters to decide if they agree with that concept ... but all Republicans are not the same.
In Minnesota’s First District Republican primary voters will be the first to weigh in. State Senator Dick Day recognizes the huge economic benefit for southern Minnesota stating “If there’s any place in the U.S. that the Farm Bill is going to pump money into our economy, it’s the 1st District in Minnesota.”. Conversely, growers will recall Brian Davis’ non-committal support for the Farm Bill during FarmFest while proclaiming strong support for “domestic energy production without government placing too many obstacles in the way in the form of regulations and new taxes, fees or royalties.”
The RNC enacted a platform that says the "U.S. government should end mandates for ethanol and let the free market work." (Note: As previously stated , Congresswoman Bachmann was part of the Platform Committee.)
Responding, Bruce Stockman, executive director of the Minnesota Corn Grower’s Association (MCGA), said "Here in Minnesota I don't know how you could say something more devastating” He said that the policy was seen as somewhat of a slap in the face to Minnesota and the entire Midwest. “It’s my view that so-goes the Midwest goes the election of the president, ” Stockman continued. “To be so opposed to the renewable fuel standard as a platform seems like not a good decision.”
The position marks a major change from the 2004 platform, and ethanol is a key part of reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil yet John McCain supports cutting the mandate that requires 9 billion gallons of biofuels, such as ethanol, be blended into gasoline this year and about 11 billion gallons next year.
What’s the motivation for this change ?
The amount of the subsidy (which was reduced in the last Farm Bill) ?
The Food –versus – Fuel debate ?
The desire to promote domestic drilling versus renewables ?
Since the Farm Bill was so contentious and will be in effect for a few more years, the likelihood of changing the subsidy is not realistic.
There is no easy answer to the Food –versus – Fuel aspect of the debate, but reducing tariffs could increase supply.
That leaves “Drill, Baby, Drill”.
The debate should not be whether to provide subsidies for the ethanol industry, but whether we should be providing sweetheart deals for the established oil industry. Bachmann, who voted against the Farm Bill, and the RNC are picking the international oil industry.
As the New York Times reported “… industry analysts who compare oil policies around the world said the United States was much more generous to oil companies than most other countries, demanding a smaller share of revenues than others that let private companies drill on public lands and in public waters.” [SNIP] “ “They are giving up a lot of money and not getting much in return,” said Robert A. Speir, a former analyst at the Energy Department who worked on the report. “If they took that money, they could buy a whole lot more oil with it on the open market.”
Some Republicans see the inequity of the subsidy / royality question. As I noted Alaska has raised its tax rates that it collects from the oil industry. Alaska is not alone, Canada’s Alberta province will require oil and gas companies to pay $1.4 billion more a year in royalties.
Why does the GOP pick the oil industry over farmers ? That will be for the voters to decide if they agree with that concept ... but all Republicans are not the same.
In Minnesota’s First District Republican primary voters will be the first to weigh in. State Senator Dick Day recognizes the huge economic benefit for southern Minnesota stating “If there’s any place in the U.S. that the Farm Bill is going to pump money into our economy, it’s the 1st District in Minnesota.”. Conversely, growers will recall Brian Davis’ non-committal support for the Farm Bill during FarmFest while proclaiming strong support for “domestic energy production without government placing too many obstacles in the way in the form of regulations and new taxes, fees or royalties.”
Sunday, August 24, 2008
MN-06 : Has Bachmann Read HER Bill ?
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has updated her blog encouraging her colleagues to support HR 6716 - Promoting New American Energy Act of 2008. Bachmann is the prime author of the legislation which was introduced on July 31st with seven Republican co-sponsors.
On her blog, she writes : “Renewable energy is currently a sort of second-class citizen in the United States because of its high cost. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), renewable energy plants are generally more expensive to operate than plants using coal and natural gas. But we’re leaving real solutions behind by not changing this disincentive. Tax incentives for renewable plants would help equalize the financial burden, creating more energy production and a number of new domestic jobs.” [Emphasis added]
It’s laudable that she has finally come around to encouraging greater investment in solar, wind, geothermal and biodiesel. But if you read HR 6716, it really is a very limited bill. It changes the deprecation rates for “energy production and distribution facilities” which would include any electric utility nuclear production plants (Sec. 2.3 a-v) as well as any electric utility combustion turbine production plant which is fueled by natural gas (Sec. 2.3 a-viii).
Her own bill will not equalize the financial burden for the renewable energy industry if the same benefit is given to the nuclear and natural gas industries.
Bachmann’s post is an attempt to confuse the voters by implying that she is working to advance renewable energy, yet it is clear that she is offering a broad tax law change without any offset for the lost revenues.
Frankly, Congresswoman Bachmann (joined by Second District Congressman John Kline) voted in February, 2008 against the HR 5351 - Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 which has put Minnesota jobs at stake.
Voters in the Sixth District should be aware that DFL candidate El Tinklenberg has written in an OpEd piece “Provide incentives for biofuel, wind, solar and clean coal energy development. American innovation is our key to an independent energy future. While there is general agreement in Congress that economic incentives are necessary to develop alternative energy technologies, the parties quickly split when the discussion turns to paying for them. We can start by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans and using the money to pay for these incentives.”
On her blog, she writes : “Renewable energy is currently a sort of second-class citizen in the United States because of its high cost. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), renewable energy plants are generally more expensive to operate than plants using coal and natural gas. But we’re leaving real solutions behind by not changing this disincentive. Tax incentives for renewable plants would help equalize the financial burden, creating more energy production and a number of new domestic jobs.” [Emphasis added]
It’s laudable that she has finally come around to encouraging greater investment in solar, wind, geothermal and biodiesel. But if you read HR 6716, it really is a very limited bill. It changes the deprecation rates for “energy production and distribution facilities” which would include any electric utility nuclear production plants (Sec. 2.3 a-v) as well as any electric utility combustion turbine production plant which is fueled by natural gas (Sec. 2.3 a-viii).
Her own bill will not equalize the financial burden for the renewable energy industry if the same benefit is given to the nuclear and natural gas industries.
Bachmann’s post is an attempt to confuse the voters by implying that she is working to advance renewable energy, yet it is clear that she is offering a broad tax law change without any offset for the lost revenues.
Frankly, Congresswoman Bachmann (joined by Second District Congressman John Kline) voted in February, 2008 against the HR 5351 - Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 which has put Minnesota jobs at stake.
Voters in the Sixth District should be aware that DFL candidate El Tinklenberg has written in an OpEd piece “Provide incentives for biofuel, wind, solar and clean coal energy development. American innovation is our key to an independent energy future. While there is general agreement in Congress that economic incentives are necessary to develop alternative energy technologies, the parties quickly split when the discussion turns to paying for them. We can start by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans and using the money to pay for these incentives.”
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Is “Drill here, Drill now” Just a Feel-good Slogan ?
George Bush knows something about oil.
In 1951, Bush #41 started Bush-Overby Oil Development Company and became a millionaire.
In 1977, Bush #43 started Arbusto Energy which under its own weight would have gone bust if not for the political connections of his father.
That’s the oil business … boom or bust (unless you get a bailout) !
So will drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) be a boom or a bust … or just a stalling of the inevitable ?
Menzie Chinn writes “Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.” Chinn believes the impact of OCS drilling on the world’s oil prices to be minimal and production output years away.
But assuming that the US Government changes its regulations and industry acquires the production resources, will the oil be there ?
According to Sara Banaszak of the American Petroleum Institute (link) “Leases don't come with MapQuest directions that say "Drill here for 50 million barrels." It takes a process of exploration. Banaszak says developing an oil lease, especially offshore, can take up to 10 years and cost as much as a billion dollars .. ”
Banaszak is right. ExxonMobil took a year and a half to drill at cost up to a staggering $200 million going down over 30,000 feet at the Blackbeard West well before giving up.
BUST.
Even if your Exxon or George Bush, there is no guarantee of success.
“Drill here, Drill now” is feel-good slogan that may garner some votes for Republican candidates this November, but what then ? Voters will quickly realize that we’ve been had. OCS drilling should be part of the solution … but even those wells will run dry. Mexico’s production has been diminishing.
Ultimately, the long term solution must be based on better consumption utilization, wind and solar.
And while Republican candidates like to chant “Drill here, Drill now”, voters need to read Tom Friedman’s column concluding “The fact that Congress has failed eight times to renew them [investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems] is largely because of a hard core of Republican senators who either don’t want to give Democrats such a victory in an election year or simply don’t believe in renewable energy.”
This should be a stark reminder for voters in Minnesota’s Second and Sixth Districts that while John Kline and Michele Bachmann have spent time in Washington talking in the dark chanting “Drill here, Drill now”, voters need to be reminded that they opposed these tax credits putting Minnesota jobs at risk.
Slogans are not needed … embracing a comprehensive long-term solution is. Candidates should talk policy … not shout slogans.
In 1951, Bush #41 started Bush-Overby Oil Development Company and became a millionaire.
In 1977, Bush #43 started Arbusto Energy which under its own weight would have gone bust if not for the political connections of his father.
That’s the oil business … boom or bust (unless you get a bailout) !
So will drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) be a boom or a bust … or just a stalling of the inevitable ?
Menzie Chinn writes “Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.” Chinn believes the impact of OCS drilling on the world’s oil prices to be minimal and production output years away.
But assuming that the US Government changes its regulations and industry acquires the production resources, will the oil be there ?
According to Sara Banaszak of the American Petroleum Institute (link) “Leases don't come with MapQuest directions that say "Drill here for 50 million barrels." It takes a process of exploration. Banaszak says developing an oil lease, especially offshore, can take up to 10 years and cost as much as a billion dollars .. ”
Banaszak is right. ExxonMobil took a year and a half to drill at cost up to a staggering $200 million going down over 30,000 feet at the Blackbeard West well before giving up.
BUST.
Even if your Exxon or George Bush, there is no guarantee of success.
“Drill here, Drill now” is feel-good slogan that may garner some votes for Republican candidates this November, but what then ? Voters will quickly realize that we’ve been had. OCS drilling should be part of the solution … but even those wells will run dry. Mexico’s production has been diminishing.
Ultimately, the long term solution must be based on better consumption utilization, wind and solar.
And while Republican candidates like to chant “Drill here, Drill now”, voters need to read Tom Friedman’s column concluding “The fact that Congress has failed eight times to renew them [investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems] is largely because of a hard core of Republican senators who either don’t want to give Democrats such a victory in an election year or simply don’t believe in renewable energy.”
This should be a stark reminder for voters in Minnesota’s Second and Sixth Districts that while John Kline and Michele Bachmann have spent time in Washington talking in the dark chanting “Drill here, Drill now”, voters need to be reminded that they opposed these tax credits putting Minnesota jobs at risk.
Slogans are not needed … embracing a comprehensive long-term solution is. Candidates should talk policy … not shout slogans.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Debate Topic : Best Burger Place
Minnesotans have debated where the best burgers are, but if the question is where is the best place for a debate and a burger?
Then the answer has to be The Channel Inn in Fairmont Minnesota … especially if the debate topic is America’s Energy Future.
Fairmont, which is nicknamed the City of Lakes, features as a main attraction, The Channel Inn which offers dining inside, or on the deck outside. All of the great varieties of burgers are scrumptious, but one thing that is immediately noticeable once you sit down, is the wind propellers across the lake.
With John McCain talking about 45 to 100 new nuclear power plants and the Republican endorsed candidate for the First District Dr. Brian Davis and Senator Norm Coleman seeming to be in agreement, the obvious question is, could a city actually be able to generate enough wind energy to become self-sufficient or should one of those new nuclear plants be built in southern Minnesota?
That’s the debate question.
Some may scoff at wind until Rock Port Missouri is considered. The Columbia Tribune reported “Officials in this northwest Missouri town christened a four-turbine wind farm this week, making Rock Port the first U.S. city to get all of its electricity from wind power.
In fact, the wind farm produces more than it needs.
The construction cost to the taxpayers for the project … zero. The impact to the county … more than $1.1 million annually in county real estate taxes.
Impact on consumer rates over the next decade … zero … zilch … no price increases.
Jobs created during the one year construction period … 500.
And, of course,
No air pollution,
No greenhouse gases,
No nuclear waste,
No nuclear proliferation,
No trade deficit.
Conversely, nuclear has its debate points.
Cost to taxpayers for subsidies … unknown, but the S.2191 Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, which Senator Norm Coleman is a co-sponsor, encourages new nuclear plants and potentially $500 billion (or more) in taxpayer subsidies could be directed toward new nuclear reactors. Would any new construction occur without government subsidies … doubtful.
Time from construction to yielding energy … a senior industry representative said on April 7 that any new nuclear plants are more likely to come online in the US in the 2016-2017 timeframe … 8 years.
Construction cost to the taxpayers? Some states allow utilities to recover from ratepayers the cost of plant construction when it's incurred — years before the plant goes online -- whether the units are completed or not.
And what about the nuclear waste ? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the motto here. And as Senator Coleman recently commented about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s performance, "I'm still not convinced they fully grasp the psychological and economic impact that even a small dirty bomb attack would have on the American public."
OK, so there could be a great debate about harnessing wind energy versus nuclear.
We know that Minnesota already has two nuclear power plants, but could Rock Port happen here in southern Minnesota?
It is !
The Trimont Area Wind Farm, which has been in operation since November 2005, will be soon be increasing wind energy production as the 99-megawatt Elm Creek Wind Power Project construction has begun.
"In Southern Minnesota, we are showing the rest of the nation what is possible in renewable energy development," said Congressman Tim Walz. "With skyrocketing energy prices, it is imperative that we work together to ensure that our growing wind industry remains strong. In Congress, I have been a strong advocate of legislation that promotes wind development and research into other forms of renewable energy."
"Property taxes from the Trimont wind farm and now the Elm Creek project benefit county programs and schools," said Jackson County Commissioner Roger Ringkob. "The wind projects are not only a good fit with agriculture in rural Minnesota. They also bring in business to our local hotels, restaurants and campgrounds." Production tax revenues from the project for Jackson and Martin (where Fairmont is located) counties are expected to range from $350,000-$400,000 annually.
Even Minnesotans that don’t see wind farms in their area are becoming more aware of the potential. Boone Pickens is now running radio and television ads for his Pampa Wind Project which I addressed on June 12th.
Unfortunately, not everyone is voting to support wind energy. Republican Congressman John Kline (MN-02) and Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-06) voted in opposition to H. R. 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. The bill is languishing in the Senate and as I wrote in February, if Norm Coleman really wants to exhibit his ability to bring people together, he needs to get this bill to a final vote. Sadly, while John McCain comes to Hudson Wisconsin and talks up wind energy as part of the solution, he fails to attend Senate sessions to vote on the issue. For that matter, he has failed to appear for over 80 consecutive votes since April. Admittedly, that Barack Obama has also missed many votes, but he has shown up for the critical ones … including the FISA vote which did not endear him to his base. By failing to vote, McCain is not only delaying more investment in wind energy (and bringing America closer to energy independence,) but is actually hiding from the voters his true feelings – billions for clean coal and nuclear plants while his goal for renewable energy is for it “no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars.”
What a great subject for a debate over a burger at the Channel Inn that would be --- do we want look at Wind Farms in Motion or a Nuclear Power Plant.
Across Minnesota’s First District, Wind Farms are popping up everywhere … would you rather have these or a Nuclear Power Plant in your backyard?
I don’t know how the Energy debate will be resolved, but I guarantee that you will agree that The Channel Inn burgers are tops !
Then the answer has to be The Channel Inn in Fairmont Minnesota … especially if the debate topic is America’s Energy Future.
Fairmont, which is nicknamed the City of Lakes, features as a main attraction, The Channel Inn which offers dining inside, or on the deck outside. All of the great varieties of burgers are scrumptious, but one thing that is immediately noticeable once you sit down, is the wind propellers across the lake.
With John McCain talking about 45 to 100 new nuclear power plants and the Republican endorsed candidate for the First District Dr. Brian Davis and Senator Norm Coleman seeming to be in agreement, the obvious question is, could a city actually be able to generate enough wind energy to become self-sufficient or should one of those new nuclear plants be built in southern Minnesota?
That’s the debate question.
Some may scoff at wind until Rock Port Missouri is considered. The Columbia Tribune reported “Officials in this northwest Missouri town christened a four-turbine wind farm this week, making Rock Port the first U.S. city to get all of its electricity from wind power.
In fact, the wind farm produces more than it needs.
The construction cost to the taxpayers for the project … zero. The impact to the county … more than $1.1 million annually in county real estate taxes.
Impact on consumer rates over the next decade … zero … zilch … no price increases.
Jobs created during the one year construction period … 500.
And, of course,
No air pollution,
No greenhouse gases,
No nuclear waste,
No nuclear proliferation,
No trade deficit.
Conversely, nuclear has its debate points.
Cost to taxpayers for subsidies … unknown, but the S.2191 Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, which Senator Norm Coleman is a co-sponsor, encourages new nuclear plants and potentially $500 billion (or more) in taxpayer subsidies could be directed toward new nuclear reactors. Would any new construction occur without government subsidies … doubtful.
Time from construction to yielding energy … a senior industry representative said on April 7 that any new nuclear plants are more likely to come online in the US in the 2016-2017 timeframe … 8 years.
Construction cost to the taxpayers? Some states allow utilities to recover from ratepayers the cost of plant construction when it's incurred — years before the plant goes online -- whether the units are completed or not.
And what about the nuclear waste ? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the motto here. And as Senator Coleman recently commented about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s performance, "I'm still not convinced they fully grasp the psychological and economic impact that even a small dirty bomb attack would have on the American public."
OK, so there could be a great debate about harnessing wind energy versus nuclear.
We know that Minnesota already has two nuclear power plants, but could Rock Port happen here in southern Minnesota?
It is !
The Trimont Area Wind Farm, which has been in operation since November 2005, will be soon be increasing wind energy production as the 99-megawatt Elm Creek Wind Power Project construction has begun.
"In Southern Minnesota, we are showing the rest of the nation what is possible in renewable energy development," said Congressman Tim Walz. "With skyrocketing energy prices, it is imperative that we work together to ensure that our growing wind industry remains strong. In Congress, I have been a strong advocate of legislation that promotes wind development and research into other forms of renewable energy."
"Property taxes from the Trimont wind farm and now the Elm Creek project benefit county programs and schools," said Jackson County Commissioner Roger Ringkob. "The wind projects are not only a good fit with agriculture in rural Minnesota. They also bring in business to our local hotels, restaurants and campgrounds." Production tax revenues from the project for Jackson and Martin (where Fairmont is located) counties are expected to range from $350,000-$400,000 annually.
Even Minnesotans that don’t see wind farms in their area are becoming more aware of the potential. Boone Pickens is now running radio and television ads for his Pampa Wind Project which I addressed on June 12th.
Unfortunately, not everyone is voting to support wind energy. Republican Congressman John Kline (MN-02) and Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-06) voted in opposition to H. R. 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. The bill is languishing in the Senate and as I wrote in February, if Norm Coleman really wants to exhibit his ability to bring people together, he needs to get this bill to a final vote. Sadly, while John McCain comes to Hudson Wisconsin and talks up wind energy as part of the solution, he fails to attend Senate sessions to vote on the issue. For that matter, he has failed to appear for over 80 consecutive votes since April. Admittedly, that Barack Obama has also missed many votes, but he has shown up for the critical ones … including the FISA vote which did not endear him to his base. By failing to vote, McCain is not only delaying more investment in wind energy (and bringing America closer to energy independence,) but is actually hiding from the voters his true feelings – billions for clean coal and nuclear plants while his goal for renewable energy is for it “no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars.”
What a great subject for a debate over a burger at the Channel Inn that would be --- do we want look at Wind Farms in Motion or a Nuclear Power Plant.
Across Minnesota’s First District, Wind Farms are popping up everywhere … would you rather have these or a Nuclear Power Plant in your backyard?
I don’t know how the Energy debate will be resolved, but I guarantee that you will agree that The Channel Inn burgers are tops !
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
MN-02 : Lonely Kline Votes Against Gas Price Relief
Why does John Kline stand alone against the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008 ?
When 7 out of 8 members of the Minnesota’s Congressional delegation agree that a piece of legislation would be good, why doesn’t John Kline ?
That’s right, Michelle Bachmann, Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum, Jim Oberstar, Colin Peterson, Jim Ramstad and Tim Walz, all voted for HR 6074 … but not John Kline.
In fact a majority of Republicans and Democrats voted for this legislation … but not John Kline.
Why ?
I suppose there could be many reasons … in fact 10,390,091 reasons … if you believe that the donations to Republicans by the oil and gas industry could be good reasons.
But why would Minnesotans be surprised when after all Kline voted against the HR 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 and H.R.3221: New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act.
I guess that the wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower industries don’t have $10,390,091 available as contributions for political campaigns.
When 7 out of 8 members of the Minnesota’s Congressional delegation agree that a piece of legislation would be good, why doesn’t John Kline ?
That’s right, Michelle Bachmann, Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum, Jim Oberstar, Colin Peterson, Jim Ramstad and Tim Walz, all voted for HR 6074 … but not John Kline.
In fact a majority of Republicans and Democrats voted for this legislation … but not John Kline.
Why ?
I suppose there could be many reasons … in fact 10,390,091 reasons … if you believe that the donations to Republicans by the oil and gas industry could be good reasons.
But why would Minnesotans be surprised when after all Kline voted against the HR 5351 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 and H.R.3221: New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act.
I guess that the wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower industries don’t have $10,390,091 available as contributions for political campaigns.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Boone Pickens has an Energy Plan that Minnesotans Need
While the switchero blame game of high gas prices has renewed the debate of expanded oil expiration, one oil man is taking action.
John Kline (R-MN-02) is at the forefront writing “Congress should consider opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to environmentally safe production, and increase offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Clearly, drilling for oil in Alaska or in the Gulf of Mexico is not a short-term solution, but if we continue down this course of inaction, will we still be discussing plans for rising energy costs when gas reaches, say, $8 per gallon?”
Now, I know a good switchero when I see one. The opening for ANWR has been promoted for years, but with leading Republicans like John McCain and Norm Coleman opposing it, the legislation has died in the Senate. That leaves an opening for candidates like Dr. Brian Davis in Minnesota’s First District to evoke fear – “knowing that our economy is partly dependent on countries like Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia is troublesome.”
There are legitimate questions on appropriateness of subsidies and even why the oil companies have not utilized all the lease lands that they have access. (Read Bluestem Prairie for an excellent overview.)
Yet, this being an election year, fear and whining takes the lead over action.
So what does legendary oil man, T. Boone Pickens have to say ? "You find an oilfield, it peaks and starts declining, and you've got to find another one to replace it, " said Pickens, who once operated one of the largest independent oil and gas production companies. "It can drive you crazy. With wind, there's no decline curve. "
What’s Pickens plan ?
The Pampa Wind Project.
He isn’t just talking but spending his money. Pickens has placed an order with General Electric to purchase 667 wind turbines capable of generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 300,000 average U.S. homes. That’s just Phase I. When all four phases are complete, Pampa Wind Project will generate more than 4,000 megawatts of electricity, enough for 1.3 million homes. One study forecasts the project would generate an estimated 1,500 jobs during the construction phase, and 720 during a typical year of the operation phase.
Pickens envisions that large scale renewable energy projects like his Pampa Wind Project will permit the United States to become less dependent on foreign oil. Large scale renewable energy projects such as this are difficult to execute because they rely upon the Federal Production Tax Credit, which provides incentives for development of renewable energy. However, large scale renewable energy projects require commitments years in advance, while Congress has only extended the Production Tax Credit one or two years at a time.
While Congressman Kline wants ANWR opened, he has VOTED AGAINST legislation that would provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.
Why doesn’t Kline promote jobs for Minnesotans ? Further, The Hill reports that Kline wants to amend the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to minimize union involvement in the training of workers in green “skill sets” like how to install solar panels, maintain wind turbines, or retrofit buildings with energy-efficient lighting.
Voters in Minnesota’s Second District need to consider Steve Sarvi’s objectives. Sarvi wants to make Minnesota a hub of green manufacturing and technology and thus an exporter of green hardware. We need to make jobs in rural Minnesota. Sarvi efforts are For Minnesota, while Kline’s seem to be for Alaska.
Read more about the Pinkens’ Pampa Wind Project here.
John Kline (R-MN-02) is at the forefront writing “Congress should consider opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to environmentally safe production, and increase offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Clearly, drilling for oil in Alaska or in the Gulf of Mexico is not a short-term solution, but if we continue down this course of inaction, will we still be discussing plans for rising energy costs when gas reaches, say, $8 per gallon?”
Now, I know a good switchero when I see one. The opening for ANWR has been promoted for years, but with leading Republicans like John McCain and Norm Coleman opposing it, the legislation has died in the Senate. That leaves an opening for candidates like Dr. Brian Davis in Minnesota’s First District to evoke fear – “knowing that our economy is partly dependent on countries like Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia is troublesome.”
There are legitimate questions on appropriateness of subsidies and even why the oil companies have not utilized all the lease lands that they have access. (Read Bluestem Prairie for an excellent overview.)
Yet, this being an election year, fear and whining takes the lead over action.
So what does legendary oil man, T. Boone Pickens have to say ? "You find an oilfield, it peaks and starts declining, and you've got to find another one to replace it, " said Pickens, who once operated one of the largest independent oil and gas production companies. "It can drive you crazy. With wind, there's no decline curve. "
What’s Pickens plan ?
The Pampa Wind Project.
He isn’t just talking but spending his money. Pickens has placed an order with General Electric to purchase 667 wind turbines capable of generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 300,000 average U.S. homes. That’s just Phase I. When all four phases are complete, Pampa Wind Project will generate more than 4,000 megawatts of electricity, enough for 1.3 million homes. One study forecasts the project would generate an estimated 1,500 jobs during the construction phase, and 720 during a typical year of the operation phase.
Pickens envisions that large scale renewable energy projects like his Pampa Wind Project will permit the United States to become less dependent on foreign oil. Large scale renewable energy projects such as this are difficult to execute because they rely upon the Federal Production Tax Credit, which provides incentives for development of renewable energy. However, large scale renewable energy projects require commitments years in advance, while Congress has only extended the Production Tax Credit one or two years at a time.
While Congressman Kline wants ANWR opened, he has VOTED AGAINST legislation that would provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.
Why doesn’t Kline promote jobs for Minnesotans ? Further, The Hill reports that Kline wants to amend the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to minimize union involvement in the training of workers in green “skill sets” like how to install solar panels, maintain wind turbines, or retrofit buildings with energy-efficient lighting.
Voters in Minnesota’s Second District need to consider Steve Sarvi’s objectives. Sarvi wants to make Minnesota a hub of green manufacturing and technology and thus an exporter of green hardware. We need to make jobs in rural Minnesota. Sarvi efforts are For Minnesota, while Kline’s seem to be for Alaska.
Read more about the Pinkens’ Pampa Wind Project here.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
VOTE 51 : MN Jobs at stake while Congress chooses whose Tax Break to Extend
Arguably, the American tax system is chock-full of tax credits and provisions that have created an unfair system which are dominated by lobbyists and special interest groups. Congress is in the midst of making a decision concerning which industries should have their tax breaks extended. Should industry profitability eliminate a few companies from the tax credit? How should America's vision of the future and the jobs that could be created be factored into the equation ?
Choice A – Re-enact tax incentives - now set to expire in 2008 - which will end all federal tax credits on solar, wind and other alternative energy installations. Allowing the tax incentives to expire, would effect investors as they would be unlikely to pump much new money into clean power unless they are sure the credits will be available next year. When the tax credit expired at the end of 2003, the construction of new wind farms dropped by 75 percent the next year. The American Wind Energy Association has already detected a drop in new capital spending. An economic study by Navigant Consulting finds that over 76,000 jobs are put at risk in the wind industry, and approximately 40,000 jobs in the solar industry. The states that could lose the most jobs include: Texas, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, Iowa, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and California.
Choice B – Permit the scheduled tax credit increase which was at 3% in 2005, that was raised to 6 percent in 2007 and to increase to 9 percent in 2010 for MAJOR oil companies.
That’s the choice.
Jobs – current and future - or reducing corporate income taxes to the five largest oil companies.
A little history : The American Jobs Creation Act allowed the deduction of up to 3 percent of qualified income for qualified domestic production activity income. In January, 2005, when this deduction took effect, the spot price in West Texas was $46.84/barrel. Recently, the posted price of West Texas Intermediate oil is $94.62. The big five oil companies made a combined profit of $123 billion in 2007 alone. Major integrated oil companies are defined as those with all of the following: (1)average daily worldwide crude production of at least 500,000 barrels for the taxable year: (2) gross receipts of $1 billion per year; and (3) average daily refinery run in excess of 75,000 barrels. Currently that fits only FIVE companies. All non-integrated oil companies would still be able to claim a 6 percent domestic manufacturing deduction. All other manufacturers would get a 9 percent deduction starting in 2010.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that removal of the credit for major integrated oil and gas producers would bring in $9.433 billion in federal revenue over the next eleven years. Additionally, the proposal freezes the current deduction for all other oil and gas producers to its current 6 percent of qualified income. That portion of the proposed modification would have the effect of freezing the effective corporate income tax to those producers at 32.9 percent, rather than allowing the effective rate to fall to 31.85 percent if the deduction was fully implemented.
The chairman and CEO of Exxon-Mobil testified that if Congress took back the billions of dollars, it would not affect Exxon-Mobil (the Joint Hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 109th Congress, November 9, 2005).
The bill also proposes a clarification to an existing tax code which would eliminate the potential for major oil and gas companies to manipulate their extraction income in order to achieve beneficial results under U.S. foreign tax credit rules. This small clarification would raise approximately $4.08 billion over ten years, and would more than cover the proposed renewable energy and energy efficiency tax incentives.
Taking oil out of the equation, let’s look at how Minnesota could be affected. With the new Southwest Minnesota wind farm project, Minnesota is ranked as the nation's third largest producer of wind energy capacity, behind California and Texas.
But the future is clouded because of the tax question, putting at risk pending in-state projects.
I acknowledge that any change how energy is acquired can have impacts that the current system is not prepared (the capacity for the nation's high-voltage lines to accept wind turbine energy, local community concerns, safety concerns, etc.) and that mistakes have been made by embracing ethanol so eagerly. Yet, the first question needs to be, do these five major oil companies still need the tax reduction? The second question is, will extending the tax credit for alternative energy programs create (and maintain) jobs?
Those questions are simple to answer.
And the House of Representatives voted yesterday Roll Call 84 with Minnesota’s delegation voting in favor 6 to 2. Keith Ellison was co-sponsor of HR 5351 . Support for alternative energy is not surpising as previously, Tim Walz introduced with the co-sponsorship of Jim Ramstad, Betty McCollum, Collin Peterson and Ellison, HR 2691 to provide incentives for facilities producing electricity from wind.
Why is it that Representatives Bachmann and Kline do not see the value of alternative energy and the jobs involved that the other Republicans and Democrats see ?
Now, that the legislation has been approved, the Senate will consider it. Based on past votes, it will be close. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar has introduced S. 2642 that would establish a national renewable energy standard; to extend and create renewable energy tax incentives, so she should be supportive. Senator Coleman has voted to move forward for a final vote the previous legislation. It failed by one vote to achieve the 60 vote requirement. Senator Durbin reacted : “The future just failed by one vote, the past was preserved the oil companies are now celebrating in their boardrooms. Not only do they have the highest profits in history, they continue to have a death grip on this Senate.”
That’s part of the problem … the 60 vote requirement to move legislation forward is causing inaction.
Now, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, said
Democratic leaders are considering advancing the House bill under fast-track procedures related to the budget. This process would not permit an indefinite GOP stall. In essence, it would require just 51 votes to force Senate action.
If, the Senate approves, then the legislation will go to President Bush who has already promised a veto.
Assuming this plays out, it will be up to Bachmann and Kline on the Veto Override Vote to decide on Minnesota jobs or Billions for the FIVE Oil companies.
Voters should let Bachmann and Kline know now who they wish to support.
Choice A – Re-enact tax incentives - now set to expire in 2008 - which will end all federal tax credits on solar, wind and other alternative energy installations. Allowing the tax incentives to expire, would effect investors as they would be unlikely to pump much new money into clean power unless they are sure the credits will be available next year. When the tax credit expired at the end of 2003, the construction of new wind farms dropped by 75 percent the next year. The American Wind Energy Association has already detected a drop in new capital spending. An economic study by Navigant Consulting finds that over 76,000 jobs are put at risk in the wind industry, and approximately 40,000 jobs in the solar industry. The states that could lose the most jobs include: Texas, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, Iowa, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and California.
Choice B – Permit the scheduled tax credit increase which was at 3% in 2005, that was raised to 6 percent in 2007 and to increase to 9 percent in 2010 for MAJOR oil companies.
That’s the choice.
Jobs – current and future - or reducing corporate income taxes to the five largest oil companies.
A little history : The American Jobs Creation Act allowed the deduction of up to 3 percent of qualified income for qualified domestic production activity income. In January, 2005, when this deduction took effect, the spot price in West Texas was $46.84/barrel. Recently, the posted price of West Texas Intermediate oil is $94.62. The big five oil companies made a combined profit of $123 billion in 2007 alone. Major integrated oil companies are defined as those with all of the following: (1)average daily worldwide crude production of at least 500,000 barrels for the taxable year: (2) gross receipts of $1 billion per year; and (3) average daily refinery run in excess of 75,000 barrels. Currently that fits only FIVE companies. All non-integrated oil companies would still be able to claim a 6 percent domestic manufacturing deduction. All other manufacturers would get a 9 percent deduction starting in 2010.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that removal of the credit for major integrated oil and gas producers would bring in $9.433 billion in federal revenue over the next eleven years. Additionally, the proposal freezes the current deduction for all other oil and gas producers to its current 6 percent of qualified income. That portion of the proposed modification would have the effect of freezing the effective corporate income tax to those producers at 32.9 percent, rather than allowing the effective rate to fall to 31.85 percent if the deduction was fully implemented.
The chairman and CEO of Exxon-Mobil testified that if Congress took back the billions of dollars, it would not affect Exxon-Mobil (the Joint Hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 109th Congress, November 9, 2005).
The bill also proposes a clarification to an existing tax code which would eliminate the potential for major oil and gas companies to manipulate their extraction income in order to achieve beneficial results under U.S. foreign tax credit rules. This small clarification would raise approximately $4.08 billion over ten years, and would more than cover the proposed renewable energy and energy efficiency tax incentives.
Taking oil out of the equation, let’s look at how Minnesota could be affected. With the new Southwest Minnesota wind farm project, Minnesota is ranked as the nation's third largest producer of wind energy capacity, behind California and Texas.
But the future is clouded because of the tax question, putting at risk pending in-state projects.
I acknowledge that any change how energy is acquired can have impacts that the current system is not prepared (the capacity for the nation's high-voltage lines to accept wind turbine energy, local community concerns, safety concerns, etc.) and that mistakes have been made by embracing ethanol so eagerly. Yet, the first question needs to be, do these five major oil companies still need the tax reduction? The second question is, will extending the tax credit for alternative energy programs create (and maintain) jobs?
Those questions are simple to answer.
And the House of Representatives voted yesterday Roll Call 84 with Minnesota’s delegation voting in favor 6 to 2. Keith Ellison was co-sponsor of HR 5351 . Support for alternative energy is not surpising as previously, Tim Walz introduced with the co-sponsorship of Jim Ramstad, Betty McCollum, Collin Peterson and Ellison, HR 2691 to provide incentives for facilities producing electricity from wind.
Why is it that Representatives Bachmann and Kline do not see the value of alternative energy and the jobs involved that the other Republicans and Democrats see ?
Now, that the legislation has been approved, the Senate will consider it. Based on past votes, it will be close. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar has introduced S. 2642 that would establish a national renewable energy standard; to extend and create renewable energy tax incentives, so she should be supportive. Senator Coleman has voted to move forward for a final vote the previous legislation. It failed by one vote to achieve the 60 vote requirement. Senator Durbin reacted : “The future just failed by one vote, the past was preserved the oil companies are now celebrating in their boardrooms. Not only do they have the highest profits in history, they continue to have a death grip on this Senate.”
That’s part of the problem … the 60 vote requirement to move legislation forward is causing inaction.
Now, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, said
Democratic leaders are considering advancing the House bill under fast-track procedures related to the budget. This process would not permit an indefinite GOP stall. In essence, it would require just 51 votes to force Senate action.
If, the Senate approves, then the legislation will go to President Bush who has already promised a veto.
Assuming this plays out, it will be up to Bachmann and Kline on the Veto Override Vote to decide on Minnesota jobs or Billions for the FIVE Oil companies.
Voters should let Bachmann and Kline know now who they wish to support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Vote 60](http://img%20src=http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/ravendog/clic.gif%20border=”0"){kind=link}