Cap and Trade Not Ballot-Box Poison

Heartland Consumer Power District's Mike McDowell wags his finger at Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and any other Congressmen thinking of taking advantage of the lame-duck session to "enact policies rejected by the voters on November 3rd [sic]." McDowell's warning carries the hint that he includes cap and trade in that batch of "rejected" policies.

Mr. McDowell's queasiness about cap and trade, that really effective policy that was part of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, was not rejected by the electorate last week. The bill never made it to a vote in our laggardly Senate, but in the House, 80% of the Democrats who voted for ACESA won re-election. 27 out of 43 Democrats—63%—who voted no on ACESA lost last week. Only one of eight House Republicans who voted with Nancy Pelosi for cap and trade was beaten at the ballot box, and that was Delaware's Mike Castle, who lost the Senate primary to Christine O'Donnell... which worked out nicely for Democrats and other reasonable people.

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin was one of those Democratic nays. So was Dennis Kucinich. But Herseth Sandlin the Blue Dog lost, while Kucinich the fire-breathing liberal won. Go figure... and keep that in mind, candidates-in-waiting, as you think about whether you want to run in 2012 as an "Independent (democrat)" or a just plain "Democrat."

-----------------------------------
By the way, conservatives, instead of gambling on your extreme best-case scenario that the scientific consensus is wrong, climate change isn't happening, and oil will last forever, why not be real conservatives and join the Dems in this lame-duck session to pass serious climate change and energy security legislation?

Farm Bureau Picks Chinese Hegemony over American Energy Independence

Kelly Fuller wonders what the Farm Bureau is smoking. At their annual meeting in Seattle, the corporate mouthpieces of monoculture, factory farms, industrial food, and Big Ag are taking the same hard line against energy security legislation that made the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lose members. The Farm Bureau appears to plan to stop using "polite," "respectful," and "friendly" language* with any "extremists" who threaten their profits (oh, sorry: I mean their storied way of life) with sensible cap-and-trade legislation.

Perhaps the Farm Bureau will further change their language... to Chinese:

Andy Grove, co-founder of Intel, liked to say that companies come to “strategic inflection points,” where the fundamentals of a business change and they either make the hard decision to invest in a down cycle and take a more promising trajectory or do nothing and wither. The same is true for countries.

The U.S. is at just such a strategic inflection point. We are either going to put in place a price on carbon and the right regulatory incentives to ensure that America is China’s main competitor/partner in the E.T. revolution, or we are going to gradually cede this industry to Beijing and the good jobs and energy security that would go with it [Thomas Friedman, "Who's Sleeping Now?" New York Times, 2010.01.10].

The Farm Bureau has its cute little marketing caps pulled so far down over their eyes they can't see that cap-and-trade is about establishing a sustainable energy future. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will lay the groundwork for a new energy economy that will make energy more affordable and more secure in the long term for farmers and everyone else in America. It will also make our planet a little cleaner.

We can seize this moment to pass serious energy security legislation, including a cap-and-trade system to set a market price on carbon, and position ourselves to compete with China on energy technology, the golden ticket of the modern economy. Or we can stick our heads in the Saudi sand and the oil sands and let this become the Chinese Century.

But if the Chinese get rich on clean energy technology, maybe they'll buy more meat from American factory farms....

p.s.: 48% of Canadians consider climate change a "critical threat" to their country. 28% of Canadians say the same about terrorism.

pp.s.: The Pope might also be wondering what the Farm Bureau is smoking. Of course, the Farm Bureau thinks churches don't have any business advising us how to live in the world.

---------------------------
*This language from American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman sounds alarmingly like a declaration of war on civil discourse. I'm expecting a particularly ugly marketing campaign from AFBF's front blogs, with more of diversionary attacks against reasonable people like Michael Pollan. Stay tuned....

---------------------------
Update 2010.01.17 12:53 CST: Paula Crossfield at Civil Eats writes the Farm Bureau is "denying climate change, undermining labor, and losing relevancy."

Repower SD in Madison Today: Put Your Energy Security Shout-Out on the Wall!

Repower America is coming to Madison today! Susan and Elana from the Repower South Dakota office in Sioux Falls will be at the Trojan Center on the Dakota State University campus from noon to 4 p.m., spreading the good word and giving students and other passersby a chance to add their support to the Repower Wall. (John Thune only wishes his website looked this good.)

The Repower Wall is filled with videos of regular folks (and a few famous ones) looking the webcam and the world in the eye and saying why they support legislation to promote clean energy, American economic independence, military security... oh yeah, and saving the planet.

As Badlands Blue ably reminds us, taking action to stop climate change is also about protecting wildlife habitat and hunting. Jordan LaRue from Helena, Montana, gets that message, too:


(My fellow DSU students: if you want to visit Susan and Elana at their table in the TC today, don't bring your hunting rifles!!!)

Wilmot farmer and veteran Orrie Swayze doesn't need to pack heat to make his point:



Marilyn Teske from Fort Pierre sees the benefits (remember, 5000 green jobs!) for small-town South Dakota:



State Senator Dan Ahlers (D-25/Dell Rapids) makes the argument for stewardship, efficiency, and just plain good business:



So does State Senator Pam Merchant (D-7/Brookings):



And there's fellow NFL alum Jennifer Chase, looking out for her own future:



Like jobs? Like staying out of global conflicts? Like the planet? Then get your voice up on the Repower Wall!

Honor Your Vets, Save the Planet, Pass ACESA

Don't think Veterans Day should be political? Ask a soldier who risked her life in Iraq due to our political choices. LeighAnn Dunn, USD grad student and South Dakota National Guard member, applies the Bush "first-strike" doctrine as justification for passing climate change legislation:

This “first strike” standard also obligates our nation to another standard, which is to take extraordinary steps to prevent wars our leaders can see developing in the future. One threat we clearly see and can prevent is further damage from climate change. The U.S. Department of Defense, the CIA, the State Department and the National Intelligence Council see this threat and are all incorporating man-made climate change as a security threat into their long-term planning. Here are some climate change scenarios our nation’s top military minds are looking at:

Climate change dries up water and creates famine. Nations panic. Wars erupt. American troops get deployed.

Climate change makes sea levels rise, creating tens of millions of refugees. Refugee camps are ripe recruiting grounds for terrorist organizations.

Climate change fuels radical storms to occur more frequently. This stretches military resources from their primary mission: defending America against our enemies [LeighAnn Dunn, "Nation at the Crossroads This Veterans Day," letter to the editor, USD Volante, 2009.11.11].

When treehuggers and GI Jane agree, it's time to act. Support the troops: enact climate change legislation.

Climate Change Legislation: Green Jobs for SD, or Attack on (Corporate) Agriculture?

SDPB's Charles Michael Ray posts a Dakota Digest report on how wind power is boosting the Howard economy. Randy Perry of the forward-thinking Rural Learning Center says that green jobs and green energy have brought more than 230 jobs to Howard this decade. Unfortunately, Miner County as a whole has seen a decline in its workforce from 1500 to 1245 over this decade.

Perry believes, as I do, that climate change legislation would bring even more high-tech, high-pay jobs to Howard and all of South Dakota. But out stomps hog farmer, Clearwater Township chairman Larry Haak to tell us climate change legislation will raise farm input costs and give the EPA power to regulate large farms.

More EPA regulation? Haak evidently missed the point that the American Clean Energy and Security Act is actually a market-based solution that would forestall EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. Haak also evidently missed the point that climate change legislation will do less harm to farmers than unmitigated climate change itself.

But missing the point is to be expected of a vice-chair of the Miner County Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau, a big corporate lobby founded by the New York Chamber of Commerce and Rockefeller money, is well known for its opposition to climate change legislation or anything else that might force the corporate ag-industrial complex to behave responsibly.

You'd think the average farmer, paragon of patriotism and self-sufficiency, would see the case business leaders and even a South Carolina conservative and former Marine can make for how climate change legislation is good for America's economy, energy independence, and national security (good work, Badlands Blue!). I guess the Farm Bureau is all about flying the flag... until we ask them to support environmental action and innovation that might actually bring small farmers and rural communities new income streams and greater independence from the big ag processors.

Wasson Goes Web, Questions Iraq Occupation, Flies Flag for ACESA

Hey, that Wasson character must be serious about running for Congress: he's got a new website, just the big kids! Among other things, candidate Wasson notes that American troops in Iraq will be protecting Chinese oil interests. I can't wait to hear the policy implications of that point on the stump!

Wasson is also blogging with my favorite free blogging tool, Blogger. On his blog, Wasson has the temerity to disagree with the rest of the GOP field and suggest South Dakota might be able to use climate-change legislation to its advantage. (Interesting: Wasson expressed the opposite position back in July. He's obviously cleared his head by reading the Madville Times.) I'm still voting Dem, but this guy could be the straw that stirs the Republican drink in the primary debates.

I also hear Wasson is planning some East River trips—expect some stern critiques of South Dakota's own East Coast intelligentsia. ;-)

Primary is just seven months away: bookmark those campaign websites now!

SD House (Dem):

• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

SD House (GOP):

• Thad Wasson
• Chris Nelson
• R. Blake Curd

SD Governor (Dem):

• Scott Heidepreim

SD Governor (GOP):

• Scott Munsterman
• Ken Knuppe
• David Knudson
• Dennis Daugaard

--------------------------
Update 10:32 CST: I notice Wasson is busy updating already. His blog sidebar includes a South Dakota blogroll that includes conservative and liberal blogs. Making Candidate Wasson's blogroll: Madville Times and Dakota War College, both of which have dished out criticism of Wasson's campaign. Now how many candidates do you know who have the moxie to allow opposing content on their website?

At the Madville Times, Every Day Is Blog Action Day

Badlands Blue and some other folks remind me today is Blog Action Day to fight climate change. Nothing big, just thousands of blogs, all working together to focus attention on one issue and save the planet.

But silly me, I have a meeting with my advisor to try again to convince him my dissertation isn't complete hogwash. Fortunately, every day is blog action day at the Madville Times. So feel free to peruse some previous posts on promoting a clean energy policy for America's future:

• Go see Operation Free in Watertown and Sioux Falls today!
• Support the troops: vote for climate change legislation!
  
• Seven-part series on passing the H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act:
1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture
• Don't forget: Big Stone II is dead... so quit whining, Heartland, and build wind!
• Vote for your great-great-grandkids: cap carbon, cut coal! (See, Donna, I'm always thinking about the future. ;-) )
  

John Warner: Clean-Energy Legislation Is National Security Issue

Add John Warner to Bob Ellis's axis of evil enviro-whackos conspiring to destroy America. The former Senator from Virginia is another veteran (and another Republican!) supporting Congressional action on climate change and clean energy. Warner has been traveling the country discussing evidence from the military that climate change is a threat to national security. He explains his personal campaign to Jill Lawrence of Politics Daily thus:

People think climate change is solely an environmental campaign. And I . . . consider myself strongly in support of the environmental goals of this country. But a lot of people look with a different view on that. This says, "Hey, wait a minute, irrespective of your feeling about environmental concerns, here's a practical effect. Your sons or daughters or next door neighbor might be sent out on a military mission" [John Warner, quoted by Jill Lawrence, Q&A, Politics Daily, 2009.09.04].

Go ahead, stick your head in the sand on climate change. But do you want to stick your sons' and daughters' boots in the sand?

Warner makes the case that climate change has already imposed great costs on us, from spreading bark beetles and devastating forests in Idaho to tipping political instability to chaos in Somalia and Darfur.

Studies show that drought, famine, floods and other consequences of global warming will be worst in regions that already are relatively unstable politically and/or economically. The potential impact includes toppled governments, terrorist breeding grounds, island nations immersed in rising seas, threats to U.S. military installations in coastal areas, and more military and humanitarian demands on the U.S. military -- in many instances the only institution with the resources to make a difference [Jill Lawrence, "National Security Concerns Could Power Energy Bill to Senate Passage," Politics Daily, 2009.09.04].

Clean energy isn't just a green issue. It's a red-white-and-blue issue. Claims that ACESA and other enivronmental efforts show contempt for America are simply absurd. In supporting clean-energy legislation, Senator Warner is doing the same thing as when he signed up for the U.S. Navy in January 1945, and when he volunteered for active duty in the Marines in Korea in 1950: defending the country he loves.

Operation Free: Vets Support Climate Change Legislation -- Watertown, Sioux Falls Events Thursday

I suppose Bob Ellis will call these patriots evil liars, too....

It's easy for opponents of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) to portray supporters as whiners and environmental Kool-Aid drinkers who want to harm America. No faster way to prove your point by calling your opponents wimps... right?

Try that with the folks in Operation Free. Go ahead, look 'em the eye and say that.

Operation Free is a group of veterans and national security experts who support ACESA because it will make America safer and keep our troops out of harm's way. These aren't starry-eyed hippies; these are starry-shouldered generals like Wes Clark telling us that climate change and dependence on foreign energy will mean more natural disasters drawing U.S. military interventions, as well as more overseas adventures to secure foreign oil like the Gulf Wars. And hey, that's not just me shouting "No Blood for Oil!" That's soldiers who've given blood for oil, like Rick Hegdahl, a vet with South Dakota roots:

Another vet on the tour, Rick Hegdahl, said he got involved because of what he learned while serving in the Navy in Kuwait just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Hegdahl commanded a patrol boat that would keep watch on giant oil tankers waiting to fill up.

"It really dawned on me that the primary reason we were there was to control the shipping lanes for oil," he said. "I said, 'Something's wrong. Something's really wrong'" [Matt Hagengruber, "Veterans on Tour Will Warn of Warming Climate," Billings Gazette, 2009.10.12].

...and Chuck Tyler:

“I don’t want oil period,” said Chuck Tyler, a 10 year Army veteran of Operation Desert Storm and Operation Enduring Freedom. “As a threat multiplier, it doesn’t even have to come from overseas. If you put it in your car, if you burn it, it contributes to carbon disruption…it’s something that we don’t want to deal with and it’s something that 1.4 million people in uniform don’t want to have to deal with” [Rocky Kistner, "American Power Tour South Rolls into St. Louis," Operation Free, 2009.10.14].

Two busloads of veterans are touring the U.S. right now to promote support for action on climate change and energy independence. One busload of patriots will make two stops in South Dakota tomorrow, Thursday, October 15:

• Downtown Watertown, Goss Opera House, 100 E. Kemp Ave., 13:00 CDT (that's 1 p.m. for us civilians): public roundtable discussion
  
• Sioux Falls VFW, 3601 S. Minnesota Ave: Press conference at 16:00 (4 p.m.), public roundtable discussion at 18:00 (6 p.m.). And hey, this one's at the VFW, so you can buy supper there, too! (Maybe even buy supper for a vet.)

I'm not saying that you should support ACESA or any other clean-energy legislation just because big men who've carried guns and wave the flag and tell you to. But these soldiers have been to war. They have risked their lives in response to natural disasters and America's dependence on oil. The veterans of Operation Free have America's best interests at heart... and they are telling us we need a clean energy policy now.

Catch the vets' bus in Watertown and Sioux Falls. Shake these soldiers' hands, listen to what they have to say.

Bipartisan Support Building for Energy Security Bill; Thune out of Step

Senator Thune has famously vowed to fight the American Clean Energy and Security Act "with every fiber of my being." Perhaps Senator Thune should check what fiber his fellow Republican Senator Lendsey Graham has in his diet. Graham just co-authored an op-ed with Democratic Senator John Kerry calling for passage of ACESA:

The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action [Senator John Kerry and Senator Lindsey Graham, "Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)," New York Times, 2009.10.11].

Graham and Kerry "agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security." They agree we need to get serious about kicking our addiction to foreign oil. They agree we need to protect American jobs and competitiveness. They agree we can pass a comprehensive energy security bill this year that can do all that. Most importantly, they agree that passing ACESA is not some wimpy green fantasy but solid pro-America policy:

Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk [Kerry and Graham, 2009.10.11].

Take your pick, Senator Thune. Listen to me, listen to Senator Kerry, listen to your fellow Republican Senator Graham. We're all singing from the same page: pass ACESA.

Climate Change Greater Threat to U.S. Ag Than Climate Change Legislation

The Farm Bureau (along with John Thune!) says the American Clean Energy and Security Act will hurt U.S. agriculture.

What? Don't like climate change legislation? Try climate change. According to a new report from the Environmental Working Group, the costs of ACESA (and yes, there will be costs) will be far outweighed by the cost of taking no action on climate change. EWG says the Farm Bureau is crying wolf, ignoring the billions of dollars of losses and lower crop yields that unabated climate change can bring. (See, for instance, South Dakota state climatologist Dennis Todey on heavier rains, which could produce more erosion and less available topsoil moisture.)

EWG also notes that the Farm Bureau is hollering about meager production cost increases (ACESA might make soybeans cost 45 cents more per acre) that would be "lost in the background noise" of the usual, much larger fluctuations in farm input costs. Says EWG, "A fertilizer spreader or herbicide sprayer that is out of adjustment would cost farmers more."

The Farm Bureau is trying to take our eyes off the ball, trying to inflate one tiny non-issue into a reason to vote against a comprehensive energy policy that can help every sector of our economy enjoy more stable growth through the 21st century.

Pass ACESA VII: Cost-Benefit Analysis

50 cents a day, to save America and the planet? Heck, sign me up for a buck-fifty a day; I'll pay Pat and Bob's share as well.

[The seventh and final (!) part of a series based on my conversation with Matt McGovern, Matt McLarty, and Rick Hauffe about America's energy future.]

Assessing the cost of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, is not easy. We're talking about the future impact of evolving legislation. As Dr. Lincoln Moses said, "There are no facts about the future." If you want hard-core cost analysis, read the Congressional Research Office's hefty evaluation.

Pass ACESA
a Madville Times series

1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture

Read H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act

If you want quick numbers on ACESA, the Congressional Budget Office appears to offer a reasonable assessment. Politifact rates CBO's oft-quoted "postage stamp a day" per-household cost as true, while giving a "Pants on Fire" rating to GOP claims of costs seventeen times that amount.

Of course, rate increases are not a unique disadvantage of ACESA. Even if Congress calls it quits and passes nothing this year, electric rates are still on the way up. The City of Madison is facing increases. Black Hills Power wants to jack rates 26.6%. ACESA may cause energy rates to go up a tick in the short term, but according to Repower South Dakota's Matt McGovern, the net increase over twenty years may be only 3 or 4 percentage points more than the rate increases we'll see under the status quo.

So suppose you see ACESA take $15 out of your pocket. What do you get in return?

From a South Dakota perspective, lots. Our state alone could gain 5000 clean energy jobs. And these jobs are bussing tables and hustling for tips. These are manufacturing jobs that will be hard hard to export. These are wind tech jobs like the ones for which Mitchell Tech is training students, jobs that Matt McGovern says can pay six-figure salaries after five years. These are the jobs Knight & Carver in Howard is ready to double or triple given the economic boost that would come from government action like ACESA. And don't forget Howard's other new-energy employer, Energy Maintenance Service, which could probably put more folks to work under ACESA as well.

South Dakota landowners also stand to benefit: all those windmills have to go somewhere. Farmers and ranchers, strike a deal with the wind developers, and you can make thousands of dollars a year from leases and operating fees and still raise corn and cows. South Dakota landowners can also participate in the new carbon credits market.

And why not think big: pass ACESA, boost wind energy, and South Dakota could get to the point where our easily available energy could attract manufacturers who will build their factories right next to our big wind farms. Imagine a rural renaissance, towns doubling and tripling in size all through that big open space between Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Imagine our best and brightest staying in South Dakota because they can find good-paying jobs that make their hometowns better. Would folks in Wessington Springs and Highmore be willing to pay $15 a month to see economic growth like that? I might (and I'm a cheapskate).

You can extrapolate these economic benefits to the whole country. Any net economic cost should be minimal. Despite some hysterical claims from Sarah Palin and Pat Powers, analysis from someone other than a moose hunter indicates ACESA might knock 1% off the gross domestic product... by 2040. With or without ACESA, America's wealth will triple over the next three decades (and I don't know what I'll do with a second couch, let alone a third). Meanwhile, ACESA will help more people get a chunk of that growing national wealth thanks to more job creation in alternative energy than we could get from equivalent investment in fossil fuels.

ACESA's smart-grid provisions also lay the groundwork for a stronger, more efficient power distribution network that will support more economic growth. Right now some portions of our old grid lose 50% of the energy running through the wires. You could compare current electrical transmission to trying to conduct interstate commerce via county roads. Upgrading the power system will be like building an Eisenhower Interstate Highway System for electricity: we'll be able to move more power more efficiently.

---------------------------------
I've written seven posts in this series. That's still far too stripped down. Serious energy policy is serious work. It's complicated... which is maybe why we've meandered along since the 1970s, through oil shocks and recessions, without crafting a coherent national energy strategy. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is our closest approach to such a coherent strategy.

It's easy for opponents to beat the drum on a single issue and stoke fears about increased electric bills or some nefarious cabal of evil scientists conspiring to drive us back to the Dark Ages (seriously, Bob?). But look at the big picture. ACESA is a policy that works. It applies a tested market mechanism for reducing pollution. It strengthens our national security by challenging those pesky Chinese in the key manufacturing sector of the 21st century. It promotes competition and invention and seizes a historic moment to boost the production of sustainable domestic energy production. It even embraces conservative ideals by helping us conserve energy resources.

ACESA isn't perfect. No legislation is. But it does a lot of good for America. It does a lot of good for our great-great-grandkids. And if I need to pay 50 cents a day to make that good happen, well, sign me up.

Pass ACESA Part VI: The Smart Grid

[Part 6 of a series based on my conversation with Matt McGovern, Matt McLarty, and Rick Hauffe about America's energy future.]

Suppose I offered you a way to cut your electric usage (and your bill) 15%. Would you say, "I don't believe in global warming, so no thanks"?

The fiscal conservatives in my house sure wouldn't. That's another reason we like H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA). Even if you own vacation property in Canada and are cheering global warming (a position I find perfectly understandable), or even if you frown on drowning Tuvalu but don't think American energy policy can help, you'll have a hard time coming up with an argument against more efficient, reliable use of electricity.

Pass ACESA
a Madville Times series

1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture

Read H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act

ACESA offers big support for energy efficiency by supporting the development of smart grid technology (see Sections 141–146, among others). Think of our current electrical transmission grid as the Tin Man. Add a brain—or lots of little computers—to better manage distribution and peak loads. That's the smart grid (or at least the shortest description I can give you here).

The smart grid does a lot: makes it easier to move power from fluctuating sources like wind and solar where its needed, reeduces the chances of power outages, and strengthens our power supply against natural and manmade disruptions. Of course, it involves computers, which means the smart grid requires hacker-proofing. But that's not stopping GE and the U.S. military from working on smart microgrid tech that could keep the lights for Marine bases and others in emergencies. Smart grid tech could also support the kind of local self-sufficient power grids that would foil al-Qaeda hackers' dreams of shutting down us infidels' power nationwide (not to mention bust up the business model of giant power corporations).

I'll let Tony handle some of the bigger engineering issues (he's studied power systems engineering; he'll have some expertise to contribute!). Let's focus on what the smart grid means on the small scale: i.e., in your house. One aspect of the smart grid is essentially load management with more computing power and more personal control. Your utility puts a computer brain in your electric meter and connects it wirelessly to various appliances. You access the system, review your household's energy usage, and set goals for your energy usage. You program in times when you won't be home or won't otherwise really expect to use lots of power. The computer does the rest.

Cold day comes, wind chill 40 below, Sioux Valley hits peak load, your computer jumps in and eases off power consumption by shutting off your fridge for a few minutes, your water heater by a few more. Your home portion of the smart grid can do the same thing on regular days: AC kicks in for a bit, the system can keep your power consumption down by powering down other appliances that aren't in demand. Do that in every house all year, and you can get some serious power savings.

Smart grid technology isn't pie-in-the-sky stuff. Heartland is working with the Rural Learning Center to examine smart grid tech in Howard, South Dakota. IBM and Consert just completed a six-month trial of smart-grid technology like this in North Carolina. With controllers attached to hot water heaters, air conditioners, and pool pumps, residential customers average 15% energy savings. Some customers saved 40%; one cut power usage by 50%.

Improvements in efficiency have already cut our annual increase in electricity demand from 7–8% back in the 1960s to about 1% now. The EIA predicts average demand to increase at about that rate over the next 20 years, a total 26% increase by 2030. Your power company makes plans to build big, new, expensive power plants based on numbers like that.

Now imagine if we built a smart grid and cut our electric usage by another 15%. That drops the total demand increase through 2030 from 26% to 7% from current levels (the numbers sound weird, but trust me: there are exponents involved). That's a whole lot of power that Basin Electric doesn't have to generate. That's a whole lot of power plants we can wait to build in 2035 instead of 2015. That's a whole lot of capital that your power co-op won't have to get by raising your rates (like the 26.6% rate increase Black Hills Power needs, in part to build a new power plant in Gillette). That's less coal we mine and burn now and more non-renewable fossil fuel reserves we leave for our grandkids, just in case they need it. That's more time we have to improve wind and solar and other alternative energy technologies to replace fossil fuels.

These potential energy savings are one of the reasons it is so important to understand that the American Clean Energy and Security Act is not just cap and trade. Putting a market price on carbon emissions is an important part of ACESA, but the bill contains much more than that one policy. The smart grid is another part of this legislation that will put America on track for a sensible and sustainable energy future.

Pass ACESA, Part V: Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good

[Part 5 of a series based on my conversation with the gents from Repower South Dakota and the Environmental Law & Policy Center.]

Last month, Repower South Dakota held a forum on H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, at the Rural Learning Center in Howard. Afterward, Heartland GM Mike McDowell told the Madison Daily Leader that ACESA is "one of the worst pieces of legislation that I've seen in my lifetime."

(Worst? Mike, did you see the Patriot Act? No Child Left Behind? the Big Pharma Medicare handouts in 2005? And people think I have a hyperbole problem.)

Pass ACESA
a Madville Times series

1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture

Read H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act

McDowell's skepticism seems odd, considering how his organization is desperately trying to save the failing Big Stone II coal plant, whose backers have claimed that ACESA would actually be beneficial to Big Stone II.*

Nonetheless, McDowell cites two major flaws in ACESA:

"It does not preserve or provide a system that will keep consumers' electricity rates affordable," McDowell said. "This bill attacks only one-third to 40 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions and leaves the rest of the emissions unregulated" [Elisa Sand, "Clean Energy Bill Draws Mixed Views at Howard Forum," Madison Daily Leader, 2009.08.24].

I'll address electric rates in a later post. For now, let's focus on McDowell's argument that ACESA doesn't do enough. I have to admit, I like it when McDowell sounds like my man Dennis Kucinich. But does McDowell really want to impose even stricter emissions caps, shrink offsets, and eliminate subsidies to coal? (Please, Mike, say yes!)

In our conversation about ACESA, Matt McLarty of ELPC responded with the pragmatist's position: We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Analogize it this way: suppose there's a flood coming. The National Guard pulls up with a few truckloads of old sandbags, enough to build dikes along 40% of the creek bank. Do we look at the troops and say, "No thanks, we'll wait until someone brings us enough sandbags for the whole creek... preferably the new fancy sandbags that don't cause calluses"? Heck no! We grab and stack and tell Sergeant Sandbag to get on the horn to HQ for more!

Another good pragmatist, RSD's Rick Hauffe, reminds me that there is a difference between the philosophy behind legislation and the strategy of crafting and passing legislation. ACESA doesn't have everything that either Mike McDowell or I want. No legislation ever will. The Clean Air Act of 1990 faced the same arguments from greenies like me that it didn't do enough:

But the proposal came under ferocious political assault during those months. The final bill reflected a series of compromises needed to keep the coalition supporting it together. But the sulfur dioxide cap, a roughly 50 percent reduction in emissions over the next decade, held. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that compliance with the program is close to 100 percent.

“Our proposal was at first ridiculed by environmentalists as little more than a license to pollute,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee and an early supporter of tradable permits. “But today, few dispute it is one of the government’s most successful regulatory programs ever” [John M. Broder, "From a Theory to a Consensus on Emissions," New York Times, 2009.05.16].

There are strong arguments that we would achieve more concrete results and show more global leadership if we adopted a tougher bill. We could do more, but as McLarty notes, more could be the federal government choosing to impose carbon taxes and fines. Instead, McLarty says, ACESA, like the Clean Air Act, chooses a compromise route, inviting industry to solve the problem in a market-based system that has been proven to work.

ACESA will not solve everything. There will still be lots of work to do after ACESA passes.

But in the meantime, hand me those sandbags.

-----------------------
Update 2009.11.03: Now that Big Stone II is dead, the project backers are scrubbing history and have deleted the page I linked. But you can read the same argument from Big Stone II spokesperson Dan Sharp in this July 2009 interview with the Minnesota Independent (hat tip to Badlands Blue!).

Pass ACESA IV: Techno-Hope, Lunar Landers, and Carbon Sequestration

[Part 4 of a series based on my conversation with Matt McGovern, Matt McLarty, and Rick Hauffe about America's energy future.]

One of the major objections to H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, that I've heard from my friends in the electric power industry is that ACESA is banking on technology that we just don't have yet. We can't meet our emission reduction goals just by shutting down 83% of carbon emitters (well, we could, but we'd have economic chaos). We have to develop ways to capture the carbon we do (must?) emit, and that carbon sequestration technology isn't ready for prime time. Greenpeace says Carbon Capture and Storage—CCS—will take at least 20 years to deploy. (Greenpeace also says CCS is a "scam.... the ultimate coal industry pipe dream." And you thought Repower SD was a bunch of radicals?)

Pass ACESA
a Madville Times series

1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture

Read H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act

Can we responsibly pass a law that depends on technology we haven't invented yet?

Matt McGovern from Repower South Dakota first points to the full half of the glass. We have wind and solar technology that can take us toward a good chunk of ACESA's goals. We also have lots of energy-efficiency technology that can reduce the amount of energy we use to do the same amount of business and pleasure.

Carbon Capture and Storage is another matter. McGovern says we don't have industrial-scale CCS technology. Utilities and the feds are trying to build the FutureGen "clean coal" power plant in Mattoon, Illinois, to test out CCS tech (Energy Secretary Steven Chu likes the project, but it has run into delays and problems with partners backing out, much like our own Big Stone II). Black Hills Corp and partners have just submitted a DoE application and are looking for investors to build a 100-megawatt coal plant with CCS tech in Wyoming by 2015. But CCS isn't a reality yet.

Part of the reason we don't have more CCS in chute is our lack of a solid carbon policy like ACESA. Potential builders face a chicken-and-egg problem:

A top executive of one of those [energy] companies says that the industry could have commercially viable full-scale greenhouse gas pollution controls ready for power plants by 2015 — but only if governments move quickly to regulate greenhouse gas pollution.

It's kind of a catch-22. Many members of Congress say they're not willing to set limits on greenhouse gases yet because there isn't technology available to strip carbon from coal-fired power plants [Elizabeth Shogren, "Lack of Carbon Policy Prevents Emissions Innovation," NPR.org, 2009.09.27].

We can argue that we need the tech before we pass the policies that depend on it. But the inventors and investors can argue that they can't build a business model on the tech until the government has defined the playing field with actual policies. Passing ACESA will create a market with clear rules for carbon capture. As ELPC's Matt McLarty says, "Business abhors a vacuum."

RSD's Rick Hauffe compares our efforts to build sustainable energy to the 1960s space race. When John F. Kennedy set the goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of that decade, we didn't have lunar landers in the hangar, tested and ready to launch. (And no, the spaceships we captured at Area 51 don't count.) Our challenge to ourselves and the Soviets was based on the confidence that, given a definite goal and deadline, we could invent the tech we needed to do the job. And we did. That's just good old American can-do spirit. The old saw makes a great deal of sense here: if we can put a man on the moon, we can capture CO₂.

Hauffe says there is one big difference between the moonshots and big carbon emission goals. In the 1960s, we were competing against the Soviets. If the Apollo missions had failed, we'd have suffered a public relations defeat, but we still would have had capitalism, freedom, and rock and roll to win the Cold War. On climate change, says Hauffe, our competition isn't the Russkies; it's doomsday. Think of the whole planet as the Apollo 13 capsule: failure is not an option. If we blow climate change, nothing else matters. (See a similar argument from Joseph Romm from June 2009 at Salon.com.)

A market-based system promoting competition is the best way to elicit invention. Issue the challenge, set the goals, and enterprising inventors will scramble to win the prize. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a government action, but its real power lies in stimulating the private innovation and invention that will pull our fat out of the fire. ACESA is gutsy and forward-looking policy that we should pass.

Pass ACESA III: A Skeptic's Question -- Market Solving Already?

[Part 3 of a series based on my conversation with the gents from Repower South Dakota and the Environmental Law & Policy Center.]

Don't think I had nothing but softballs for Matt McGovern and his Repower SD crew. It occurred to me that we're already seeing movement toward one of the major goals of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the scaling-back of heavy-carbon coal power. The Big Stone II project is dead, Warren Buffet is getting out of coal, industry leaders like Otter Tail are recognizing that they can build wind more quickly for less cost ($2.3 million per megawatt of installed wind power versus the projected $2.8 million per megawatt projected for Big Stone II).

Pass ACESA
a Madville Times series

1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture

Read H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act

So my question: are we already seeing enough movement toward clean energy? Do we need ACESA or any other federal mandates to make a low-carbon future happen?

Now let me note, the folks backing ACESA, Matt McGovern included, are fans of the market, just like most of us. ACESA is a market-based solution. Its cap-and-trade components ask companies to pay a fair price, determined on the open market, for the carbon they emit. The incentives create opportunities for lots of entrepreneurs to invent, innnovate, and make a profit. The alternative to market-based ACESA is top-down regulation. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA can consider regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. The EPA could lay down hard CO₂ rules tomorrow and start levying fines. But the EPA has chosen thus far to defer to Congress (what ever happened to all that Obama-power-grab malarkey, anyway?).

Markets are great, but they aren't perfect. Markets can produce some rotten results, like strip mining, SUVs, and Lady Gaga. We've heard good arguments for getting off foreign oil since the 1960s, but market forces—e.g., usually cheap oil—have kept us from investing in energy independence. Sometimes we need to intervene with the right incentives to steer the market toward more sustainable goals, like energy sources that won't heat up the planet and run out a century from now.

Just as we shouldn't take this cool summer as a refutation of global warming, we shouldn't take the current economic downturn as refutation of the need for serious action on carbon emissions. Sure, energy use is down and utilities are scaling back their plans to expand their coal-power capacity. But long-term, energy demand will almost surely rise, as it has historically, almost without exception. We thus need to get more momentum behind clean energy sources now, while we have some wiggle room.

McGovern also argues that ACESA is a good response to the current high unemployment. Remember, even that optimist Ben Bernanke says recovery of jobs will lag behind recovery of the economy "for some time." People need work, and ACESA can help.

Now wait a minute, say my astute readers, even if passed, ACESA doesn't kick in until 2012. We've got to wait three years for those green jobs?

Ah, but consider: if we pass ACESA now, the utilities will know it's coming. Any coal plant like Big Stone II started now wouldn't be operational until after 2012, so the utilities would already be building in compliant technology. Utilities would start hiring now to build the technology they need to comply in 2012. Inventors and investors would see 2012 coming and start looking for ways to invest their brain power and capital to take advantage of the new energy market. Even enacted in 2012, ACESA can serve as a jobs booster and overall economic stimulus right now, right when we need it. And dollar-for-dollar, investment in clean energy will produce lots more jobs—like two to three times more jobs—than investment in fossil fuels.

And as Matt McGovern emphasizes every chance he gets, ACESA would create 5000 clean-energy jobs in South Dakota alone, jobs that would be darned hard to outsource (try hauling wind turbines across the ocean). 5000 new jobs: according to current South Dakota Department of Labor stats, that would put to work every unemployed person in 48 of South Dakota's 66 counties. Given that we've nearly drained our state unemployment fund, I don't think we'd mind a speedier solution than just sitting back and waiting for the market to work.

This economic lull is the perfect time to pass ACESA. We can lock in some alternative energy gains before the economy recovers and we slide into our lazy cheap-fossil-fuel habits again. We can get Americans back to work in good jobs that will last. We won't see those benefits if we wait for the market to solve on its own.

Pass ACESA II: The New China Syndrome

[Part 2 of a series based on my conversation with the gents from Repower South Dakota and the Environmental Law & Policy Center.]

In previous conversations about the American Clean Energy and Security Act, I've heard some people suggest that we'd be silly to hamstring our economy with more environmental regulations while China and our other global competitors chug along with their old polluting energy sources. There's debate about whether ACESA would hamstring our economy (Paul Krugman doesn't think so), but I posed the global question to my friends at RSD and ELPC: Can we afford to impose regulations like ACESA on ourselves in a global market where China, India, and other countries can keep pumping out CO₂?

Pass ACESA
a Madville Times series

1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture

Read H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act

The simple answer: we can't afford not to.

ACESA creates incentives, through carbon cap-and-trade and other policies, to spur invention and innovation in energy creation and energy conservation.

China may wait for the U.S. and other developed countries to act on carbon emissions, but it won't wait to make a buck and take the lead in high-tech clean energy manufacturing. China is investing in solar and building it cheaper than the U.S.; China already makes six times more solar cells than we do. China is becoming a leader on clean-coal technology. The Chinese don't need climate-change arguments to convince them to push for alternative energy. The Chinese see alternative energy technology as a solution to the problems of a bigger population, much worse pollution (including 750,000 preventable deaths each year due to air pollution alone), and fewer natural resources than the U.S. They also see dollar signs:

Moreover, Beijing – just like US President Barack Obama – sees renewable energy as an economic boon. Building out a new global energy industry over the next half century will generate more business than any other sector, Chinese officials predict, and they want a hefty chunk of that business. “This gives us an opportunity to develop a new area for a new industry” says Professor Li [Junfeng, deputy head of energy research at China’s top planning agency]. “It’s good for our long-term development.”

...“China sees [green technology] as an enormous market that is not claimed or controlled by any one nation, and there is an opportunity for them to do it,” says [China Greentech Initiative's Ellen] Carberry. “The combination of urgency; the enormous needs; a focused, systematic planned government; an army of engineers; and access to capital may define China as the platform for the green- technology industry globally” [Peter Ford, "China's Green Leap Forward," Christian Science Monitor, 2009.08.10].

New energy technology is where we will find the jobs and economic growth of the 21st century. The country that takes the lead in producing and using energy more cleanly and efficiently will be the next generation superpower. We do not want to let a tech gap develop between us and China. Remember the S in ACESA: Security. We don't have energy security now with 30% of our crude oil coming from OPEC. We won't have energy security if our solar panels and other low-carbon energy tech are stamped "Made in China."

Remember also that, in a broader analysis, America's reliance on imports is part of why the economy went to heck in a handbag last year. For several years America has made less and imported more; countries like China and Germany consumed less and exported more. China, Germany, et al. thus had growing pots of money saved up in the bank. Those savings became relatively cheap sources of investment capital for riskier and riskier Wall Street games... and those of you with stock portfolios and IRAs know how that turned out. At their meeting in Pittsburgh last week, the G20 leaders talked about exactly that problem and agreed the U.S. needs to consume less and produce more to lower its trade deficit, while other countries need to rely less on exports and buy more stuff.

If we sit back and let China take the lead in building solar panels and other new energy tech, we're asking for more of the same problem that put us in our economic hole. As Constant Conservative's Andrew Tople might say, if you're in a hole, step 1 is to stop digging... and pass ACESA!

China is perfectly relevant to a discussion of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. But far from a reason to oppose ACESA, China is exactly why we should pass ACESA. If you like being #2, go ahead, block ACESA. Let China take the lead. Leave America prone to further economic meltdowns. But if you prefer the top of the heap (and I certainly do), then keep America strong by supporting ACESA.

Pass ACESA I: Cap and Trade Works

[On Thursday, September 24, I had an enjoyable conversation with Matthew McGovern and Rick Hauffe from Repower South Dakota and Matt McLarty from the Environmental Law & Policy Center. This post is Part 1 of a series based on that interview.]

Regular readers know that, after some doubts, I've come down in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454—ACESA). The bill is frequently referred to, usually by opponents, as the "cap-and-trade" bill. ACESA covers much more than that single issue, such as energy efficiency, alternative energy, and smart grid technology.

Pass ACESA
a Madville Times series

1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture

Read H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act

But cap and trade is a big part of the bill, and it's worth looking at.

Cap and trade is the creation of a market mechanism to limit carbon emissions and impose a cost to capture the externalities those emissions create. Right now, I can fire up a coal plant and emit all the carbon I want, without paying for the harms that carbon causes (like fewer Pacific island tourist destinations, dead people, and sickly squid and other marine life, not to mention "storms, drought, mass migration, and pandemics" that might trigger terrorism and armed conflict.). Cap and trade creates a system where I either pay for the damage my carbon emissions are doing or invest in better technology that reduces my emissions and maybe even makes me money on the side as I sell my unused quota of carbon allowances to other companies that can't make reductions as easily as I can.

(Nobel laureate Paul Krugman gives an Econ 101 explanation of how cap-and-trade works and how Glenn Beck gets it wrong.)

Cap and trade may sound familiar: as noted here previously, the United States has done it before. Cap and trade is the policy we used to successfully eliminate acid rain. The Clean Air Act of 1990 created a cap and trade system for sulfur dioxide emissions, one of the main causes of acid rain. The program achieved 100% compliance at 20–30% of the projected cost in the 1990s.

The 1990s—you remember that decade, right? Low unemployment, economic boom, a federal budget surplus. What happened to the million of jobs the National Association of Manufacturers said sulfur dioxide cap and trade would kill? The job losses never happened. Industry always cries wolf over enviromental regulations, and time and time again, those self-interested predictions of economic ruin never come true.

As policy gravy, according to Matt McGovern of Repower South Dakota, the EPA calculates that the 1990 Clean Air Act was also a cost-effective public health measure: for every dollar spent, the United States has enjoyed $40 of public health benefits in the form of lower health care costs and fewer missed workdays. I'll leave it to more actuarial heads to calculate the cost-benefit ratio of not having to move a quarter of the world's population to higher ground—think Hurricane Katrina times a thousand.

The United States has used cap and trade before to reduce acid rain and improve public health. We can use it again to reduce carbon emissions and promote innovation in clean energy technology.

[Stay tuned for more on ACESA this week on the Madville Times!]

Clean Energy Creates 2-3 Times as Many Jobs as Fossil Fuels

Want jobs? Pass H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. If you have a million dollars and want to create jobs with it, investing it in energy efficiency and clean energy will give you the best return. Way best:

Job Creation Potential of $1-Million Investment in Energy Projects
(click image to enlarge)
(Source: Robert Pollin, James Heintz, and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), June 2009, p. 29)

Sink a million dollars into an oil refinery, you get 5.2 jobs. Sink that cash into a coal plant, you get 6.9 jobs. Sink it into smart grid tech or wind turbines, you more than double the jobs.

Otter Tail and other investors are already figuring out that wind and other energy alternatives are the economically sensible thing to do. So should the rest of us. Dump coal, build wind!

This job-creation point is just one of the many interesting things I learned in my sit-down with the sharp fellas at Repower South Dakota. Stay tuned for a big feature series on why ACESA is key to our green future!

1Sky Joins Repower America to Fight for Clean Energy Policy in South Dakota

Badlands Blue gives notice that the green lobby is making an even bigger push in South Dakota. After a busy summer with Repower America opening offices in Sioux Falls, Aberdeen, and Rapid City, another environmental advocacy group, 1Sky, is setting up shop in South Dakota. (Should I start chanting, 'We surround you!"?) 1Sky is throwing a kickoff meeting tonight at 7 p.m. at the Kenny Anderson Community Center in Sioux Falls.

1Sky's focus is to push for congressional action on climate change. Their main target here is likely Senator Tim Johnson, who could still be swayed to vote for ACESA. And yes, Troy, 1Sky wants to move us away from coal—not get rid of it, just stop increasing our dependence on it (kind of like Otter Tail Power is doing by bailing out of Big Stone II).

1Sky also sets as goals five million new green jobs and reduction of greenhouse emissions by 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

This proliferation of environmental advocacy does raise one Spockly eyebrow. 1Sky is part of Bill Clinton's Global Initiative; Repower America is Al Gore's baby. Now wouldn't it be fun to watch those two guys trying to outgreen each other? But hey, if the Rotary and Kiwanis can get along, so can Repower America and 1Sky. And they may do even more good.