Stenholm Lobbies Locals to Stick Heads in (Oil) Sand

As discussed previously, lobbyist and former Texas Congressman Charlie Stenholm addressed the Madison Rotary Club Monday to preach the need to stay addicted to fossil fuels. As recorded by KJAM's Lauri Struve, Stenholm was refreshingly straightforward with his propaganda. He opened by saying he was in Madison and hitting the Rotary circuit nationwide "on behalf of Big Oil," the American Petroleum Institute. He made clear that he's a lobbyist, though he said rather tongue-in-cheek that in front of the press and his wife he prefers the term "educator." (Fellow educators, you should be offended by this co-opting of your professional title by a salesman for a special interest.)

Stenholm's main line of attack is that the oil industry supports developing all forms of energy but that resources like nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and biofuels are all not alternative but supplemental energy. "There is not going to be an alternative to fossil fuels in the next 30 years," says Stenholm. "No matter how much you hear people say we have to get away from oil and gas, gotta get away from dirty coal, for the good of the country, that would be the worst thing that could happen."

Worst thing that could happen to the Exxon-Mobil corporate execs and stockholders paying Stenholm to "educate" us, yes. But moving away from fossil fuels is the best thing that could happen for, well, pretty much everyone else.

Stenholm doesn't mention that our impression that we can't afford to dump fossil fuels is skewed by $312 billion in fossil fuel subsidies each year that keep oil, coal, and gas prices artificially low. Such subsidies, says the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2010, "encourage wasteful consumption and undermine the competitiveness of renewable and more energy-efficient technologies." Cutting those subsidies would cut fossil-fuel use, reduce pollution, extend the lifetime of those reserves, and make wind, solar, and biofuels more fiscally competitive alternatives.

Stenholm's "can't do without" argument also seems to ignore the long-term fact that oil will run out and that we will have to transition to alternatives. We can make that transition two ways: we can start changing now and transition smoothly, or we can stick our heads in the oil sands and transition hard when the wells run dry. Stenholm's paid cheerleader act only facilitates the ostrich mindset that wants to believe everything is fine and that we don't have to make hard choices and sacrifices now to ensure our grandkids have more energy options available.

Madison Hiking Utility Rates: Local Power, Anyone?

Tuesday's MDL reports the Madison City Commission plans to raise my neighbors' rates for electricity, water, and garbage. on electricity, the city says, Don't blame us!

Ericsson described the municipal electric utility as only a "distributor of power" and not a producer. He said that the city had to increase its rates partly due to the increased cost of electricity that Madison was billed from its suppliers -- the Western Area Power Administration and Heartland Consumers Power District.

According to Ericsson, the city electric utility wasn't itself generating many new expenses and thereby creating bills that needed payment.

"We're buying some capital things, but not a lot of things," Ericsson said [Chuck Clement, "City Moves on Utility Rate Hikes," Madison Daily Leader, 2010.11.09].

Come now, Commissioner Ericsson. How can you blame Russell Olson and all the nice people at Heartland? Instead of shifting blame, the city could Power Forward™ with some local energy production, if it would just listen to its creative neighbors and local entrepreneurs.

Meanwhile, just how much will electricity bills rise in Madison?

In 2010, city electricity customers would pay about $105 per month for 1,200 kilowatt-hours of electrical power. With the rate increase, customers will pay about $114 for the same 1,200 kwh, an increase of $9 per month [Clement, 2010.11.09].

Quick comparison: Here at Madville Times World Headquarters, safely removed from the city limits of Madison on the western shore of freedom-loving Lake Herman, my family used an average of 1431 kilowatt-hours per month over the past year (minimum: 566 kWh from mid-September to mid-October of this year; maximum 3765 kWh during the December 2009–January 2010 billing cycle, including that cold Christmas blizzard). That's includes our heat, which is all electric. Average monthly bill with Sioux Valley Energy: $93.

More electricity, less cost. Ah, country living....

Water is cheaper in town, since the city has its own wells, while we Lake Herman denizens have our water piped in from Chester (or De Smet?) and support a network of 2200 miles of pipe. Hmm... have your own source, pay less... is that another argument for Madison to develop its own local power sources, or maybe even get gung ho like the Army and set a goal of energy self-sufficiency?
-----------------------------
Update 2010.11.13 08:30 CST: General Manager Mike McDowell writes from Heartland Consumer Power District's new multi-million-dollar headquarters that Madison's increased electrical rates aren't Heartland's fault, either.

Fossil Fuel Lobbyist Stenholm Propagandizing in Madison Nov. 8

Charlie Stenholm represented Texas's 17th District (home of President Bush's Crawford ranch!) in Congress from 1979 to 2005. Then he became a lobbyist for Olsson, Frank, & Weeda, a DC firm that makes millions working for folks like the American Petroleum Institute and the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers.

Coming up on Mr. Stenholm's lobbying agenda: Madison, South Dakota. The Madison Rotary Club is hosting Mr. Stenholm on Monday, November 8, high noon, to discuss the importance of remaining addicted to fossil fuels and not burdening the oil and gas industry with frivolous obligations like taxes.

Mr. Stenholm appears to be hitting the Rotary circuit nationwide to keep people toeing the Big Oil line. This year he's been in Raleigh, NC; Charleston, SC; and Farmington, NM, this year. He'll be in Muncie, IN, Nov. 2 and Joliet, IL, Nov. 30.

Boy, how do I get a job like that? Oh yeah, by saying things billionaires want people to hear. Oops: guess I'm out of that running.

And now for Mr. Stenholm's version of what the public can hear at his talk on November 8:

Congressman Charlie Stenholm, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives (17th District, Texas), Senior Policy Advisor at Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Bode Matz, P.C.

Event: Stenholm delivers the speech, “Progress, Technology and the American Energy Future,” discussing:

• The oil and natural gas industry’s response to the Deepwater Horizon accident, regulatory and legislative proposals resulting from the spill that would impede the country’s ability to develop resource, and the need to learn from the incident to ensure offshore energy development safety moving forward;
• The importance of expanding domestic oil and natural gas development to help fuel our nation’s economic recovery, create new jobs and strengthen our energy security;
• The potential consequences of at least $80 billion in new taxes on the oil and natural gas industry proposed in the fiscal 2011 budget; and
• Innovative technologies, including hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, that allow America’s oil and natural gas companies to produce energy more efficiently and with minimal environmental impact;
• The need for a comprehensive energy policy that supports the development of all resources.
  

Date: Monday, November 8, 2010
Time: Noon Rotary Meeting*
Place: Nicky’s Restaurant, 1407 NW 2nd Street, Madison, SD 57042-3804

About Congressman Stenholm

Born in Stamford, Texas, Stenholm went on to serve the 32-county, 17th District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives for 13 terms, from 1979 to 2005. Stenholm was a member of the House Committee on Agriculture throughout his 26-year House career, serving as the committee’s ranking Democrat for his last eight years until 2004. He earned a reputation for building bipartisan alliances in areas as diverse as energy, resource conservation, agriculture, food safety, Social Security, health care and the budget.

In Congress, Stenholm was co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate Democrats who often bridge liberal and conservative positions. In this capacity, he worked across party lines to pass important energy legislation that replenished the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve and encouraged domestic energy exploration.

*This event is open to the public. An RSVP is requested but not required so that Nicky’s can better prepare to serve the meal. RSVP or send questions about the event to Ken Meyer, Madison Rotary Club President, at [email protected]. The cost of the meal is $6.00.

$6 for lunch—that's not bad! Just be careful that your salad doesn't get too much oil on it.

South Dakota 39th in Energy Efficiency Policy

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has just published its 2010 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. In terms of policies to promote energy efficiency, South Dakota ranks 39th, down three notches from 2009.

ACEEE looks at six areas to calculate this scorecard:

1. utility and public benefits programs and policies
2. transportation policies
3. building energy codes
4. combined heat and power
5. state government initiatives
6. appliance efficiency standards

Out of a total of 50 points to be earned across those six categories, South Dakota scored just 9.5 points. Looking at information from our Public Utilities Commission and the federal Energy Information Administration, ACEEE finds South Dakota's utilities are lagging in customer energy efficiency programs. The PUC and utility partners are working to pick up the slack with the SD Energy Smart program. Our utilities did almost quadruple their spending on energy efficiency programs, from $650,000 in 2007 to $2.5 million in 2008. However, we lack any formal state policy defining energy efficiency as a resource in utility and regulatory decision-making. South Dakota also has no long-term targets for reduction of energy use. We also got a paltry half-point for our building energy codes and zero points for policies promoting more efficient transportation or appliance efficiency standards.

As you can see, we're a low median among our neighbors. North Dakota ranks dead last, with Wyoming and Nebraska not far from the bottom. Montana is closer to the national middle at 33rd, while Iowa and Minnesota distinguish themselves at 12th and 8th, respectively.

The most improved states are not necessarily hippie havens. Utah and Arizona jumped up 11 spots, while New Mexico and Alaska climbed eight steps in the rankings. (Alaska probably rose six steps just when Sarah Palin resigned.)

The report authors note that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has boosted state energy efficiency programs with over $11 billion. But many states may see their progress toward energy efficiency stymied in the next couple years as they slash budgets to deal with deficits.

Free registration will let you download the full report here.

Recession, Republicans Stymie Nuclear Power

We hippies did not kill the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant. But the recession and the Republican obstructionists who killed climate change and energy security legislation in Congress this year also helped block a renaissance of nuclear power:

One major factor driving the cautious stance of both the industry and the government is the fall in electricity demand, which peaked in 2007. In 2009, demand dropped by more than 4 percent from 2007. So far, it seems that demand in 2010 will be higher than last year, but not as high as 2007. These are big changes for an industry that is accustomed to growth on the order of 1 to 3 percent a year. With slack demand, there is less urgency to build new plants.

...Also weighing on the nuclear industry is the unwillingness of Congress to pass climate change legislation that would put a price of some sort on carbon-dioxide emissions. Since nuclear power produces no carbon emissions, it would gain a competitive edge against coal and natural gas if a bill were passed. But while such legislation once seemed likely, sharp divisions in Congress and concerns about the tottering economy have stalled its prospects [Matthew L. Wald, "Economy Sandbags Plans for Nuclear Reactors," New York Times, 2010.10.10].

We shouldn't be too disappointed by the recession cutting demand to the point where new generating capacity isn't so urgent: that real conservation delays the need for any kind of new power plant, coal, nuke, or otherwise. And there's a big debate over whether nuclear power should play a role in fighting climate change and our fossil-fuel addiction.

But for those of you who dig nuclear power, remember: blocking cap-and-trade and energy security legislation this year means you'll be waiting that much longer for those nice next-generation nuclear plants to come humming to life in your backyard.

Scotland to Achieve 100% Homegrown Green Power by 2025

The City of Colton now has three municipal buildings running mostly on solar and wind power. That's no small achievement.

But here's something to really put the wind under your kilt: Scotland plans to get all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. All of it:

"Scotland has unrivalled green energy resources and our new national target to generate 80 percent of electricity needs from renewables by 2020 will be exceeded by delivering current plans for wind, wave and tidal generation," [First Minister Alex] Salmond said.

"I'm confident that by 2025 we will produce at least 100 percent of our electricity needs from renewables alone, and together with other sources it will enable us to become a net exporter of clean, green energy," he said a statement ahead of a renewable energy investment conference.

Last week, Scotland raised its 2020 renewable electricity target from 50 to 80 percent of total demand, much of which is expected to be met by offshore wind despite costs soaring over the last few years [Daniel Fineren, "Scotland to get 100 pct green energy by 2025," Reuters, 2010.09.29].

Perspective on American wimipiness on renewable energy:

• South Dakota's renewable energy "standard" is a fluffball paperwork charade that gently asks South Dakota's utilities to get 10% of the electricity they sell from renewable sources by 2015 or to write a letter saying they won't.
• Our national lawmakers think it's a big deal to work for passage of a 15% renewable energy standard by 2021.

--------------------------------
Bonus Green Power Note: Wind and other renewable energy projects are great, but switching to electric cars would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on foreign oil even more. So let's do both! Get Tesla to set up a factory just outside of Colton, and juice it with wind power from Iberdrola's proposed Minnehaha West Wind Project!

GOP Costs South Dakota 5000-10,000 Clean Energy Jobs

The stimulus package is creating jobs, even against fundamental shifts in the nature of our economy. To tackle those fundamental shifts, we need to revamp our economy. That revamping includes revolutionizing the energy economy. Commiting America to a policy of clean, renewable energy would create loads of jobs, including 5000 to 10,000 right here in South Dakota.

But the oil industry's best friend, the Republican Party, has kicked, screamed, and mythologized to keep us from passing any sensible energy legislation this year. Thanks to Republican obstructionism (not to mention some Blue Dog collaboration), America is giving up 1.9 million new-energy jobs to foreign companies. Plus, the defenders of the energy status quo are also keeping an extra $208 million a day from being invested in the U.S. economy, as folks who want to build new-energy businesses say, "Heck, the U.S. won't get serious, but China and Europe will. Let's invest elsewhere!"

In kitchen-table terms, the denialism of Republicans like Senator John Thune and Congress-wannabe Kristi Noem means your household will miss out on as much as $1175 a year in income.

You can read the full report from the nice folks at the Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, American Businesses for Clean Energy, and We Can Lead. These are all business groups—business groups—telling the Republicans to get with the program on energy security.

Faint glimmer of hope: Senator Al Franken and some other good liberal Senators are signing on to a bipartisan bill from Senators Bingaman and Brownback to establish a national 15% Renewable Energy Standard. That proposal by itself wouldn't bring all of the above jobs and income back to South Dakota and the rest of the country, but it's an important step in the direction of the energy future that our competitors in the world economy are already embracing.

The Republicans seem determined to apply their "Invisible Hand" wishful thinking to everything. Don't just do something; stand there! The economy will sort itself out. Oil will magically bubble from new holes in the ground. We can keep doing things the way we always have, because we're Americans, and Americans are always right.

Look around, America. The world is changing. The economy is changing. We must change with it... and that means changing our energy policy. Listen to Senator Franken, and fix it now!
--------------------------
Update 17:22 CDT: Of course, 15% RES is small potatoes for real forward thinkers. California is working on requiring investor-owned utilities to go 33% renewable.

Stimulus Won't Bring Back Old Growth: Two Perspectives

The federal stimulus is doing some good. However, it will not bring us back to the happier economic days of the 1990s and a few of the G.W. Bush years. Two economists offer differing explanations with the same grim conclusion: the economy just ain't what it used to be.

First, Robert Reich says consumers are simply out of gas:

After three decades of flat wages during which almost all the gains of growth have gone to the very top, the middle class no longer has the buying power to keep the economy going. It can’t send more spouses into paid work, can’t work more hours, can’t borrow any more. All the coping mechanisms are exhausted [Robert Reich, "Why No Amount of Fiscal or Monetary Stimulus Will Be Enough, Given How Small A Share of Total Income the Middle Now Receives," Robert Reich's blog, 2010.09.21].

Then Jeffrey Rubin notes that we're out of cheap gas:

What's being overlooked is that last cycle's rate of growth was fueled for the most part with cheap oil--oil was below $30 a barrel for the first half of the period. Even today's oil prices weren't encountered until the last year of growth. That's not incidental to the performance of the world's largest oil-consuming economy, which relies on imports for over half of its 19-million-barrel-a-day requirement.

Feed the US economy cheap oil, and you'll see robust growth rates and a drop in the jobless rate to four-decade lows--no matter who's in the White House. But throw in $147-per-barrel oil, and the US economy stops dead in its tracks [Jeffrey Rubin, "Obama's Fiscal Stimulus No Substitute for Cheap Oil," Huffington Post, 2010.09.21].

Now before you think TransCanada's Keystone pipelines will solve that problem by swelling our supply with Alberta tar sands oil, heed Rubin's reminder that tar sands oil doesn't flow for much less than $100 a barrel.

By this thinking, fiscal stimulus doesn't do much but help us tread water instead of drowning in Depression. Under the concentration of wealth and high oil prices, the economy just can't rebound to the levels of growth necessary to generate the future revenues that would pay down the deficit spending we're using in the current stimulus.

But the answer is not simply to abandon the stimulus and hope everything works itself out. The "work itself out" crowd brought us to a shrinking middle class and continued dependence on oil. To get out of the economic doldrums and beat the deficit, we need to (says Reich) reorganize the economy to expand the middle class again and (says Rubin) kick our addiction to oil in favor of cheaper, cleaner energy sources.

Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Renewable Energy Standard

Part 6 of the Madville Times' South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis

Question 5 in Sunday's debate: Where do you stand on the national renewable energy standard?

Herseth Sandlin said she helped get the votes for the renewable energy standard in the 2007 energy bill. She said energy efficiency is the easiest part of meeting such a standard. She said she will support an even higher standard and that our electric cooperatives and investor-owned utilities have led the way in this area. A national renewable energy standard, she said, is essential for our wind industry.

Herseth Sandlin then returned to bipartisanship. She pointed to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's proposal for a broader clean energy standard. She said Graham and other lawmakers from the South want nuclear and hydroelectric power included with efficiency, wind, and solar in meeting any energy standard. Herseth Sandlin says there's a workable bipartisan compromise to be had there.

Kristi Noem agreed that the renewable electricity standard is good. She said she's heard people across the state say it's good for South Dakota. Noem does not support raising that renewable standard to 20% or 25%. She said very few co-ops could meet that high of a standard without raising utility rates, and we can't pass costs on to consumers in the middle of a recession when they can't afford it. Noem said we can't pass any legislation that would take more dollars out of our pockets. (Hmmm... can't take money from Americans, can't raise the debt ceiling... so in terms of paying down the debt, that leaves only one option: shutting down the federal government for six years.)

Assessment: Bipartisanship is one of Herseth Sandlin's favorite talking points. She ties this question to bipartisanship with a specific proposal and lawmaker. Not taking money out of people's pockets is one of Noem's talking points. She returns to it by appealing to an arbitrary number.

(A number of states, including Minnesota, have already adopted renewable energy standards in the 20–25% range. But the debate judge is supposed to judge the round presented, not the facts he can Google later. ;-) )

Herseth Sandlin approves of current measures and offers a roadmap for workable future action. Noem accepts the status quo, criticizes moving further, but offers no vision for the next step. If you don't want a next step, then Noem's your gal. But in terms of using the debate time to lay out specific plans for action, slight advantage Herseth Sandlin.

Green Notes: Bikes, Solar, Good Sense Challenged

Buried in browser tabs! Time to clear the queue!

Colorado is seeing a weird outbreak of velophobia. Some folks have a Sibby-Ellis-tinged idea that promoting Denver as a bicycle city is part of the United Nations' sinister agenda to enslave us all. The tiny casino town of Black Hawk, Colorado has banned bicycles: a new Colorado law requires motorists to give bicycles at least three feet when passing, and Black Hawk reasons that complying with that law would be just too hard for the big tour buses bringing gamblers to town. Riding your bike through town now gets you a $68 fine (to make up for cyclists not spending as much on booze, I guess).

Green power is ugly. Or so goes the thinking, apparently, in Hanover Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Township supervisors there have imposed restrictions on solar panels: tucking panels away beside or behind the house is fine, but if you happen to have a south-facing abode and want to place your panel out front where it will do the most good, you need to get a conditional permit, which will take $800, two months, and all sorts of paperwork. Says a state township association official, "A lot of people have a problem with placing solar panels on the front of their homes for the simple reason...solar panels are distracting and take away from the value of [their] house.... Elected officials are hearing that and they're taking that into consideration." Once again, obsession with appearance trumps environmental sense and property rights.

Solar power is making progress in California. Regulators there have approved the first solar thermal plant in the U.S. in two decades. Ah, good old American innovation... maybe we'll catch up with Portugal after all.

But not if boneheads like Don Kopp stay in office. One of South Dakota's most embarassing legislators provides a teabaggers' splinter group in Rapid City with a slideshow assortment of decontextualized quotes—prooftexting at its finest (and a popular pastime among the non-thinkers in the Tea "Party"). The slides flog the U.N.-evil meme and insisting environmentalists are out to lynch America (yes, slide #10 includes a noose). I'm sure Kopp et al. consider this Kansas City artist's work on sustainable buildings an effort to destroy America, too.
------------------------------
But think positive: Lester R. Brown sees renewable energy booming worldwide and thinks we can "replace all coal- and oil-fired electricity generation with renewable sources." There is life after oil and coal, people. The sooner we get serious about making it happen, the easier it will be... unless of course you think living like Mad Max would be cool.

DRA Energy Workshops Saturday in Brookings

Hey, want to see a straw bale house? Want to learn about building one? Or would you be interested in some other practical ways you can save energy and money?

Then come to the Straw Bale House at McCrory Gardens in Brookings this Saturday, August 14, for an education fair and workshops on energy efficiency and renewable energy. I'm on a Dakota Rural Action committee that is helping stage the event, so I'm happy to invite you all to come learn how we South Dakotans can rely on our own resourcefulness to save energy and even make some of our own.

Among the speakers is Madison's own Don Amert, who will talk about what he's learned as he has researched building his own wind turbines. Come listen to our speakers, come check out the informational booths, come ask questions... and come get free ice cream!

The DRA press release has some more details (complete with sparkling quotes from me and fellow DRA member Donna Hess). The event runs from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. Current forecast for Saturday: partly cloudy an 79°F. Lovely day to stroll in the park and fill your head with good energy ideas! See you Saturday!

Catch up to Portugal: Nearly Half of Electricity from Green Sources Now!

You may quote me, conservative bloggisariat: President Obama is a wuss. But then so are the folks who tell me we just can't rely on wind and other renewables for a significant chunk of our power. And so are the rest of us lazy Americans.

President Obama has promised to set America on a path to get 25% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Big deal. Vast superpower Portugal (remember Prince Henry? Vasco da Gama?) is already there and gone. Five years ago, Portugal got 17% of its power from renewables. They are now up to 45% green power. Almost half of their power from those wimpy wind turbines and solar panels and funky tidal generators.

Land-based wind power — this year deemed “potentially competitive” with fossil fuels by the International Energy Agency in Paris — has expanded sevenfold in that time. And Portugal expects in 2011 to become the first country to inaugurate a national network of charging stations for electric cars.

“I’ve seen all the smiles — you know: It’s a good dream. It can’t compete. It’s too expensive,” said Prime Minister José Sócrates, recalling the way Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, mockingly offered to build him an electric Ferrari. Mr. Sócrates added, “The experience of Portugal shows that it is possible to make these changes in a very short time" [Elisabeth Rosenthal, "Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover," New York Times, 2010.08.09].

Who's laughing now, Silvio?

Now sure, electric rates are higher in Portugal. Folks there grumble that their electric bills have gone up 15% in the last five years. Folks here in fossil-fuel-addicted America can sympathize: Black Hills Power customers are seeing their rates jump 19%... in one year.

What's our problem?

If the United States is to catch up to countries like Portugal, energy experts say, it must overcome obstacles like a fragmented, outdated energy grid poorly suited to renewable energy; a historic reliance on plentiful and cheap supplies of fossil fuels, especially coal; powerful oil and coal industries that often oppose incentives for renewable development; and energy policy that is heavily influenced by individual states [Rosenthal, 2010.08.09].

Renewable is doable, not in some misty future, but right here, right now... if your country has the guts, like Portugal.

Solar Cheaper than Nuclear; Ethanol Needs No Subsidy

A couple of energy notes of interest to South Dakotans:

Solar Cheaper than Nuclear: A study by two researchers at Duke (Duke! They've got basketball; they must be reliable!) finds solar power may now be able to generate electricity per kilowatt-hour more cheaply than new nuclear power. Photovoltaic systems have dropped 50% in price since 1998, while construction costs for new nuclear plants have boomed (though the industry guys would prefer we didn't use nuclear and boom in the same sentence). The Duke data looks at costs in North Carolina, which has about the same solar power potential as central South Dakota. The Black Hills have even better PV potential—time for solarpanel hats on Mount Rushmore! Read the full report in PDF glory here.

No Need for Ethanol Subsidies: Here's South Dakota's big chance to get off the government teat! Iowa State University econ prof Bruce Babcock finds that ending the ethanol blenders credit and the import tariff would "have neither the dramatic, adverse effect U.S. ethanol producers claim, nor create the export bonanza Brazilian producers hope for." Professor Babcock says ending these industry subsidies would result in the loss of maybe 300 jobs, not the 112,000 to 160,000 the ethanol industry claims. Without subsidies, ethanol production would still increase, while we would save a few pennies per gallon at the pump and shave a several billion dollars off the deficit each year (just as all of our Congressional candidates want to do).

Of course, Babcock's study was funded by the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association. Brazil produces 7 billion gallons of ethanol from sugarcane each year, behind only the U.S., which makes 12 billion gallons of corn ethanol annually.

But note that U.S ethanol producer Valero—you know, the nice folks who bought VeraSun's ethanol plants after VeraSun went broke, and the third-largest ethanol producer in America—says it wouldn't reduce ethanol production one bit if we cut subsidies.

Congress Wimps out on Energy Policy: Time to Conserve!

Heartland Consumer Power District exec Mike McDowell is surely thrilled that obstructionist Republicans like Senator Thune and wimpy Democrats like Representative Herseth Sandlin have killed serious clean energy legislation for now. Instead of imperiling our economy with "heavy-handed expensive government mandates" (i.e., plans like cap and trade, which are empirically proven to reduce pollution and not kill the economy), we can trundle along with a status quo that supports the polluting, irresponsible energy economy that will leave our grandkids nothing to burn but resentment.

But wait: McDowell does have a plan I can work with:

Part of our LEED Platinum commitment is sustainability. This means smarter use and reuse of common consumer products. The positive impact on the environment as well as reducing oil consumption is startling. It can be done with simple changes in behavior, using existing technologies at affordable prices. It can be done without heavy-handed expensive government mandates and without waiting for some silver bullet technology to be developed to make it work [Mike McDowell, "Consumers Can Take LEEDing Steps to Reduce Oil Use," HCPDBlog.com, 2010.07.21].

McDowell and I agree on the power of conservation, and if our Congress can't overcome the Big Oil and Coal lobbies, then conservation is perhaps the best grassroots pocketbook policy we can do. McDowell and I agree that recycling is great. We agree that replacing plastic bags with canvas sacks and backpacks at the grocery store is a great way to reduce oil consumption.

McDowell also points out the remarkable savings to be gained from recycling motor oil:

• It is easier and cheaper to recycle used oil than to make new oil from crude. One gallon of used oil can produce the same amount of motor oil as 42 gallons of crude oil while requiring about a third of the energy.
• If all used motor oil in the U.S. were recycled, it would result in a saving of 1.3 million barrels of oil per day.
• Used oil can be re-refined into good-as-new lubricating oil. Oil never wears out it just gets dirty [McDowell, 2010.07.21].

1.3 million barrels a day. That's more oil than both the Keystone and Keystone XL pipelines will transport at full capacity. One change in our energy practices, recycling our motor oil, could eliminate the need for a massive, environmentally dangerous project and reduce our dependence on dirty foreign oil.

If we can't motivate Congress to change our energy policy, then we'll have to do it ourselves. let's all be conservatives and conserve, conserve, conserve!

Climate Change: Watch out for Angry Grandkids

Hot enough for ya? Meteorologist Paul Douglas notes that June was the warmest month on record. Not just the warmest in proximity of my or Bob Ellis's overheated blogs, but worldwide. That's four straight months of record global warmth, and 304 straight months with global temps beating the 20th-century average. This data isn't just one hot week or, for the paid deniers, one month of blizzards, says Douglas:

The trends are apparent to anyone taking the time to really look at the science. No one heat wave, month or year proves anything, but what we have here is a steady trickle of evidence, a gradual accumulation of coincidences that can no longer be denied. Melting glaciers, thinning arctic ice, rising sea levels, an uptick in drought and 1-in-500 year floods are all symptoms. The earth's atmosphere is running a mild fever. The question: do we believe the doctors and treat the patient now, or wait for those symptoms to worsen? It's not ideology, it's not a political litmus test, it's not a "new religion." It's basic science [Paul Douglas, "Thursday Flood Risk (and the most severe 30 days in Minnesota history?)," Minneapolis StarTribune: On Weather, 2010.07.21].

Douglas echoes the sentiment of The Age of Stupid, the speculative documentary the SDSU Sierra Club showed in Brookings last December, when it was awfully cold out. Douglas says a few words about the need to take responsibility for our energy consumption habits that ought to send a chill through the conservative obstructionists who love talking about personal responsibility on every other issue:

Our grandkids are going to be pissed. They will hold us accountable for sitting on our hands, bickering with professional scientists—waiting, hoping for a magic cure or "more evidence." ...I was taught that actions have consequences. We've been binging on oil, coal and natural gas for 200 years, most of the greenhouse spike in the last 50 years. This week China just surpassed the USA as the greatest producer/user of energy on the planet. Think we have a problem now? Just wait 10 years. You haven't seen anything yet [link mine; Douglas, 2010].

So, Senator Thune, keep fighting energy responsibility with every fiber of your being. Then be sure to eat well and use your government health coverage to live a long and happy life... so you can be around to explain to our grandkids why we wrecked their ecosystem and burned up all the easy fuel.

Support the Troops: Pass Clean Energy-Climate Legislation Now

Which do you prefer, clean energy and climate legislation, or more dead soldiers?

I prefer the former... as does VoteVets.org. Badlands Blue features the veterans group's latest ad urging Congress to get off its butt and pass clean energy legislation:



Retired Brigadier General Steven Anderson was Chief Logistics Officer for General David Petraeus in Iraq. Logistics—that means he had to coordinate the movements of all those fuel trucks that keep our Hummers and generators and other war equipment running. Anderson understands better than anyone the tactical vulnerability created by dependence on fossil fuels. Order men and women to drive a few thousand gallons of explosive fuel through a war zone—yeah, that could sharpen one's appreciation for fuel efficiency.

Clean energy and climate legislation is not just for treehuggers. It's also for wives and husbands and kids and parents who want hug their soldiers again when they walk off the plane from Iraq.

Reduce Gasoline Use by Ethanol Subsidy or Gasoline Tax?

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) wants to end the ethanol subsidy. The chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee says $7.6 billion a year in taxpayer support is unnecessary for "a mature technology whose market share is well protected." Bingaman cites this CBO report that analyzes the cost-effectiveness of the biofuels subsidy at reducing petroleum usage and greenhouse gas emissions.

Note that the CBO study is about the subsidy for all biofuels, but in 2009, 94% of the 11.5 billion gallons of biofuel produced in the U.S. was ethanol.

The CBO report includes some useful numbers on the energy in gasoline and ethanol:

• One gallon of gasoline contains 125,000 BTUs of energy.
• One gallon of ethanol contains 85,000 BTUs of energy.
• You thus need 1.48 gallons of ethanol to get the same amount of energy as you can get from one gallon of gasoline.
• By current techniques, ethanol producers burn 11,000 BTUs of petroleum fuel to produce each gallon of ethanol.
• An ethanol producer thus needs to put 1.69 gallons of ethanol on the market to replace the energy from one gallon of gasoline at the pump and petro-fuel taken off the market to make that ethanol.

Remember: the ethanol credit is 45 cents per gallon (which goes to blenders, not farmers). So the net subsidy to support the 1.69 gallons of ethanol needed to replace one gasoline gallon's worth of energy is 76 cents. Displacing fossil fuels also causes a decrease in excise tax receipts, so the total taxpayer cost for replacing gasoline energy with ethanol energy, says CBO, is $1.78 per gallon of ethanol.

Harvard's Professor Mankiw asks an interesting question: if our goal is to reduce gasoline consumption, might we not do so more cheaply and in a better targeted fashion simply by adding a dollar-per-gallon tax to gasoline and charging those who keep consuming rather than levying additional income tax on all taxpayers?

-----------------------
Bonus note on energy: CBO says that corn ethanol production and use emits maybe 15%–20% less carbon dioxide than gasoline per 125,000 BTUs of fuel made available at the pump. Cellulosic ethanol production and use beats gasoline on CO₂ emissions by well over 80%. In other words, cellulosic ethanol promises one-fifth the carbon footprint of corn ethanol.

Iberdrola Planning 350-Megawatt Wind Farm for Lake, McCook, Minnehaha

Orland Township: soon to be home to the biggest wind farm in South Dakota?

When Heartland and its big-dreaming utility pals failed to get investors to back their coal-fired Big Stone II power plant, Governor Rounds said the loss of the new coal plant was a loss for wind power. The gloom and doom from the right made it sound as if we environmentalists would be typing our blog posts by candlelight for the foreseeable future.

So didn't Iberdrola get the memo that wind power is dead without Big Stone II? They are Spanish: maybe they missed the translation. All they seem to hear is ¡En Dakota hay mucho viento! ¡Mucho, mucho viento! ¡Arriba!

Crazy Spaniards. So crazy that they want to build the biggest wind farm in the state, 350 megawatts, part of it right here in Lake County. So says the lead story in Friday's print MDL. Iberdrola already operates MinnDakota and Buffalo Ridge I in Brookings County, wind farms with 54 and 50.4 megawatt capacities, respectively. Iberdrola expects to finish Buffalo Ridge II, a 210-megawatt project in Brookings and Deuel counties that by the end of this year will be the biggest wind farm in the state. Iberdrola has proposed another 170 megawatts of wind power with Buffalo Ridge III.

Iberdrola plans to hook into transmission to the south, probably these big lines about ten miles to the south that run from the Big Bend Dam and slant ESE across McCook and Minnehaha counties to Sioux Falls.

The proposal announced Friday, called the Minnehaha West Wind Project, would stretch across two Lake County townships, three in McCook, and three in Minnehaha. Iberdrola is talking with landowners in Lake County's Orland and Franklin townships, just four miles south of Madison. The landowners, I'm sure, are bound by super-secret non-disclosure agreements—that's why none are quoted in Elisa Sand's Friday report and why we don't get any more specific about sites than township. (Remember, farmers: go for the lease, not the one-time payment!)

These power lines running north to Madison through Frankling and Lakeview townships just got upgraded this past year. Maybe Iberdrola will let us hook in and juice up Madison and the lakes with some clean wind power?

But just four miles south of Madison. That's funny: Mayor Hexom told me last October that Lake County isn't an appealing place to build wind farms, since our wind potential is lower than other places in South Dakota, like Wessington Springs where Heartland is involved in a 51-megawatt wind farm. Now Iberdrola's going to bring almost seven times that clean generating capacity right to Madison's doorstep. Looks like Lake County can compete in the wind market after all. Or the Spaniards are just crazy.

Let's see... Iberdrola told the press last week that their projects so far have generated or supported over 1700 temporary jobs and created 64 permanent jobs in South Dakota alone. Building perhaps 175 wind turbines just ten miles south of my house should keep a lot of folks busy... and send a lot of workers to Buffalo Trading Post, Montrose, Colton, and Chester for lunch. Fire up the grill, Aunt Virginia!

The rural water tower near the Orland Hutterite colony, just east of the Vermillion River, could get some spinning company on the horizon.

As I review the numbers, I see South Dakota has 413 megawatts of wind power installed, another 300 megawatts under construction. (See this map of South Dakota wind projects from last fall.) Public Utilities Commissioner Dusty Johnson tells Elisa Sand that by Christmas, we'll have enough wind capacity to power half the homes in South Dakota. (Yes, Mike, I know, wind doesn't blow all the time, so divide by two.) Dakota Wind has applied for 300 megawatts of the transmission intended for Big Stone II. Moody County may attract a 100-megawatt project. And the South Dakota Wind Energy Association is looking into developing another 1000 megawatts (that's a gigawatt!) of South Dakota wind energy.

Boy, if this is wind power growth when it's stymied, I can't imagine what full-throttle wind power growth looks like.

The Vermillion River Valley, home of the nicest curvy road in the tri-county area, could add some wind turbines to its scenery.

Nature Conservancy Ordway Prairie HQ Open House July 24

Hey, here's something I didn't know about: The Nature Conservancy runs the Samuel H. Ordway, Jr. Memorial Preserve up west of Leola in McPherson County. No campsites or other facilities, just a visitor trail and 7800 acres of mostly untilled prairie. Oh yeah, and 250 head of bison. (Remember, bison are not pets! They will step on you!)

The Ordway Prairie is part of a larger stretch of 135,000 acres—about 210 square miles—of untilled prairie that reaches up to North Dakota. Sounds like a lot of beautiful open country.

The Ordway Prairie is the largest preserve owned and managed by the Nature Conservancy in South Dakota. The Nature Conservancy is working on preserving ten other sites in our fair state. The Ordway Prairie pings onto my radar by announcing an open house at its headquarters on July 24. The open house will be the first time the public can come in and see the new energy-efficient building. Some highlights in the construction:

1. south-facing windows for natural light and passive solar heat in winter
   
2. light-colored roof and wide overhangs to reduce heat in summer
3. lots of recycled material in the doors, windows, and steel
4. efficient appliances and low-flow water fixtures

And coming up: a wind turbine and solar panel to produce energy on site.

Energy Security Legislation: Why Wait?

Heartland Consumer Power District chief Mike McDowell is just peachy-keen-thrilled at the prospect of America drifting for another year without a coherent, serious energy security law. I am not. Why should the Senate listen to me and not Heartland and pass energy security legislation?

1. Teabag Vote: Acting now on energy security legislation would cut the deficit. One flavor of energy legislation, the Kerry-Lieberman(-neé Graham) bill, would cost $723 billion over the next ten years, but bring in enough revenue to cut the deficit by $19 billion. That's not much, but it's even better than the $9 billion the House bill would save.
2. Science Vote: There's still a problem waiting to be solved. Climate change is real, the science is solid, and the claims of the "Climategate" criers from last year have been investigated and deemed bogus.
3. Bomb-Iran Vote: Why spend another year lining Ahmadinejad's pockets? The sooner we pass energy security legislation, the sooner we reach the day (years from now, yes, but it will come) when our economy does not depend on shipping money to Iran. (And don't forget: even the oil we buy from those nice Canadians has connections to Iran.)

We can act now and ease our way into the transition to clean energy and independence from foreign oil, or we can keep drifting, putting off action because it's just too hard, until we wake up one morning and find the tank dry.

Act now. Pass energy security legislation this year. That's Forward Thinking®.

------------------------
Update 09:20 CDT: Maybe energy security legislation could save even more money by cutting subsidies to the oil industry. Consider that you and I, fellow taxpayers, covered 70% of BP's rent on the Deepwater Horizon rig before it went boom. $225K per day... $82M per year... for just one rig.