Interesting video, a compilation of statements from US elected officials about climate change legislation.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
AEI Reaction to Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill
SOURCE: American Enterprise Institute
AEI'S STEVE HAYWARD FINDS THAT THE 20 PERCENT REDUCTION IN GREENHOUSE GASES REQUIRED IN 2020 BY THE BOXER-KERRY CLIMATE BILL WOULD REDUCE EMISSIONS TO 1977 LEVELS EVEN THOUGH, 32 YEARS AGO, THE U.S. HAD ALMOST HALF OF TODAY'S VEHICLES, 100 MILLION LESS PEOPLE, AND AN ECONOMY HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT IT IS TODAY.
At more than 800 pages, it will take a while to digest fully the actual workings of the Boxer-Kerry climate bill, but on the surface one should examine what is meant in practical terms by the claim that it is a tougher bill than Waxman-Markey because it calls for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the 2005 level by the year 2020--barely a decade away--instead of the 17 percent reduction in Waxman-Markey.
A 20 percent reduction, meant literally, would reduce U.S. GHG emissions to a level last seen in the year 1977, when the U.S. had a population of 220 million people (as opposed to 305 million today), and when its economy was only half the size it is today ($7.2 trillion in 1977 versus $14.2 trillion today, in constant 2008 dollars). In 1977, the United States had 145 million vehicles on the road; today, it has 251 million vehicles on the road.
To meet this target will require substantial cutbacks in the use of fossil fuels, and their replacement by low-carbon or non-carbon energy sources that are often three to five times more expensive than fossil fuels. If the transportation sector is going to cut its share of emissions back to the 1977 level, cars and trucks will need to reduce their total miles traveled at least by one-third, or achieve a fleet-wide one-third improvement in fuel efficiency, which is a difficult and expensive proposition to achieve in ten years' time, given the length of time consumers and businesses keep their cars and trucks today.
The amount of coal burned for electricity would have to be cut by more than half to return coal-related GHG emissions to their 1977 level, requiring the closing of more than 200 coal-fired power plants, reducing electricity supply by more than 800 million megawatts. (In 1977, the electric utility sector burned 477 million tons of coal. In 2005, the utilities burned just over 1 billion tons of coal.) Wind and solar power are three to four times as expensive as coal-fired electricity, and moreover the total amount of electricity currently generated by non-hydro renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) is only about 130,000 megawatts. We hear that renewables are a fast-growing source of power, but at its "rapid" growth rate of the last five years it will take 97 years for renewable sources to make up the amount of coal-fired electricity that must be taken offline over the next decade. In other words, the deployment of costly wind and solar and other renewable sources will have to increase by an order of magnitude. This is not a credible scenario by 2020. This is especially not credible if the bill caps the price of emissions allowances at $28 a ton as the bill proposes.
The industrial and manufacturing sectors, by the way, have lower greenhouse gas emissions today than they did in 1977--a testament to the substantial progress in energy efficiency in that sector over the last 30 years. All of the growth in GHG emissions over the last 30 years has come from increased transportation and electricity consumption by households.
Boxer-Kerry will surely follow Waxman-Markey in making heavy use of "offsets" that will mean, in practice, that there will be very little GHG emissions reductions at all by 2020. Rather than inconvenience American households and industry, we shall "offset" emissions by counting tree-planting and regular agriculture activities on our carbon balance sheet in a way that would make Enron or Bernie Madoff proud. If there were truth-in-advertising for climate legislation, the Boxer-Kerry bill would have to strike the "20 percent reduction by 2020" claim.
AEI'S STEVE HAYWARD FINDS THAT THE 20 PERCENT REDUCTION IN GREENHOUSE GASES REQUIRED IN 2020 BY THE BOXER-KERRY CLIMATE BILL WOULD REDUCE EMISSIONS TO 1977 LEVELS EVEN THOUGH, 32 YEARS AGO, THE U.S. HAD ALMOST HALF OF TODAY'S VEHICLES, 100 MILLION LESS PEOPLE, AND AN ECONOMY HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT IT IS TODAY.
At more than 800 pages, it will take a while to digest fully the actual workings of the Boxer-Kerry climate bill, but on the surface one should examine what is meant in practical terms by the claim that it is a tougher bill than Waxman-Markey because it calls for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the 2005 level by the year 2020--barely a decade away--instead of the 17 percent reduction in Waxman-Markey.
A 20 percent reduction, meant literally, would reduce U.S. GHG emissions to a level last seen in the year 1977, when the U.S. had a population of 220 million people (as opposed to 305 million today), and when its economy was only half the size it is today ($7.2 trillion in 1977 versus $14.2 trillion today, in constant 2008 dollars). In 1977, the United States had 145 million vehicles on the road; today, it has 251 million vehicles on the road.
To meet this target will require substantial cutbacks in the use of fossil fuels, and their replacement by low-carbon or non-carbon energy sources that are often three to five times more expensive than fossil fuels. If the transportation sector is going to cut its share of emissions back to the 1977 level, cars and trucks will need to reduce their total miles traveled at least by one-third, or achieve a fleet-wide one-third improvement in fuel efficiency, which is a difficult and expensive proposition to achieve in ten years' time, given the length of time consumers and businesses keep their cars and trucks today.
The amount of coal burned for electricity would have to be cut by more than half to return coal-related GHG emissions to their 1977 level, requiring the closing of more than 200 coal-fired power plants, reducing electricity supply by more than 800 million megawatts. (In 1977, the electric utility sector burned 477 million tons of coal. In 2005, the utilities burned just over 1 billion tons of coal.) Wind and solar power are three to four times as expensive as coal-fired electricity, and moreover the total amount of electricity currently generated by non-hydro renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) is only about 130,000 megawatts. We hear that renewables are a fast-growing source of power, but at its "rapid" growth rate of the last five years it will take 97 years for renewable sources to make up the amount of coal-fired electricity that must be taken offline over the next decade. In other words, the deployment of costly wind and solar and other renewable sources will have to increase by an order of magnitude. This is not a credible scenario by 2020. This is especially not credible if the bill caps the price of emissions allowances at $28 a ton as the bill proposes.
The industrial and manufacturing sectors, by the way, have lower greenhouse gas emissions today than they did in 1977--a testament to the substantial progress in energy efficiency in that sector over the last 30 years. All of the growth in GHG emissions over the last 30 years has come from increased transportation and electricity consumption by households.
Boxer-Kerry will surely follow Waxman-Markey in making heavy use of "offsets" that will mean, in practice, that there will be very little GHG emissions reductions at all by 2020. Rather than inconvenience American households and industry, we shall "offset" emissions by counting tree-planting and regular agriculture activities on our carbon balance sheet in a way that would make Enron or Bernie Madoff proud. If there were truth-in-advertising for climate legislation, the Boxer-Kerry bill would have to strike the "20 percent reduction by 2020" claim.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Johanns Keynote Speech Highlights Agriculture, Including Impact of Climate Change
The following information is a portion of a keynote speech delivered by Senator Mike Johanns to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. His speech discussed the need to support agriculture, and his remarks included the impact that climate change/cap & trade legislation will have on farmers.
Read on below. A link to the entire keynote speech follows at the bottom of this blog entry if you would like to read it in its entirety.
From Johanns:
American agriculture can continue to feed the world, and our farmers will continue to care for the land, as long as we don't erect roadblocks every step of the way.
"This includes policies that would make their jobs more difficult. By far, the most glaring example of such a policy is Cap-and-Trade. There has been much discussion in both houses of Congress about potential new legislation and regulations relating to climate change. Any cap-and-trade law would have sweeping consequences that touch every corner of American life. There are various studies floating around about its potential impact.
"Recently, a study by Texas A&M University revealed several shortcomings of the House Cap-and-Trade bill that passed in June. The study, which analyzed a sampling of representative farms across the country, showed that 71 of those 98 representative farms would lose money as a result of cap and trade. So, based on this example, three out of every four farms lose at best.
"While the study did show some net-gainers in agriculture, it indicated that the benefits are largely the result of higher grain prices, not because of lucrative carbon payments. These higher grain prices translate into higher costs for the livestock sector. Not only do costs go up, but acres also come out of production under cap-and-trade programs. So, as supply decreases, we could also see higher food prices.
"The Senate cap-and-trade bill is even more radical than the House bill. It will lead to higher taxes, higher energy costs, a tighter squeeze on disposable income, more lost jobs and lower standards of living. Regardless of the approach, the bottom line is, the cost of doing business goes up, and supply goes down.
"What's more, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has openly admitted that U.S. action alone will have little, if any, effect on our climate. And we would clearly be acting alone - the U.S. cannot force China and India to adopt a Cap-and-Trade regime. So basically, we would be raising energy prices for every American family and business with no significant impact on the global climate.
"And agriculture gets hit the hardest. A farm family's pocket book can only stretch so far, and with costs of production already on the rise, this proposal could put family farms at risk of going under. There is no way around that. If Cap-and-Trade passes, some of our farmers and ranchers - the people who feed the world - will be put out of business.
"Some farms that have been in a family for four, five, and six generations will have to shut down their operations. That means production goes down and people lose jobs. And I will also tell you, once you put something like this in place, it is hard to unwind. That is why I have been very vocal about my concerns.
"During the budget debate, I asked the Senate to vote twice to ensure that cap-and-trade legislation is not slipped into law using budget maneuvers - once on an amendment and once on instructing conferees. Both passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support - almost 70 percent of the U.S. Senate.
"Recognizing the need for further debate, I have twice sent letters to the Senate Agriculture Committee, on which I serve, requesting hearings on this issue. I was pleased when a hearing was held in July, and another took place in September. I was also very pleased when new Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln said last week that she intends to hold a mark-up of the Cap-and-Trade bill.
"That's something I have long advocated for, and it will be a critical piece to making sure agriculture's voice is heard during this debate. Cap and trade legislation will touch industries across the spectrum in America, and quite frankly will increase costs for many of them. As government officials, we have a responsibility to seek a full understanding of the impact of any legislation we pass. This is especially true during trying economic times.
"I will continue to seek more analysis, and call for more hearings to reveal in full the increases in input costs that would result from cap and trade. The House rushed and passed a bad bill. Hopefully, the Senate will be more thoughtful in its approach and take the time necessary to understand the consequences. "I would offer a couple thoughts in conclusion. Agriculture is getting hit from all sides, yet it seems like few people are taking the time to step back and look at the facts. Pesticides and fertilizers help protect the crop and increase production, thereby feeding the world. A massive shift to lower-yielding organic production would have severe consequences. Organics simply cannot feed the world.
"Cap-and-Trade would shift an estimated 20 percent of our productive farmland to trees. Again dramatically reducing supply while providing no benefit. What you are doing today is incredibly important, and if I can leave you with one message, it's this: stay informed and engaged.
"There is a lot of misinformation out there, and that becomes a serious concern when you realize some of these policies mean people will lose jobs and others will go hungry. It's that simple, but it doesn't seem to be sinking-in with the White House or some of the leadership in Congress. I will continue speaking up for the American farmer and rancher, and I hope you will as well."
If you would like to share your thoughts with Senator Johanns or Senator Ben Nelson on the climate change bill, you may do so here.
If you would like to read Johann's full set of keynote speech highlights, you may do so here.
Read on below. A link to the entire keynote speech follows at the bottom of this blog entry if you would like to read it in its entirety.
From Johanns:
American agriculture can continue to feed the world, and our farmers will continue to care for the land, as long as we don't erect roadblocks every step of the way.
"This includes policies that would make their jobs more difficult. By far, the most glaring example of such a policy is Cap-and-Trade. There has been much discussion in both houses of Congress about potential new legislation and regulations relating to climate change. Any cap-and-trade law would have sweeping consequences that touch every corner of American life. There are various studies floating around about its potential impact.
"Recently, a study by Texas A&M University revealed several shortcomings of the House Cap-and-Trade bill that passed in June. The study, which analyzed a sampling of representative farms across the country, showed that 71 of those 98 representative farms would lose money as a result of cap and trade. So, based on this example, three out of every four farms lose at best.
"While the study did show some net-gainers in agriculture, it indicated that the benefits are largely the result of higher grain prices, not because of lucrative carbon payments. These higher grain prices translate into higher costs for the livestock sector. Not only do costs go up, but acres also come out of production under cap-and-trade programs. So, as supply decreases, we could also see higher food prices.
"The Senate cap-and-trade bill is even more radical than the House bill. It will lead to higher taxes, higher energy costs, a tighter squeeze on disposable income, more lost jobs and lower standards of living. Regardless of the approach, the bottom line is, the cost of doing business goes up, and supply goes down.
"What's more, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has openly admitted that U.S. action alone will have little, if any, effect on our climate. And we would clearly be acting alone - the U.S. cannot force China and India to adopt a Cap-and-Trade regime. So basically, we would be raising energy prices for every American family and business with no significant impact on the global climate.
"And agriculture gets hit the hardest. A farm family's pocket book can only stretch so far, and with costs of production already on the rise, this proposal could put family farms at risk of going under. There is no way around that. If Cap-and-Trade passes, some of our farmers and ranchers - the people who feed the world - will be put out of business.
"Some farms that have been in a family for four, five, and six generations will have to shut down their operations. That means production goes down and people lose jobs. And I will also tell you, once you put something like this in place, it is hard to unwind. That is why I have been very vocal about my concerns.
"During the budget debate, I asked the Senate to vote twice to ensure that cap-and-trade legislation is not slipped into law using budget maneuvers - once on an amendment and once on instructing conferees. Both passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support - almost 70 percent of the U.S. Senate.
"Recognizing the need for further debate, I have twice sent letters to the Senate Agriculture Committee, on which I serve, requesting hearings on this issue. I was pleased when a hearing was held in July, and another took place in September. I was also very pleased when new Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln said last week that she intends to hold a mark-up of the Cap-and-Trade bill.
"That's something I have long advocated for, and it will be a critical piece to making sure agriculture's voice is heard during this debate. Cap and trade legislation will touch industries across the spectrum in America, and quite frankly will increase costs for many of them. As government officials, we have a responsibility to seek a full understanding of the impact of any legislation we pass. This is especially true during trying economic times.
"I will continue to seek more analysis, and call for more hearings to reveal in full the increases in input costs that would result from cap and trade. The House rushed and passed a bad bill. Hopefully, the Senate will be more thoughtful in its approach and take the time necessary to understand the consequences. "I would offer a couple thoughts in conclusion. Agriculture is getting hit from all sides, yet it seems like few people are taking the time to step back and look at the facts. Pesticides and fertilizers help protect the crop and increase production, thereby feeding the world. A massive shift to lower-yielding organic production would have severe consequences. Organics simply cannot feed the world.
"Cap-and-Trade would shift an estimated 20 percent of our productive farmland to trees. Again dramatically reducing supply while providing no benefit. What you are doing today is incredibly important, and if I can leave you with one message, it's this: stay informed and engaged.
"There is a lot of misinformation out there, and that becomes a serious concern when you realize some of these policies mean people will lose jobs and others will go hungry. It's that simple, but it doesn't seem to be sinking-in with the White House or some of the leadership in Congress. I will continue speaking up for the American farmer and rancher, and I hope you will as well."
If you would like to share your thoughts with Senator Johanns or Senator Ben Nelson on the climate change bill, you may do so here.
If you would like to read Johann's full set of keynote speech highlights, you may do so here.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sorting Through the "Hot Air"
With the cooler weather making its way into South Central Nebraska recently, we have noticed that ads are beginning to appear in local newspapers touting the benefits of space heaters. Some of the products advertised make claims that in the end cannot add up to the savings promised to the consumer. This issue is one for which we received many calls from our customers last winter, and these calls are beginning to come in again this fall.
The question we are asked from space heater users is this..."Where are the savings I was promised from my heater?"
First of all, you will not see a reduction in your heating expenses if you use the portable heater 24/7. Consider this...typical portable heaters utilize 1,500 watts, and for every hour you use the heater, you will spend about 9 cents. Doesn't sound like much does it? But consider these figures. If you use that heater one hour per day every day for a month, you will pay $2.70. Again this does not seem like a tremendous expense. But if you use the heater 24 hours a day, seven days a week, you will have added around $65 to your monthly electric bill. If you use more than one heater 24/7, you will double that amount!
If your goal in purchasing a portable heater was to reduce your expenses, then this is probably not what you had in mind when you purchased it!
In order for you to save money using a space heater, you must lower the thermostat on your whole house furnace, and use the space heater in the single room you are occupying in your home. Then set your space heater to a temperature that keeps you comfortable in that room.
Last year we had numerous calls from customers who did not see the savings they were expecting from their portable heater. In a few cases, customers had purchased more than one heater and used two or even three of them around the clock.
If you are considering the purchase of a portable heater, we urge you to be wary of outrageous claims for savings on heating. If you have any questions, please contact Southern Power District or your local energy supplier.
ALSO, THINK ABOUT SAFETY!
According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, more than 25,000 residential fires occur every year due to space heaters. These fires result in 300 deaths, and emergency care for an estimated 6,000 people. If you are using a heater, please consider these important safety tips:
The question we are asked from space heater users is this..."Where are the savings I was promised from my heater?"
First of all, you will not see a reduction in your heating expenses if you use the portable heater 24/7. Consider this...typical portable heaters utilize 1,500 watts, and for every hour you use the heater, you will spend about 9 cents. Doesn't sound like much does it? But consider these figures. If you use that heater one hour per day every day for a month, you will pay $2.70. Again this does not seem like a tremendous expense. But if you use the heater 24 hours a day, seven days a week, you will have added around $65 to your monthly electric bill. If you use more than one heater 24/7, you will double that amount!
If your goal in purchasing a portable heater was to reduce your expenses, then this is probably not what you had in mind when you purchased it!
In order for you to save money using a space heater, you must lower the thermostat on your whole house furnace, and use the space heater in the single room you are occupying in your home. Then set your space heater to a temperature that keeps you comfortable in that room.
Last year we had numerous calls from customers who did not see the savings they were expecting from their portable heater. In a few cases, customers had purchased more than one heater and used two or even three of them around the clock.
If you are considering the purchase of a portable heater, we urge you to be wary of outrageous claims for savings on heating. If you have any questions, please contact Southern Power District or your local energy supplier.
ALSO, THINK ABOUT SAFETY!
According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, more than 25,000 residential fires occur every year due to space heaters. These fires result in 300 deaths, and emergency care for an estimated 6,000 people. If you are using a heater, please consider these important safety tips:
- When selecting a space heater, look for one that has been tested and certified by a nationally-recognized testing laboratory (Underwriters Laboratory).
- Keep children and pets away from space heaters. Some heaters have very hot surfaces.
- Keep doors open to the rest of the house if you are using an unvented fuel-burning space heater. This helps to prevent pollutant build-up and promotes proper combustion. Even vented heaters require ventilation for proper combustion.
- Never leave a space heater on when you go to sleep or leave the area.
- Never use or store flammable liquids (such as gasoline or household cleaners) around a space heater.
- Place heaters at least three feet away from objects such as bedding, furniture and drapes.
- Never use heaters to dry clothes or shoes.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Challenges Great in Wind Generation
With Southern Power District's involvement in the Our Energy, Our Future campaign, we have been continuously asked by our customers “Why hasn’t Nebraska put up more wind turbines?”
We do understand why this question is so common, after all wind is free, right? When you take a look around at other states there are certainly a lot more wind turbines popping up on the landscape. Its working there, so why not here? Some people feel that Nebraska has “balked” at the idea of adding wind generation.
The fact is that Nebraska IS taking a hard look at putting into place an extensive wind generation system. During the 2009 Nebraska Legislature Session, Interim Study Resolution LR 83 was introduced, which calls for a study of issues related to expanding the development of wind energy in Nebraska. Of importance within this study is preserving Nebraska’s public power system which serves our consumers with low-cost, reliable electricity—two factors that cannot be ignored.
The study examines the expected outcome for building 7,800 megawatts of wind power for use in Nebraska and for export out of state. To put that into perspective, all of Nebraska’s existing generation sources are nearly equal to this number. The intent is to harness wind resources in Nebraska and transport that generation to parts of the country where wind is not as abundant.
In order to get a project such as this up and running, the size of the investment will, shall we say…knock the wind out of you! The cost to build the wind generation facilities themselves is estimated at $16.38 BILLION. (That's right...billion with a letter "B".) This does not include the expense of a transmission system to transport the wind generated power, which would tack on an additional $3.9 billion. Added together, this gigantic bill would equal over $20 BILLION, or over $11,000 per Nebraskan.
How then, have our neighboring states been able to justify the cost to put up this type of generation? First of all, Nebraska is an all public power system and the tax incentives that were available for our neighboring states are not available here. While public power districts do not exist to make money from electric consumers, the lack of this incentive makes wind projects less feasible when considering affordability for our consumers. Secondly, many of these projects are owned by private investors who are seeking profits. The added cost is likely captured from the end-user in the form of higher rates.
Returning to the idea to develop a large-scale wind generation project in Nebraska, consider a few questions. First of all, who will pay for a $20 billion project? Can you afford $11,000 to get the ball rolling?
Secondly, if private investors come into the picture on a large scale wind project, much of that power will be consumed right here in Nebraska. Who do you feel will see the benefits of a wind generation system funded by private investment? I personally do not feel it will be the end-use electric consumer.
Here is another big problem. This large scale wind generation project would seek to export energy to other states. In May of this year, governors from 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states delivered a letter to US Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders. In this letter, the governors expressed a strong interest in developing wind generation in their own backyard, rather than paying the added transmission cost that I mentioned previously. How comfortable are you with spending $20 billion to provide a service, for which we may not have a “buyer”?
If you would like to read for yourself the results of this study, I do encourage you to take a look at the white papers outlining the details. The information does outline both the benefits and risks of a large scale wind project, and I think in reading the materials you will see that the challenges are monumental.
LeAnne Doose,
Communications Director, SPD
We do understand why this question is so common, after all wind is free, right? When you take a look around at other states there are certainly a lot more wind turbines popping up on the landscape. Its working there, so why not here? Some people feel that Nebraska has “balked” at the idea of adding wind generation.
The fact is that Nebraska IS taking a hard look at putting into place an extensive wind generation system. During the 2009 Nebraska Legislature Session, Interim Study Resolution LR 83 was introduced, which calls for a study of issues related to expanding the development of wind energy in Nebraska. Of importance within this study is preserving Nebraska’s public power system which serves our consumers with low-cost, reliable electricity—two factors that cannot be ignored.
The study examines the expected outcome for building 7,800 megawatts of wind power for use in Nebraska and for export out of state. To put that into perspective, all of Nebraska’s existing generation sources are nearly equal to this number. The intent is to harness wind resources in Nebraska and transport that generation to parts of the country where wind is not as abundant.
In order to get a project such as this up and running, the size of the investment will, shall we say…knock the wind out of you! The cost to build the wind generation facilities themselves is estimated at $16.38 BILLION. (That's right...billion with a letter "B".) This does not include the expense of a transmission system to transport the wind generated power, which would tack on an additional $3.9 billion. Added together, this gigantic bill would equal over $20 BILLION, or over $11,000 per Nebraskan.
How then, have our neighboring states been able to justify the cost to put up this type of generation? First of all, Nebraska is an all public power system and the tax incentives that were available for our neighboring states are not available here. While public power districts do not exist to make money from electric consumers, the lack of this incentive makes wind projects less feasible when considering affordability for our consumers. Secondly, many of these projects are owned by private investors who are seeking profits. The added cost is likely captured from the end-user in the form of higher rates.
Returning to the idea to develop a large-scale wind generation project in Nebraska, consider a few questions. First of all, who will pay for a $20 billion project? Can you afford $11,000 to get the ball rolling?
Secondly, if private investors come into the picture on a large scale wind project, much of that power will be consumed right here in Nebraska. Who do you feel will see the benefits of a wind generation system funded by private investment? I personally do not feel it will be the end-use electric consumer.
Here is another big problem. This large scale wind generation project would seek to export energy to other states. In May of this year, governors from 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states delivered a letter to US Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders. In this letter, the governors expressed a strong interest in developing wind generation in their own backyard, rather than paying the added transmission cost that I mentioned previously. How comfortable are you with spending $20 billion to provide a service, for which we may not have a “buyer”?
If you would like to read for yourself the results of this study, I do encourage you to take a look at the white papers outlining the details. The information does outline both the benefits and risks of a large scale wind project, and I think in reading the materials you will see that the challenges are monumental.
LeAnne Doose,
Communications Director, SPD
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Revenue Shortfalls & Energy Efficiency
This morning at 7:00 AM I was awaken by the typical sound of my alarm clock radio blaring into my ear. The radio station my alarm is set to typically runs through the current news at this time every morning. As much as I despise the sound of that alarm clock, its part of the structured routine that gets me going every day. But, today was different. There was something within the news report today that really caught my ear.
What caught my interest was a story announcing that Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) is projecting a revenue shortfall this year of about $30 million. (Read this article if you'd like to know more). NPPD officials say that a record-cool July and the poor economy are contributing factors to this shortfall. This is news I have heard behind the scenes in recent days so that was not really a surprise to me.
What really captured my attention was the conversation about this issue that continued after the news report was read. The on-air personalities provided some brief comments about this story and noted that utilities promote the use of less energy through efficiency measures. They also commented that using less electricity results in revenue shortfalls, such as NPPD is seeing this year.
These comments brought to mind the image of customers scratching their heads in bewilderment, wondering why public power districts would try to sell you LESS of the product that they produce and distribute. Most businesses or organizations that produce a product or provide a service would never even think about promoting LESS use of their product or service. AND, despite the fact that our wholesale provider has experienced shortfalls in revenue, we are going to continue urging our customers to be efficient, or use less electricity. If you weren’t bewildered before, are you now?
Let me say first of all that the revenue shortfall is not due to the efforts that customers are taking to use their electricity more efficiently. The cool temperatures and rainfall in July dramatically affected the overall use of electricity in irrigation services and cooling. Plus, the price for the excess energy that NPPD typically sells has dropped this year due to the economy. These issues combined added up to the $30 million shortfall now being reported by NPPD.
Now, back to energy conservation. Why on earth would we continue to urge our customers to use less electricity? I have often heard it said that “the cheapest kilowatt hour is the one that you do not have to produce”. In other words, keeping the demand for electricity down will delay the need for the addition of new generation. Adding new sources of generation is costly. Given all the factors that come into play to determine your rates, taking steps to use less energy in your home, business or on the farm will make a POSITIVE difference in the future. So, we are not going to ask you to swap out the CFL's you've put into place in your home for a less efficient incandescent bulb. If you are taking steps to become more energy efficient, keep up the good work!
The revenue shortfall announced by NPPD is one that will impact rates. We will be watching this closely and you can follow any new updates on Southern’s Rate Watch page.
LeAnne Doose,
Communications Director, SPD
What caught my interest was a story announcing that Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) is projecting a revenue shortfall this year of about $30 million. (Read this article if you'd like to know more). NPPD officials say that a record-cool July and the poor economy are contributing factors to this shortfall. This is news I have heard behind the scenes in recent days so that was not really a surprise to me.
What really captured my attention was the conversation about this issue that continued after the news report was read. The on-air personalities provided some brief comments about this story and noted that utilities promote the use of less energy through efficiency measures. They also commented that using less electricity results in revenue shortfalls, such as NPPD is seeing this year.
These comments brought to mind the image of customers scratching their heads in bewilderment, wondering why public power districts would try to sell you LESS of the product that they produce and distribute. Most businesses or organizations that produce a product or provide a service would never even think about promoting LESS use of their product or service. AND, despite the fact that our wholesale provider has experienced shortfalls in revenue, we are going to continue urging our customers to be efficient, or use less electricity. If you weren’t bewildered before, are you now?
Let me say first of all that the revenue shortfall is not due to the efforts that customers are taking to use their electricity more efficiently. The cool temperatures and rainfall in July dramatically affected the overall use of electricity in irrigation services and cooling. Plus, the price for the excess energy that NPPD typically sells has dropped this year due to the economy. These issues combined added up to the $30 million shortfall now being reported by NPPD.
Now, back to energy conservation. Why on earth would we continue to urge our customers to use less electricity? I have often heard it said that “the cheapest kilowatt hour is the one that you do not have to produce”. In other words, keeping the demand for electricity down will delay the need for the addition of new generation. Adding new sources of generation is costly. Given all the factors that come into play to determine your rates, taking steps to use less energy in your home, business or on the farm will make a POSITIVE difference in the future. So, we are not going to ask you to swap out the CFL's you've put into place in your home for a less efficient incandescent bulb. If you are taking steps to become more energy efficient, keep up the good work!
The revenue shortfall announced by NPPD is one that will impact rates. We will be watching this closely and you can follow any new updates on Southern’s Rate Watch page.
LeAnne Doose,
Communications Director, SPD
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
ASSIGNMENT: WAXMAN-MARKEY
Many years ago in school, I recall several occasions where I did not read or fully read my assignment for English class (please accept my apologies Mrs. Engelhardt). At the time I had what I felt to be a number of reasonable explanations for my lack of preparedness. One of my most common excuses was that I was not given enough time to review the assignment handed down by my teacher. Looking back at those years, I now realize that the problem was…(GASP)…ME! I admit, I had a number of other priorities in my life at the time that I felt far outweighed the importance of getting through a chapter of Romeo & Juliet or Crime & Punishment as assigned by my English teacher. But the next day, when called upon in class, I still remember the pit in my stomach as I struggled to come up with an intelligent thought that applied in any way to the book that the rest of the class had read.
As I have watched the events of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation unfold in recent months, I have been taken back to those years in school when I was “unprepared”. As I watched the news reports tell the story of the climate change bill vote on June 26th, I couldn’t help but wonder how many US Congressmen found themselves to have that same pit in their stomach that I had in English class.
Had they read their assignment, all 1,400 pages of it? I seriously doubt it, considering in this case that a good chunk of their assignment came in the form of an amendment handed out hours before their vote was requested.
Had any of these Congressmen gone for “extra credit” and listened to their constituents concerns for affordability and reliability of electricity? I can assume that many didn’t. In spite of this lack of preparedness, 219 of our Congressmen voted in favor of the bill, even though they hadn’t done their homework. Thankfully our Congressmen in Nebraska went into this vote with an understanding of the outcome for their constituents and voted “NO”.
Now, it is time for a new “class”, our US Senate, to step up and study this bill. Will there be any star pupils in this class that will actually read the bill? Today I have done some reading and may have found that person that every teacher longs for in his or her class, and that is Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who is a ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
This Senator has stated that he ACTUALLY INTENDS TO STUDY the climate change bill, and not only that, has vowed to report on every single page of the damaging provisions that are outlined within. He provided a report to the Senate on July 27th, which he summarized by saying that “at the end of the nearly 1,400 pages of taxes and mandates, we see the stark reality of this bill: it sends pink slips to workers and then promises the unemployed that they will get assistance from the government”. Given this undesirable outcome, let’s hope that the rest of our US Senate makes it to the end of their “reading assignment”.
There is another group of students that needs to do their homework on Waxman-Markey, and that is all electric consumers, which includes you! I mentioned above that our elected officials can go for “extra credit” by listening to their constituents, and that is where you come in.
YOUR ASSIGNMENT: Talk to our Senators, Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson. Let them know that you value affordable electricity, and that you are concerned about any further blows to our economy by further job losses. Log on today to http://www.southernpd.com/ and talk to them through the Our Energy, Our Future campaign.
LeAnne Doose,
Communications Director, Southern Power District
As I have watched the events of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation unfold in recent months, I have been taken back to those years in school when I was “unprepared”. As I watched the news reports tell the story of the climate change bill vote on June 26th, I couldn’t help but wonder how many US Congressmen found themselves to have that same pit in their stomach that I had in English class.
Had they read their assignment, all 1,400 pages of it? I seriously doubt it, considering in this case that a good chunk of their assignment came in the form of an amendment handed out hours before their vote was requested.
Had any of these Congressmen gone for “extra credit” and listened to their constituents concerns for affordability and reliability of electricity? I can assume that many didn’t. In spite of this lack of preparedness, 219 of our Congressmen voted in favor of the bill, even though they hadn’t done their homework. Thankfully our Congressmen in Nebraska went into this vote with an understanding of the outcome for their constituents and voted “NO”.
Now, it is time for a new “class”, our US Senate, to step up and study this bill. Will there be any star pupils in this class that will actually read the bill? Today I have done some reading and may have found that person that every teacher longs for in his or her class, and that is Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who is a ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
This Senator has stated that he ACTUALLY INTENDS TO STUDY the climate change bill, and not only that, has vowed to report on every single page of the damaging provisions that are outlined within. He provided a report to the Senate on July 27th, which he summarized by saying that “at the end of the nearly 1,400 pages of taxes and mandates, we see the stark reality of this bill: it sends pink slips to workers and then promises the unemployed that they will get assistance from the government”. Given this undesirable outcome, let’s hope that the rest of our US Senate makes it to the end of their “reading assignment”.
There is another group of students that needs to do their homework on Waxman-Markey, and that is all electric consumers, which includes you! I mentioned above that our elected officials can go for “extra credit” by listening to their constituents, and that is where you come in.
YOUR ASSIGNMENT: Talk to our Senators, Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson. Let them know that you value affordable electricity, and that you are concerned about any further blows to our economy by further job losses. Log on today to http://www.southernpd.com/ and talk to them through the Our Energy, Our Future campaign.
LeAnne Doose,
Communications Director, Southern Power District
Thursday, July 16, 2009
One Size DOES NOT Fit All
If you look through your closet, chances are you have an item of clothing-- maybe its a shirt or a pair of gloves--with a tag that reads One Size Fits All. I have numerous items in my own wardrobe that come to mind that have this very label. One in particular is a winter stocking cap that does stretch far enough to cover my head, only to pop right off when I let go of it. Obviously the manufacturer of this accessory did not take into account a head as large as mine when they chose to stitch that tag into the seam!
If climate change legislation had a tag "sewn into its seams", a One Size Fits All tag would be about as accurate as that tag in my stocking cap.
No two states are exactly the same in they way they produce or use electricity--they use varying mixes of fossil fuel and renewable energy resources. Climate change legislation currently calls for a cap-and-trade system that will force fossil-fuel generating stations to purchase credits on the market if they exceed the "cap" for carbon emissions. The use of fossil fuels varies from state to state, and states in the Midwest are expected to be impacted the most by a cap-and-trade system.
On July 14th, Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns called upon the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide an analysis of the cost impact in the ag sector, outlining the following items as "must haves":
It seems in recent months that there has been a push to hurry up and pass this legislation, even when it wasn't fully examined or read by Congress. We are grateful that Senator Johanns has stepped up to request that this One Size Fits All proposal be examined and "tried on" before buying into it. We need to know exactly how this legislation will "fit" here in Nebraska. How far will it stretch our budgets? Will our corn farmers and cattle ranchers be able to continue their operations under this plan? These are questions that need to be asked before our Senate is rushed into a vote.
If you are concerned about how climate change legislation will "fit" here in Nebraska, we urge you to get involved and speak up to Senator Johanns, and Senator Ben Nelson by logging on to www.southernpd.com/oeof.
LeAnne Doose,
Communications Director,
Southern Power District
If climate change legislation had a tag "sewn into its seams", a One Size Fits All tag would be about as accurate as that tag in my stocking cap.
No two states are exactly the same in they way they produce or use electricity--they use varying mixes of fossil fuel and renewable energy resources. Climate change legislation currently calls for a cap-and-trade system that will force fossil-fuel generating stations to purchase credits on the market if they exceed the "cap" for carbon emissions. The use of fossil fuels varies from state to state, and states in the Midwest are expected to be impacted the most by a cap-and-trade system.
On July 14th, Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns called upon the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide an analysis of the cost impact in the ag sector, outlining the following items as "must haves":
- State by state analysis of the cost of cap-and-trade for agricultural industries;
- Crop-specific analysis of the impact of legislation on farmers engaged in the production of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, etc;
- Analysis of how legislation will affect farmers/ranchers who produce cattle, dairy, pork and other livestock; and
- An assessment of how many acres will be taken out of production as a result of the bill, and what impact that will have on the availability of food, fiber, feed, biofuels and other agri-products.
It seems in recent months that there has been a push to hurry up and pass this legislation, even when it wasn't fully examined or read by Congress. We are grateful that Senator Johanns has stepped up to request that this One Size Fits All proposal be examined and "tried on" before buying into it. We need to know exactly how this legislation will "fit" here in Nebraska. How far will it stretch our budgets? Will our corn farmers and cattle ranchers be able to continue their operations under this plan? These are questions that need to be asked before our Senate is rushed into a vote.
If you are concerned about how climate change legislation will "fit" here in Nebraska, we urge you to get involved and speak up to Senator Johanns, and Senator Ben Nelson by logging on to www.southernpd.com/oeof.
LeAnne Doose,
Communications Director,
Southern Power District
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Waxman-Markey Has Passed Through Congress. NOW WHAT?
On Friday, June 26th the congress passed HR 2454, also known as "Waxman-Markey" by a very narrow margin of 219-212. This bill is one that will impact every electric consumer in America, affecting the cost of electricity in your home, for your farm operations, and for our local businesses and industries.
After all the effort in recent months to communicate with our Congressman and Senators about our need for affordable electricity, both here in SPD country and across the United States, you may find yourself wondering:
1. Were our efforts to communicate worth the effort? And:
2. Now what?
First of all, the answer to question #1 is YES! The efforts put forth by SPD customers and rural electric consumers through the Our Energy, Our Future campaign were heard loud and clear by our Nebraska representatives! Our Congressman Adrian Smith and Senators Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson have all shown signs of concern for the effects that Waxman-Markey will have for electric consumers.
Now, to address your question of "Now what?" It is imoprtant to remember that the vote by Congress was ONLY ONE STEP in the process. And now, there is more work to be done. The bill will now be considered by the US Senate. Through the Our Energy, Our Future campaign, you can remind Senators Johanns and Nelson that this bill is still a concern, and that affordable electricity is a must.
Now that the Senate is stepping up to the plate to debate and consider this bill, this is a critical time to voice your concern for energy legislation that will not compromise affordable electricity for all consumers. Keep the dialogue going! Our continued message needs to remind our Senators of the need for electricity that is both affordable and reliable.
You can easily engage in this conversation by logging on to www.southernpd.com/oeof. If you have already sent a message, feel free to send additional messages as the debate and discussions in the Senate approach.
After all the effort in recent months to communicate with our Congressman and Senators about our need for affordable electricity, both here in SPD country and across the United States, you may find yourself wondering:
1. Were our efforts to communicate worth the effort? And:
2. Now what?
First of all, the answer to question #1 is YES! The efforts put forth by SPD customers and rural electric consumers through the Our Energy, Our Future campaign were heard loud and clear by our Nebraska representatives! Our Congressman Adrian Smith and Senators Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson have all shown signs of concern for the effects that Waxman-Markey will have for electric consumers.
Now, to address your question of "Now what?" It is imoprtant to remember that the vote by Congress was ONLY ONE STEP in the process. And now, there is more work to be done. The bill will now be considered by the US Senate. Through the Our Energy, Our Future campaign, you can remind Senators Johanns and Nelson that this bill is still a concern, and that affordable electricity is a must.
Now that the Senate is stepping up to the plate to debate and consider this bill, this is a critical time to voice your concern for energy legislation that will not compromise affordable electricity for all consumers. Keep the dialogue going! Our continued message needs to remind our Senators of the need for electricity that is both affordable and reliable.
You can easily engage in this conversation by logging on to www.southernpd.com/oeof. If you have already sent a message, feel free to send additional messages as the debate and discussions in the Senate approach.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Caution Urged After Storm
Hall and Hamilton Counties, both in Southern's service territory, encountered a full night tonight of severe weather with tornadoes touching down from Cairo all the way to the Aurora area. Often after severe weather, we all feel tempted to get out and take a look at the damages. In the aftermath of this storm, we would like to remind you of the significant dangers of downed power lines. If you encounter a downed power line, please assume that the line is energized, don't take a chance. Contact Southern Power District to report the downed line. Also, debris from the tornadoes and poles may be in roadways. We are working through the night tonight to clean up these areas. If you must travel, we urge you to use extreme caution. We do not want to see any injuries or fatalities. Please share this message with your friends and families.
To those affected by this storm, please know that we will work hard to restore power to you as quickly as possible. We wish all the best to those who will need to rebuild their homes, businesses or endured other losses. And we thank the kind people who lend a helping hand to their neighbors during a time of need. We often see that neighborly spirit after storms like this, and it is one of the reasons we are proud to be working for customers here in Central Nebraska!
To those affected by this storm, please know that we will work hard to restore power to you as quickly as possible. We wish all the best to those who will need to rebuild their homes, businesses or endured other losses. And we thank the kind people who lend a helping hand to their neighbors during a time of need. We often see that neighborly spirit after storms like this, and it is one of the reasons we are proud to be working for customers here in Central Nebraska!
Friday, June 12, 2009
So...How Much Will This REALLY Cost Me?
If you’ve been keeping up with the latest news and developments with the American Energy and Security Act (aka Waxman-Markey Bill), you are probably intrigued by all of the speculation as to what the end costs will be to electric consumers. Chances are you have seen numbers ranging from about $100 per year, or all the way up to $3,000+ per year for the average household.
For many of our customers, particularly those on a fixed income, even a $100 annual increase is a big issue. But what about the predictions that call for increases above $3,000 per year? Such a wide range of predictions makes it difficult to get a grasp on exactly how Waxman-Markey will affect your budget.
So…why there is such a wide gap in the range of predicted increases? It all comes down to several factors that will play a part in “how big” those increases will be. We have outlined several important factors for you to think about:
For many of our customers, particularly those on a fixed income, even a $100 annual increase is a big issue. But what about the predictions that call for increases above $3,000 per year? Such a wide range of predictions makes it difficult to get a grasp on exactly how Waxman-Markey will affect your budget.
So…why there is such a wide gap in the range of predicted increases? It all comes down to several factors that will play a part in “how big” those increases will be. We have outlined several important factors for you to think about:
- Where will the carbon dioxide level be established?
Currently, the level of CO2 reduction sought by Waxman-Markey calls for a drop in carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020, and over 80 percent by 2050 compared to levels from 2005. (SOURCE) NRECA CEO Glenn English recently acknowledged that the emission caps have been improved slightly. But he says, “While the emission caps in the bill have been lowered somewhat, we believe they are still overly aggressive in the early years of the program and will need to be adjusted”. - Under cap & trade, how high will carbon credits go under the management of Wall Street?
The purpose of a cap and trade system, as explained by President Barack Obama, is to cause the price of fossil fuels (such as coal) to skyrocket, and force consumers away from this more affordable source of generation. This would be achieved by requiring power plants that emit carbon above the “cap” level to purchase carbon credits on the market. Putting carbon credits up for auction puts electric consumers at the mercy of Wall Street. The cost passed on to the consumer will depend upon the level of competition to acquire these credits. - Will a carbon tax be imposed for carbon emissions?
An initial carbon tax has been proposed that would be collected by the Federal Government for all carbon emissions up to any cap adopted. The amount of that tax is purely speculative and the range of speculation is large. The Federal Budget was initially designed anticipating this tax revenue, and without it, proposed programs could be unfunded. There has been opposition to this tax as it is not connected to carbon reduction but rather budget financing. It is a cost factor that contributes to the speculation of just how much rates might increase with passage of global warming legislation. - What will be the cost to replace existing generation?
In Nebraska we are fortunate to have had the service of nuclear power in our generation mix, as well as the addition of supplemental power provided by wind. But with 68 percent of our state’s generation coming from coal, there will undoubtedly be large investments required to replace that generation with lower emitting or emission-free sources. - How fast will we try to achieve goals?
As mentioned previously, the first goal for CO2 reduction comes in 2020, just over one decade from today. During those years Waxman-Markey, as it currently reads, requires an increase in a combination of renewable energy and electricity savings. This increase begins at 6 percent renewable generation in 2012, and the requirement will gradually rise to 20-percent by 2020 ( SOURCE: see "Clean Energy Provisions"). By the way, nuclear power, which is a non-carbon-emitting source of power, is not considered to be renewable generation (such as wind, solar or biomass). Although NPPD currently produces 34% of its electricity from non-carbon emitting sources—much of that being nuclear--only one percent of its mix specifically comes from wind power. Increasing wind generation to six percent by 2012 will be a tremendous investment which, of course, is passed down to the consumer. Let’s not forget that some of the proposed solutions contained within the legislation—such as carbon capture and sequestration--have not even been developed for coal power plants. So, the goals set for the timeframe of CO2 reduction need to take the large investments into consideration, and the lack of technology currently available to capture CO2.
When you consider all these factors, it’s easy to see that the formula which determines your future increases is difficult to nail down. Much of what you have seen in the news and heard from legislators is based upon a combination of both fact and opinion. We feel the potential for significant increases in electric cost is very strong, and will depend upon the compromises reached as this bill continues its journey through Congress and later our Senate.
With Waxman-Markey navigating its way through various committees in Congress, this is a time for us all to work together, and issue a challenge to our Senators and Congressman to carefully weigh the implications of the above mentioned factors on the affordability of electricity. There are those who believe that we SHOULD pay dearly to bring about significant reductions in carbon emissions, and they are certainly doing their part to be heard. If you would like to see these issues addressed in the most affordable manner possible, then you too need to be heard.
Let’s keep the conversation going, join us in the Our Energy, Our Future campaign and let’s keep these concerns at the front of the minds of our elected officials. Look for a form in your most recent SPD Customer Newsletters to voice your concerns, visit Southern's OEOF website.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Editorial Submitted by Anthony Bohaty
The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a bill which seeks to implement a hefty tax on carbon emissions by way of a cap-and-trade program. This tax ultimately falls into the lap of electric consumers in the form of significant rate increases. This bill is moving swiftly through various committees in our nation’s Congress. The next goal established by leaders of the House is to push the 900-plus page bill through the House Ways and Means Committee by June 19th.
As the Irrigation Services Manager for Southern Power District, I am well aware of the rising production costs and how they affect our local farmers. Now, farmers who depend on the affordability of electricity to pump water through their irrigation systems face the possibility of electric rates that could triple. Many of our local farmers have dozens of irrigation services and such a significant increase would put many of them out of business. In addition, most of our farmers reside near their farming operations, and providing to them the electrical services that they need in their homes will be costly if a cap-and-trade, or “cap and tax” proposal becomes a reality.
With the urgency to pass this bill that we are seeing from the leaders of our Congress, those of us who are concerned about those skyrocketing rates also need to act with urgency. If you are concerned about keeping your electric rates affordable, then the time to speak with your Congressman and Senators in Washington is NOW! Please visit www.southernpd.com/oeof today and take just a few minutes to share your concerns with Congressman Adrian Smith, and Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns. If you do not have email access, look for the comment form that can be found in your SPD Irrigation or Customer Newsletters.
Sincerely,
Anthony Bohaty,
Southern Power District Irrigation Services Manager
As the Irrigation Services Manager for Southern Power District, I am well aware of the rising production costs and how they affect our local farmers. Now, farmers who depend on the affordability of electricity to pump water through their irrigation systems face the possibility of electric rates that could triple. Many of our local farmers have dozens of irrigation services and such a significant increase would put many of them out of business. In addition, most of our farmers reside near their farming operations, and providing to them the electrical services that they need in their homes will be costly if a cap-and-trade, or “cap and tax” proposal becomes a reality.
With the urgency to pass this bill that we are seeing from the leaders of our Congress, those of us who are concerned about those skyrocketing rates also need to act with urgency. If you are concerned about keeping your electric rates affordable, then the time to speak with your Congressman and Senators in Washington is NOW! Please visit www.southernpd.com/oeof today and take just a few minutes to share your concerns with Congressman Adrian Smith, and Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns. If you do not have email access, look for the comment form that can be found in your SPD Irrigation or Customer Newsletters.
Sincerely,
Anthony Bohaty,
Southern Power District Irrigation Services Manager
Friday, May 22, 2009
Our Energy Update
On Thursday, May 21st, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved climate change legislation that they plan to bring to the House floor in late June. This legislation--the American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009--seeks to impose a tax upon all electric consumers in the form of a cap-and-trade system.
Cap-and-trade has been the subject of much debate recently. Although it is a complex system to comprehend, the concept behind such a system is becoming more widely understood by electric consumers. At Southern, we are learning from our interaction with customers that concern for the impact of climate change legislation on affordable electricity is growing. In recent weeks we have received letters from customers who are concerned about how skyrocketing rates will impact their family budget, farm operations, small businesses and communities, and our overall local and national economy.
Additionally, I had an opportunity to listen in on a "public meeting" conducted by Congressman Adrian Smith which covered a wide range of issues. It was clear in listening to the concerns expressed by his constituents from across the state that affordable electric rates remain a top priority. During that same public meeting, Congressman Smith polled his listeners to determine if they support a cap-and-trade system. The results: 94 percent no, 6 percent yes.
We also recently learned in a letter received from Senator Johanns that the amendment he introduced on March 30th--which ensured that cap-and-trade legislation would not be slipped into law using budget reconciliation--was ignored by the authors of the budget resolution and dropped. Although this was discouraging news to hear, we continue to feel that the voices of constituents play a large part in the actions taken by our leaders. They are hearing our message, that we need electric rates to remain affordable. Its a simple message, but one that is strong when we all work together to make certain the message is heard!
This is a critical time for all electric consumers to get involved and speak up about that need for affordable electricity. We urge you to act now and engage in a conversation with our leaders in Washington, and you can do this through the Our Energy, Our Future campaign. Even if you don't consider yourself to be an "expert" on the complex issues surrounding energy, you probably do know whether or not you can afford to see your electric rates skyrocket, and what such increases will do to our local and national economy. Visit the Our Energy, Our Future website today and get to talking!
Cap-and-trade has been the subject of much debate recently. Although it is a complex system to comprehend, the concept behind such a system is becoming more widely understood by electric consumers. At Southern, we are learning from our interaction with customers that concern for the impact of climate change legislation on affordable electricity is growing. In recent weeks we have received letters from customers who are concerned about how skyrocketing rates will impact their family budget, farm operations, small businesses and communities, and our overall local and national economy.
Additionally, I had an opportunity to listen in on a "public meeting" conducted by Congressman Adrian Smith which covered a wide range of issues. It was clear in listening to the concerns expressed by his constituents from across the state that affordable electric rates remain a top priority. During that same public meeting, Congressman Smith polled his listeners to determine if they support a cap-and-trade system. The results: 94 percent no, 6 percent yes.
We also recently learned in a letter received from Senator Johanns that the amendment he introduced on March 30th--which ensured that cap-and-trade legislation would not be slipped into law using budget reconciliation--was ignored by the authors of the budget resolution and dropped. Although this was discouraging news to hear, we continue to feel that the voices of constituents play a large part in the actions taken by our leaders. They are hearing our message, that we need electric rates to remain affordable. Its a simple message, but one that is strong when we all work together to make certain the message is heard!
This is a critical time for all electric consumers to get involved and speak up about that need for affordable electricity. We urge you to act now and engage in a conversation with our leaders in Washington, and you can do this through the Our Energy, Our Future campaign. Even if you don't consider yourself to be an "expert" on the complex issues surrounding energy, you probably do know whether or not you can afford to see your electric rates skyrocket, and what such increases will do to our local and national economy. Visit the Our Energy, Our Future website today and get to talking!
Monday, May 18, 2009
Editorial Submitted by Directors Rick Bergman and Lee Grove
As members of Southern Power District’s Board of Directors, we would like to make our customers, as well as all electric consumers aware of an issue that will determine how much you pay for electricity in the future. As we are writing this letter, the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is working to push “cap and trade” legislation through Congress, with a goal to do so prior to Memorial Day.
We have been watchful of this legislation in recent months. We understand that there are many opinions about a “cap and trade” program among our customers. But through this campaign we are discovering that people with a wide range of opinions are in agreement that electric rates must remain affordable. A “cap and trade” plan is one that would drive up the cost of electricity significantly by forcing coal generating plants to purchase carbon credits in exchange for emitting carbon. Here in Nebraska, this should be of particular concern, as coal comprises 65% of all generation. And beyond your electric rates, you may also see an increase in your cost for natural gas. It is anticipated that a shift may occur in generation from coal to natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide. This shift will drive up the price you pay for natural gas, not to mention the cost that farmers must pay for fertilizer.
With the drive to pass the bill through the Energy & Commerce Committee later this month, now is a critical time to ask some very important questions. There has never been a more appropriate time to get in touch with your Congressman and Senators in Washington. They need to know that you are concerned about the affect that this legislation will have on your electric rates. We urge you to visit www.southernpd.com/oeof and take just a few minutes to share your concerns with Congressman Adrian Smith, and Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns. If you do not have email access, feel free to send your thoughts to Southern Power District and they will gladly assist you with sharing your message!
Sincerely,
Rick Bergman, Holdrege
Lee Grove, Axtell
We have been watchful of this legislation in recent months. We understand that there are many opinions about a “cap and trade” program among our customers. But through this campaign we are discovering that people with a wide range of opinions are in agreement that electric rates must remain affordable. A “cap and trade” plan is one that would drive up the cost of electricity significantly by forcing coal generating plants to purchase carbon credits in exchange for emitting carbon. Here in Nebraska, this should be of particular concern, as coal comprises 65% of all generation. And beyond your electric rates, you may also see an increase in your cost for natural gas. It is anticipated that a shift may occur in generation from coal to natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide. This shift will drive up the price you pay for natural gas, not to mention the cost that farmers must pay for fertilizer.
With the drive to pass the bill through the Energy & Commerce Committee later this month, now is a critical time to ask some very important questions. There has never been a more appropriate time to get in touch with your Congressman and Senators in Washington. They need to know that you are concerned about the affect that this legislation will have on your electric rates. We urge you to visit www.southernpd.com/oeof and take just a few minutes to share your concerns with Congressman Adrian Smith, and Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns. If you do not have email access, feel free to send your thoughts to Southern Power District and they will gladly assist you with sharing your message!
Sincerely,
Rick Bergman, Holdrege
Lee Grove, Axtell
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
During the past month we have seen a tremendous show of concern from SPD customers in the form of letters to our Congressman and Senators in the Our Energy, Our Future campaign. From this campaign’s beginning, the purpose has been to to inform you--our customer--about how your electric service and rates will be impacted by climate change legislation. As a public power district, it is our job to inform you about issues that will affect service and cost.
As we have received handwritten comment forms from you in recent weeks, we feel an even greater sense of that duty after hearing more about your concerns with rising cost. The stories you’ve shared to be passed on to our leaders in Washington have been varied, but they all have a common theme. You all have different needs--balancing a family budget, sustaining your life after retirement, or producing a crop in the midst of rising costs. One common need seems to tie all of these unique stories together, and that is a need for electricity that you can afford.
We are continuing to keep a close eye on debate in Congress regarding a cap and trade program. Cap and trade--depending upon how it is structured--can cause your electric rates to triple by establishing an auction for power plants to purchase emission allowances on a trading market controlled by Wall Street. This auction has been estimated by White House officials to generate revenue possibly exceeding $1 trillion, which is ultimately paid for by you--the electric consumer--in higher bills.
As this issue has developed, it seems that our message is being heard. Across the nation, congressmen and senators are hearing the message that affordable electricity for homes and businesses cannot be compromised. The message is one that is very simple...regardless of your opinion about climate change, we can all agree that affordable electricity is a necessity in our daily lives at home, work, and elsewhere. To keep your rates affordable, we need your continued help. If you have not yet sent a message to Congress, you may do so at www.southernpd.com/oeof. If you have already sent a message, consider keeping the dialogue flowing and send additional messages. Handwritten messages are also being accepted at Southern Power District for those who do not have computer access. These notes can be submitted to the attention of LeAnne Doose, Communications Director at PO Box 1687, Grand Island, NE 68802-1687. Please include your first/last name, and address.
As we have received handwritten comment forms from you in recent weeks, we feel an even greater sense of that duty after hearing more about your concerns with rising cost. The stories you’ve shared to be passed on to our leaders in Washington have been varied, but they all have a common theme. You all have different needs--balancing a family budget, sustaining your life after retirement, or producing a crop in the midst of rising costs. One common need seems to tie all of these unique stories together, and that is a need for electricity that you can afford.
We are continuing to keep a close eye on debate in Congress regarding a cap and trade program. Cap and trade--depending upon how it is structured--can cause your electric rates to triple by establishing an auction for power plants to purchase emission allowances on a trading market controlled by Wall Street. This auction has been estimated by White House officials to generate revenue possibly exceeding $1 trillion, which is ultimately paid for by you--the electric consumer--in higher bills.
As this issue has developed, it seems that our message is being heard. Across the nation, congressmen and senators are hearing the message that affordable electricity for homes and businesses cannot be compromised. The message is one that is very simple...regardless of your opinion about climate change, we can all agree that affordable electricity is a necessity in our daily lives at home, work, and elsewhere. To keep your rates affordable, we need your continued help. If you have not yet sent a message to Congress, you may do so at www.southernpd.com/oeof. If you have already sent a message, consider keeping the dialogue flowing and send additional messages. Handwritten messages are also being accepted at Southern Power District for those who do not have computer access. These notes can be submitted to the attention of LeAnne Doose, Communications Director at PO Box 1687, Grand Island, NE 68802-1687. Please include your first/last name, and address.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Cap & Trade, Simply Put...
We are continuing our effort to voice concern about the potential for global warming legislation to dramatically increase electric bills.
As we have moved forward with the Our Energy, Our Future campaign, we have received many questions about one of the terms used--called “Cap and Trade”. We would like to provide you with a summary of Cap and Trade without the “smoke and mirrors” or political rhetoric.
Cap and Trade is a plan whereby carbon dioxide emissions from electric generating plants would be taxed. Carbon dioxide--CO2--is created from burning any type of fuel. Coal accounts for the largest percentage of fuel used to generate electricity. Those who feel that global warming is occurring due to man-made causes feel that CO2 is the culprit, and that action needs to be taken to curb emissions.
THE CAP:
With the Cap & Trade concept, the idea is to tax those who create CO2 up to an arbitrary level--or a “cap”. For instance, that level might be set at reducing emissions to the same level as 1995. The funds generated from such a tax by the federal government would not necessarily be used to develop alternate energy resources, but a large percentage of them would be used to support other government programs. It has been estimated that this “cap tax” could generate as much as $640 billion. Those funds are ultimately taken from you--the electric consumer--who will be paying higher electric bills, possibly triple what you are paying today!
THE TRADE:
Once the cap for emissions has been set, a “trade” system would be established. Power plants whose CO2 emissions exceed the “cap” will have some difficult choices to make. They will be required to comply with the “cap”, and to do so they may opt to shut down some of their existing generation resources. Instead, they may purchase energy on the market from a non-CO2 emitting resource such as nuclear, wind or solar. Those forms of generation will be more expensive than current generation and will further increase the customer’s electric bill.
Another choice would be to go to “market” to purchase carbon credits from other power plants, which have earned credits for achieving carbon emission levels that fall beneath the cap. These credits would be traded on Wall Street. A utility that exceeds the cap can purchase credits in order to continue operating their existing plants.
These credits will be traded at a price that the “market will bear” and that cost will also be passed on to the consumer as an additional increase in their electric bill.
Under Cap and Trade, utilities will look for the least expensive method to produce electricity within these rules. A likely side effect would be a movement away from coal generation into natural gas. While both fuels create CO2 emissions, natural gas produces less and would help utilities to meet the cap. However, it is likely that a Cap and Trade program would not only increase your electric bill, but your natural gas bill as well. Natural gas prices have a history of being driven by demand.
The shift in fuels for electric generation will likely raise the natural gas market, affecting what you pay for your household gas usage, the price of fertilizer for farmers, and industries.
Cap and trade is a concept designed to force our economy away from CO2 emissions by increasing the cost of those emissions to a point where we can no longer afford them. Some believe that increased electric rates are good, because energy has been too cheap. They feel we have been wasteful and high prices will encourage conservation. Some even feel we live a more extravagant lifestyle than we need to, and should reduce the size of our homes and vehicles. Cap and Trade is about the environment, but is in direct contradiction with the health of our economy.
Regardless of how you feel about global warming issues, or Cap and Trade, chances are you are concerned about how you will pay your utility bill if your rates skyrocket. Now is the time for us to engage in a conversation with our Congressman, Adrian Smith; and Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns. We’ve made that communication simple for you. If you have access to the internet, simply log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof and you can begin the dialogue with a personalized email or letter. If you know someone who does not have access to the internet but would like to become involved, we encourage you pass on this form, which can be returned to Southern Power District, and we will forward your message on to Washington DC.
As we have moved forward with the Our Energy, Our Future campaign, we have received many questions about one of the terms used--called “Cap and Trade”. We would like to provide you with a summary of Cap and Trade without the “smoke and mirrors” or political rhetoric.
Cap and Trade is a plan whereby carbon dioxide emissions from electric generating plants would be taxed. Carbon dioxide--CO2--is created from burning any type of fuel. Coal accounts for the largest percentage of fuel used to generate electricity. Those who feel that global warming is occurring due to man-made causes feel that CO2 is the culprit, and that action needs to be taken to curb emissions.
THE CAP:
With the Cap & Trade concept, the idea is to tax those who create CO2 up to an arbitrary level--or a “cap”. For instance, that level might be set at reducing emissions to the same level as 1995. The funds generated from such a tax by the federal government would not necessarily be used to develop alternate energy resources, but a large percentage of them would be used to support other government programs. It has been estimated that this “cap tax” could generate as much as $640 billion. Those funds are ultimately taken from you--the electric consumer--who will be paying higher electric bills, possibly triple what you are paying today!
THE TRADE:
Once the cap for emissions has been set, a “trade” system would be established. Power plants whose CO2 emissions exceed the “cap” will have some difficult choices to make. They will be required to comply with the “cap”, and to do so they may opt to shut down some of their existing generation resources. Instead, they may purchase energy on the market from a non-CO2 emitting resource such as nuclear, wind or solar. Those forms of generation will be more expensive than current generation and will further increase the customer’s electric bill.
Another choice would be to go to “market” to purchase carbon credits from other power plants, which have earned credits for achieving carbon emission levels that fall beneath the cap. These credits would be traded on Wall Street. A utility that exceeds the cap can purchase credits in order to continue operating their existing plants.
These credits will be traded at a price that the “market will bear” and that cost will also be passed on to the consumer as an additional increase in their electric bill.
Under Cap and Trade, utilities will look for the least expensive method to produce electricity within these rules. A likely side effect would be a movement away from coal generation into natural gas. While both fuels create CO2 emissions, natural gas produces less and would help utilities to meet the cap. However, it is likely that a Cap and Trade program would not only increase your electric bill, but your natural gas bill as well. Natural gas prices have a history of being driven by demand.
The shift in fuels for electric generation will likely raise the natural gas market, affecting what you pay for your household gas usage, the price of fertilizer for farmers, and industries.
Cap and trade is a concept designed to force our economy away from CO2 emissions by increasing the cost of those emissions to a point where we can no longer afford them. Some believe that increased electric rates are good, because energy has been too cheap. They feel we have been wasteful and high prices will encourage conservation. Some even feel we live a more extravagant lifestyle than we need to, and should reduce the size of our homes and vehicles. Cap and Trade is about the environment, but is in direct contradiction with the health of our economy.
Regardless of how you feel about global warming issues, or Cap and Trade, chances are you are concerned about how you will pay your utility bill if your rates skyrocket. Now is the time for us to engage in a conversation with our Congressman, Adrian Smith; and Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns. We’ve made that communication simple for you. If you have access to the internet, simply log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof and you can begin the dialogue with a personalized email or letter. If you know someone who does not have access to the internet but would like to become involved, we encourage you pass on this form, which can be returned to Southern Power District, and we will forward your message on to Washington DC.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Why is SPD Engaged in OEOF?
Southern Power District has been engaged in a campaign this year called Our Energy, Our Future. There is a very simple concept that urged the District to boost their involvement in the campaign. That concept is that events being discussed in Washington DC will dramatically increase the affordability of your electric service. Southern Power District--its board of directors and staff--feels an obligation to make customers aware of those events. We feel it is our job to inform you--our customers--so you can make judgements and take the action you feel is appropriate.
We have seen predictions that your electric rates could triple in the next 10 years if global warming legislation is passed. In some instances, we have been accused of engaging in “scare tactics” with this campaign. We, on the other hand, feel you need to know the facts so you can determine for yourself if you should be “scared”. We know that concerned citizens ultimately have the power to make a big difference. On the federal level, Southern does virtually no lobbying on your behalf. Our national association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, is working hard to make sure your voice is heard. Southern wants nothing more than to engage you in these discussions and to provide you with an easy route to let your Senators and Congressman know of your feelings.
It is important to Southern’s Board that you know we are not engaging in a pro or con debate on global warming. However we do feel that when this issue is being addressed, it is important to keep our electric rates affordable. We are not against renewable generation, but feel that electric service must be affordable, and there when you need it. Providing high quality and reliable electric service at an affordable price is the short version of the mission statement of almost every electric utility in the United States. We feel that as legislation is considered in regard to global warming that this mission deserves some consideration as well.
We hope you will consider joining us in this nationwide grassroots effort, and let those in Washington DC know how you feel. There are tools available on Southern’s website, at www.southernpd.com/oeof that make it very easy for you to communicate to Nebraska’s delegation in Washington. What if anything you say is up to you, but the tools also provide some clear and to-the-point messages that you can choose to put your name on.
These are critical times in the electric industry and what happens in the weeks to come can dramatically shape your electric energy future. Do not make the mistake of being passive; thinking someone else is looking out for your best electric supply interests. Remember this is your energy we are discussing, and it is your future that may be impacted.
We have seen predictions that your electric rates could triple in the next 10 years if global warming legislation is passed. In some instances, we have been accused of engaging in “scare tactics” with this campaign. We, on the other hand, feel you need to know the facts so you can determine for yourself if you should be “scared”. We know that concerned citizens ultimately have the power to make a big difference. On the federal level, Southern does virtually no lobbying on your behalf. Our national association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, is working hard to make sure your voice is heard. Southern wants nothing more than to engage you in these discussions and to provide you with an easy route to let your Senators and Congressman know of your feelings.
It is important to Southern’s Board that you know we are not engaging in a pro or con debate on global warming. However we do feel that when this issue is being addressed, it is important to keep our electric rates affordable. We are not against renewable generation, but feel that electric service must be affordable, and there when you need it. Providing high quality and reliable electric service at an affordable price is the short version of the mission statement of almost every electric utility in the United States. We feel that as legislation is considered in regard to global warming that this mission deserves some consideration as well.
We hope you will consider joining us in this nationwide grassroots effort, and let those in Washington DC know how you feel. There are tools available on Southern’s website, at www.southernpd.com/oeof that make it very easy for you to communicate to Nebraska’s delegation in Washington. What if anything you say is up to you, but the tools also provide some clear and to-the-point messages that you can choose to put your name on.
These are critical times in the electric industry and what happens in the weeks to come can dramatically shape your electric energy future. Do not make the mistake of being passive; thinking someone else is looking out for your best electric supply interests. Remember this is your energy we are discussing, and it is your future that may be impacted.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Editorial, submitted by Director Marvin Fishler
I am a member of Southern Public Power District’s board of Directors, having served in this capacity for 11 years. I take a strong interest in the political activities on the state and national level. Today I find myself very concerned about how potential national policies will affect the cost of your electricity.
One of the policies currently under discussion nationally is a carbon cap-and-trade program, which would place a “cap” on the emissions of carbon dioxide. The emission of carbon dioxide from electric power generating plants is a key part of legislation dealing with global warming. Those who use fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas—such as power generating plants—would be mandated to acquire allowances for emitting carbon dioxide through a trade program down to a federally set cap. Initially, all carbon dioxide emissions would be taxed up to this cap level. Such a program would significantly raise the price of electric generation from coal, natural gas and oil. The result unfortunately is a hidden tax that would significantly increase the rates that you must pay for electricity—potentially tripling rates for some customers across the United States. Take a look at your next bill from Southern to see what that would mean!
To further examine the issue, and specifically how it would affect Nebraskans, consider that 65 percent of our state’s generation is currently produced from coal. This means that the cost to produce well over half of our generation would take a direct hit from a cap-and-trade bill. Add to that the increases expected in natural gas—which produces an additional 2.4 percent of our electric generation and the resulting increases to your electric bill will be significant.
The Institute for Energy Research has also acknowledged that a cap-and-trade program is designed to unfairly target rural economies. Their studies show that either a carbon tax or cap and trade program would transfer wealth from rural areas—where people drive more and use more energy—to more densely populated urban areas.
Although clean air is an important issue, the potential harm of a cap-and-trade program or any kind of carbon tax is a concern to me. I want all electric consumers to ask themselves some important questions: Is NOW the time to enact climate change legislation? Can we afford to pay for the resulting increases to our electric bills? Do we want Wall Street to trade these carbon credits?
We need to speak out to our elected representatives in Washington about this issue. I urge you to join me in participating in the Our Energy, Our Future campaign. We need the voices of Nebraskans to join with over 1 million voices from across the nation to speak out. Our message must be that while addressing global warming issues, “we must keep our electric rates affordable”. I urge you to log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof and express your concerns to Congressman Adrian Smith or Jeff Fortenberry, and Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns.
Marvin Fishler, Central City
One of the policies currently under discussion nationally is a carbon cap-and-trade program, which would place a “cap” on the emissions of carbon dioxide. The emission of carbon dioxide from electric power generating plants is a key part of legislation dealing with global warming. Those who use fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas—such as power generating plants—would be mandated to acquire allowances for emitting carbon dioxide through a trade program down to a federally set cap. Initially, all carbon dioxide emissions would be taxed up to this cap level. Such a program would significantly raise the price of electric generation from coal, natural gas and oil. The result unfortunately is a hidden tax that would significantly increase the rates that you must pay for electricity—potentially tripling rates for some customers across the United States. Take a look at your next bill from Southern to see what that would mean!
To further examine the issue, and specifically how it would affect Nebraskans, consider that 65 percent of our state’s generation is currently produced from coal. This means that the cost to produce well over half of our generation would take a direct hit from a cap-and-trade bill. Add to that the increases expected in natural gas—which produces an additional 2.4 percent of our electric generation and the resulting increases to your electric bill will be significant.
The Institute for Energy Research has also acknowledged that a cap-and-trade program is designed to unfairly target rural economies. Their studies show that either a carbon tax or cap and trade program would transfer wealth from rural areas—where people drive more and use more energy—to more densely populated urban areas.
Although clean air is an important issue, the potential harm of a cap-and-trade program or any kind of carbon tax is a concern to me. I want all electric consumers to ask themselves some important questions: Is NOW the time to enact climate change legislation? Can we afford to pay for the resulting increases to our electric bills? Do we want Wall Street to trade these carbon credits?
We need to speak out to our elected representatives in Washington about this issue. I urge you to join me in participating in the Our Energy, Our Future campaign. We need the voices of Nebraskans to join with over 1 million voices from across the nation to speak out. Our message must be that while addressing global warming issues, “we must keep our electric rates affordable”. I urge you to log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof and express your concerns to Congressman Adrian Smith or Jeff Fortenberry, and Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns.
Marvin Fishler, Central City
Friday, April 3, 2009
Editorial, submitted by Directors Larry Benson and Richard Schaffert, and Board Chairman Dean Klute
Serving as members of Southern Power District's Board of Directors for a combined 63 years, we have seen a number of challenges faced by the utility industry during our time of service. With all of the attention on global warming issues, Southern Power District and its customers are now facing one of the greatest challenges we have ever seen.
As a public power district, Southern has been part of a unique system that offers our customers utility rates that are among the lowest in the nation. Service as members of Southern's Board, we are accountable to Southern's customers, and know that our customers depend on affordable rates for their homes, businesses and farm operations.
The affordability of our electric rates is now in jeopardy. Global warming issues are now being discussed by our elected leaders in Washington, and unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any consideration about the impact that global warming legislation will have on our electric rates. Affordability is a factor that cannot be ignored in these discussions.
We urge you to join the Our Energy, Our Future campaign. We need your help to communicate to our leaders in Washington that affordability of our electric rates is important. By logging on to www.southernpd.com/oeof, you can communicate with U.S. Congressman Adrian Smith and Jeff Fortenberry, as well as Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns.
As a public power district, Southern has been part of a unique system that offers our customers utility rates that are among the lowest in the nation. Service as members of Southern's Board, we are accountable to Southern's customers, and know that our customers depend on affordable rates for their homes, businesses and farm operations.
The affordability of our electric rates is now in jeopardy. Global warming issues are now being discussed by our elected leaders in Washington, and unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any consideration about the impact that global warming legislation will have on our electric rates. Affordability is a factor that cannot be ignored in these discussions.
We urge you to join the Our Energy, Our Future campaign. We need your help to communicate to our leaders in Washington that affordability of our electric rates is important. By logging on to www.southernpd.com/oeof, you can communicate with U.S. Congressman Adrian Smith and Jeff Fortenberry, as well as Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns.
Senate Passes Bill Ensuring Debate of Cap & Trade
The amendment introduced by Senator Mike Johanns to ensure complex and far-reaching cap-and-trade legislation is not slipped into law using budget reconciliation was passed in the Senate on Wednesday, April 1st with over two-thirds of the vote. The amendment ensures a full, open, and robust debate on the details of extremely complex climate legislation. Using reconciliation would have limited debate on climate change legislation and rushed through final passage of the bill, possibly in less than one day.
We are encouraged to see that Senator Johanns has recognized the impact that a cap-and-trade bill will have on electric consumers. We are expecting a debate regarding the issue to occur very soon, so we need to speak up now. Let Senator Johanns, Senator Ben Nelson, and Congressman Adrian Smith know that you are concerned about the impact climate change legislation will have on your electric bill. We need to work together with our leaders to find solutions that we can afford! Log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof, and send your email or letter TODAY!
We are encouraged to see that Senator Johanns has recognized the impact that a cap-and-trade bill will have on electric consumers. We are expecting a debate regarding the issue to occur very soon, so we need to speak up now. Let Senator Johanns, Senator Ben Nelson, and Congressman Adrian Smith know that you are concerned about the impact climate change legislation will have on your electric bill. We need to work together with our leaders to find solutions that we can afford! Log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof, and send your email or letter TODAY!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Johanns Says Complex Climate Legislation Must Have Full Public Debate
Senator Mike Johanns today introduced an amendment to the budget to ensure complex and far-reaching cap-and-trade legislation would not be slipped into law using budget reconciliation.
Reconciliation is a legislative tactic that would prevent an open debate and full disclosure of the details of potential cap-and-trade legislation.
"This legislation could have profound consequences for every family across the country, and we must vote on this legislation with a full understanding all of the details. This cannot be done if budget reconciliation is used," said Johanns. "The House has now included these instructions in their budget, and if accepted by Congress, it would limit debate, transparency and thoughtful consideration of this sweeping legislation in the Senate. The public deserves to know the full price they will pay for flipping on a light switch if this legislation passes and the attempt to gloss over such details using procedural tactics is alarming."
Fast Facts about Budget Reconciliation:
Reconciliation is a legislative tactic that would prevent an open debate and full disclosure of the details of potential cap-and-trade legislation.
"This legislation could have profound consequences for every family across the country, and we must vote on this legislation with a full understanding all of the details. This cannot be done if budget reconciliation is used," said Johanns. "The House has now included these instructions in their budget, and if accepted by Congress, it would limit debate, transparency and thoughtful consideration of this sweeping legislation in the Senate. The public deserves to know the full price they will pay for flipping on a light switch if this legislation passes and the attempt to gloss over such details using procedural tactics is alarming."
Fast Facts about Budget Reconciliation:
- The House budget includes a placeholder, budget reconciliation, that would slip in a cap-and-trade proposal that has yet to be defined, debated or detailed.
- It is a legislative maneuver to bypass normal Senate procedures.
- It limits debate to 20 hours when most legislation has unlimited debate.
- It lowers the normal vote requirement from 60 votes to a simple majority in the Senate.
- It imposes guidelines on what amendments can be offered, which is not the case for most legislation.
- Increased energy costs, construction costs, fertilizer prices, and also higher gas and diesel prices.
- The cost of corn production would go up by $40-80 an acre. ($3-7 billion for Nebraska Farmers)
- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the Environmental Protection Agency will have to spend $1.7 billion to hire 400 additional staff just to set up the program and write the rules.
- A $3,000 per year energy tax on every American family.
Based on previous climate proposals, the likely effects of a cap-and-trade proposal are:
We applaud Senator Johanns for recognizing the impact that a cap and trade proposal would have on "everyone who uses a light switch". Read Johann's entire article by selecting this link.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The following is an excerpt taken from Senator Mike Johann's weekly column:
While I am eager to get back to the office, I have stayed busy working on a number of issues important to Nebraska. Last week, I wrote a letter to the Senate Budget Committee regarding a very concerning development on global warming legislation, known as "cap-and-trade," that could significantly affect businesses, farms, and families across the state. The legislation would end up costing up to $3,000 per family in the form of an energy tax. There is talk that it could get passed by means of the budget reconciliatory process instead of traditional Senate procedures. This would prevent most members of Congress, including myself, from fully debating it.
It is critical that this legislation be given thorough consideration so that all members of Congress and the American people fully understand its far-reaching implications. My letter received signatures of support from 32 other Senators, including 8 Democrats. This strong statement from one-third of the Senate reinforces the importance that this process is dictated by fair and robust debate, not parliamentary gimmicks. The American people expect and deserve this transparent and comprehensive debate.
We are very encouraged by Senator Johann's concern about this issue, and his desire to have the opportunity to engage in a debate on the issue.
As a constituent of Senator Johanns, as well as Senator Ben Nelson, and Congressman Adrian Smith, you have the opportunity to express your concerns on issues pertaining to your electric rates. You've heard from Senator Johanns that the cap and trade program will affect families and farmers in Nebraska, and result in an energy tax. If this is a concern to you, speak up! Log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof and start a conversation with our Washington representatives.
While I am eager to get back to the office, I have stayed busy working on a number of issues important to Nebraska. Last week, I wrote a letter to the Senate Budget Committee regarding a very concerning development on global warming legislation, known as "cap-and-trade," that could significantly affect businesses, farms, and families across the state. The legislation would end up costing up to $3,000 per family in the form of an energy tax. There is talk that it could get passed by means of the budget reconciliatory process instead of traditional Senate procedures. This would prevent most members of Congress, including myself, from fully debating it.
It is critical that this legislation be given thorough consideration so that all members of Congress and the American people fully understand its far-reaching implications. My letter received signatures of support from 32 other Senators, including 8 Democrats. This strong statement from one-third of the Senate reinforces the importance that this process is dictated by fair and robust debate, not parliamentary gimmicks. The American people expect and deserve this transparent and comprehensive debate.
We are very encouraged by Senator Johann's concern about this issue, and his desire to have the opportunity to engage in a debate on the issue.
As a constituent of Senator Johanns, as well as Senator Ben Nelson, and Congressman Adrian Smith, you have the opportunity to express your concerns on issues pertaining to your electric rates. You've heard from Senator Johanns that the cap and trade program will affect families and farmers in Nebraska, and result in an energy tax. If this is a concern to you, speak up! Log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof and start a conversation with our Washington representatives.
Editorial, submitted by Dan Emery, Chief Steward, Local IBEW 1597
Dear Editor:
Public power districts in Nebraska and rural cooperatives across the nation are backing an awareness campaign called Our Energy, Our Future. This campaign is designed to educate end use customers on the effects of current policies being considered nationally related to global warming. We in public power, unlike private companies, feel a sense of responsibility to let our customers know about issues that could dramatically impact them.
There are two major issues to consider. First, in the past two years there has been a complete shut down of construction of power plants fired with coal. In 2007, 35 planned coal fired plants were canceled and another seven in 2008. That is a significant amount of generation that will not be there to meet the needs of a hopefully recovering and growing economy. Some areas of the country are predicted to have shortages as soon as next year. Those of us who work in this industry have always prided ourselves in the ability to provide for all of your electric needs, and provided you service when you need it. It is important to know that while renewable generation is a part of our future, it cannot replace the traditional generation that has provided you with highly reliable electric service in the past.
The second issue to inform you about is the cost of your electric service. We strive everyday to do our work efficiently and keep your electric rates low. I do not intend my comments to spark a debate about the issue of global warming. However, we do need to let our members of Congress know that while they are considering legislation dealing with global warming, that they need to keep our electric rates affordable. There have been predictions that your electric rates could increase 150% to 300% in the next 10 years if some of the concepts being considered are enacted. In the 1930’s the rural electric program brought lights to rural America. With these increases, we fear they will go out because some will not be able to afford basic electric service.
Now is the time to act. Consider contacting Congressman Adrian Smith or Jeff Fortenberry. At the same time, contact Senators Ben Nelson or Mike Johanns. Tell them that while considering legislation related to climate change please make sure they keep your electric bill affordable. You can easily send emails to all of them by going to www.southernpd.com/oeof. It is your energy and the result will be your energy future.
Public power districts in Nebraska and rural cooperatives across the nation are backing an awareness campaign called Our Energy, Our Future. This campaign is designed to educate end use customers on the effects of current policies being considered nationally related to global warming. We in public power, unlike private companies, feel a sense of responsibility to let our customers know about issues that could dramatically impact them.
There are two major issues to consider. First, in the past two years there has been a complete shut down of construction of power plants fired with coal. In 2007, 35 planned coal fired plants were canceled and another seven in 2008. That is a significant amount of generation that will not be there to meet the needs of a hopefully recovering and growing economy. Some areas of the country are predicted to have shortages as soon as next year. Those of us who work in this industry have always prided ourselves in the ability to provide for all of your electric needs, and provided you service when you need it. It is important to know that while renewable generation is a part of our future, it cannot replace the traditional generation that has provided you with highly reliable electric service in the past.
The second issue to inform you about is the cost of your electric service. We strive everyday to do our work efficiently and keep your electric rates low. I do not intend my comments to spark a debate about the issue of global warming. However, we do need to let our members of Congress know that while they are considering legislation dealing with global warming, that they need to keep our electric rates affordable. There have been predictions that your electric rates could increase 150% to 300% in the next 10 years if some of the concepts being considered are enacted. In the 1930’s the rural electric program brought lights to rural America. With these increases, we fear they will go out because some will not be able to afford basic electric service.
Now is the time to act. Consider contacting Congressman Adrian Smith or Jeff Fortenberry. At the same time, contact Senators Ben Nelson or Mike Johanns. Tell them that while considering legislation related to climate change please make sure they keep your electric bill affordable. You can easily send emails to all of them by going to www.southernpd.com/oeof. It is your energy and the result will be your energy future.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Editorial, submitted by LeAnne Doose,
Communications Director, Southern Power District
Currently, our nation's leaders are working to craft an energy policy, and the direction of future legislation is pointing toward addressing concerns about global warming. There has certainly been much debate about this issue, but now it seems that the debate is over. Discussions in the political world no longer focus upon the validity of global warming, but instead are in search of soluitons. Unfortuantely, the solutions for this issue are ones that will be costly for electric consumers. There are projections that global warming solutions could drive up electric rates across the nation significantly, tripling them within the next 10 years.
We all have our own opinions about global warming. But no matter how you feel about global warming, chances are most of us feel the same about our utility bill--we want, and need it to be as low as possible. At this time, we cannot say for certain how our rates here in Nebraska will be affectd by global warming legislation. We are currently ranking at the 5th lowest rates in the nation and are fortunate to hav surplus generation for several years. This puts Nebraska in a good psition, but we cannot let our current status allow us to become complacent about the effects that global warming legislation will have on our daily budgets and our daily lives. We need our local, state and national leaders to know that we need affordable electricity to remain a prioirty.
Southern Power District has joined a nationwide campaign called Our Energy, Our Future, which strives to bring the voice of electric consumers to our elected officials in Washington DC. Through this campaign, we hope to drive home the message that as global warming legislation is debated, affordable electric rates are a factor that cannot be ignored.
The Our Energy, Our Future campaign is currently lunderway across the entir enation. Southern Power District feels a strong sense of duty to make our customers aware of these issues and provide our customers with the ability to voice concerns to our elected representatives. I urge you to join us in the effort and take action now. By joining the effort, you will have the ability to voice your concerns to our U.S. Congressmen and Senators via email or letter.
We cannot afford to wait until this legislation directly affects our utility bills; we must act now as the legislation is being debated. Log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof and be heard.
Communications Director, Southern Power District
Currently, our nation's leaders are working to craft an energy policy, and the direction of future legislation is pointing toward addressing concerns about global warming. There has certainly been much debate about this issue, but now it seems that the debate is over. Discussions in the political world no longer focus upon the validity of global warming, but instead are in search of soluitons. Unfortuantely, the solutions for this issue are ones that will be costly for electric consumers. There are projections that global warming solutions could drive up electric rates across the nation significantly, tripling them within the next 10 years.
We all have our own opinions about global warming. But no matter how you feel about global warming, chances are most of us feel the same about our utility bill--we want, and need it to be as low as possible. At this time, we cannot say for certain how our rates here in Nebraska will be affectd by global warming legislation. We are currently ranking at the 5th lowest rates in the nation and are fortunate to hav surplus generation for several years. This puts Nebraska in a good psition, but we cannot let our current status allow us to become complacent about the effects that global warming legislation will have on our daily budgets and our daily lives. We need our local, state and national leaders to know that we need affordable electricity to remain a prioirty.
Southern Power District has joined a nationwide campaign called Our Energy, Our Future, which strives to bring the voice of electric consumers to our elected officials in Washington DC. Through this campaign, we hope to drive home the message that as global warming legislation is debated, affordable electric rates are a factor that cannot be ignored.
The Our Energy, Our Future campaign is currently lunderway across the entir enation. Southern Power District feels a strong sense of duty to make our customers aware of these issues and provide our customers with the ability to voice concerns to our elected representatives. I urge you to join us in the effort and take action now. By joining the effort, you will have the ability to voice your concerns to our U.S. Congressmen and Senators via email or letter.
We cannot afford to wait until this legislation directly affects our utility bills; we must act now as the legislation is being debated. Log on to www.southernpd.com/oeof and be heard.
Our Energy, Our Future
Southern Power District recently ramped up its participation in a national grassroots campaign called Our Energy, Our Future. This is a campaign that urges electric consumers to call upon their Congressmen and Senators in Washington, asking for affordable electricity to remain a priority in discussions about climate change.
You can read for yourself what the concerns are, just log on to Southern's Our Energy, Our Future webpage. We urge you to make contact with our Congressmen and Senators about keeping rates affordable. We need to act now, and not wait until we see the results of climate change legislation affect our daily budgets.
To send email or letter communication, select the "Take Action" button, and you will be directed on how to begin the process.
You can read for yourself what the concerns are, just log on to Southern's Our Energy, Our Future webpage. We urge you to make contact with our Congressmen and Senators about keeping rates affordable. We need to act now, and not wait until we see the results of climate change legislation affect our daily budgets.
To send email or letter communication, select the "Take Action" button, and you will be directed on how to begin the process.
Scholarship Deadline Approaching Fast
Time is running out to apply for a lineman program scholarship for 2009, the deadline for applications is April 1, 2009.
This scholarship is available to high school seniors or recent high school graduats who are planning to attend an accredited school to attend a utility line program. The scholarship amounts to $1,000, with the first half awarded upon completion of the first year, and the second half awarded upon graduation.
The program requires that the scholarship recipient serve a 12-week summer internship at the district in cooperation with the school attended.
Log on to our website today for all of the details, or call Darrell Peters at 308-384-2350. Time is running out for 2009, so apply today!
This scholarship is available to high school seniors or recent high school graduats who are planning to attend an accredited school to attend a utility line program. The scholarship amounts to $1,000, with the first half awarded upon completion of the first year, and the second half awarded upon graduation.
The program requires that the scholarship recipient serve a 12-week summer internship at the district in cooperation with the school attended.
Log on to our website today for all of the details, or call Darrell Peters at 308-384-2350. Time is running out for 2009, so apply today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
