Pulling a FAST One...

I sit around and wonder how things get passed inside our Senate or House of Congress - things that lack common sense -- things that don't seem right, things I do not support. Now I know...please read the FAST FACTS below.

Fast Facts:
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.

Budget
reconciliation is a legislative maneuver to bypass normal Senate procedures.
1. It limits debate to 20 hours when most legislation has unlimited debate.
2. It lowers the normal vote requirement from 60 votes to a simple majority in the Senate.
3. It imposes guidelines on what amendments can be offered, which is not the case for most legislation.

Based on previous climate
proposals, the likely effects of a cap-and-trade proposal are:
1. Increased energy costs, construction costs, fertilizer prices, and also higher gas and diesel prices.
2. The cost of corn production would go up by $40-80 an acre. ($3-7 billion for Nebraska Farmers)
3. 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.
4. A $3,000 per year energy tax on every American family.

Senator Johanns did something about it! Click on the link below (or the title to this article) to read the Senator's entire press release. It's worth a few minutes of your time.

THANK YOU SENATOR JOHANNS!

http://www.dawsonpower.com/blogsupport/Johanns_&_Climate_Legislation.pdf

How Much Is That Doggie In The Window?

Dawson Public Power District sold 483,114,863 kilowatt hours in 2008 to customers in our service territory. Based on a formula that is derived from what we purchase from NPPD, our (2008) carbon footprint was 394,827 tons.

The question becomes….why do I care? I used a carbon footprint calculator online (you can find them all over the internet), and my family’s annual carbon footprint is approximately 44 tons give or take a ton or two.

If a carbon tax (in the form of a literal tax or a cap and trade program) is imposed based on proposals being discussed by the federal government, we could expect to see a significant increase in our residential electric rates because utilities must collect the tax which becomes an additional cost to the end use customer.

Lots of numbers have been thrown into the ball park…$20 per ton, $50 per ton, and higher. No one has discovered the secret formula that will be enough to pinch (force) those companies who are responsible for large CO2 outputs into finding economical ways to curb the CO2.

I’ll play ball. Quick math says 44 tons (my footprint) times $20 per ton equals $880 annually added to my current electric bill and at $50 per ton, I’m screaming because I just added a $183 tax per month to my bill. BUT….we won’t be taxed individually; this tax will be socialized across the country according to the output of the generators. That means those people who conserve electricity or use energy efficient appliances will pay for those customers who don’t.

Let’s socialize the tax across Dawson PPDs average annual carbon footprint. At $20 per ton, our cost of power goes up 36% which means the kwh price at your home went from 7.27¢ to 9.0¢. At $50 per ton, which is an 89% increase in wholesale power cost to us, your kwh price went from 7.27¢ to 11.45¢. Dawson PPDs average residential customer uses about 1,347 kwh per month. That’s a difference between $97.93 per month (no tax) and $154.28 ($50 per ton tax). Your residential bill went up almost $60 per month for the same energy consumption.

We know it’s important to reduce CO2 emissions. But we also know it has to be done in a balanced manner so that our customers are not socked with electric bills made huge by a carbon tax. We want you to know what the costs COULD BE when you hear politicians throwing out numbers like $20 per ton or $50 per ton.

The numbers I use are a literal tax on carbon output by our electric generators. To use the cap and trade approach, the people who will benefit most are the traders on Wall Street – making the middle man the place to be as “offsets” become a commodity. Do we really want commodity brokers controlling our electric bills? And do we really want our utilities becoming tax collectors for the federal government?

Gwen Kautz, Customer Service Manager
Dawson Public Power District

...

Don't be fooled by smooth Cap and Trade talk!

(From Fox News) Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress

While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.

In response to questions from FOX News about Obama's relationship to the project a White House spokesman said "the President has long believed that a market-based cap-and-trade system is the best way to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and to promote our energy security. The success of the cap-and-trade approach in reducing acid rain demonstrates that providing incentives for companies to reduce their emissions is effective."

Please read the entire article on Fox News.... http://tinyurl.com/db8wf7

SO IMPORTANT, IT'S A BOARD RESOLUTION!

Dawson Public Power District's board of directors are working hard for our customers. They are very concerned about what effect a cap and trade system will have on our rates. So much so, they plan to pass a board resolution at the April 2009 meeting.

The resolution cites why Dawson PPD feels the way they do and what could happen if Congress passes a program like this. We will be sending this resolution to all of our congressional leaders. We encourage you to contact your elected representative!

If you would like to read the resolution, please click here: http://tinyurl.com/cvmqrx

Can we learn from the mistakes of others?

Push and shove, pull and poke, up or down…will anyone get it right? Our Congressional leaders are in disagreement about CO2 legislation – and what they decide could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back when it comes to regulating carbon dioxide.

In an environment screaming recession, people won’t stand for the word “tax” especially an energy tax, as part of the solution to reduce CO2. So hide it behind the words “Cap and Trade.”

A cap-and-trade plan is a tax in disguise and thankfully a number of Democrats and Republicans are starting to see that this proposal has serious defects. Rural utility systems have tried to point out these flaws for the past year. (See Glenn English’s dialogue with America below.) Using a cap-and-trade program is inefficient and costly – and worse yet – unpredictable.

I think the hardest part is that the people who will make these decisions truly believe they have the facts in front of them. They feel like they understand the problem. What I don’t think they understand is how far reaching a cap-and-trade program can be. They willingly admit “Oh, we know it will raise electric rates a little.” But folks, it won’t be a little. It will be a lot! Your electric rates could easily double!

Europe enacted a cap and trade program years ago. It isn’t working! Read this article: http://tinyurl.com/bb3exl

Now add another small fact worth considering. Let’s say…for the sake of agreement, all Americans get in this boat and chant the mantra “Save our Planet” and find a way to reduce CO2 in a cost effective, balanced approach. China has decided it is exempt from reducing C02. They say they should not have to reduce emissions caused by goods manufactured to meet demand elsewhere (from The Washington Post-March 17 2009). Did we gain a thing?

America responded (loudly) to President Obama’s promise that if you make $250,000 or less, you will not see a tax increase…..except he left off “unless you use electricity.” We can’t afford to get this wrong.

“Lawmakers may say they have plans to rebate some people so that everyone does not suffer, but it is not possible to craft a cap and trade plan that is perfectly offset by rebates. Just because a politician promotes a plan that is “budget neutral” for government does not mean it is “budget neutral” for American families. When politicians redistribute money, there will be winners and losers. The winners will be the politically well-connected groups and the populace as a whole will lose.” (Paragraph source: Institute For Energy Research)

Gwen Kautz, Dawson Public Power District

AMERICA is headed for an electricity crisis!

Increasing demand. Rising rates. CO2 reductions. Transmission overload.

If Americans want to keep electricity safe, reliable and affordable, Congress and America's rural electric utilities must work together.

Join the 222,500 American consumers who have sent over 1,609,000 letters and emails to elected officials asking tough questions about our energy future.

Please visit www.ourenergy.coop.



Urge Congress to work with public power districts to balance the response to renewables and clean energy --and your need for affordable, reliable electricity

WSJ-Climate Change Lobby Has Regrets About Cap & Trade

"People are learning," says William Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which has been cautious about embracing a climate plan). "The Obama budget did more to help us consolidate and coalesce the business community than anything we could have done. It's opened eyes to the fact that this is about a social welfare transfer system, not about climate."

Truth is, any cap-and-trade system is a tax, even if Mr. Obama's plan has only started to force business proponents to admit it. The government sets a cap on how much greenhouse gas can be emitted annually. Companies buy and sell permits that allow them to emit. Customers bear the price of those permits.

Read the full article: http://tinyurl.com/dbtkds

How About THAT Stimulus Package?

From Cooperative News (dated March 2, 2009)

The $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed into law last week, allocates $45.2 billion to energy-related programs and authorizes nearly $20 billion in tax credits for renewable energy, energy efficiency and electrical transmission projects, according to Platts.

The stimulus act provides $4.5 billion for the Smart Grid Investment Program and includes $16.8 billion for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)—nearly 10 times the funding received in 2008. The new law is expected to create thousands of “green collar” jobs and the president said the act would double renewable energy use in three years by spurring $100 billion in new “clean energy” projects.

The act includes $6 billion to support loan guarantees for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies. The funds are expected to guarantee more than $60 billion in loans. Projects receiving guarantees must start construction by September 30, 2011, and involve renewable energy, electric transmission or leading-edge biofuel technologies.

Carbon capture and sequestration-related programs receive $4.7 billion, with $1 billion of this amount for fossil energy research and development, $800 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round III Solicitation and $1.5 billion for competitive solicitations including a range of industrial carbon capture and energy-efficiency improvement projects.

The act directs $5 billion toward the Weatherization Assistance Program to make homes energy efficient and $2 billion toward grants for the manufacture of advanced battery systems.
Most of the EERE funding supports direct grants and rebates, but it also includes $2.5 billion for applied research development and deployment activities, including $800 million for biomass, $400 million for geothermal technologies and $50 million to increase the energy efficiency of information and communications technologies. Another $400 million will support electric technologies for vehicles.

The act also stipulates that $3.1 billion of EERE funds go toward the State Energy Program for additional grants that do not need to be matched with state funds. But these funds are for states that intend to adopt strict building energy codes and provide utility incentives for energy efficiency measures.

State of Nebraska's Energy Policy (comments)

Earlier this year, the general manager of Dawson PPD (Robert Heinz) shared our viewpoint for the creation of a new energy policy for the State of Nebraska.

Energy independence
1. While wind shows great promise as a part of Nebraska’s energy future, you must know that it is not a base load resource. Because wind can be unpredictable and only able to meet our power needs approximately 30% of the time, dependable backup generation must be available at all times. Currently in Nebraska, the majority of that firm base load generation is provided with coal and nuclear. Wind is not the answer to replace needed busload generators.
2. If Nebraska increases our number of wind generators, they will most likely be built in the best wind areas such as the sand hills and panhandle areas. In order to get the power to more populated areas we will need to make substantial investment in additional transmission lines. According to NPPD, these sized lines could cost between $1.5 to $2 million per mile. Please consider who will site, build and ultimately pay for these transmission lines. How will the Nebraska electric customers be protected from price shocks, especially if a large amount of this power is exported to other states?
3. We oppose state mandates that would impose minimum levels of alternative energy capacity, such as a Renewable Portfolio Standard. While we agree that we need to utilize more wind and solar energy, we need to add these resources in a way that makes strides for the environment without raising energy prices dramatically. We need to find the correct balance.

Job creation and economic development
1. We see a potential for Nebraska to become a leader in the research and development of methane digester technology at large scale animal facilities. These units could provide power, benefit the environment and potentially have a good financial turnaround.
2. As wind generation developers come into the state, we need to have guidelines for leasing that protect landowners.
3. We support the development and siteing of additional cellulosic-based ethanol plants in Nebraska.


Energy efficiency for government
1. The lowest cost kilowatt-hour in Nebraska is the kilowatt-hour not consumed. Energy efficiency has the potential to benefit consumers who will save on their electric bill and generators who will be able to use the additional capacity to serve more customers with our existing resources. We need to expand voluntary programs, and develop fiscal incentives to reap greater benefits from energy efficiency. Geothermal heating and cooling, efficient lighting and irrigation efficiency all can contribute to using our energy resources in a responsible manner.
2. We need rural housing initiatives to improve the energy efficiency of homes in our state. Older homes, rental homes and the homes of low-income families need to be improved. Dawson PPD also believes that the Energy Office loan process needs to be streamlined to make the application process easier for both customers and lending institutions.

In conclusion, Dawson Public Power thanks you for this opportunity to share our thoughts about electric energy. While we have great opportunity to change our future, we ask that you seek a balance between the benefits and the cost. Electricity powers our economy. We must be smart in examining all potential energy resources and even smarter in developing real-world business cases to determine which ones are viable to undertake. No matter what we do, we must never forget that it’s the customer who ultimately pays the bill – either through increased electric rates or through higher taxes.