Interestingly enough, both sides of the cap and trade proposal spout out facts that support their position. One would expect nothing less. So, who are we to believe? I admit I’m conservative, a lot more on the right than the left but I’m also cautious about believing EVERYTHING I read or hear regardless of the side.

Look at global warming. Here’s the only position to take on behalf of my utility: It doesn’t matter what we think, it matters what our customers think. According to a recent Nebraska survey, 30% of Nebraska electric customers think climate change is a very serious issue and 36% think it’s somewhat serious. Sixty-six percent should make utilities sit up and take note.

This is a large issue – and when large issues hit Washington D.C. – we get to see grandstanding. The question one has to ask, regardless of being on the right or the left – who BEST benefits from the cap and trade proposal?

Here’s where the $buck$ starts rolling….polluters (generating stations or other large industries) will be asked to pay fees to purchase permits which allow them to release a set amount of CO2 into the air. The idea is to get those polluters to change work processes to lessen CO2 emissions.

Those permits will be allocated by the federal government; then they will be traded on Wall Street. So our government gets a lot of money (in which they will likely reallocate these funds to other programs), traders and brokers will get millions, and our customers get to foot the bill by paying higher electric bills based on utilities needing to pass on those costs.

Senator Waxman (D-Calif) introduced a 648-page discussion draft on climate change legislation March 31. Surprise, surprise....while it applies to all emissions, regulation begins with utility compliance.

I am particularly fond of those people who believe that reducing CO2 emissions in the United States will have a profound impact on the entire world. It won’t. All it will mean is our customers get to pay higher electric rates without benefit of “SAVING THE PLANET.”

Oh sure, we get to claim “We’ve done our part.” Throw up your hands, walk away, and smell the coffee…it probably came from India and they have decided NOT to change anything per an April 13th article titled “India Rejects Calls for Emission Cuts.” in the Washington Post; N.p. All we will do is accelerate America’s economic decline because companies will relocate to China or India.

For the record, I’m inclined to believe that Nebraska’s legislative leaders do understand our position.

Gwen Kautz, Customer Service Manager

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

...

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