Kansas and the Clean Energy Bill
Antonia Felix
Friday, July 10, 2009
If the Senate follows through, the U.S. energy revolution will be underway.
On June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, with last-minute amendments that benefit the agriculture industry.
The bill, which narrowly passed with a vote of 217-205 and now goes to the Senate, is the framework for a new federal energy policy designed to ignite the renewable energy industry, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
The bill creates a Renewable Energy Standard for utility companies that calls for 20 percent of their energy to be produced by wind, solar or other renewables by 2020. It raises the bar for energy efficiency in buildings and fuels and provides incentives to drive a surge of investment in clean energy technologies, including fuel-efficient cars. The goal is to put America in the driver’s seat of the clean energy boom.
“The nation that leads the world in creating new energy sources,” said President Barack Obama, “will be the nation that leads the 21st-century global economy.”
Leading the world in a competitive new industry is a tall order, and Kansans, like everyone else, are split on whether or not HR 2454 is the way to go. When it comes to agriculture’s role in the new policy, the Kansas agriculture secretary believes it could be a good deal. Three out of our four U.S. representatives disagree. The plus side for the ag sector is the cap and trade system; the downside is higher fuel and other energy costs. Kansas Ag Secretary Adrian Polansky predicts that the cap and trade factor will outweigh the higher fossil fuel costs for a net positive benefit for farmers.
If you’re a bit rusty on your grasp of market-driven emissions trading economics as I was when I began researching this bill, you may be asking — what the heck is cap and trade? Here’s how it works in the clean energy bill.
To reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the bill calls for CO2 emissions to be capped at 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Through a cap and trade system, the upper limit of allowable emissions gets tighter ever year and companies can buy or sell “carbon credits” according to where they stand with the cap.
If an electric company goes over the legal limit of emissions, for example, it can buy carbon credits to make up for it; conversely, if another company stays below the emissions limit it can sell its credits to others. The point is to make CO2 emissions expensive so that companies will have a strong incentive to integrate clean energy systems.
Among many controversial points that came up when the bill was being drafted was the lack of a similar carbon credit system for the agriculture industry. In the final hours, however, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) introduced an amendment that lets farmers be rewarded with carbon “offsets” for implementing practices that sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the soil. The amendment also puts the ag offset program under the control of the Department of Agriculture rather than the Environmental Protection Agency, which also benefits agriculture.
Kansas Republican Reps. Jerry Moran, Lynn Jenkins and Todd Tiahrt voted against the bill and Democrat Dennis Moore voted for it. Their contrasting views echo the wide-ranging analyses of how the bill will affect the economy, including the ag sector.
The bill’s detractors believe that the new rules for clean-produced energy will drive up utility prices because energy companies will pass along the expense of updating their plants to consumers. They also predict that jobs will be lost as traditional fossil-fuel energy companies are replaced by renewable energy firms. Moran calls it a “jobs elimination bill” and “energy tax” that is “very harmful to our rural communities” because it raises fuel and other costs for farmers.
On the other hand, Moore states that the new policy will “create new industries and jobs that can’t be shipped overseas” and “revitalize the economy.”
So what is HR 2454 — a job killer and energy “tax” or job creator and energy cost saver? It depends on which analysis you read.
The Kansas camp’s opposing views reflect the conflicting reports about the net cost of the legislation. The conservative Heritage Foundation reported that the bill will cost a family of four about $2,979 between 2012 and 2035. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the cost to consumers will be about $175 per household by 2020, and low-income consumers would receive a net benefit of about $40 in 2020. The nonpartisan American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy projects that the bill will save households about $4,400 per year by 2030.
Analyses of the job loss-creation issue are just as split. The Heritage Foundation study estimates that the net job change between 2012 and 2030 will result in 1.14 million jobs lost. A study from the Political Economy Research Institute and the Center for American Progress, however, projects a net increase of 1.7 jobs across the country.
Getting down to the facts about Kansas, the Renewable Energy Policy Project study reports that legislation like HR 2054 will create 11,491 new jobs in Kansas in the wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy industries that already exist in the state. Those gaping discrepancies are just one element of a very complex piece of legislation. But with so much at stake for Kansas farmers, I called Polansky to get his take on the bill.
“It’s going to depend a great deal on the details of the agriculture offset program that Chairman Peterson was able to insert into the legislation,” he said. “I think if that’s done appropriately, it could have a very positive impact on agriculture and mitigate to a large extent, or even more than mitigate, potential cost increases in terms of energy inputs for agriculture. I certainly think that’s possible.”
Polansky, who will soon leave his state post to become the director of the USDA’s Farm Service Agency in Kansas, emphasized that Kansas agriculture could benefit significantly from a market-based program like cap and trade if the soil sequestration offset program is based on good science.
“I believe if that is done correctly, agriculture should be in a very good position,” he said. “We have significant science-based data here in Kansas and are developing more, which I think should bode well for Kansas agriculture.”
If there is a carbon currency in the future and Polansky is right, Kansas farmers will be able to cash in on cap and trade and become key players in the energy revolution.
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Typical. Sounds like they've passed something without a clear idea of the long-term effects. I wonder if this means I can get credit for burning my pasture? According to K-State, that actually locks carbon into the soil. Hopefully our utilities won't go up too much but I'm not holding my breath.
July 10, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rmoen (anonymous) says...
The director of the 'nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office' was appointed on Jan. 22. That smells a bit partisan to me.
America needs clean, cheap energy -- not clean, expensive energy. I'm a Democrat who thinks the House overplayed its hand. Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Support for cap and trade is evaporating. Whereas a week ago it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion now seems to be 8-to-1 against. The Senate will be wise to heed the overwhelming lack of public support and stop this disastrous legislation from passing into law.
If instead of cap and trade the United States had a national mandate to replace coal generation plants with natural gas and nuclear energy, plus if we replaced our commuter cars with battery-powered electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions faster and beyond the proposed cap and trade targets.
-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
July 10, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
What bothers me the most about this and everything else our new President does is it has to be big, fast, and expensive. The stimulus bill had to be fast, it was after all an emergency, it had to be big, we had companies too big to fail, so we had to have a big, expensive bailout plan. I hear now no one really knows where the money has gone, I have heard as little as 10% of it has even been spent. I challenge you to get a straight answer from an elected official about where the money actually came from. The bill itself was too big to read, yet was passed anyway, I don't care what your politics are, passing legislation without actually knowing what you are passing is irresponsible.
This climate bill seems to be the same way. It is being spun a hundred different ways. Right off the bat I am concerned because it was big and passed without much thought(I guess it is really only "half" passed).
My faith in government at all levels both left and right dwindles daily. Whilst looking through my carefully organized "pile" system of bills and receipts yesterday I came upon a form reply letter from Sam Brownbacks office in reply to a phone call and email I sent several months ago expressing my strong opposition to the bio defense lab being located at K-State. It pretty much just said not to worry, everything would be fine. Putting aside any concerns about what might escape or be released from this lab, it would seem to me our GOP delegation(I am GOP by the way) would be against building a new lab because of the cost, as would the KFB, KLA, etc. As I understand it, the old lab at Plum Island could be overhauled for $194 million, a new one is to cost $450+million, of course the way construction costs go and the government in general, I imagine that could easily run into $600million or more. My reason for bringing this up is, our officials both left and right do the right thing only when it benefits them politically to do the right thing. Otherwise, it is politics as usual in DC, whether it is climate change, TARP, an overpriced lab, you name it. Makes me tired just thinking about it, the amount of energy it must take to poop away taxpayer money by the dumptruck load.
July 12, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
C02 is a pollutant? Trees and other flora do not need C02 to grow and flourish? How long before the man made global warming alarmists try to limit tidal volume and respiration of mammals? I think the reason everything needs to be big, fast and expensive is because it won't be long before man made global warming is understood scientifically and not hysterically. Got to get your money while the getting is good. Who knows? In 20 years we could just as easily have 3 feet of snow on the ground in July instead of the hell on earth Al Gore is predicting.
July 12, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I don't know who on here watches any reality tv shows, but one of the best things to happen in those is for someone to do the unexpected and really shake things up. Wouldn't it shake something if the State of Kansas wasn't a red state in the next election.............................or blue? What if the State collectively voted third parties? What color would we be on the map? Purple? I'm not really a K-State fan, but I could live with being a purple state......or yellow or green or whatever color that isn't red or blue. It might not change much in that election, but what about the one four years later? I think it's time to bring a little strategy to the game and really shake things up!
July 12, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
orlando (anonymous) says...
Recently Huckabee in his noon report, suggested that any legislation passed in Washington should have a required oral reading in front of that assembly....of the ENTIRE bill. And anyone who wasn't there to hear it, could not vote on it. Maybe some of those bills wouldn't be so massive if our representatives actually had to listen to them.......
July 12, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
YY4U:
Any color but red or blue. I don't care which third party....well, I might care a little based on representation. Whichever third party comes the closest to your philosophies. I just want things shook up to start sending a stronger message to the politicians that the parties don't own us. They both send us the message that it's a wasted vote to vote third party because they know that if enough of us did it, they'd be done or have to follow through for us. It's a bullying tactic and they have been successful in intimidating us with it so far, but if one state revolted, the others would likely follow. Even if they didn't, the threat of it would change the next campaign season a lot.
I personally would pick a conservative candidate---fiscally and governmentally. One with strong morals that doesn't believe in legislating the morals, but gently culturally influencing them. That's just me. Any color but red or blue sends the message, though, so pick whichever is your favorite.
July 12, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
orlando:
I like Huckabee---full of good common sense and noble in his purposes. Thanks for sharing that.
I forgot this on my last post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_pa...)
This is a good place to start researching who you like. To find out more, click on a party name to go to a Wiki summary of the party. On the left of the page, there is contact info including website addresses for the parties. As we near the next election, you will need to find out who will be listed on the KS ballots and under what catagory----Important to know your party's candidate's name!!!
July 12, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I can't remember the last time we won when someone was elected president.
July 12, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
The first thing everyone does when someone brings up a third party is how that won't work, well this isn't working either. I have been a registered Republican all my adult life, and I am ashamed of it now, but there is no way I would become a Democrat. I think what we all need to do is change to Independant, if anything will send a message to both camps of total losers it would be that. I use to believe that most folks who ran for national office did so out of a sense of wanting to do what was right for the nation, and only a few were in it for power. In the last year I have become very cynical and feel that while most of them would like to do some good for the nation, their very first ambition is to get power and keep it...if it happens they can do some good that is OK, but not their primary purpose. I think us muppets get played one side against the other by the media and both parties, as long as they can keep us focused on our differences, they can pretty much do anything they want to America, even drive it down the toilet.
I don't see any reason to be optimistic we are about to turn a corner. I have even heard talk on the news this weekend of another stimulus package. I read the unemployment rate may end up being 11% by years end.
We are part of the problem, because we will not elect anyone who tells us we all might have to sacrifice. Every solution is "no pain". We fought the war on credit, so we wouldn't get higher taxes, we bought the bailout on credit, no pain down, nothing down, no interest until 2010. Now the climate change bill isn't going to cost, why, it is going to make us money, millions of new "green" jobs dare I say paid for mostly by taxpayers? Anybody remember the phrase, "40 acres and a mule"???
July 12, 2009 at 10:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"A third party candidate hasn't won Kansas since 1892........."
So what? Who was in control of that? The two major parties or the Kansans? I believe the majority of the residents wanted it to be a republican state and that's what we did. Should it stay that way?
"I have been a registered Republican all my adult life, and I am ashamed of it now, but there is no way I would become a Democrat."
Thank you, alfalfa. I'm getting that from a lot of people. If I don't want to be either, why should I be either? Is this the United States of America, or what?? If the two major parties have their way, we won't be for much longer. We just have to send them a message they can hear and a few tea parties aren't going to cut it. Right message, not enough volume. I say we amplify those tea party messages with our votes and voting for either of those two parties only validates their control.
seriously and alfalfa, you both make excellent points.
July 13, 2009 at 1:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildcatnurse (anonymous) says...
Libertarian! Libertarian! Give the power back to the people and the states and limit BIG government.
Read up on Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura....yes, THAT Jesse Ventura. Just trust me on this.
And don't listen to what "under_score", will reply to this, he thinks I'm a dim-witted, Jew-hater that doesn't have a rational thought in my head.
July 13, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gabby (anonymous) says...
Sarah Palin :-) !!!!!!!!!! ....She will campaign for Republicans and Democrats that have the same beliefs she does. She will not be afraid to challenge the Obama administration. She hasn't announced whether or not she will run for President...But, she has a lot to say....and, I'm willing to listen. I'm sick and tired of OLD politicians, with the same rhetoric, same old same old partisan politics.
She will energize Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
You can disagree with me, and come up with all the arguments you want, but she isn't going away!
Don't use the argument that she's a quitter. That will get old when people, in office, what to run for President next time, are forced to step down, so they can devote all their time to campaigning and fundraising.
By the way, I think they "should have to step down from whatever office they hold, if they are going to run for President". No more lame duck crap...Obama, McCain, Biden stayed in office, and left Washington to campaign, while they collected a full paycheck..and did little, or nothing in Washington.
I think the further away from the Washington elite, and the more in touch with middle America they are, the better chance they will have winning. They will get my vote, for sure.
July 13, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron...
Who did Seriously R. Folks vote for for potus? That's right ......... Chuck Baldwin.
July 13, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
It's very easy to look at the third parties objectively right now...there are no party nominees wooing us with their charismas. It is very important to develop your political stance now, before the parties develop it for you. As the next election draws closer, the manipulations of both parties will be in full swing, and they will play on people's emotions --namely fear. Paranoia of the "other" party winning will cause a lot of voters to chicken out of a third party vote and the big two will have won again.
Kansas has always had a reputation for being level-headed, common sense, salt-of-the-earth people. I think it would be wonderful if we could use that to our advantage and prove to the nation that we are smarter and stronger than the politicians who think they are. To make a third-party initiative successful is going to take a ton and a half of resolve. We are going to need strength of character in the individual voters to not be swayed from their stand and we are going to need to support each other. Pass all this along to friends, family, neighbors, everyone. We are the core of America, geographically and sociologically. Let's get this country functioning right again. Remember, it's not about which party gets their guys elected-----it's about how intimidated those guys are by the people they work for. I wish we could get noble men who honestly want to serve their country, but YY4U is right. Those who get that far are never like that anymore, so while we try to shift it back to that sense of duty, we are going to have to use intimidation.
Ready, Set.....GO find your third party convictions!!!!!!!!
July 13, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
One of the things that has left me a disgruntled Republican is trying to get the attention of the party bosses, even the Kansas party bosses. While the GOP claims to be different, they really could care less about the views of the ordinary working Republican, unless those views happen to coincide directly with their own, then they will make a big deal over you. Since the election, I have worked hard to try to get involved and I have signed up for quite a few websites, most of them conservative. One day an email ended up in my inbox that was titled, "Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot". It was about Obama. This was directly from one of these so called mainstream conservative websites. Even though I have huge issues with Obama, and did not vote for him, I found the entire email to be disrespectful and in very poor taste. This from the same group of people hollering about how poorly Palin has been treated(I agree she has been shafted by the media and far left). One of the first things we have to do , I think, is to be able to disagree with those whose political views we do not share, without trying to ridicule them personally. I sent an email to the offending organization expressing my concern over such childish tactics, it was very polite but also very blunt. That has been about 4 weeks ago, as yet I have no reply. Since I don't approve of their tactics, I am not worth responding to, even though I am a conservative and supposedly on the same side they are.
I am very concerned about our future, and it disgusts me to see our political leaders stooping to tactics that remind me of Jr. High school.
July 13, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
He's definitely third party, but I don't know if it's a recognized one. He would have been a good one considering he would have done it for noble reasons.
July 13, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )