On Monday, The White House made a huge annoucement. President Obama ultimately settled on 30% by 2030, and the EPA will implement it after public comment.
Already, this is reestablishing the US as a true world leader. Already, we're seeing how the President's new climate action plan will accommodate fossil fuel heavy states. Yet already, the usual suspects are attacking both the new rules... And the notion that climate change is actually happening.
Really? They still want to argue over this?
Don't they realize 97% of scientists have already said climate change is real and we're the ones causing it? And don't they realize that they're not scientists?
As is typically the case for politicians of the G-O-TEA variety, they're claiming the new EPA rule is everything from "LAW BREAKING!" to "JOB KILLING!" and "COMMUNIST!" Of course, as is typically the case for them, they're wrong. But hey, why let some pesky facts and figures get in the way of a good political attack?
But wait, is this even all that good of a political attack? Most Americans actually support the President's climate action plan. Most Americans want action #4jobs. And the President's climate action plan opens the door to more jobs and more economic opportunities in renewable energy and energy efficiency. We've already started to see the benefits here in Nevada. Why shouldn't the rest of the nation?
Clearly, they're not scientists. They're not economists, either. And even though some of them are lawyers, they don't even understand the law. So why are we even paying attention to them?
Showing posts with label fossil fuel industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fossil fuel industry. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Monday, June 2, 2014
30%
We've been waiting for this. We've been waiting for something to happen. But finally, finally, it's about to happen.
So what's about to happen? 30% by 2030, that's what. Today, the EPA announced a new rule requiring power plants reduce their carbon emissions by 30% (below 2005 levels) by 2030.
This is a big deal. 32% of overall carbon emissions come from power plants, so this new rule will target a key source of the greenhouse gases that are fueling climate change.
But is it big enough? 2005 was a peak year for carbon emissions, so we're already close to halfway to this goal before this new rule is even implemented. At least some environmentalists were expecting more. And despite the howls of anger from certain "TEA" tinged circles, the new rules are remarkably frugal and business friendly.
We've pointed this out numerous times before. We're already experiencing the effects of climate change now. The evidence is already mounting. And action is sorely needed.
While today's new EPA rule is not a panacea, it's a major first step that must be taken in order to form a comprehensive plan to tackle climate change. This is the fulfillment of a promise President Obama made nearly a year ago to take serious climate action. And contrary to the alarms of the "TEA" powered naysayers, the new EPA rule can actually give our economy a boost.
But of course, more must be done. Our climate and economy can benefit from more investment in renewable energy. And better energy efficiency standards can negate the need more fossil fuels.
More must be done... By Congress, the states, municipalities, and ultimately by all of us. This truly is an "all hands on deck" situation. But at least now, President Obama is steering this ship in a cleaner & greener direction. 30% by 2030 may not be a panacea, but it's a good start to journey to 100% effective climate action.
So what's about to happen? 30% by 2030, that's what. Today, the EPA announced a new rule requiring power plants reduce their carbon emissions by 30% (below 2005 levels) by 2030.
This is a big deal. 32% of overall carbon emissions come from power plants, so this new rule will target a key source of the greenhouse gases that are fueling climate change.
But is it big enough? 2005 was a peak year for carbon emissions, so we're already close to halfway to this goal before this new rule is even implemented. At least some environmentalists were expecting more. And despite the howls of anger from certain "TEA" tinged circles, the new rules are remarkably frugal and business friendly.
We've pointed this out numerous times before. We're already experiencing the effects of climate change now. The evidence is already mounting. And action is sorely needed.
While today's new EPA rule is not a panacea, it's a major first step that must be taken in order to form a comprehensive plan to tackle climate change. This is the fulfillment of a promise President Obama made nearly a year ago to take serious climate action. And contrary to the alarms of the "TEA" powered naysayers, the new EPA rule can actually give our economy a boost.
But of course, more must be done. Our climate and economy can benefit from more investment in renewable energy. And better energy efficiency standards can negate the need more fossil fuels.
More must be done... By Congress, the states, municipalities, and ultimately by all of us. This truly is an "all hands on deck" situation. But at least now, President Obama is steering this ship in a cleaner & greener direction. 30% by 2030 may not be a panacea, but it's a good start to journey to 100% effective climate action.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
We're Fracked?!
We've been talking quite a lot about land policies in one corner of Southern Nevada. Yet while we were focused on that part of the state, some huge news dropped in another part of the state. In one corner of Northern Nevada, fracking has already begun.
Wait, what?! Yes, fracking has already begun in Elko County. Noble Energy is now fracking on mostly private land just outside Wells, but it now has approval to frack on some BLM land nearby as well. And thanks to SB 390, the fracking regulations bill passed by the Nevada Legislature last year, it's legal.
It's already been making waves in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Texas, and elsewhere. And now, fracking is happening in our state.
We've already become familiar with the more upfront dangers of fracking. However, there's an even greater danger that we simply can't ignore.
Noble Energy is fracking for oil. Noble Energy is risking contaminating the entire water supply for that area to extract fossil fuels from the ground. Noble Energy is extracting fossil fuels that worsen climate change.
Remember climate change? It just happens to be the greatest global security threat of our time. And Rural Nevada is already feeling it.
Nevada is already experiencing a rather serious drought. We can't afford to waste water. And we especially can't afford to waste water on extracting fossil fuels that are endangering our future.
Wait, what?! Yes, fracking has already begun in Elko County. Noble Energy is now fracking on mostly private land just outside Wells, but it now has approval to frack on some BLM land nearby as well. And thanks to SB 390, the fracking regulations bill passed by the Nevada Legislature last year, it's legal.
It's already been making waves in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Texas, and elsewhere. And now, fracking is happening in our state.
We've already become familiar with the more upfront dangers of fracking. However, there's an even greater danger that we simply can't ignore.
Noble Energy is fracking for oil. Noble Energy is risking contaminating the entire water supply for that area to extract fossil fuels from the ground. Noble Energy is extracting fossil fuels that worsen climate change.
Remember climate change? It just happens to be the greatest global security threat of our time. And Rural Nevada is already feeling it.
Nevada is already experiencing a rather serious drought. We can't afford to waste water. And we especially can't afford to waste water on extracting fossil fuels that are endangering our future.
Monday, April 21, 2014
#BundyRanch Hypocrisy, Powered by Koch
All this month, we've heard many tall tales from Cliven Bundy and his merry gang of "fringe of the fringe" radical right extremists. Perhaps the tallest (in terms of most false) has been the tale of the nonexistent Chinese owned solar power plant. G-O-TEA media spinners have been peddling this story for the past two weeks, even though the Chinese company pulled out long ago, the proposed solar power plant was on county land (not federal), and the proposed power plant was sited for that county land in Laughlin, some 180 miles away from Mesquite/Bunkerville. But hey, "DIRTY Harry Reid's assaulting Cliven Bundy to help the China COMMIES!!!!!" sounds so much more salacious and outrageous than "Cliven Bundy broke the law".
Yet even though this outrageous conspiracy theory has already been proven false, the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors are still spreading it. And no matter how false this conspiracy theory is, the Koch-topus has no problem spreading it even further. And why's that? This conspiracy theory just so happens to fit perfectly into the Kochs' latest campaign against renewable energy.
But why, oh why, are the supposedly "libertarian" and "pro-free-market" Kochs now attacking renewable energy? And why are they doing so just as the free market is increasingly favoring renewable energy?
The reason is actually quite simple: money. Much of the Kochs' multibillion dollar empire is built on fossil fuels. So really, they view renewable energy companies as competitors to undercut. And they're out to cut the growing green energy sector by drowning it in toxic politics.
Last year, we caught onto the Kochs' and Donors Trust's climate denial campaign. And we've been keeping tabs since then on their efforts to silence the truth about climate change and their campaign to kill clean energy. And we can't help but connect the dots as we notice just how the Koch funded astroturf outfits have been cozying up to the #BundyRanch outlaw gang.
Here's some food for thought: If the Kochs are so "libertarian" and "pro-free-market", then why are they trying to undermine the free market? Why have they been fighting tooth and nail against any effort to level the playing field for clean energy? Why are they fighting against closing tax loopholes that fossil fuel companies regularly exploit? And why are they now encouraging the merry gang of outlaws in Bunkerville who are demanding even more "big government" welfare at our expense?
There's a certain word we're now thinking of. Can you guess it? It has nine letters. It starts with the letter H. And it perfectly sums up the Kochs' meddling in #BundyRanch, as well as their campaign to kill their clean, green competition.
Yet even though this outrageous conspiracy theory has already been proven false, the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors are still spreading it. And no matter how false this conspiracy theory is, the Koch-topus has no problem spreading it even further. And why's that? This conspiracy theory just so happens to fit perfectly into the Kochs' latest campaign against renewable energy.
But why, oh why, are the supposedly "libertarian" and "pro-free-market" Kochs now attacking renewable energy? And why are they doing so just as the free market is increasingly favoring renewable energy?
The reason is actually quite simple: money. Much of the Kochs' multibillion dollar empire is built on fossil fuels. So really, they view renewable energy companies as competitors to undercut. And they're out to cut the growing green energy sector by drowning it in toxic politics.
Last year, we caught onto the Kochs' and Donors Trust's climate denial campaign. And we've been keeping tabs since then on their efforts to silence the truth about climate change and their campaign to kill clean energy. And we can't help but connect the dots as we notice just how the Koch funded astroturf outfits have been cozying up to the #BundyRanch outlaw gang.
Here's some food for thought: If the Kochs are so "libertarian" and "pro-free-market", then why are they trying to undermine the free market? Why have they been fighting tooth and nail against any effort to level the playing field for clean energy? Why are they fighting against closing tax loopholes that fossil fuel companies regularly exploit? And why are they now encouraging the merry gang of outlaws in Bunkerville who are demanding even more "big government" welfare at our expense?
There's a certain word we're now thinking of. Can you guess it? It has nine letters. It starts with the letter H. And it perfectly sums up the Kochs' meddling in #BundyRanch, as well as their campaign to kill their clean, green competition.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Step Into the Future
We've said this before. And we'll say this again today. In order to solve the great crises that climate change, we must start with some simple steps.
Perhaps President Obama has been thinking about this. Last night, he surprised many media pundits with his climate proposals during his State of the Union address.
The President aggressively defended his administration's new rules on power plant emissions, then vowed to step up his administration's fuel efficiency standards for trucks. And he flat out rejected the climate denialism that continues to pollute the halls of Congress. The President made it clear that America can't afford to waste any more time trying to dismiss proven science, and that our time will be much better spent pursuing a smarter energy future.
So what about that smarter energy future? Will the President's plan live up to last night's hype? Well, it's complicated. While he indeed made a cogent case for climate action last night, he also somewhat negated his own message by reiterating his support for an "all of the above" strategy.
Can we truly afford "all of the above"? The US is currently ranked 43rd in the world in climate policy effectiveness. Last year was one of the hottest on record. And the UN Climate Chief has recently declared global renewable energy investment must triple in order to meet global greenhouse has emissions targets. Can we truly afford an "all of the above" strategy that includes dirty fossil fuels?
Contrary to inaccurate media reports, the renewable energy sector is humming along quite well. If anything, the fossil fuel industry keeps running into more trouble. So why continue propping it up with an "all of the above" strategy and with rules that favor fossil fuel conglomerates over renewables?
Instead of "all of the above", we need the best of the above. And that means we must invest more in the energy of the future. That also means we must be more efficient with the energy we already have.
Overall, this administration has made progress on climate change. It's even managed to do so despite a recalcitrant Congress. It would be horrifically tragic if that progress is offset by additional efforts to "Drill Baby Drill" into the dark money pit of fossil fuels. We need to finally break from that dirty past and step into the future.
Perhaps President Obama has been thinking about this. Last night, he surprised many media pundits with his climate proposals during his State of the Union address.
The President aggressively defended his administration's new rules on power plant emissions, then vowed to step up his administration's fuel efficiency standards for trucks. And he flat out rejected the climate denialism that continues to pollute the halls of Congress. The President made it clear that America can't afford to waste any more time trying to dismiss proven science, and that our time will be much better spent pursuing a smarter energy future.
So what about that smarter energy future? Will the President's plan live up to last night's hype? Well, it's complicated. While he indeed made a cogent case for climate action last night, he also somewhat negated his own message by reiterating his support for an "all of the above" strategy.
Can we truly afford "all of the above"? The US is currently ranked 43rd in the world in climate policy effectiveness. Last year was one of the hottest on record. And the UN Climate Chief has recently declared global renewable energy investment must triple in order to meet global greenhouse has emissions targets. Can we truly afford an "all of the above" strategy that includes dirty fossil fuels?
Contrary to inaccurate media reports, the renewable energy sector is humming along quite well. If anything, the fossil fuel industry keeps running into more trouble. So why continue propping it up with an "all of the above" strategy and with rules that favor fossil fuel conglomerates over renewables?
Instead of "all of the above", we need the best of the above. And that means we must invest more in the energy of the future. That also means we must be more efficient with the energy we already have.
Overall, this administration has made progress on climate change. It's even managed to do so despite a recalcitrant Congress. It would be horrifically tragic if that progress is offset by additional efforts to "Drill Baby Drill" into the dark money pit of fossil fuels. We need to finally break from that dirty past and step into the future.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Crash (Goes CBS "News")
Did you know "Cleantech" has crashed? We didn't. But apparently, it did... Because CBS "News'" "60 Minutes" told us so.
As of late, it seems like the once revered flagship "TV news magazine" has been receiving a "fair & balanced" makeover. CBS News is still under fire for the now infamous "60 Minutes" Benghazi report that turned out to be nothing but an error filled attempt to sell a book. And now, CBS is also in the hot seat over a recent "60 Minutes" report on Amazon's new drone program that turned out to be nothing but an Amazon infomercial. Yet despite these major league embarrassments, "60 Minutes" producers don't seem to be all that worried about the free-falling reputation of their show.
Case in point: This past Sunday's "Cleantech Crash" report. The San Jose Mercury News' clean energy reporter has already debunked the "60 Minutes" piece. So has Cleantechnica. And Think Progress has posted an interview with the clean energy expert featured on "60 Minutes" (whose words were twisted when featured on that show).
Here's what "60 Minutes" oh so quickly glossed over when bashing federal clean energy investment: The very Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program that "60 Minutes" attacked for rewarding failure actually has a 97% success rate! Do you know how many Wall Street investors would sacrifice their parents and/or children on the altar of Mammon to obtain that kind of success rate? Actually, you probably don't want to know. However, we should all remember the rule of thumb for private sector venture capitalists, which is that 3 out of 4 startups fail on average. So it was oh so easy for "60 Minutes" to find examples of "Cleantech Crash", even though it would have also been easy for "60 Minutes" to find many examples of "Cleantech Success".
There's a reason why such "wild eyed lib'rulzzz" as Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and the entire State Senate Republican Caucus have been rushing to encourage more clean energy investment in Nevada. There's a reason why California has been seeing a lot of green lately. And there's a reason why much of the rest of the world is cashing in on the green evolution. Here's a hint: #GreenMeansGreen.
Oh, and let's not forget the reason why much of the world is looking to clean energy for a brighter future. Here's a hint: climate change. Not once did "60 Minutes" mention climate change in its "Cleantech Crash"hit piece story. Regardless of the near term profitability of renewable energy, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels for the sake of our longer term survival. Yet on Sunday, nary a word was peeped on climate during the once revered flagship "TV news magazine". Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Frankly, the only "crash" revealed this past Sunday was the reputation of CBS "News". And since it's bringing back the very reporter who botched the Benghazi story, we probably shouldn't expect any better any time soon. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
As of late, it seems like the once revered flagship "TV news magazine" has been receiving a "fair & balanced" makeover. CBS News is still under fire for the now infamous "60 Minutes" Benghazi report that turned out to be nothing but an error filled attempt to sell a book. And now, CBS is also in the hot seat over a recent "60 Minutes" report on Amazon's new drone program that turned out to be nothing but an Amazon infomercial. Yet despite these major league embarrassments, "60 Minutes" producers don't seem to be all that worried about the free-falling reputation of their show.
Case in point: This past Sunday's "Cleantech Crash" report. The San Jose Mercury News' clean energy reporter has already debunked the "60 Minutes" piece. So has Cleantechnica. And Think Progress has posted an interview with the clean energy expert featured on "60 Minutes" (whose words were twisted when featured on that show).
Here's what "60 Minutes" oh so quickly glossed over when bashing federal clean energy investment: The very Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program that "60 Minutes" attacked for rewarding failure actually has a 97% success rate! Do you know how many Wall Street investors would sacrifice their parents and/or children on the altar of Mammon to obtain that kind of success rate? Actually, you probably don't want to know. However, we should all remember the rule of thumb for private sector venture capitalists, which is that 3 out of 4 startups fail on average. So it was oh so easy for "60 Minutes" to find examples of "Cleantech Crash", even though it would have also been easy for "60 Minutes" to find many examples of "Cleantech Success".
There's a reason why such "wild eyed lib'rulzzz" as Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and the entire State Senate Republican Caucus have been rushing to encourage more clean energy investment in Nevada. There's a reason why California has been seeing a lot of green lately. And there's a reason why much of the rest of the world is cashing in on the green evolution. Here's a hint: #GreenMeansGreen.
Oh, and let's not forget the reason why much of the world is looking to clean energy for a brighter future. Here's a hint: climate change. Not once did "60 Minutes" mention climate change in its "Cleantech Crash"
Frankly, the only "crash" revealed this past Sunday was the reputation of CBS "News". And since it's bringing back the very reporter who botched the Benghazi story, we probably shouldn't expect any better any time soon. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Fracking the Hell Out of Nevada?
Since January, we've been closely monitoring the surreptitious campaign to bring fracking to Nevada. Since then, Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) introduced SB 390 to institute state fracking regulations... And NV Energy unleashed its NVision into SB 123. While the (again) revised SB 123 does not call for as many new natural gas power plants as the earlier version of NVision, it does nonetheless call for more natural gas power in Nevada. And we've yet to see answers on where NV Energy expects to find the natural gas for these proposed new power plants.
Today, Senator Segerblom testified in favor of SB 390. However, he was not alone. Nevada Conservation League's Kyle Davis spoke in favor... And so did Paul Enos. He's President of the Nevada Trucking Association, but today he testified as a lobbyist for Noble Energy, the company pursuing a fracking license in Elko County.
Question time soon began. And Assembly Member Heidi Swank (D-Paradise) kicked it off by asking about "swarms of earthquakes" that have recently been striking Arkansas. Enos claimed they were likely just caused by a "bad drill".
Assembly Member Ira Hansen (R-Sparks) called fracking "a miracle". "We should be praising you guys from freeing us from the oil cartels," he said. Enos appreciated the praise... Because it at least temporarily deflected from the frightening reality that Assembly Member Swank alluded to. Earlier this month, The Nation published an expose on the ugly reality that fossil fuel fracking has brought to Western Pennsylvania. And that can be added to the growing pile of fracking horror stories.
Assembly Member Lesley Cohen (D-Henderson) then asked about water. There's a reason for that: Fracking is very water intensive. And the chemicals used in fracking contaminate the remaining water supply. And last time we checked, Nevada doesn't have much water. So why again are we even considering opening our lands to fracking?
More fossil fuel industry representative then spoke in favor of SB 390... But qualified it by saying they only now support the bill because it does NOT ban fracking, as a growing coalition of environmental and community health activists have been calling for. They then disputed the growing body of evidence showing the real dangers of fracking. I wonder if they've ever spoken with anyone from Timpson, Texas (and for that matter, the Dallas-Fort Worth region as well).
Assembly Member Cohen later corrected earlier claims that fracking doesn't affect water supply. That certainly is not the case in Colorado. And it certainly is not the case in Pennsylvania. And it's hard to believe that somehow Nevada is immune to the dangers being realized elsewhere.
Assembly Member Paul Aizley (D-Paradise) asked state regulators testifying at today's hearing about cleaning up. That's also what many residents of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Colorado, and elsewhere continue to ask.
No action was taken on SB 390 today. But considering SB 390's unanimous approval by the Senate on Tuesday, the bill is expected to easily pass the Assembly. And considering the broad support the bill seems to have now, it's unlikely Governor Brian Sandoval (R) will veto it.
So is this really "good news"? Keep in mind that various fossil fuel industry lobbyists testified in favor of SB 390 precisely because it does not ban fracking. And considering one of them said he changed his mind on the bill precisely because its language waswatered down amended, this should set off alarms.
OK, OK, so SB 390 at least fills the regulatory void left by the Bush Administration in 2005. That's a start. But considering Noble Energy supports this bill, it may very well leave the door to fracking wide open here in Nevada. And remember that companies like Noble want to frack for more of the very fossil fuels that are fueling the climate crisis.
There's a reason why many Californians have been protesting Governor Jerry Brown's (D) consideration of fracking there. And there's a reason why over 250 communities across the US have passed anti-fracking resolutions. Oh, and there's a reason why France and Bulgaria will not allow any future fracking. This shit is dangerous, and we're only opening ourselves up to peril if we start fracking the hell out of Nevada.
So what will it take for our state to realize the peril that lies ahead?
Today, Senator Segerblom testified in favor of SB 390. However, he was not alone. Nevada Conservation League's Kyle Davis spoke in favor... And so did Paul Enos. He's President of the Nevada Trucking Association, but today he testified as a lobbyist for Noble Energy, the company pursuing a fracking license in Elko County.
Question time soon began. And Assembly Member Heidi Swank (D-Paradise) kicked it off by asking about "swarms of earthquakes" that have recently been striking Arkansas. Enos claimed they were likely just caused by a "bad drill".
Assembly Member Ira Hansen (R-Sparks) called fracking "a miracle". "We should be praising you guys from freeing us from the oil cartels," he said. Enos appreciated the praise... Because it at least temporarily deflected from the frightening reality that Assembly Member Swank alluded to. Earlier this month, The Nation published an expose on the ugly reality that fossil fuel fracking has brought to Western Pennsylvania. And that can be added to the growing pile of fracking horror stories.
Assembly Member Lesley Cohen (D-Henderson) then asked about water. There's a reason for that: Fracking is very water intensive. And the chemicals used in fracking contaminate the remaining water supply. And last time we checked, Nevada doesn't have much water. So why again are we even considering opening our lands to fracking?
More fossil fuel industry representative then spoke in favor of SB 390... But qualified it by saying they only now support the bill because it does NOT ban fracking, as a growing coalition of environmental and community health activists have been calling for. They then disputed the growing body of evidence showing the real dangers of fracking. I wonder if they've ever spoken with anyone from Timpson, Texas (and for that matter, the Dallas-Fort Worth region as well).
Assembly Member Cohen later corrected earlier claims that fracking doesn't affect water supply. That certainly is not the case in Colorado. And it certainly is not the case in Pennsylvania. And it's hard to believe that somehow Nevada is immune to the dangers being realized elsewhere.
Assembly Member Paul Aizley (D-Paradise) asked state regulators testifying at today's hearing about cleaning up. That's also what many residents of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Colorado, and elsewhere continue to ask.
No action was taken on SB 390 today. But considering SB 390's unanimous approval by the Senate on Tuesday, the bill is expected to easily pass the Assembly. And considering the broad support the bill seems to have now, it's unlikely Governor Brian Sandoval (R) will veto it.
So is this really "good news"? Keep in mind that various fossil fuel industry lobbyists testified in favor of SB 390 precisely because it does not ban fracking. And considering one of them said he changed his mind on the bill precisely because its language was
OK, OK, so SB 390 at least fills the regulatory void left by the Bush Administration in 2005. That's a start. But considering Noble Energy supports this bill, it may very well leave the door to fracking wide open here in Nevada. And remember that companies like Noble want to frack for more of the very fossil fuels that are fueling the climate crisis.
There's a reason why many Californians have been protesting Governor Jerry Brown's (D) consideration of fracking there. And there's a reason why over 250 communities across the US have passed anti-fracking resolutions. Oh, and there's a reason why France and Bulgaria will not allow any future fracking. This shit is dangerous, and we're only opening ourselves up to peril if we start fracking the hell out of Nevada.
So what will it take for our state to realize the peril that lies ahead?
The Final Twist
On Tuesday, something quite interesting happened... Yet hardly anyone noticed. We're about to correct that today. So pay close attention to this.
On Tuesday, SB 390 passed unanimously. Remember that SB 390 aims to regulate oil and natural gas fracking in Nevada. If most Assembly Members and Governor Brian Sandoval (R) soon concur, then the State of Nevada will begin to fill the oversight void left when then President George W. Bush exempted fracking from numerous federal environmental and health safety laws. But of course, this still falls far short of the full fracking ban pursued by CREDO Action and many other environmental activists.
What's further complicated this issue is SB 123. NV Energy's NVision has run into controversy for several reasons, but at least some have been asking what NV Energy's proposal for more natural gas power plants means for future fracking in Nevada. While the matter of fracking still hasn't directly been addressed by NV Energy, SB 123 was revised again to pare back new natural gas power plant proposals before passing the full Senate earlier this month.
But yesterday, we saw an entirely new twist to this story. All of a sudden, a new player emerged at the very last minute. And now, Carson City is abuzz over the news of multi-billionaire super-investor Warren Buffett stepping in to buy NV Energy.
So what happens now? So far, both SB 123 and SB 390 seem to be on track for final passage. In fact, SB 390 has an Assembly hearing this afternoon.
And so far, Warren Buffett has shown interest in divesting from fossil fuels & investing in renewable energy. Was he noticing NVision & SB 123 when deciding to buy NV Energy? What does he want NVision to look like in the future?
And let's not forget what triggered all this in the first place. NV Energy was facing increasing pressure to shut down the Reid-Gardner Coal Plant near Moapa. At the same time, the company wants to cash in on Nevada's burgeoning green economy. Oh, and then there's that whole matter of the greatest global security threat of our time.
We've seen so many twists and turns as we've been tracking on the intersection of renewable energy policy, NV Energy's business plan, and fossil fuel fracking, and climate change. And now, we have the final twist provided by Warren Buffett. This should be fun.
On Tuesday, SB 390 passed unanimously. Remember that SB 390 aims to regulate oil and natural gas fracking in Nevada. If most Assembly Members and Governor Brian Sandoval (R) soon concur, then the State of Nevada will begin to fill the oversight void left when then President George W. Bush exempted fracking from numerous federal environmental and health safety laws. But of course, this still falls far short of the full fracking ban pursued by CREDO Action and many other environmental activists.
What's further complicated this issue is SB 123. NV Energy's NVision has run into controversy for several reasons, but at least some have been asking what NV Energy's proposal for more natural gas power plants means for future fracking in Nevada. While the matter of fracking still hasn't directly been addressed by NV Energy, SB 123 was revised again to pare back new natural gas power plant proposals before passing the full Senate earlier this month.
But yesterday, we saw an entirely new twist to this story. All of a sudden, a new player emerged at the very last minute. And now, Carson City is abuzz over the news of multi-billionaire super-investor Warren Buffett stepping in to buy NV Energy.
"I've spoken to Warren Buffett, (NV Energy president and CEO) Michael Yackira and (chairman of the board) Phil Satre, and it is not often I have been as enthused about a deal as I am now,” said U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. ”I am elated. It is really good news for Nevada that Warren Buffett wants to invest $5.5 billion in our state. He told me that he loves Nevada and now has an excuse to come here more often."
According to a news release, under the terms of the agreement, MidAmerican will purchase all outstanding shares of NV Energy’s common stock for $23.75 per share in cash. The transaction, which has been unanimously approved by both companies’ boards of directors, has an enterprise value of approximately $10 billion.
The acquisition is subject to customary closing conditions, including the approval of the transaction by NV Energy’s shareholders and the receipt of required state and federal approvals. The transaction is currently expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2014.
So what happens now? So far, both SB 123 and SB 390 seem to be on track for final passage. In fact, SB 390 has an Assembly hearing this afternoon.
And so far, Warren Buffett has shown interest in divesting from fossil fuels & investing in renewable energy. Was he noticing NVision & SB 123 when deciding to buy NV Energy? What does he want NVision to look like in the future?
And let's not forget what triggered all this in the first place. NV Energy was facing increasing pressure to shut down the Reid-Gardner Coal Plant near Moapa. At the same time, the company wants to cash in on Nevada's burgeoning green economy. Oh, and then there's that whole matter of the greatest global security threat of our time.
We've seen so many twists and turns as we've been tracking on the intersection of renewable energy policy, NV Energy's business plan, and fossil fuel fracking, and climate change. And now, we have the final twist provided by Warren Buffett. This should be fun.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
SB 123/NVision Passes Senate, Has 12 Days in Assembly
This spring, we've been tracking the many twists and turns of SB 123 in Carson City. It was originally a bill meant to strengthen Nevada's renewable energy portfolio, then NV Energy snatched it and transformed it into its own profit expanding beast energy plan. But when NV Energy and many legislators (supporting SB 123-cum-NVision) started feeling blowback over the revised bill, NV Energy agreed to further revise the bill to mollify various grassroots environmental activists and consumer advocates worried about the direction SB 123 had taken.
And finally today, the (yet again) revised SB 123 passed the full Senate
Even now, the bill still faces opposition from a coalition spanning the ideological spectrum (from Frankie Sue Del Papa to RAN). But at this point, the SB 123 and NV Energy seem to have enough support spanning the ideological spectrum (from Governor Brian Sandoval & Pete Ernaut to US Senator Harry Reid, Nevada Conservation League, & Nevada AFL-CIO) to pass the Assembly. And of course, Governor Sandoval is very ready to sign it into law.
Over time, this bill and the issues behind it have become quite complicated. We want more renewable energy, but do we also want to open the door to fracking in Nevada? We want to reduce our carbon footprint, but how much of that will this actually accomplish? We don't want consumers stuck footing the bill just so NV Energy can increase profits at our expense, so are we still at risk for that now?
The Assembly has 12 days to sort this all out and render a final verdict on SB 123. Good luck with that.
And finally today, the (yet again) revised SB 123 passed the full Senate
Senate Bill 123, one of the most lobbied measures this session, lays out a 10-year plan for NV Energy to acquire and generate more clean energy-- a policy goal that won wide support from a broad coalition of politicians and environmental groups. But the language governing how the utility would replace its coal-fired plants and how much regulatory power the Public Utilities Commission would have over the plan opened rifts among some of the most powerful interests at the Legislature.
The measure also generated an outcry from the Public Utilities Commission, which feared it would shackle their ability to regulate the utility, and the Bureau of Consumer Protection, which argued the bill could lead to higher rate increases than projected by the utility.
But in presenting the bill to his colleagues on the floor, Sen. Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas, said lawmakers were able to broker a compromise among the various interests lobbying the bill, including scaling back the scope of what NV Energy would be mandated to build and giving the PUC more authority to modify the plan over the course of the next decade.
"This bill puts Nevada at the forefront of energy policy in this country," Atkinson said, arguing it does not "sacrifice regulatory oversight."
Even now, the bill still faces opposition from a coalition spanning the ideological spectrum (from Frankie Sue Del Papa to RAN). But at this point, the SB 123 and NV Energy seem to have enough support spanning the ideological spectrum (from Governor Brian Sandoval & Pete Ernaut to US Senator Harry Reid, Nevada Conservation League, & Nevada AFL-CIO) to pass the Assembly. And of course, Governor Sandoval is very ready to sign it into law.
Over time, this bill and the issues behind it have become quite complicated. We want more renewable energy, but do we also want to open the door to fracking in Nevada? We want to reduce our carbon footprint, but how much of that will this actually accomplish? We don't want consumers stuck footing the bill just so NV Energy can increase profits at our expense, so are we still at risk for that now?
The Assembly has 12 days to sort this all out and render a final verdict on SB 123. Good luck with that.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
NVision in Flux
This has been one incredibly wild ride in Carson City. Early in the legislative session, SB 123. It was originally supposed to be a companion bill alongside SB 252 calling for a stronger renewable energy standard in Nevada. But then, NV Energy stepped in and turned everything on its head.
Early last month, NV Energy stunned everyone with its brand new NVision plan. NVision calls for an end to the Reid-Gardner coal fired power plant near Moapa along with more home grown renewable energy. And it ultimately supplanted the original language of SB 123. Still, we are talking about more clean energy here. So what's the problem?
Perhaps it's the uncertainty over the cost of NVision... And who will ultimately pay for it. NV Energy has promised consumers' electric bills won't be affected too much by NVision/SB 123. Yet despite the promises, opponents are now mounting a campaign to kill the bill. And they're even now receiving some very high-profile help.
What makes this even more fascinating is that this new coalition to defeat SB 123, the Nevada Consumer Protection Alliance, is a "strange bedfellows" coalition that includes Del Papa, the progressive Nevada Women's Lobby, the conservative Retail Association of Nevada, and others. Normally, these groups and individuals oppose each other. But on this, they all have a common cause.
And yesterday, they received even more high-profile assistance. Keep in mind (NV Energy's possessed version of) SB 123 pares back the role of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in overseeing and regulating NV Energy in the wake of the new NVision regime. So of course, Nevada PUC members don't like it one bit.
Ouch. This is getting awfully ugly awfully quickly. Key R&R power player Pete Ernaut has been working furiously to unite the entire gaming mining lobbying industrial complex behind the new SB 123. And while he did succeed in securing the backing of (key R&R political allies) Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), we've yet to hear from the gaming industry power players. Yet while they sit on the sidelines, these new strange bedfellows are filling the void to muck things up.
But wait, this story has taken yet another interesting turn. SB 123 has just been amended again. Many environmentalists had been concerned about the amount of natural gas fired power plant construction that NV Energy initially included in NVision. Wasn't this supposed to be about turning away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy? And does this mean NV Energy supports efforts to bring dangerous and dirty fracking to Nevada?
While the matter of fracking isn't directly mentioned in the amended language, it does pare back the amount of natural gas plants NV Energy originally called for while further beefing up renewable energy investment. As a result, Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) has added her name as a co-sponsor while more environmentalists are stepping off the sidelines to join the Nevada Conservation League in supporting the new SB 123.
So we're seeing even more fascinating twists and turns with this bill. The usual left-right ideological divide in Carson City & DC has been scrambled here as the Nevada Conservation League & Nevada AFL-CIO join with R&R Partners and NV Energy to urge SB 123's passage. We also see this on the other side as Frankie Sue Del Papa and the Nevada Women's Lobby are now joining the Retail Association of Nevada to urge SB 123's defeat. The "new new SB 123" now has even less fossil fuel and more new renewable energy generation in its NVision, but consumer advocates are still fretting over the costs.
So what now? That's a good question.
Early last month, NV Energy stunned everyone with its brand new NVision plan. NVision calls for an end to the Reid-Gardner coal fired power plant near Moapa along with more home grown renewable energy. And it ultimately supplanted the original language of SB 123. Still, we are talking about more clean energy here. So what's the problem?
Perhaps it's the uncertainty over the cost of NVision... And who will ultimately pay for it. NV Energy has promised consumers' electric bills won't be affected too much by NVision/SB 123. Yet despite the promises, opponents are now mounting a campaign to kill the bill. And they're even now receiving some very high-profile help.
“I see this as a consumer protection issue,” [Former Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue] Del Papa [D] said. “Never before has a bill been introduced that has such guarantees to shareholders.”
She said the bill’s provisions guarantee the utility a rate of return on the construction schedule detailed in the bill, which would be a boon to investors and a cost ratepayers bear.
Echoing concerns of the Public Utilities Commission, she said she worries that the bill would strip the regulatory agency of anything but cursory oversight of NV Energy, the regulated monopoly that provides power to most businesses and residences in the state.
What makes this even more fascinating is that this new coalition to defeat SB 123, the Nevada Consumer Protection Alliance, is a "strange bedfellows" coalition that includes Del Papa, the progressive Nevada Women's Lobby, the conservative Retail Association of Nevada, and others. Normally, these groups and individuals oppose each other. But on this, they all have a common cause.
And yesterday, they received even more high-profile assistance. Keep in mind (NV Energy's possessed version of) SB 123 pares back the role of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in overseeing and regulating NV Energy in the wake of the new NVision regime. So of course, Nevada PUC members don't like it one bit.
The commission voted unanimously to support the accelerated decommissioning of the plant — the target of complaints about air pollution — but object to other portions of Senate Bill 123, which would permit the utility to build other facilities without oversight of the state.
Commissioner Rebecca Wagner called the bill, now before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy, “more smoke and mirrors.”
Commissioner David Noble said the bill failed to “provide real protection for ratepayers.” Commission Chairwoman Alaina Burtenshaw called it a “huge gamble for ratepayers and shareholders.” [...]
Staff member Anne-Marie Cuneo told the commission there would be a “devastating balloon” payment in 2021. The bill, she said would have a significant impact on ratepayers.
Noble agreed, saying there would be a “huge impact” on ratepayers in 10 to 20 years.
Wagner said she supported the closure of Reid-Gardner and has been an advocate of renewable energy such as solar, wind and geothermal. But sections of the bill, she said, would give NV Energy a competitive edge over smaller companies in developing solar energy.
Ouch. This is getting awfully ugly awfully quickly. Key R&R power player Pete Ernaut has been working furiously to unite the entire gaming mining lobbying industrial complex behind the new SB 123. And while he did succeed in securing the backing of (key R&R political allies) Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), we've yet to hear from the gaming industry power players. Yet while they sit on the sidelines, these new strange bedfellows are filling the void to muck things up.
But wait, this story has taken yet another interesting turn. SB 123 has just been amended again. Many environmentalists had been concerned about the amount of natural gas fired power plant construction that NV Energy initially included in NVision. Wasn't this supposed to be about turning away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy? And does this mean NV Energy supports efforts to bring dangerous and dirty fracking to Nevada?
While the matter of fracking isn't directly mentioned in the amended language, it does pare back the amount of natural gas plants NV Energy originally called for while further beefing up renewable energy investment. As a result, Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) has added her name as a co-sponsor while more environmentalists are stepping off the sidelines to join the Nevada Conservation League in supporting the new SB 123.
So we're seeing even more fascinating twists and turns with this bill. The usual left-right ideological divide in Carson City & DC has been scrambled here as the Nevada Conservation League & Nevada AFL-CIO join with R&R Partners and NV Energy to urge SB 123's passage. We also see this on the other side as Frankie Sue Del Papa and the Nevada Women's Lobby are now joining the Retail Association of Nevada to urge SB 123's defeat. The "new new SB 123" now has even less fossil fuel and more new renewable energy generation in its NVision, but consumer advocates are still fretting over the costs.
So what now? That's a good question.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
NVision... Fracking?
Over the course of the month, we've been seeking the truth behind the spin surrounding NV Energy and the bill (SB 123) it consumed. Fortunately, we haven't been alone. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission [PUC] also recently chimed in and questioned the numbers behind the estimated $494 million cost of NVision (aka the NV Energy possessed SB 123). They also questioned NV Energy's promise that NVision won't significantly increase electricity costs for consumers.
And funny enough, this nugget slipped out.
Aha! So NV Energy is basing its promises of lower (or at least not-significantly-higher) electric costs on "cheap natural gas". And come on, we all know what that means. Fracking is likely in the mix.
So what's the big deal here? Fracking has artificially held down the cost of natural gas extraction. And I say it's artificial because we see cheap natural gas, yet we're also increasingly seeing the high costs of decimated communities and ecosystems due to fracking.
This is why outrage has steadily been growing over the fossil fuel industry's sneaky ploy to frack across America. And this why we may soon see action to halt this next door.
In recent days, the fossil fuel industry has kicked into high gear to try to spin away all the worries over fracking. It's even gone as far as trying to silence the filmmaker behind the Gasland documentaries! Apparently, California legislators may finally be wisening up to fossil fuel industry spin.
Will our legislators do the same here? SB 390 doesn't even go that far. It only sets new regulations on fracking to fill the void left by the feds. (Then President George W. Bush pushed to exempt fracking from federal environmental safeguards in 2005.) And right now, it's sitting in the Senate Finance Committee, just waiting for action.
Funny enough, NV Energy hasn't said a peep about SB 390. Why not? NV Energy claims that NVision is all about expanding renewable energy opportunities right here in Nevada while closing the door on coal fired power plants for good. And to be fair, NVision does include plans for new solar plants while guaranteeing the closing of the Reid-Gardner coal plant near Moapa.
However with that being said, NVision calls for even more generation of natural gas power. And NV Energy executives have recently admitted to the PUC that their forecasts for lower consumer costs depend on "cheap natural gas". And as mentioned above, fracking technology has been artificially keeping natural gas costs low... While wreaking havoc on communities where this kind of extraction is occurring.
So what's the deal? How does NV Energy plan to access all the natural gas that NVision calls for? Does NV Energy have any ties to Noble Energy's pursuit of a fracking license in Elko County? What price will consumers ultimately pay for NVision if/when natural gas prices are not so artificially low? And why can't we accelerate both our economy and our commitment to solving the climate crisis by focusing more on the renewable energy bonanza that's right under our noses here in Nevada?
These questions need to be answered. #NVLeg, you're now on notice.
And funny enough, this nugget slipped out.
As [PUC Commissioner David] Noble said, ratepayers have helped build $3.5 billion in generating capacity in the past decade and gas prices have declined.
If NVision and its baked-in power plant construction regimen doesn’t pass, rates could decrease.
“Holding everything else constant, the next few rate cases may actually result in a rate decrease,” said Anne-Marie Cuneo, commission staff.
Yackira said this could also hold true if NVision becomes law. He said the commission is “really pointing to natural gas prices.”
“If those prices go down, our customers’ rates will go down,” he said.
Bottom line: Cheap natural gas is holding rates down now, coal is on its way out regardless of NVision, and the effect of the NVision plan won’t really be felt until new construction brings new costs to ratepayers several years down the road.
Aha! So NV Energy is basing its promises of lower (or at least not-significantly-higher) electric costs on "cheap natural gas". And come on, we all know what that means. Fracking is likely in the mix.
So what's the big deal here? Fracking has artificially held down the cost of natural gas extraction. And I say it's artificial because we see cheap natural gas, yet we're also increasingly seeing the high costs of decimated communities and ecosystems due to fracking.
This is why outrage has steadily been growing over the fossil fuel industry's sneaky ploy to frack across America. And this why we may soon see action to halt this next door.
"It's clear that we must heed the call from our concerned constituents and demand answers about the safety of fracking," said Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, author of Assembly Bill 1323.
A branch of the [California] Department of Conservation has released some draft regulations that would govern fracking, but lawmakers have criticized the proposed rules as too vague and lambasted the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources for moving too slowly.
"The lack of regulations in an environment that should be regulated is a recurrent theme," said Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, author of Assembly Bill 1301. "Public and scientific concerns have increased exponentially yet regulatory oversight lags behind."
Bloom said a moratorium would offer a needed window for study and would "get everyone to the table" to craft a framework for fracking.
"We must identify the risks and assure the public that we are doing everything in our control to protect them," Bloom said, "but to date the state has failed to do that."
In recent days, the fossil fuel industry has kicked into high gear to try to spin away all the worries over fracking. It's even gone as far as trying to silence the filmmaker behind the Gasland documentaries! Apparently, California legislators may finally be wisening up to fossil fuel industry spin.
Will our legislators do the same here? SB 390 doesn't even go that far. It only sets new regulations on fracking to fill the void left by the feds. (Then President George W. Bush pushed to exempt fracking from federal environmental safeguards in 2005.) And right now, it's sitting in the Senate Finance Committee, just waiting for action.
Funny enough, NV Energy hasn't said a peep about SB 390. Why not? NV Energy claims that NVision is all about expanding renewable energy opportunities right here in Nevada while closing the door on coal fired power plants for good. And to be fair, NVision does include plans for new solar plants while guaranteeing the closing of the Reid-Gardner coal plant near Moapa.
However with that being said, NVision calls for even more generation of natural gas power. And NV Energy executives have recently admitted to the PUC that their forecasts for lower consumer costs depend on "cheap natural gas". And as mentioned above, fracking technology has been artificially keeping natural gas costs low... While wreaking havoc on communities where this kind of extraction is occurring.
So what's the deal? How does NV Energy plan to access all the natural gas that NVision calls for? Does NV Energy have any ties to Noble Energy's pursuit of a fracking license in Elko County? What price will consumers ultimately pay for NVision if/when natural gas prices are not so artificially low? And why can't we accelerate both our economy and our commitment to solving the climate crisis by focusing more on the renewable energy bonanza that's right under our noses here in Nevada?
These questions need to be answered. #NVLeg, you're now on notice.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
New Twists in Saga Over Fracking in Nevada
Well, this is interesting. Earlier this morning, CREDO Action dropped an email for a petition created by activist Christian Gerlach demanding a ban on fracking. Last December, plans were announced for fracking in Elko County. Since then, we've learned that Noble Energy wants fracking rights for 40,000 acres of publicly owned land in Elko County... As Nye County has also started to flirt with allowing fracking.
Keep in mind that this is what officials in Elko and Nye Counties are considering.
And because the fossil fuel industry secured fracking exemptions from federal environmental safeguards in 2005, companies have been allowed to get away with this wherever fracking has been allowed. Already, there have been horrifying reports of illness and toxic chemical contamination in Pennsylvania and North Dakota, two states that were early in jumping into the fracking rush. Since then, many communities throughout the country (and around the world) have been running in the other direction in adopting fracking bans.
Unfortunately for Christian Gerlach and CREDO, there's currently no fracking ban pending in the Nevada Legislature. However, Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) has proposed SB 390 to have the State of Nevada fill the regulatory gap left wide open by the federal government. It passed the Senate Natural Resources Committee with a friendly amendment, and now awaits action by the full Senate.
However, there's been another twist to this story. Early this month, NV Energy announced its NVision plan toswallow up a proposed update to Nevada's renewable energy standards invest in more home grown renewable energy while shutting down the last of its coal fired power plants. Yet hidden in depths of NVision was also a proposal for more natural gas power plants. NV Energy officials have not said yet whether they intend to rely on fracking to access the natural gas they seek for their proposed new power plants.
Last Friday, NV Energy seemed to get its way as SB 123 was stripped of its original soul and implanted with NVision. Yet since then, there's been a surprising backlash as several people and companies throughout Nevada have expressed concerns over NVision's cost to consumers. Even though R&R power player Pete Ernaut was able to secure his BFF Governor Brian Sandoval's (R-GML) support, he couldn't quell the growing protests from the state's biggest power players: the gaming industry. Earlier today, Las Vegas Sun reporter Anjeanette Damon went on KNPR's "State of Nevada" to explain the increasingly complicated politics surrounding NV Energy's big policy move.
At first glance, it seems like the fight over fracking is being lost in the shuffle of the new brawl over SB 123. That probably couldn't be further from the truth. NV Energy has the chance to come out and say it's not pursuing fracking. NV Energy can simply say it won't try to trade in one major health hazard (in the Reid-Gardner coal plant) for another (in natural gas fracking).
But because it's not (yet?) done that, this just adds to the many concerns over SB 123-turned-NVision. Will it truly be a chance for Nevada to declare independence from fossil fuels? Or is this just a backdoor attempt to pursue even more fossil fuels... And do so in a way that risks the health of many in this state?
Until these questions are answered, legislators should pause and review what's actually in SB 123-turned-NVision. And they should keep asking these questions. And they should at least pass SB 390 as more information is unearthed on fracking.
Perhaps this isn't what CREDO had in mind when sending out the email for Christian Gerlach's fracking ban petition, but it may very well add fuel to the fire of the latest controversy to turn the Nevada Legislature upside down.
Keep in mind that this is what officials in Elko and Nye Counties are considering.
And because the fossil fuel industry secured fracking exemptions from federal environmental safeguards in 2005, companies have been allowed to get away with this wherever fracking has been allowed. Already, there have been horrifying reports of illness and toxic chemical contamination in Pennsylvania and North Dakota, two states that were early in jumping into the fracking rush. Since then, many communities throughout the country (and around the world) have been running in the other direction in adopting fracking bans.
Unfortunately for Christian Gerlach and CREDO, there's currently no fracking ban pending in the Nevada Legislature. However, Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) has proposed SB 390 to have the State of Nevada fill the regulatory gap left wide open by the federal government. It passed the Senate Natural Resources Committee with a friendly amendment, and now awaits action by the full Senate.
However, there's been another twist to this story. Early this month, NV Energy announced its NVision plan to
Last Friday, NV Energy seemed to get its way as SB 123 was stripped of its original soul and implanted with NVision. Yet since then, there's been a surprising backlash as several people and companies throughout Nevada have expressed concerns over NVision's cost to consumers. Even though R&R power player Pete Ernaut was able to secure his BFF Governor Brian Sandoval's (R-GML) support, he couldn't quell the growing protests from the state's biggest power players: the gaming industry. Earlier today, Las Vegas Sun reporter Anjeanette Damon went on KNPR's "State of Nevada" to explain the increasingly complicated politics surrounding NV Energy's big policy move.
At first glance, it seems like the fight over fracking is being lost in the shuffle of the new brawl over SB 123. That probably couldn't be further from the truth. NV Energy has the chance to come out and say it's not pursuing fracking. NV Energy can simply say it won't try to trade in one major health hazard (in the Reid-Gardner coal plant) for another (in natural gas fracking).
But because it's not (yet?) done that, this just adds to the many concerns over SB 123-turned-NVision. Will it truly be a chance for Nevada to declare independence from fossil fuels? Or is this just a backdoor attempt to pursue even more fossil fuels... And do so in a way that risks the health of many in this state?
Until these questions are answered, legislators should pause and review what's actually in SB 123-turned-NVision. And they should keep asking these questions. And they should at least pass SB 390 as more information is unearthed on fracking.
Perhaps this isn't what CREDO had in mind when sending out the email for Christian Gerlach's fracking ban petition, but it may very well add fuel to the fire of the latest controversy to turn the Nevada Legislature upside down.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Clear NVision?
Last Friday, it looked like NV Energy essentially got its way as SB 123 was gutted and amended into NV Energy's own NVision plan. SB 123 had been a bill improving Nevada's renewable energy standards. But now, it's possessed by NV Energy's NVision.
Last Friday, it looked like NV Energy essentially got its way as the Senate Commerce, Labor, and Energy Committee unanimously agreed to sacrifice SB 123, allow it to be possessed by NVision, and send this radically altered bill to the Senate Finance Committee. However, Anjeanette Damon and Andrew Doughman are now reporting that the newly possessed SB 123 is facing challenges. And those challenges are coming from other powerful sources.
So there may yet be opportunities to take a closer look at SB 123-turned-NVision, and possibly to make changes where necessary. It looks like the big casinos are asking what they're paying for... And why. And their skepticism only helps everyone else who has concerns about this legislation.
Why is there such a rush to pass this altered bill when NV Energy needs no legislative approval to shut down the Reid-Gardner Coal Plant near Moapa? How does NV Energy plan to access the natural gas it wants for new gas fueled power plants? Is fracking part of the plan in any way? And why are consumers being asked to shoulder so much of the cost for NVision?
Some are also asking why Governor Brian Sandoval (R) rushed to signal his support for the NVision-possessed-SB 123. But really, that isn't a mystery. The lobbyist pushing this for NV Energy is none other than key Sandoval confidant and R&R power player Pete Ernaut. Need I say more?
We'll see if there will ultimately be enough pressure on NV Energy to provide honest answers to these questions. But if the gaming companies are this concerned about the altered SB 123, then NV Energy may be required to answer these tough questions. It's now just a matter of whether that classic R&R magic will be enough to end skepticism of NV Energy's new "vision".
We shall see.
Last Friday, it looked like NV Energy essentially got its way as the Senate Commerce, Labor, and Energy Committee unanimously agreed to sacrifice SB 123, allow it to be possessed by NVision, and send this radically altered bill to the Senate Finance Committee. However, Anjeanette Damon and Andrew Doughman are now reporting that the newly possessed SB 123 is facing challenges. And those challenges are coming from other powerful sources.
The gaming industry, the largest energy user in Southern Nevada and a powerful lobbying interest, has expressed serious concerns with the utility’s banner proposal, and Gov. Brian Sandoval’s chief policy adviser and legal counsel resigned in the wake of the governor’s decision to side with NV Energy on the issue.
Less than two weeks ago, the investor-owned utility unveiled a major new initiative to divest from coal-fired power generation and build new natural gas and renewable energy power plants. But NV Energy’s bill also asks the Legislature to lock in a 10-year plan that would require ratepayers to shoulder the costs of the plan and limit the Public Utilities Commission’s ability to oversee any associated rate hikes.
In a final, frenzied push Friday morning to move the bill through a critical committee deadline, NV Energy’s lobbyists met with Sandoval’s staff and major energy stakeholders, including gaming companies and renewable energy representatives.
Christening the proposal “NVision,” the utility had hoped to emerge from that meeting with a public statement of support from the gaming industry and others after reworking their bill to address both stakeholder and lawmaker concerns.
That joint support didn’t materialize. Instead, major industries are gathering intelligence and deciding whether they want to mobilize for what could be a protracted and expensive fight among some of the state’s most powerful industries and lobbyists.
“There are still serious concerns,” said one source familiar with the meeting, who described the gaming industry’s reaction.
Gaming companies are still trying to understand what the utility’s proposal does, how much it would raise rates and how much it would relax regulatory standards that could protect the gaming industry, and all ratepayers, from higher rates.
So there may yet be opportunities to take a closer look at SB 123-turned-NVision, and possibly to make changes where necessary. It looks like the big casinos are asking what they're paying for... And why. And their skepticism only helps everyone else who has concerns about this legislation.
Why is there such a rush to pass this altered bill when NV Energy needs no legislative approval to shut down the Reid-Gardner Coal Plant near Moapa? How does NV Energy plan to access the natural gas it wants for new gas fueled power plants? Is fracking part of the plan in any way? And why are consumers being asked to shoulder so much of the cost for NVision?
Some are also asking why Governor Brian Sandoval (R) rushed to signal his support for the NVision-possessed-SB 123. But really, that isn't a mystery. The lobbyist pushing this for NV Energy is none other than key Sandoval confidant and R&R power player Pete Ernaut. Need I say more?
We'll see if there will ultimately be enough pressure on NV Energy to provide honest answers to these questions. But if the gaming companies are this concerned about the altered SB 123, then NV Energy may be required to answer these tough questions. It's now just a matter of whether that classic R&R magic will be enough to end skepticism of NV Energy's new "vision".
We shall see.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
What the Frack?! (Continued)
Last month, we were shocked to discover that state officials are considering allowing fracking in Nevada. Now, we have more concrete details of what's being considered. Houston based Noble Energy has plans to frack 40,000 acres of public land just outside Wells, and about 50 miles east of Elko, by the end of the year. In addition to this, Noble Energy has secured leases on a total of 350,000 acres of public land in Elko County with plans to frack all of it.
Again, Noble Energy wants to start fracking in Elko County by the end of this year. And it wants to frack even more land next year. If Noble Energy succeeds, get used to seeing this here.
This is the real damage caused by fracking in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and other states where fracking has already occurred. And this is what will come to Nevada if fracking is allowed here. That's why the Center for Biological Diversity is asking the BLM to stop this proposed project. And the Center will likely not be alone in doing so.
This is the frightening reality of fracking. And this is why Nevadans must think long and hard about these consequences. Do we want tap water that can be set on fire? And do we want to put our land, our wildlife, and ultimately our people in such danger?
Again, Noble Energy wants to start fracking in Elko County by the end of this year. And it wants to frack even more land next year. If Noble Energy succeeds, get used to seeing this here.
This is the real damage caused by fracking in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and other states where fracking has already occurred. And this is what will come to Nevada if fracking is allowed here. That's why the Center for Biological Diversity is asking the BLM to stop this proposed project. And the Center will likely not be alone in doing so.
“Fracking on these sensitive public lands in Nevada could threaten human health and our spectacular natural heritage,” said Rob Mrowka, a Nevada-based ecologist with the Center. “Use of this polluting technology so close to human habitation is fraught with danger, which is why many states and municipalities are fighting to ban fracking.”
Fracking is a controversial form of oil and gas extraction that involves blasting huge volumes of water, mixed with toxic chemicals and sand, deep into the earth to break up rock formations. Fracking has been linked to air and water pollution; one study identified more than 25 percent of reported fracking chemicals as known carcinogens. Other fracking chemicals harm the nervous, endocrine, immune and cardiovascular systems and can contribute to serious health problems in people and animals living near fracked wells.
Fracking has been tied to contamination of surface and ground waters; well water from household taps in some areas can be set on fire because of methane contamination in the water supply. The federal government recently confirmed fracking-related contamination of water in Pavillion, Wyo. [...]
“The area of this proposed project has been identified by the Nevada Department of Wildlife as essential and irreplaceable habitat for the greater sage grouse, a species being considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act,” Mrowka added. “The last thing these rare, spectacular birds need is gas-field development in their habitat.”
This is the frightening reality of fracking. And this is why Nevadans must think long and hard about these consequences. Do we want tap water that can be set on fire? And do we want to put our land, our wildlife, and ultimately our people in such danger?
Friday, December 7, 2012
What the Frack?!
It's not very often when I open the morning Las Vegas Sun and discover something truly shocking. Today is an exception. I nearly leaped out of bed when I saw this.
So the fossil fuel industry is now looking to bring fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) to Nevada. So what is fracking? And why should we care?
Still wondering why fracking is so "controversial"? Watch this and cringe.
Believe it or not, this is the reality of fracking. It really isn't pretty. And it definitely isn't safe. So why are Nevada officials even considering allowing this frightening practice to take root here?
Do we really want this here?
Contrary to the spin you hear from the fossil fuel industry, remember that fracking is extremely dangerous. And because then President George W. Bush exempted fracking from federal environmental regulations in 2005, there's no turning back if Nevada allows for fracking as there's no federal protection from the kind of devastation it brings.
What makes this even more insane is that fracking is a very water intensive practice. And remember that especially Northern Nevada has been hit quite hard by extended drought. Do we really have the water to waste on this?
Why is anyone even talking about doing this? There's just no good reason for Nevada to even consider allowing fracking within our borders.
On top of everything else, fracking means more fossil fuels extracted. And that means more greenhouse gas emissions exactly when we can least afford them. With climate change already starting to wreak havoc on our planet, we just can't afford to continue our gruesome addiction to fossil fuels.
Just this week, a deal was announced for the City of Los Angeles to purchase 460 megawatts of solar energy from solar power plants slated to be built in the Moapa Valley and Boulder City. Nevada has the potential to truly shine with the development of a mean, green, clean economy. So why lose sight of this? And especially why forget this and look at allowing something as dangerous and devastating as fracking?
What the frack?!
State regulators typically issue three or four permits each year for oil and gas drilling, but this year, they issued 13 by late September. With fracking growing more popular throughout the country, some companies have started to turn their attention to Nevada, said Alan Coyner, administrator of the state’s Division of Minerals.
No company has used hydraulic fracturing in Nevada, but some now want that option in their permits, he said.
Oil and gas producer Noble Energy plans to explore for crude oil on 350,000 acres it is leasing in northeast Nevada. The company, which gave the project a 55 percent chance of success, aims to start production in 2014.
Noble has not received a drilling permit but likely will seek permission for hydraulic fracturing, Coyner said.
So the fossil fuel industry is now looking to bring fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) to Nevada. So what is fracking? And why should we care?
Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing. It’s an extremely water-intensive process where millions of gallons of fluid – typically a mix of water, sand, and chemicals, including ones known to cause cancer – are injected underground at high pressure to fracture the rock surrounding an oil or gas well. This fracking releases extra oil and/or gas from the rock, so it can flow into the well.
But the process of fracking introduces additional industrial activity into communities beyond the well. Clearing land to build new access roads and new well sites, drilling and encasing the well, fracking the well and generating the waste, trucking in heavy equipment and materials and trucking out the vast amounts of toxic waste — all of these steps contribute to air and water pollution risks and devaluation of land that is turning our communities into sacrifice zones. Fracking threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we love and the climate on which we all depend. That’s why over 250 communities in the U.S. have passed resolutions to stop fracking, and why Vermont, France and Bulgaria have stopped it.
Still wondering why fracking is so "controversial"? Watch this and cringe.
Believe it or not, this is the reality of fracking. It really isn't pretty. And it definitely isn't safe. So why are Nevada officials even considering allowing this frightening practice to take root here?
Do we really want this here?
Contrary to the spin you hear from the fossil fuel industry, remember that fracking is extremely dangerous. And because then President George W. Bush exempted fracking from federal environmental regulations in 2005, there's no turning back if Nevada allows for fracking as there's no federal protection from the kind of devastation it brings.
What makes this even more insane is that fracking is a very water intensive practice. And remember that especially Northern Nevada has been hit quite hard by extended drought. Do we really have the water to waste on this?
Why is anyone even talking about doing this? There's just no good reason for Nevada to even consider allowing fracking within our borders.
On top of everything else, fracking means more fossil fuels extracted. And that means more greenhouse gas emissions exactly when we can least afford them. With climate change already starting to wreak havoc on our planet, we just can't afford to continue our gruesome addiction to fossil fuels.
Just this week, a deal was announced for the City of Los Angeles to purchase 460 megawatts of solar energy from solar power plants slated to be built in the Moapa Valley and Boulder City. Nevada has the potential to truly shine with the development of a mean, green, clean economy. So why lose sight of this? And especially why forget this and look at allowing something as dangerous and devastating as fracking?
What the frack?!
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
#AFPfail: Don't Know Much About Gas Prices
They're back! In July, AFP Nevada had quite the "Bus Wreck" of a campaign rally "educational experience". This week, they're back... And they're offering cheap gas??!!
Are you kidding me? For being such "free market conservatives", the folks at AFP really don't know how the free market actually works. No really, the market doesn't work the way AFP claims it does.
And what makes them look even more ridiculous is that they're trying to blame gas prices on President Obama... And on smart policies meant to tackle climate change and create more jobs here in Nevada. Seriously, this is all AFP has?
Apparently, Nevadans actually aren't as stupid as the folks at AFP had assumed we were. That's reassuring. I guess one can only disregard sound science and economics so much before people start tuning one out.
The cheap gas offered by the conservative political group Americans for Prosperity in Reno on Tuesday was a political event designed to blame President Barack Obama’s energy policies for driving up the cost of petrol.
But many of the scores of people who lined up around the block to fill up their tanks at $1.84 a gallon didn’t come for politics. They didn’t blame Obama for the gas prices. They just needed cheap gas.
Are you kidding me? For being such "free market conservatives", the folks at AFP really don't know how the free market actually works. No really, the market doesn't work the way AFP claims it does.
And what makes them look even more ridiculous is that they're trying to blame gas prices on President Obama... And on smart policies meant to tackle climate change and create more jobs here in Nevada. Seriously, this is all AFP has?
Apparently, Nevadans actually aren't as stupid as the folks at AFP had assumed we were. That's reassuring. I guess one can only disregard sound science and economics so much before people start tuning one out.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Why Whines About High Gas Prices Are Full of Hot Air
We've been hearing plenty lately about the rising cost of gasoline. The media continue to report breathlessly about "the pain at the pump", and those darned media pundits are now chattering about how much blame President Obama will be getting for it. But when we look beyond the media speculation and Republican spin, the real picture looks quite different from what one catches on the cable "news" channels.
While many G-O-TEA politicians are quick to blame Obama for all that "pain at the pump", they're also quick to ignore the facts.
They're also quick to ignore history.
And in fact, gas prices now are still below the all time (national average) high of $4.11 experienced during George W. Bush's Presidency. I know that's still cold comfort for everyone having to spend more at the gas station now, but these are the facts. Speculation on Iran is having its effect on the market. Global oil demand is rising. (Remember that law of supply and demand?) Domestic oil production is at an 8 year high, and we're now using more domestically produced oil than imported oil. Oh, and even conservatives like George Will and the Cato Institute have admitted that the G-O-TEA attacks on President Obama are full of hot air.
And if G-O-TEA politicians think that whining about high has prices is their ticket to victory, then they may be in trouble if they're caught without refund insurance.
And there are certainly ways for us to adapt. We can use mass transit more often. We can carpool. And of course, we can invest in renewable alternatives to oil that can be produced right here in America and create more American jobs. And of course, all of these are more effective in providing relief to American consumers than empty chants to "Drill Baby Drill" and ridiculous schemes to pump up profits for Canadian oil corporations.
So there we have it. All the ridiculous attacks on President Obama regarding high gas prices really come up empty. Remember that next time you see more media speculation and Republican spin on an issue they really don't seem interested in fully understanding.
While many G-O-TEA politicians are quick to blame Obama for all that "pain at the pump", they're also quick to ignore the facts.
According to the study [by six federal agencies], the United States reduced net imports of crude oil last year by 10%, or 1 million barrels a day. The U.S. now imports 45% of its petroleum, down from 57% in 2008, and is on track to meet Obama’s long-term goal, the administration maintains.
Imports have fallen, in part, because the United States has increased domestic oil and gas production in recent years.
U.S. crude oil production increased by an estimated 120,000 barrels a day last year over 2010, the report says. Current production, about 5.6 million barrels a day, is the highest since 2003.
The U.S. has been the world’s largest producer of natural gas since 2009, the report says. Use of renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar, is still relatively small but has doubled since 2008.
They're also quick to ignore history.
The usual suspects [for high gas prices] can be rounded up: refinery maintenance closures; the annual shift from cheaper-to-make winter blends of gasoline to the summer blends that use more expensive components; speculators, hedge funds and others driving up the cost of gasoline and oil futures; refiners helping make their petroleum products one of the nation’s most successful exports; and recent fears of a conflict with Iran.
Meanwhile, President Obama catches much of the current heat for price. But he might find some solace in the fact that he would be the first president since Kennedy if he isn’t hit with the visual pain of a larger number on the nation’s gas pumps.
That’s how far back one has to go (in a non-inflation adjusted sense) to find a president whose term ended without an increase in prices at the gas pumps, and that was probably because his term in office was cut short.
And in fact, gas prices now are still below the all time (national average) high of $4.11 experienced during George W. Bush's Presidency. I know that's still cold comfort for everyone having to spend more at the gas station now, but these are the facts. Speculation on Iran is having its effect on the market. Global oil demand is rising. (Remember that law of supply and demand?) Domestic oil production is at an 8 year high, and we're now using more domestically produced oil than imported oil. Oh, and even conservatives like George Will and the Cato Institute have admitted that the G-O-TEA attacks on President Obama are full of hot air.
And if G-O-TEA politicians think that whining about high has prices is their ticket to victory, then they may be in trouble if they're caught without refund insurance.
It’s hard to rule anything out, but evidence is thin that gasoline will matter much come November. While Americans love to grumble about expensive gasoline — and with good reason — political science research suggests that they don’t usually vote over it. Nate Silver, for one, has found that “there’s not a lot of evidence that oil prices are all that important” a factor in presidential elections. Nor do gasoline prices necessarily dictate the public’s view of the White House: Back during George W. Bush’s presidency, there was a much-linked graph showing his approval ratings climbing and dipping in lockstep with gas prices. But subsequent analysis by political scientist Brendan Nyhan showed that the correlation was just a “statistical artifact.”
The more severe worry for Obama, at this point, is whether soaring gas prices will stomp on the nascent economic recovery. The way this typically happens is that pricey gasoline starts crimping the checkbooks of U.S. consumers, who then have less money to spend on other things. (In the Post-ABC poll, most respondents said they were already feeling the pinch.) That leads to slower growth. And slower growth, political scientists agree, really can sink a presidency.
Still, it’s not yet clear whether oil prices will actually crush the current recovery. James Hamilton, an economist at UC San Diego, has found that most U.S. recessions since World War II have been preceded by a sharp run-up in oil prices. So you’d expect him to be gloomy about our current predicament. But, surprisingly, he’s not. “I find myself in the unusual position,” he recently wrote, “of being less concerned about the impact of oil prices on the U.S. economy than many other analysts.” In Hamilton’s view, high oil prices tend to inflict disproportionate economic harm by leading to a cut-back in vehicle sales. (When gas prices are volatile, consumers are hesitant to purchase new cars and trucks.) But that doesn’t seem to be happening right now — vehicle sales are booming. Moreover, low natural gas prices, a warm winter, and improved fuel efficiency have helped insulate U.S. consumers from pricey oil. Americans have been grappling with expensive oil for several years now, and they seem to be adapting.
And there are certainly ways for us to adapt. We can use mass transit more often. We can carpool. And of course, we can invest in renewable alternatives to oil that can be produced right here in America and create more American jobs. And of course, all of these are more effective in providing relief to American consumers than empty chants to "Drill Baby Drill" and ridiculous schemes to pump up profits for Canadian oil corporations.
So there we have it. All the ridiculous attacks on President Obama regarding high gas prices really come up empty. Remember that next time you see more media speculation and Republican spin on an issue they really don't seem interested in fully understanding.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Dirty Cup of G-O-TEA
Apparently, the fossil fuel industry just dropped a cool $1.2 million into "Nevada Fracas Caucus" winner Willard "Mr. 1%" Romney's Super PAC. And what have they gotten out of Willard? See for yourself.
And that's not all. While Romney was campaigning here in Nevada, he actually told the RGJ editorial board that he doesn't know "what the purpose is" of public lands. I guess Mittens doesn't know his history or his economics.
Either that, or perhaps his better judgment is being clouded by all those campaign donations by the fossil fuel industry. Hey, Desert Beacon may be onto something here. We're obviously doing quite well in providing jobs with public lands kept with the public's best interest in mind. ExxonMobil can't make money from that. Where's the "Drill, Baby, Drill!" when they need it?
Well, at least ExxonMobil is avoiding paying taxes on a whole lot of its profits. In fact, ExxonMobil pays a lower tax rate (17.6%) than most Americans. And it and other big oil companies can do so thanks to the G-O-TEA Congresscritters' votes to protect their tax bailouts. And yes, Nevada's own Senator Dean Heller (R-Fossil Fuel Industry BFF) voted with Big Oil. And considering Dean Heller netted $156,000 in fossil fuel industry donations, it makes perfect (dollars &) cents for Heller to vote for his BFFs.
So with Dean Heller already selling out Nevadans' best interests in Congress, is it any surprise that Mitt Romney is doing the same with his Presidential Campaign (and aligned Super PACs)? We know what will get our economy going again while also doing something about the greatest global security threat of our time. Yet instead of jumping forward with clean energy, G-O-TEA lackeys like Heller and Romney prefer to keep us mired in the dirty past with the fossil fuel industry that just happens to fuel their campaigns.
With [Texas Governor Rick] Perry out of the race, Romney has received more money from mining and oil than any other presidential candidate. The pro-Perry super PAC “Make Us Great Again” took in an outstanding $1.3 million from oil companies and executives during the last six months of his run.
Although Restore Our Future has no “formal” ties to the candidate, the donations reflect Romney’s right pivot on energy and climate concerns. The Massachusetts governor that once supported regulations on coal pollution, has since questioned whether carbon is even dangerous. In addition to becoming a climate denier, he now blasts government support for cleaner energy — despite creating a state green fund as governor.
You can expect Romney to sound suspiciously like his rich polluting backers, as dirty money continues to flood Restore Our Future and Romney’s campaign stash.
And that's not all. While Romney was campaigning here in Nevada, he actually told the RGJ editorial board that he doesn't know "what the purpose is" of public lands. I guess Mittens doesn't know his history or his economics.
Romney’s statement stands in stark contrast to the conservative tradition of knowing the value of protecting the lands that belong to all of us places for future generations. Teddy Roosevelt, the great Republican conservationist, once said, “Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”
Public lands in Nevada – and other western states—actually provide an enormous economic boost and sustain hundreds of thousands of jobs. Indeed, recent Interior Department statistics show that federally managed public lands in Nevada provided over $1 billion in economic impacts and supported 13,311 jobs in 2010 (and this statistic doesn’t even include the economic impacts of Forest Service lands, managed by the Department of Agriculture). Recreation, energy and minerals, and grazing and timber all play a part in the economic effects that public lands provide to Nevada. Activities like skiing at Lake Tahoe, boating at Lake Mead, and hiking at Great Basin National Park all take place on public lands.
Either that, or perhaps his better judgment is being clouded by all those campaign donations by the fossil fuel industry. Hey, Desert Beacon may be onto something here. We're obviously doing quite well in providing jobs with public lands kept with the public's best interest in mind. ExxonMobil can't make money from that. Where's the "Drill, Baby, Drill!" when they need it?
Well, at least ExxonMobil is avoiding paying taxes on a whole lot of its profits. In fact, ExxonMobil pays a lower tax rate (17.6%) than most Americans. And it and other big oil companies can do so thanks to the G-O-TEA Congresscritters' votes to protect their tax bailouts. And yes, Nevada's own Senator Dean Heller (R-Fossil Fuel Industry BFF) voted with Big Oil. And considering Dean Heller netted $156,000 in fossil fuel industry donations, it makes perfect (dollars &) cents for Heller to vote for his BFFs.
So with Dean Heller already selling out Nevadans' best interests in Congress, is it any surprise that Mitt Romney is doing the same with his Presidential Campaign (and aligned Super PACs)? We know what will get our economy going again while also doing something about the greatest global security threat of our time. Yet instead of jumping forward with clean energy, G-O-TEA lackeys like Heller and Romney prefer to keep us mired in the dirty past with the fossil fuel industry that just happens to fuel their campaigns.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
State of Our Union... In Motion
Tonight, we'll be watching what may be the most critical moment of 2012.
And then tomorrow, the President arrives here. And on Thursday, he'll be giving a speech on energy. However, don't expect another talk in front of a solar power plant.
A look at the president’s detailed travel schedule reveals a few clues about the specifics he might be getting into — at least enough for one good guess.
In Nevada, conversations about investing in energy usually revolve around geothermal power or solar panels. But Obama is not coming to Nevada to talk at a power plant in the desert.
Obama arrives in Las Vegas Wednesday evening. On Thursday morning, he is delivering public remarks at the United Parcel Service Las Vegas South facility.
Last year, UPS announced it had contracted with Clean Energy Fuels Corp. to roll out a fleet of 48 liquefied natural gas-fueled transport trucks at a new LNG [liquefied natural gas] fueling station. The initial contract, set for seven years, started in 2011.
So what is this about? Clean Energy Fuels started opening LNG fueling stations in Southern Nevada last year. Now there are four stations here in the valley. And last year, UPS began replacing its older diesel trucks with LNG powered trucks.
And while there are still clear environmental risks with LNG fuel, it is much cleaner than any other fossil fuel, it is more readily available domestically (so not as much need to import, unlike oil), and it may even be cheaper than traditional crude oil based gasoline. It may not be a good idea to declare natural gas a panacea, but it may be useful as a "transitional fuel" while research continues on more ways to harness renewable energy. And considering all the jobs that are being created as companies like UPS switch their vehicles from traditional gas or diesel to LNG, this can certainly provide a much needed boost to the economy.
So again, President Obama is looking ahead to future opportunities to create more American jobs while also doing something serious about climate change. We've recently regained the title of top global investor in clean energy, and there's plenty more economic benefit to investing in our future.
But of course, the G-O-TEA fools running against Obama just don't get it. What are their proposals to cut greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs? They don't have any. In fact, they'd rather conspire with lobbyists from foreign oil conglomerates to increase their profits than do something to help American workers looking for good American jobs!
Of course, we've seen for ourselves what the likes of API do to try to confuse us about climate change and smart energy solutions. So hopefully this week, Nevadans will be able to see for themselves who's looking forward to smart energy saving and economy boosting solutions... And who's just pitifully stuck in reverse.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Dean Heller Loves Big Oil, But Not Working Class Nevadans
This was the scene outside Dean Heller's Las Vegas office today. While Dean Heller continues to oppose anything he considers "not good enough", meaning not painful enough for working class Nevadans, our country faces deep problems. This isn't the first time Heller has felt the heat from his constituents, and I doubt this will be the last. Even though Nevada will better survive and thrive with a stronger push for clean and green energy, Dean Heller continues to oppose efforts to create more good green jobs. And even though many Nevadans rely on Social Security and Medicare for their very survival, Dean Heller has voted in lockstep with "TEA Party" radicals to kill Medicare and Social Security. And even though Nevadans understand that it helps no one to allow sick kids to die with no care, Heller twice voted against the very SCHIP program that millions of kids rely upon for their health care.
Oh, and did I mention Dean Heller has the dubious distinction of being the only member of Congress to vote TWICE for Paul Ryan's "TEA Party" plan to kill Medicare?
That's why we again saw protests outside Dean Heller's office today.
Nevada simply can't afford any more taxpayer giveaways to the fossil fuel industry while middle class and working poor families continue to struggle. While Heller demands economy destroying "austerity" for us, he continues to back taxpayer giveaways for his big Wall Street sweethearts. And while Nevadans are demanding more and better jobs, Heller continues to oppose any and all efforts for better jobs for Nevadans.
We have to tell Heller to stop ignoring Nevadans' needs while giving the fossil fuel industry everything it wants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)