Iowa City has been without a contracted franchise agreement with MidAmerican Energy for six years. Do we need one, given that MidAmerican by law has to provide it anyway and it seems to work fine? On the other hand, is it fair to expect a company to upgrade services without a reasonable commitment? The jury is out.
The Gazette Reports
Locals packed the City Council meeting room here last night to question how a franchise agreement with MidAmerican Energy Co. would benefit Iowa City.
"When I look at the six-page franchise agreement, I ask, 'Where's the beef,' '' said Peter Hansen, a University of Iowa professor. "I don't see that many benefits to the city.''
The council's public hearing centered on two ordinances that would grant MidAmerican Energy electric and natural gas franchises for at least 10 years.
The city could renew the franchises for 10-year and 5-year increments, up to 25 years.
Those opposed focused on how the city has fared just fine without a franchise for six years, and expressed concern the agreement would smother the city's opportunities to pursue renewable and alternative energy sources.
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 3
Wednesday, September 5
Renewable Hope
This weekend in Solon, The 16th annual I-Renew Energy EXPO hosted by the Iowa Renewable Energy Association (I-Renew) will be held on September 8 & 9 at Solon High School, a school built with green and energy efficient technologies. The EXPO features workshops and speakers covering many topics- from renewable energy, green building, energy efficient technology, renewable fuels, alternative transportation, advocacy, and more!
SOLON HIGH SCHOOL
600 WEST FIFTH ST.SOLON, IA
ADMISSION: $5 INDIVIDUAL, $10 FAMILY
Carpool or bike if you can!!
SOLON HIGH SCHOOL
600 WEST FIFTH ST.SOLON, IA
ADMISSION: $5 INDIVIDUAL, $10 FAMILY
Carpool or bike if you can!!
Thursday, July 19
Washington Post Reports about Cheney's Secret Energy Meetings
The Washington Post has a story about the energy policy meetings that took place in 2001 and led people to believe that there was something fishy going on in Cheney's office.
The Post reports, "In all, about 300 groups and individuals met with staff members of the energy task force, including a handful who saw Cheney himself, according to the list, which was compiled in the summer of 2001. For six years, those names have been a closely guarded secret, thanks to a fierce legal battle waged by the White House. Some names have leaked out over the years, but most have remained hidden because of a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that agreed that the administration's internal deliberations ought to be shielded from outside scrutiny."
Sneaky Meetings?
"Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who unsuccessfully pushed for details of the meetings, said it is "ridiculous" that it has taken six years to see who attended the meetings. He described the energy task force as an early indicator of "how secretively Vice President Cheney wanted to act."
Waxman said he was not surprised to see the prevalence of energy industry groups on the list of meetings. "Six years later, we see we lost an opportunity to become less dependent on importing oil, on using fossil fuels, which have been a threat to our national security and the well-being of the planet," he said."
Or Learning From History?
"The development of a new energy policy was Bush's first major initiative after he took office. He turned over responsibility of it to Cheney, a former chairman of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based energy services firm.
Mindful of the disastrous fate that befell Hillary Rodham Clinton's unwieldy health-care task force, which included about 500 staff members and 34 working groups, Cheney kept his energy task force small and lean. Instead of a 1,300-page report, he aimed for something much shorter: The final product was 170 pages."
The Post reports, "In all, about 300 groups and individuals met with staff members of the energy task force, including a handful who saw Cheney himself, according to the list, which was compiled in the summer of 2001. For six years, those names have been a closely guarded secret, thanks to a fierce legal battle waged by the White House. Some names have leaked out over the years, but most have remained hidden because of a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that agreed that the administration's internal deliberations ought to be shielded from outside scrutiny."
Sneaky Meetings?
"Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who unsuccessfully pushed for details of the meetings, said it is "ridiculous" that it has taken six years to see who attended the meetings. He described the energy task force as an early indicator of "how secretively Vice President Cheney wanted to act."
Waxman said he was not surprised to see the prevalence of energy industry groups on the list of meetings. "Six years later, we see we lost an opportunity to become less dependent on importing oil, on using fossil fuels, which have been a threat to our national security and the well-being of the planet," he said."
Or Learning From History?
"The development of a new energy policy was Bush's first major initiative after he took office. He turned over responsibility of it to Cheney, a former chairman of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based energy services firm.
Mindful of the disastrous fate that befell Hillary Rodham Clinton's unwieldy health-care task force, which included about 500 staff members and 34 working groups, Cheney kept his energy task force small and lean. Instead of a 1,300-page report, he aimed for something much shorter: The final product was 170 pages."
Monday, July 9
The Candidates on Energy Policy and Climate Change
I'm sure everyone watched or attended Live Earth on Saturday and hopefully we all are thinking (and acting) about what we can do to lessen our footprint.
MoveOn has a nice collection of candidate statements on the environment and climate change controls. To me there is no clear "winner" on this issue, but any one of them is better than the Bush policies of the last several years. Certainly reducing emissions, developing better alternative and renewable energies, and carbon offsets are important, but the need for all of us to consider how we live and make changes that reduce our use of energy or to use it more efficiently is crucial.
MoveOn has a nice collection of candidate statements on the environment and climate change controls. To me there is no clear "winner" on this issue, but any one of them is better than the Bush policies of the last several years. Certainly reducing emissions, developing better alternative and renewable energies, and carbon offsets are important, but the need for all of us to consider how we live and make changes that reduce our use of energy or to use it more efficiently is crucial.
Thursday, March 29
OIL Be Seeing You
From the GAO (Thanks to Rapid Response Iowa)
Most studies estimate that oil production will peak sometime between now and 2040, although many of these projections cover a wide range of time, including two studies for which the range extends into the next century.
The timing of the peak depends on multiple, uncertain factors that will influence how quickly the remaining oil is used, including the amount of oil still in the ground, how much of the remaining oil can be ultimately produced, and future oil demand.
The amount of oil remaining in the ground is highly uncertain, in part because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) controls most of the estimated world oil reserves, but its estimates of reserves are not verified by independent auditors. In addition, many parts of the world have not yet been fully explored for oil.
There is also great uncertainty about the amount of oil that will ultimately be produced, given the technological, cost, and environmental challenges. For example, some of the oil remaining in the ground can be accessed only by using complex and costly technologies that present greater environmental challenges than the technologies used for most of the oil produced to date.
Other important sources of uncertainty about future oil production are potentially unfavorable political and investment conditions in countries where oil is located. For example, more than 60 percent of world oil reserves, on the basis of Oil and Gas Journal estimates, are in countries where relatively unstable political conditions could constrain oil exploration and production.
Finally, future world demand for oil also is uncertain because it depends on economic growth and government policies throughout the world. For example, continued rapid economic growth in China and India could significantly increase world demand for oil, while environmental concerns, including oil’s contribution to global warming, may spur conservation or adoption of alternative fuels that would reduce future demand for oil.
In the United States, alternative transportation technologies face challenges that could impede their ability to mitigate the consequences of a peak and decline in oil production, unless sufficient time and effort are brought to bear. For example:
- Ethanol from corn is more costly to produce than gasoline, in part because of the high cost of the corn feedstock. Even if ethanol were to become more cost-competitive with gasoline, it could not become widely available without costly investments in infrastructure, including pipelines, storage tanks, and filling stations.
- Advanced vehicle technologies that could increase mileage or use different fuels are generally more costly than conventional technologies and have not been widely adopted. For example, hybrid electric vehicles can cost from $2,000 to $3,500 more to purchase than comparable conventional vehicles and currently constitute about 1 percent of new vehicle registrations in the United States.
- Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are significantly more costly than conventional vehicles to produce. Specifically, the hydrogen fuel cell stack needed to power a vehicle currently costs about $35,000 to produce, in comparison with a conventional gas engine, which costs $2,000 to $3,000.
Given these challenges, development and widespread adoption of alternative transportation technologies will take time and effort. Key alternative technologies currently supply the equivalent of only about 1 percent of U.S. consumption of petroleum products, and DOE projects that even under optimistic scenarios, by 2015 these technologies could displace only the equivalent of 4 percent of projected U.S. annual consumption.
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Energy work with other agencies to establish a strategyto coordinate and prioritize federal agency efforts to reduce uncertainty about the likely timing of a peak and to advise Congresson how best to mitigate consequences. In commenting on a draft of the report, the Departments of Energy and the Interior generally agreed with the report and recommendations.
The prospect of a peak in oil production presents problems of global proportion whose consequences will depend critically on our preparedness. The consequences would be most dire if a peak occurred soon, without warning, and were followed by a sharp decline in oil production because alternative energy sources, particularly for transportation, are not yet available in large quantities.
Such a peak would require sharp reductions in oil consumption, and the competition for increasingly scarce energy would drive up prices, possibly to unprecedented levels, causing severe economic damage. While these consequences would be felt globally, the United States, as the largest consumer of oil and one of the nations most heavily dependent on oil for transportation, may be especially vulnerable among the industrialized nations of the world.
Most studies estimate that oil production will peak sometime between now and 2040, although many of these projections cover a wide range of time, including two studies for which the range extends into the next century.
The timing of the peak depends on multiple, uncertain factors that will influence how quickly the remaining oil is used, including the amount of oil still in the ground, how much of the remaining oil can be ultimately produced, and future oil demand.
The amount of oil remaining in the ground is highly uncertain, in part because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) controls most of the estimated world oil reserves, but its estimates of reserves are not verified by independent auditors. In addition, many parts of the world have not yet been fully explored for oil.
There is also great uncertainty about the amount of oil that will ultimately be produced, given the technological, cost, and environmental challenges. For example, some of the oil remaining in the ground can be accessed only by using complex and costly technologies that present greater environmental challenges than the technologies used for most of the oil produced to date.
Other important sources of uncertainty about future oil production are potentially unfavorable political and investment conditions in countries where oil is located. For example, more than 60 percent of world oil reserves, on the basis of Oil and Gas Journal estimates, are in countries where relatively unstable political conditions could constrain oil exploration and production.
Finally, future world demand for oil also is uncertain because it depends on economic growth and government policies throughout the world. For example, continued rapid economic growth in China and India could significantly increase world demand for oil, while environmental concerns, including oil’s contribution to global warming, may spur conservation or adoption of alternative fuels that would reduce future demand for oil.
In the United States, alternative transportation technologies face challenges that could impede their ability to mitigate the consequences of a peak and decline in oil production, unless sufficient time and effort are brought to bear. For example:
- Ethanol from corn is more costly to produce than gasoline, in part because of the high cost of the corn feedstock. Even if ethanol were to become more cost-competitive with gasoline, it could not become widely available without costly investments in infrastructure, including pipelines, storage tanks, and filling stations.
- Advanced vehicle technologies that could increase mileage or use different fuels are generally more costly than conventional technologies and have not been widely adopted. For example, hybrid electric vehicles can cost from $2,000 to $3,500 more to purchase than comparable conventional vehicles and currently constitute about 1 percent of new vehicle registrations in the United States.
- Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are significantly more costly than conventional vehicles to produce. Specifically, the hydrogen fuel cell stack needed to power a vehicle currently costs about $35,000 to produce, in comparison with a conventional gas engine, which costs $2,000 to $3,000.
Given these challenges, development and widespread adoption of alternative transportation technologies will take time and effort. Key alternative technologies currently supply the equivalent of only about 1 percent of U.S. consumption of petroleum products, and DOE projects that even under optimistic scenarios, by 2015 these technologies could displace only the equivalent of 4 percent of projected U.S. annual consumption.
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Energy work with other agencies to establish a strategyto coordinate and prioritize federal agency efforts to reduce uncertainty about the likely timing of a peak and to advise Congresson how best to mitigate consequences. In commenting on a draft of the report, the Departments of Energy and the Interior generally agreed with the report and recommendations.
The prospect of a peak in oil production presents problems of global proportion whose consequences will depend critically on our preparedness. The consequences would be most dire if a peak occurred soon, without warning, and were followed by a sharp decline in oil production because alternative energy sources, particularly for transportation, are not yet available in large quantities.
Such a peak would require sharp reductions in oil consumption, and the competition for increasingly scarce energy would drive up prices, possibly to unprecedented levels, causing severe economic damage. While these consequences would be felt globally, the United States, as the largest consumer of oil and one of the nations most heavily dependent on oil for transportation, may be especially vulnerable among the industrialized nations of the world.
Tuesday, March 20
Sen. Tom Harkin on Global Warming
I appreciate hearing your thoughts on global warming and your support for S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007. There is growing concern that human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, industrial production, deforestation, and certain land-use practices, are increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.These gasses are leading to changes in the fundamental chemical and physical composition of Earth's atmosphere and have the potential to affect Earth's climate. Indeed, global average temperatures are rising as a result of these atmospheric changes, and that trend is projected to continue. I am very much interested in finding ways to reward those who take steps to reduce or affect greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the threat of global warming. Many states and local governments have already taken the initiative to lower their contribution to global warming and I commend these efforts.
Over 418 US cities, including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles as well as a number of Iowan cities such as Des Moines, Sioux City and Dubuque, have signed the Climate Protection Agreement, which commits these cities to the strict environmental standards of the Kyoto Protocol. California recently passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, committing the world's twelth highest emitter of greenhouse gases to the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol. If we are serious about taking the necessary steps to curb our contribution to global warming, we need to follow the bold steps of our local leaders. And reducing our greenhouse gas emissions does not have to happen at the expense of American businesses and industries. For example, California as well as a number of Northeastern states are participating in a cap-and-trade program, which allows businesses and industries to earn credits for meeting stricter environmental and emissions standards. These credits can then be sold or traded to other businesses that do not meet these same environmental standards – otherwise, they face penalties. This program gives businesses the incentive to engage in environmentally-friendly practices, while giving them the freedom to decide how and even if they want to participate.
I have recently introduced a bipartisan bill, the Biofuels Security Act of 2007 (S.23), a bold initiative that requires American industries to produce at least 60 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2030. In order to ensure a market for this fuel, it also requires car manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV's) and major oil companies to install E-85 pumps at stations that they own or brand. This legislation will not only reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, but also move America closer to energy independence and revitalize America's heartland with thousands of new jobs.
I am supportive of the efforts of Senators Boxer and Sanders to seriously address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and I hope to work with them to pass a comprehensive global warming bill this year.
Thursday, January 25
State of the Facts
From Fact Check
President Bush delivered his State of the Union address Jan. 23, concluding that "the State of our Union is strong [and] our cause in the world is right." That broad judgment we'll leave to others to evaluate. Some of the specific facts the President cited, however, we found to be selective, and one we found to be incorrect.
Gasoline Cut
Bush overstated matters when he proposed to slash the nation's use of gasoline by one-fifth over the next decade:
Bush: Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years.
But, compared to what? In reality, Bush's stated goal is not so grand as he made it sound. A White House "fact sheet" says in the fine print that he's talking about a 20 per cent from projected levels, not from what motorists are using today.
There's a big difference. The Energy Information Administrationpredicts that if current trends continue American motorists will consume 12 per cent more gasoline than they do currently by the year 2017. Cutting that projected consumption by 20 per cent works out to a level that is just 11 per cent less than current consumption. That would still be a historic reversal and a major accomplishment, but roughly half of what Bush's words seemed to promise.
Foreign Oil
Bush – once again – spoke of lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil and imported oil generally:
Bush: For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil.
He didn't mention that the nation has become significantly more dependent on foreign oil during his time in office. According to the Energy Information Administration, the US imported 60.2 per cent of the oil it consumed in 2006, up from 52.9 per cent in Bill Clinton's last year in office. Dependency has grown in each year of the Bush presidency save one, despite all the talk and enactment of his energy legislation.
Federal Deficit and Fiscal Discipline
Bush called for fiscal restraint and claimed credit for cutting the federal deficit in half:
Bush: What we need is to impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.
Actually, Bush inherited a budget with a comfortable surplus, and then ran up enormous deficits that continue to the present. Under Bush, the national debt (debt held by the public) has increased by more than $1.5 trillion. The annual deficits peaked at $413 billion in fiscal year 2004, and has declined since then. But in fiscal year 2006 (which ended last Oct. 31) the deficit was still $248 billion. The latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office project a further reduction in the current fiscal year, to $172 billion. That would indeed be less than half the worst of Bush's deficits, but it would be only two years prior to fiscal 2009, not three.
As for spending restraint, Bush has shown little if any to date. He allowed spending to soar 42 per cent during his presidency, and didn't veto a single spending bill. (His only veto was of a bill to loosen restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research.) He did sign massive tax cuts, and revenues increased only 21 per cent during the same period.
Education
The President called for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, saying:
Bush: Students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap...the No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children.
According to the government's own National Center on Education Statistics, the overall achievement gap between minority students and white students has decreased between 2002, when Bush signed the law, and 2005. But the act's impact on math and reading scores is debatable. Students in 4th and 8th grades performed at historic high levels in math in 2005. However, scores had been on the rise since before the law passed. In reading, there was no difference between 4th graders' scores in 2002 and 2005, and the scores of 8th graders actually dropped two points in that interval. The reading scores in 2005 were barely different from those in 1992.
The Economy
When it came to describing the economy, Bush was pretty much on the mark:
Bush: Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising.
In fact, the 4.5 per cent unemployment rate for December was well below the historical average. For all months since 1948, when the BLS started publishing its current statistical series, the average rate has been 5.6 per cent. The current rate is not far above the 4.2 per cent rate that prevailed when Clinton left office.
Inflation remains reasonably low. The Consumer Price Index rose 2.5 per cent during 2006, less than the 3.4 per cent rise of 2005.
And it's also true that wages are rising, and finally rising faster than inflation. According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers rose 2.1 per cent last year even after adjustment for inflation. But last year's rise came after many years of stagnation. In December workers were earning only 2.9 per cent more per week than when Bush took office, taking inflation into account.
Job Gain
The President puffed up his description of the economy using an apparently bogus number. And in fact, when we dug into this we found that the White House has been using inflated numbers for job gains for more than four months.
Bush: We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far.
The 7.2 million figure is correct according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, counting an unusually large upward adjustment in the figures for total non-farm employment that the BLS announced in October. However, as in the past, Bush concentrated only on the period since August 2003, which was the low point of the prolonged job slump that plagued the first 2-1/2 years of his presidency. Since 2.7 million jobs were lost that time, the net gain from the time he took office has been 4.6 million jobs, a respectable number but still not so large as the one Bush highlighted.
President Bush delivered his State of the Union address Jan. 23, concluding that "the State of our Union is strong [and] our cause in the world is right." That broad judgment we'll leave to others to evaluate. Some of the specific facts the President cited, however, we found to be selective, and one we found to be incorrect.
Gasoline Cut
Bush overstated matters when he proposed to slash the nation's use of gasoline by one-fifth over the next decade:
Bush: Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years.
But, compared to what? In reality, Bush's stated goal is not so grand as he made it sound. A White House "fact sheet" says in the fine print that he's talking about a 20 per cent from projected levels, not from what motorists are using today.
There's a big difference. The Energy Information Administrationpredicts that if current trends continue American motorists will consume 12 per cent more gasoline than they do currently by the year 2017. Cutting that projected consumption by 20 per cent works out to a level that is just 11 per cent less than current consumption. That would still be a historic reversal and a major accomplishment, but roughly half of what Bush's words seemed to promise.
Foreign Oil
Bush – once again – spoke of lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil and imported oil generally:
Bush: For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil.
He didn't mention that the nation has become significantly more dependent on foreign oil during his time in office. According to the Energy Information Administration, the US imported 60.2 per cent of the oil it consumed in 2006, up from 52.9 per cent in Bill Clinton's last year in office. Dependency has grown in each year of the Bush presidency save one, despite all the talk and enactment of his energy legislation.
Federal Deficit and Fiscal Discipline
Bush called for fiscal restraint and claimed credit for cutting the federal deficit in half:
Bush: What we need is to impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.
Actually, Bush inherited a budget with a comfortable surplus, and then ran up enormous deficits that continue to the present. Under Bush, the national debt (debt held by the public) has increased by more than $1.5 trillion. The annual deficits peaked at $413 billion in fiscal year 2004, and has declined since then. But in fiscal year 2006 (which ended last Oct. 31) the deficit was still $248 billion. The latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office project a further reduction in the current fiscal year, to $172 billion. That would indeed be less than half the worst of Bush's deficits, but it would be only two years prior to fiscal 2009, not three.
As for spending restraint, Bush has shown little if any to date. He allowed spending to soar 42 per cent during his presidency, and didn't veto a single spending bill. (His only veto was of a bill to loosen restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research.) He did sign massive tax cuts, and revenues increased only 21 per cent during the same period.
Education
The President called for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, saying:
Bush: Students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap...the No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children.
According to the government's own National Center on Education Statistics, the overall achievement gap between minority students and white students has decreased between 2002, when Bush signed the law, and 2005. But the act's impact on math and reading scores is debatable. Students in 4th and 8th grades performed at historic high levels in math in 2005. However, scores had been on the rise since before the law passed. In reading, there was no difference between 4th graders' scores in 2002 and 2005, and the scores of 8th graders actually dropped two points in that interval. The reading scores in 2005 were barely different from those in 1992.
The Economy
When it came to describing the economy, Bush was pretty much on the mark:
Bush: Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising.
In fact, the 4.5 per cent unemployment rate for December was well below the historical average. For all months since 1948, when the BLS started publishing its current statistical series, the average rate has been 5.6 per cent. The current rate is not far above the 4.2 per cent rate that prevailed when Clinton left office.
Inflation remains reasonably low. The Consumer Price Index rose 2.5 per cent during 2006, less than the 3.4 per cent rise of 2005.
And it's also true that wages are rising, and finally rising faster than inflation. According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers rose 2.1 per cent last year even after adjustment for inflation. But last year's rise came after many years of stagnation. In December workers were earning only 2.9 per cent more per week than when Bush took office, taking inflation into account.
Job Gain
The President puffed up his description of the economy using an apparently bogus number. And in fact, when we dug into this we found that the White House has been using inflated numbers for job gains for more than four months.
Bush: We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far.
The 7.2 million figure is correct according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, counting an unusually large upward adjustment in the figures for total non-farm employment that the BLS announced in October. However, as in the past, Bush concentrated only on the period since August 2003, which was the low point of the prolonged job slump that plagued the first 2-1/2 years of his presidency. Since 2.7 million jobs were lost that time, the net gain from the time he took office has been 4.6 million jobs, a respectable number but still not so large as the one Bush highlighted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)