As promised:

 

Terminator IV

Tomorrow, residents of the Twin Cities area will have an opportunity to star in their very own action movie.

By ‘star’ I mean watch, and by ‘action movie’ I mean the implosion of the High Bridge generating plant’s 570 foot concrete stack, which previously spewed coal juices into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, I will probably not be there to witness it because, well, it’s happening at 7:30 in the morning. But still, it’s pretty cool. The coal-fired plant is being retooled to run on natural gas, which is much cleaner and much more efficient. It is still not an ideal fuel source, perhaps, but it is certainly nothing to turn our noses up at while we develop other technologies to help us move toward clean energy.

For more information about the plant’s renovation, check out this page by Xcel Energy.

Even better, I used my mad artistic skillz to draw this sweet picture. Consider it a preview of coming attractions. (I don’t know if you’ve ever seen an implosion before, but fairies actually come and paint a magic red X over the building.)

Hopefully on Monday I will be able to find a video to post and also present different commentary about the event. The only things still needed to make this a truly AWESOME eco-action movie? Arnold Schwarzenegger and a 55-mph Prius chase.

I’ll be back.

 

Michele Bachmann: Isn’t It Ironic?

Not all cap-and-trade proposals are created equal.

But don’t try telling that to Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann. In a commentary in today’s Minneapolis Star-Tribune, she weighs in with her views on Lieberman-Warner. Yet despite her best efforts, she does not even come close to making a case against cap-and-trade policies.

Central to her opposition is the allegation that cap-and-trade is really ‘tax-and-spend.’ Well, sort of. Though I would argue that carbon pricing is a tax in the same way that paying to use the U.S. Post Office is. It’s not a ‘tax’ for the sake of raising money; it’s a fee for a service.

Bachmann largely misses the mark in her criticisms of LW. She identifies problems with this bill without demonstrating at all convincingly that it is cap-and-trade policies that are flawed. Rather than approaching our energy needs with an open mind, she is all-too-eager to talk about what she believes cannot be done. I’m sure inspired. For example, she cites Europe’s problems with their own cap-and-trade system implemented a few years ago. This is roughly the rhetorical equivalent of having a doctor tell you that you’re having an allergic reaction and then leave the exam room. The question most people would ask next is: what’s causing it?

In Europe, permits were largely given away to companies, who were able to get permits for as much carbon as they said they needed. It reminds me, in more ways than one, of the Charmin commercial where the little bear takes too much toilet paper when left to his own devices. True, in both of these scenarios you really don’t want to undershoot, but it also meant that the system was entirely ineffective at limiting carbon emissions. However, in the words of the ever wise and only slightly bitter Alanis Morissette: “you live, you learn.” (Alanis probably didn’t say that first. But whoever did say it first probably didn’t play God in a Jay and Silent Bob movie. Who do you trust?)

Bachmann does identify a serious issue that will likely plague any U.S. energy legislation: China. China will, I’m sure, be the subject of future posts. Briefly, however, it is worth noting that ignoring our obligation to address energy here at home until China does something themselves is like cutting off our nose to spite our face. Or, even better, like waiting to get help for an addiction until Amy Winehouse does. If we can develop renewable technology that will cheaply meet our energy needs, then China’s clean energy future will stage a comeback. It can be done: just ask Britney Spears. I do want a piece of the new Britney! Supply and demand!

Sorry, I’m back. Really, Bachmann says it best herself:

There is no coherent reason to have to choose between economic growth and environmental protection. It’s a false notion that we must conserve our way out of our energy crisis, or pillage the environment. We can grow our economy, improve our energy security and pass on a clean natural heritage to our children.

Cap-and-trade doesn’t force a choice, it just makes the price of doing business reflect all the costs of doing business. This better valuation will grow our economy, improve our energy security and pass on a clean natural heritage to our children. Yes Alanis, it is a little bit ironic.

-Diana

 

Mo’ Coal, Mo’ Problems: A Lifetime Original Movie (Based on a True Story)

Anyone who says that government is boring has never been to a Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearing. Okay, the hearing itself was boring. But paraphrased and with only a little bit of creative license, it was dramatic and occasionally humorous. In a really dark, Drop Dead Gorgeous kind of way.

Curtain up on a large room, with soft, mother-of-pearl walls and a nondescript carpet. At the front of the room sit five stoic commissioners. The chair leans forward to speak. “I’m most concerned about the ratepayer,” he begins. He then inquires about the costs of windmills and other renewable alternatives to coal.

The representative from the utility company appears absolutely gleeful about the opportunity just handed to him. “The price of renewables is escalating at a much higher rate than any other type of power,” he gasps.

The woman testifying on behalf of the various clean energy advocates bristles slightly. “Well, no. There have been no studies that have shown that conclusively.” She implies that further studies would be needed in order to make that assertion with the confidence that Mr. Utility had.

The chair pounces. He objects to the implication that more studies be done, which would mean more delays that would threaten his Yeoman ratepayers (though missing the point of the witness’s comment). Then he suddenly waxes nostalgic. “I’ve been doing this for a long time,” he muses. “And you can’t always go on the evidence. A certain amount of this is instinct, and comes from experience. Now I don’t want to talk about myself…” though clearly he did, “and about my wisdom and experience, but this job takes wisdom, and experience. And you can only get that wisdom from experience. Have I mentioned that I am wise and experienced?” He paused. “Well, I think this is a good time for a ten minute break.”

After the commission had reconvened, closing remarks were made.

The applicants emphasized that while they were not entirely confident in their cost estimates, the longer it took to break ground, the more it would cost to build the plant. “Delay is a poison pill,” they asserted. They acknowledged that some of the commissioners were not satisfied that they, the applicants, had satisfied their obligations of proof. Nonetheless, the project would die if it were not approved right away. “We urge the commission to grant the Certificate of Need,” they concluded. “If you make us come up with better numbers, it will take too long, and the sketchy numbers we have now will be even wronger!” The chair nodded knowingly.

With this, the commission entered into deliberations about the fate of the coal plant in question, called Big Stone II (appropriated abbreviated BSII). Specifically, the commission was to determine whether to issue a Certificate of Need allowing transmission lines to be built from the proposed plant in South Dakota. After some discussion about the regional nature of the project, and other serious federalism issues that kind of ruin my dramatization, the chair once again addressed the room.

“It would be easy to say no to this plant. That is the popular thing to do. But my job is to provide for the energy needs of the ratepayer. Not the needs of the entire planet, but the need of Minnesota. In fifty years, no one will remember who approved this plant. It’s not like I want eternal glory, per se, though donations to the Chair’s Foundations for Remembering the Life and Career of the Chair can be made after the hearing. Anyways, saying yes is the courageous thing to do.”

At this, many in the room were visibly confused about the suggestion that siding with industry is a difficult and courageous thing to do. Another commissioner said as much. A third commissioner spoke up, saying that he was not especially convinced with the evidence in the record. He noted that applicants and interveners both had presented dramatically different models, different because they had used different assumptions. He asked for an independent consultant to evaluate the information.

At least an hour of discussion and another break later, the applicants were willing to accept further studies, since it had become clear that without further clarification the application would be rejected. And so, in a room filled with palpable tension, the eager citizens waiting to hear the decision were served by the PUC with a cliff-hanger almost as suspenseful as an episode of 24… and not in a good way.

Unconvinced that BSII was needed, they elected to perform further studies at the mighty ratepayer’s expense rather than rule that the plant was not needed.

*******************************************************************

For a more factual (though decidedly less colorful) account of the Big Stone II project, check out the following resources:

http://wcco.com/local/big.stone.energy.2.740764.html

From the Sierra Club: http://northstar.sierraclub.org/campaigns/air/coal/bigStoneFactsheet.html

From the project planners (I’m an equal opportunity blogger): http://www.bigstoneii.com/PlantProject/PlantEnvironmentalImpact.asp

(Necessary caveat: a ‘more efficient’ coal plant still emits boatloads of CO2. So, sure, if you’re into that kind of thing.)