Posted by Ericka Dana - ICAG Sierra Membership Chair
Catnip Farm, PO Box 72, Victor, IA 52221
(319) 685-4270 <[log in to unmask]>
----------
From: irenewsletter <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: A good time to contact Senator Grassley
Hi Folks -
Please excuse possible cross posts, but please pass this along to your
friends and lists as well.... The Energy debate takes center stage this week
in Washington, and it is a good time put in your 2 cents!
I spoke with Kurt Kovarik, Senator Grassley's aid on energy issues last
week, and it sounded as though the Senator is still firmly on the fence
about the Renewable Portfolio Standard. It might help for him to hear from
constituents this week in order to let him know that Iowans understand just
how big of an opportunity renewable energy represents for our states economy
and environment.
And although Harkin has spoken in favor of it, you may want to contact him
too...
Sen. Charles Grassley 135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC
20510-1501 (202)224-3744 [log in to unmask]
Sen. Tom Harkin 731 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202)
224-3254 Phone (202) 224-9369 Fax (202) 224-4633 TDD
[log in to unmask]
Please contact me with questions or comments, or for more details. - Rich
<[log in to unmask]>
Here are some recent articles and facts for your use -
This memo is based on our recently completed statewide survey of 501 likely
voters in Iowa. Respondents were selected by random digit dialing
techniques to ensure an unbiased sample. Interviews were conducted February
16-18, 2002 and the margin of error for this sample as a whole is plus or
minus 4.4 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence. For subgroups of
the population, the margin of error is higher. Iowans enter the national
energy debate strongly focused on the use of renewable energy sources and
efficiency and opposed to an emphasis on the continued development of fossil
fuels. Large majorities of Iowa voters also support a 20% Renewable
Portfolio Standard whereby power companies would be required to generate 20%
of their electricity using alternative sources of energy, as well as
increased CAFE standards for automobiles. Moreover, Iowa voters are willing
to pay more for vehicles that meet higher fuel efficiency standards as well
as pay more for electricity in order to help implement a renewable portfolio
standard.
Voters Overwhelmingly Prefer To Achieve Energy Security By Focusing On
Increasing Efficiency And Developing Renewable Energy Sources, Rather Than
By Increasing The Supply Of Oil
Iowa voters believe that greater efficiency is a surer route to energy
security than is greater oil production. When offered a straightforward
choice among increased production, increased efficiency, and renewable
energy sources, only one-in-four voters say increased oil drilling in the
U.S. is the best way to solve the nation's energy problems (22%; 4% would
get our oil-producing allies in other countries to send us more oil). Over
two-thirds of voters (67%) opt either for the expanded use of renewables
(38%) or increased efficiency (29%) over increased production. Additionally,
a strong majority of voters (61%) believe that using cleaner energy sources
like wind, solar, and fuel cells will do more to improve the American
economy than would concentrating on producing traditional sources of energy
like oil and coal more efficiently .
Seven-In-Ten Voters Favor Requiring Power Companies To Generate 20% Of Their
Electricity From Alternative, Renewable Energy Sources
By an overwhelming 54-point margin, voters favor requiring power companies
to generate 20% of their electricity from alternative, renewable energy
sources (widely known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard) despite the alleged
negative consequences (70% favor, 16% oppose). We described these negative
consequences as decreased consumption of local coal and higher electricity
prices. The intensity is on the environmental side, with 44% strongly
favoring the RPS standard, compared to only 6% who oppose strongly. Support
for the renewable portfolio standard is both strong and bipartisan, with 76%
of Democrats, 71% of independents, and 64% of Republicans favoring the 20%
standard. Rural Iowans also support a 20% RPS standard as much as those
living in more populated areas (72% of those who live on a farm or ranch,
72% town with a population under 5,000, and 69% in cities over 5,000).
Iowa voters are not deterred by an argument that enacting a 20% Renewable
Portfolio Standard would be too difficult or too expensive. On the
opposition side, voters heard an argument that the 20% Renewable Portfolio
Standard would be too difficult to implement by 2020 and that it would also
be expensive, resulting in higher electric bills for consumers . On the
environmental side, voters heard a statement saying that renewables would
reduce pollution and that the Renewable Portfolio Standard could be achieved
cost effectively . Almost 2-in-3 voters reject the cost and difficulty
arguments in favor of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (65% favor, 42%
strongly favor versus 22% oppose, 9% strongly oppose).
What's more, Iowa voters are prepared to pay higher prices for electricity,
in order to generate 20% of it from alternative, renewable sources. A
majority (55%) say they would be willing to pay as much as $10 more per
month compared to what they currently pay for their electricity in exchange
for requiring power companies to meet the 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Three-quarters (76%) say they would pay at least $5 more per month.
A Very Large Majority Favor Requiring Better Fuel Economy, Even In The Face
Of Arguments That Doing So Would Increase Regulation And Prices, As Well As
Cost Jobs
After hearing balanced arguments on both sides of the CAFE (Corporate
Average Fuel Economy) issue, Iowa voters favor higher fuel economy standards
by a 63-point margin (76% to 13%). Indeed, Iowa voters are even more
likely than Americans generally to support higher CAFE standards (70% to
21% nationwide). On the environmental side of the fuel economy debate,
voters heard an argument that the auto industry should be required to
increase the average mileage of cars, trucks, and SUV's to 40 mpg by 2012 .
On the other side of the issue, voters heard that increasing fuel economy
adds burdensome regulation which will drive up car prices and cost jobs .
The strength of Iowa voters' preference for requiring increased fuel economy
is strong indeed, with a 55% majority favoring the fuel economy approach
strongly, compared to just 6% who oppose that proposal strongly. Rural
Iowans are just as supportive of tougher CAFE standards. Three-quarters
(75%) of Iowans who live on a farm or ranch support the tougher standards,
as do 78% of those who live in a town with a population under 5,000 and 76%
of those in towns over 5,000. Support for higher CAFE standards is also
remarkably strong across party lines: 85% of Democrats, 76% of
independents, and 68% of Republicans all favor requiring increased fuel
economy.
Iowa voters are prepared to put their money where their opinions are by
paying higher prices for more fuel efficient trucks and SUV's. A strong 61%
majority say they would be willing to pay an extra $1,300 for a more
efficient truck or SUV, and 38% are "very willing" to do so (30% unwilling).
Support for the higher CAFE standard is even a bit stronger among SUV and
truck owners themselves. Sixty-four percent (64%) of light truck owners
(those who own either an SUV, pickup, or minivan) say that they would be
willing to pay an extra $1,300 for a more fuel efficient truck or SUV.
Voters Express Overwhelming Political Support For Candidates Who Support A
20% Renewable Portfolio Standard
The Renewable Portfolio Standard issue has political potency. Voters were
asked which of two imaginary candidates for political office they would vote
for: one who supports requiring a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard or one
who opposes such a standard for the power industry . There is no contest
between the two hypothetical candidates. A healthy 63% majority say they
would vote for the candidate who supports increasing fuel efficiency,
compared to just 22% who say they would vote for the candidate who opposes
the increase in fuel efficiency. Forty-five percent (45%) strongly support
the fuel efficiency candidate.
Voters also heard short, bare-boned descriptions of another pair of
hypothetical candidates: one who opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and one who wants to allow drilling in the Refuge . The
candidate who opposes drilling clearly outpolls the candidate who favors
drilling (53% to 17%). Again, the intensity of support is clearly on the
side of the candidate who wants to protect the Arctic Refuge, who is
"strongly" supported by a 42% plurality of likely Iowa voters, compared to
just 25% who "strongly" support the pro-drilling candidate.
----------
News : Opinion Editorial: Let's tap Iowa's energy wealth
By DM Register Editorial Board 03/03/2002
Suppose Iowa were sitting atop a huge dome of oil, and all it took to tap
its riches was an act of Congress.
Iowans would be lobbying furiously for the act (as Alaskans are lobbying for
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), because it would mean
jobs, wealth and growth.
Well, Iowa is endowed with hidden energy wealth that an act of Congress
could help unlock. It just doesn't happen to be oil. It is renewable forms
of energy - wind and plant material - that can be used to generate
electricity.
If more electricity in this country were generated from renewable sources,
Iowa's economy could get a multibillion-dollar boost. Moreover, the whole
nation would be better off.
So let's make it happen. Iowans should work to make sure that energy-policy
legislation under debate in Congress requires more generation of electricity
from renewable sources.
Most attention on the energy bill focuses on controversies over drilling in
the arctic refuge and whether to boost automobile fuel-economy standards.
Little attention has been paid to proposals for what's called a "renewables
portfolio standard" for electric generation, although it may be as important
as the other issues. Certainly it is to Iowa.
Renewable energy includes wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, gas generated
from landfills and hydrogen produced from renewable sources. Iowa and most
of the Midwest have an abundance of wind and the ability to grow huge
quantities of biomass, such as switchgrass or crop residue.
It's estimated that Iowa has the capacity to employ renewable sources to
generate 24 times more electricity than it now consumes. That means Iowa has
the potential to, in effect, become an energy exporter.
Some regions are not so endowed with renewable riches. If the government
were to require that 20 percent of electricity nationally be generated from
renewable sources, those regions would have to buy renewable energy credits
from places like Iowa that are capable of exceeding a 20 percent
requirement. This would be similar to the way companies trade clean-air
credits to meet pollution standards.
A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, using a U.S. Department of
Energy computer model, projects that with a 20 percent national renewables
standard, Iowa would actually end up generating 43 percent of its
electricity with renewables. Credits for the excess over 20 percent could be
sold to utilities in other regions.
That could mean, according to the study:
* $2.2 billion in capital investment in Iowa.
* $126 million in new property taxes for local governments.
* $30 million in lease payments to rural landowners for wind power.
* $1.4 billion in additional revenues from the export of renewable energy
credits.
* A reduction of nearly 4 percent in consumer energy bills by 2020, when the
20 percent requirement would be fully implemented.
The savings to consumers would occur because the renewables would tend to
displace natural gas, according to the study. This would have the effect of
holding down natural gas prices, hence holding down total energy costs.
Nationally, the study estimated a 20 percent renewables standard would
create jobs and bring new income sources to rural areas with little or no
additional cost to consumers. It would diversify the nation's energy
portfolio and reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse
gas.
A 20 percent standard ("20 by 2020") is proposed in a bill sponsored by
Senator James Jeffords of Vermont, who chairs the Environment and Public
Works Committee. The Senate's main energy bill, sponsored by Majority Leader
Tom Daschle of South Dakota, contains a 10 percent renewables standard.
The Union of Concerned Scientists study concluded the benefits to Iowa and
other states in this region would be far less under a 10 percent standard
than a 20 percent standard. But a 10 percent standard would at least be a
beginning.
Thanks partly to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, the recently passed Senate farm
bill also contains some provisions intended to encourage the development of
renewable energy. It's seen as one avenue of rural economic development.
Indeed it would be. Development of biomass, wind and other renewables means
investment and jobs in rural America, income for landowners and new crops
for farmers, while bringing the nation cleaner and more diversified energy.
It's a win-win for rural and urban America.
Iowans in Congress should work to get a significant renewables portfolio
standard in the energy bill and to keep renewable-energy incentives in the
farm bill.
----------
Contact: Deborah Donovan, UCS 617-547-5552
10 a.m., Thursday, February 21, 2002
Justin Hoest, Iowa PIRG 515-282-4193
Rich Dana, I-Renew 319-530-6051
Iowa's Economy Could Profit from Renewable Energy Boosting Clean, Homegrown
Energy Would Generate $2.2 Billion in Local Investments
Des Moines, Iowa, Feb. 21 -Iowa could reap $2.2 billion in new investment
from development of Iowa's renewable energy such as solar and wind,
according to an analysis released by the Union of Concerned Scientists and
Iowa PIRG and the Iowa Renewable Energy Association (I-Renew) today. Iowa
consumers would also save $100 million in lower energy bills from a proposed
national standard increasing the use of renewable energy to 20 percent of
the US energy supply by 2020, along with energy efficiency improvements.
"Renewable energy can be a terrific boon to the economy of Iowa," Fred
Kirschenmann, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at
ISU. "Iowa farmers could earn $30 million from lease payments just for wind
energy development rights. And Iowa has additional potential for developing
renewable energy from biomass energy crops."
Iowa currently develops less than 3% of its power from renewable energy, but
the state has the technical potential to generate nearly 24 times its
current electricity needs from renewable energy, enough to power more than
93 million homes, according to Iowa PIRG's new report, Generating Success:
How States Are Putting Renewable Energy Into Action. The new PIRG and UCS
reports show that a national standard increasing the use of renewable energy
power to 20 percent of the U.S. energy supply by 2020 would benefit both the
economy and environment of Iowa.
"Iowa deserves a safe, clean, affordable and secure energy future," said
Justin Hoest, Iowa PIRG Environmental Associate. "The good news is that
renewable energy is coming online here in Iowa. The bad news is that 97%
percent of our electricity still comes from dirty fossil fuels and nuclear
power."
The PIRG report cited wind turbines used by school districts as just one of
the ways Iowa currently uses renewable energy. On August 10, 1995, the
Nevada Community School District started up its second wind generator,
becoming the first district in the state to have two wind turbines. The
district now produces $36,100 worth of electricity from the wind turbines.
On top of the money being saved in electricity costs, the district has
increased its budget further by selling its excess electricity to the local
utility company. Since the first turbine began operation, the schools have
produced an excess of 117,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity, mainly from
days when the buildings are not being used. Nevada Community School District
sold this excess electricity for $7,056.
"Iowa has abundant renewable energy resources that are cleaner, safer, and
more secure than fossil fuels or nuclear power," said Deborah Donovan, UCS
senior analyst. "Instead of sending money and jobs out of the state for
dirty, dangerous and outdated sources of electricity, Iowa can enjoy
significant benefits from harvesting its homegrown energy sources,
especially in hard-pressed rural areas."
The U.S. Senate is poised to begin debating its energy bill next week.
While the legislation includes a national renewable energy standard, it is
only half the level considered cost-effective by the Energy Information
Administration, the official government source for energy statistics.
"I'm encouraged that the findings of this report back the aggressive
renewable energy initiatives in my bipartisan farm bill," commented U.S.
Senator Tom Harkin. "This report shows that it is both possible and
practical to harvest clean, affordable energy from our farms and rural
areas, to fuel our vehicles and to power homes and businesses. The only way
we will ever be able to cut our dependence on the unreliable oil pipeline
that stretches from the Middle East to American shores, is if we act now to
look to domestic sources for dependable, renewable energy. Only then will
we have a safe, clean and more secure energy future for Iowans and all
Americans. "
"Iowa has many homegrown examples of how renewable energy benefits the
ratepayer and the environment". said Rich Dana of I-Renew. "Renewable energy
could be a cornerstone in re-building Iowas economy, especially for farmers.
We can create jobs and protect the environment by increasing the amount of
electricity generated by clean renewable energy to 20 percent of our power
by 2020."
###
UCS is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens based in
Cambridge, MA. Iowa PIRG is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest
research and advocacy group based in Des Moines. I-Renew is a grassroots
group of over 300 Iowans who support renewable energy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]