Personal e-mail issue begs for clarity

Heath Haussamen

NMPolitics - Whether personal e-mail accounts should be used for public business and whether such e-mails are public record are issues that beg for clarity. I’d accept a legislative solution or, if anyone wants to take this issue to court, a judicial solution.

Martin Esquivel is a N.M. Foundation for Open Government (FOG) Board member, a media law attorney, and a 2006 recipient of FOG’s Dixon Award for championing open government.

He’s also an elected member of the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education who uses his personal e-mail address as his APS contact.

That means Esquivel falls into the category of public officials who are using personal e-mail to conduct official business but, I asserted earlier this week, should instead use official e-mail accounts so there’s no question they’re creating records that are subject to the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA). I talked with Esquivel about it, and he believes the situation is more complicated than that.

First off, Esquivel said he wanted to make clear that he’s not trying to hide anything by using his personal e-mail account. He said it’s “purely a matter of convenience” – he’s trying to avoid having to juggle too many accounts.

“There’s really nothing nefarious about it,” Esquivel told me. Read full column here: News New Mexico

The EPA's Binge Gambling

In recent history, we’ve collectively bet on “sure things” and lost.
We once believed there was an energy shortage—but modern technology and resource expansion have created a global oil glut, and natural gas is so plentiful that it is currently priced at a two-year low. America is now a net exporter of fuel.
Renewable energy was a sure thing. Presidents Bush and Obama threw taxpayer dollars at it—but it hasn’t paid off. Solyndra (and others) have gone bankrupt, taking taxpayer dollars with them. First Solar was the single worst performer in the SPX in 2011. Biofuel production has fallen off while the production of traditional fuels is up.
The planet was said to be warming. It was thought to be a crisis. But before a global agreement could be signed to fix the problem, new studies were done, and data was found to be falsified. The cooking of the books became known as “climate-gate.” The earth began to cool on its own—warming and cooling as it has done for billions of years.
Now we may have “mercury-gate.” The EPA and the environmental groups pushing for the “21 years in the making” Mercury and Air Toxics Standards have not looked at all the data, and data that they have looked at is used selectively to draw the desired conclusions.
Krupp claims that current levels of mercury (a naturally occurring element) will damage the IQ of “countless American children,” leaving the reader with mental pictures of rooms full of special needs children. When, in fact, their study shows the estimated total IQ points lost nationwide to mercury contamination of fish consumed by humans is 510.8 IQ points (see ES-5, Table ES-3 “Estimated IQ benefits from HG reduction”). That’s not per person (or child). That’s not per state; it is the total national benefit: 511 (let’s be generous) IQ points saved at an estimated annual cost of $9.6 billion. So, nationwide, 500 children might lose one IQ point, or 1000 might lose a half a point.
Similar to the tactics used to push the climate-change agenda, the EPA has once again selected data to support its predetermined outcome—they’ve then launched an advertising campaign to sell the expensive plan to the public. In his analysis of the EPA’s study, Dr. Willie Soon says: “It ignored well-documented, respected, and readily available research that conflicted with its apparently predetermined outcome and agenda.”
To read Krupp’s op-ed, you’d believe that implementing the EPA’s findings—which will cause some coal-fueled power plants to be mothballed and raise energy costs for consumers and industry—will eliminate all mercury from the environment. According to the Soon study, this is not true. He says: “America’s coal-fired electrical generating units are responsible for approximately 0.5% of mercury found in the air Americans breathe. Even eliminating every milligram of this mercury will not affect or reduce the other 99.5% in America’s atmosphere.” Major sources include forest fires and volcanoes.
Once again, Americans are being forced to make a bad bet. The EPA would like us to spend $9.6 billion dollars (that is billion with a “B”) for a proposed saving in healthcare costs of $6 million (that is million with an “M”) and it doesn’t add up—especially when considering the conflicting data. Even an amateur gambler wouldn’t make that bet. The odds are against you.
When the first card Krupp played was pulled from his sleeve, there is no reason to trust anything else he says. With an annual salary of nearly half a million dollars, Fred Krupp can afford to gamble, but the US cannot. The EPA is on a binge, gambling with the heart of the US economy and making our citizens the losers.

Sowards: Seven Steps to Restore a Healthy America (cont'd)

Step 1 - Repealing Obamacare will remove a new layer of taxes, regulation and bureaucracy that America simply cannot afford.  The law is unconstitutional, subsidizes waste, cuts Medicare, leads to massive uncertainty for job creators and will destroy the private medical profession.

Step 2 - Every year, over $200 billion is lost to fraud and abuse.  Ending fraud by transitioning from a paper system to an electronic system is a powerful way to save Americans 10% across the board on medical costs.  Key to this process would be a requirement for all health care providers to accurately document cases of free care given to illegal immigrants and report the nationality of each patient to both federal and state governments.  The United States could then seek recourse on behalf of States by amending its aid and trade packages with other nations to recover the over $100 billion in health care that is provided to illegal immigrants, annually.

Step 3 - Restoring a Healthy America will require positioning the federal government to be an effective partner with states by cutting waste.  The best way to build a Strong America Now is for incoming U.S. Senators to craft legislation that will compliment the bills of Representatives like Thomas Latham of Iowa, whose LESS Government Act moves to implement waste reduction across all federal programs.  I am a pro-Lean Six Sigma candidate because it is a tried and tested, proven method of cutting waste and redundancy.  It has been recognized by virtually every Republican Presidential Candidate as a program that can lower the cost of non-discretionary federal spending by 25% and put an end to the deficit.  By 2018, America can and should be deficit free.

Step 4 - Saving Medicare is vital to a healthy America.  30% to 40% of all health care costs can be labeled waste.  The American people can save 20% on the cost of their medical care every year and simultaneously increase the quality of the care they receive by fundamentally reinventing the Medicare reimbursement formula.  By rewarding hospitals and care providers that implement effective waste reduction programs, extending optional Health Savings Accounts to every American and providing targeted voucher assistance to America’s neediest seniors, Medicare can be saved.

Step 5 - The successful implementation of cost-cutting measures will make access to health care a problem that is manageable at the state level.  A Federal Government that is not strapped with a massive deficit can effectively partner with and empower states to utilize block grant programs that will create affordable assistance to low-income patients and high-risk pools that offer access to quality care for those who are too ill to work.  Establishing the proper balance between Federal and State Government is essential to the restoration of a healthy America.

Step 6 - Hard-working Americans that purchase health insurance should be rewarded for their responsible behavior.  Individuals should qualify for tax deductions on health premiums that are comparable to the employer subsidies claimed by corporations.  Individuals should also be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines to increase competition and lower prices.  Rewarding Responsibility in this manner will spur job growth, since 70% of small businesses file taxes as individuals.

Step 7 - Ending frivolous lawsuits by reforming the broken medical malpractice system is a necessary step in my plan to Restore a Healthy America.  Defending doctors from junk lawsuits is a pivotal step in salvaging the private medical profession.  The practice of defensive medicine leads to higher rates of redundancy and waste, which increase health care costs.  Instituting Medical Liability Reform on the national stage is an idea whose time is now.

In seven steps, America can be on a healthy path to prosperity.  Repealing Obamacare is the first step to recovery.  By following my plan to Restore a Healthy America, we can place control of our Nation’s destiny back into the hands of individuals and stop the downhill slide to socialized medicine.

The 3rd Ring of the Climate Change Circus (cont'd)

All of the above sounds eerily similar to the US—except we did not sign on to the Kyoto protocol, nor did we pass cap-and-trade legislation. However, President Obama has not given up on his plans to “curb global warming.” Instead of cap and trade, we have the EPA directed by President Obama’s appointee, Administrator Lisa Jackson—who, by her own admission, aims to level the playing field. The EPA is doing everything it can to raise the cost of energy, which, if left unabated, will continue the demise of American industry and the growth of the government sector—resulting in exploding trade deficits. (Sound familiar?)While Italy’s situation and the US have several similarities that are worth noting, there are also some crowd-pleasing differences.
· As noted, Italy lacks quantities of large natural resources—America has them in abundance. We often lack the access to our own resources.
· Italy is a part of Europe’s cap-and-trade scheme intended to curb manmade global warming. We have Lisa Jackson’s EPA—but Congressional action (encouraged by America’s citizens) can thwart her, and the 2012 election can replace her.
· Italy’s economy is collapsing, leaving the stronger countries—mainly England and Germany—to bail it out. The US isn’t quite there yet.
With the economic damage that climate-change interventions deliver, why is the administration still using them as an excuse to implement regulations that will make electricity more expensive for industry and consumers? Maybe, it is because they are, as Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper described Kyoto: “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.” More and more, it seems that it never was about saving the planet.
If, in fact, reaching a binding global emissions-reduction agreement is really about global government—with the Green Climate Fund sucking money from the “wealthy” countries and redistributing it to the poor countries, Europe gives us a prime example of why the US should follow Canada’s lead and shun the “at-any-cost” green agenda that stunts economic growth and job creation.
Back to Italy. In EU terms, Italy is one of the “poor” countries—along with the other Club Med countries: Greece, Spain and Portugal. In the mini-global government known as the EU, the “wealthy” countries no longer want to carry the “poor” ones.
Germany and Italy are both EU members and in good times, Italy’s growing government sector could mask the harsh economic realities. By comparison to Italy, Germany has abundant energy supplies from nuclear and coal-fueled power, a strong industrial sector, and a good work ethic. Germany “has”; Italy “has not.” In EU terms, Germany is expected to carry Italy—but they don’t want to.
The US “has” abundant energy supplies; the EU “has not.” The EU has to depend on schemes like carbon trading, about which Rob Elsworth of the climate-campaign group Sandbag in London said: “is a pretty important revenue stream for most member states.” He asks, “If you take away this green-economy narrative, what's really left of Europe?”
The EU’s economic crisis provides the US with living proof that we do not want to play in the global-government game where the “haves” are expected to carry the “have nots.” We have the resources; we still have industry; and we still have a good work ethic. Will we use them to save America and the free market system that has allowed us to grow to strength, or will we be drawn into the green big top?

Sowards: Repeal Yes, Replace No (Continued)

Heather Wilson states that if the U.S. Supreme Court fails to throw out the law, she “will fight to make sure it is repealed and replaced.”
According to his website, “John Sanchez will vote to repeal and replace Obamacare because, as a small business owner, he understands the burden it places on New Mexico businesses.”

With respect, I have to ask – if my Republican opponents seek to repeal and replace Obamacare, exactly what are they intending to replace it with in the next six years to return certainty to the minds of America’s business owners? An eighteen-hundred page omnibus written by craftier, bi-partisan lobbyists? Or, perhaps a fifteen-hundred page liability reform slash unintended consequences bill loaded with pork?
Unlike Heather Wilson and John Sanchez, I don’t believe America can afford to let bureaucrats in Washington dictate health care policy. As a leader of the Conservative Revolution in New Mexico, I reject the notion of replacing Obamacare with another federal program. Replacing the Affordable Care Act amounts to business as usual in Washington and will only increase uncertainty for job creators in every state. America’s once silent majority is now speaking loudly. They know something is dreadfully wrong and are demanding a return to federalism with more local controls.

The rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009 was a direct response to the socialism that has been creeping into our governmental structures over the past hundred years. The American people realized the Affordable Care Act was a gross abuse of power and spoke with their votes at the ballot box in 2010.
And, in 2012, I believe that America, as a whole, will support those candidates that represent their best interests by calling for the restoration of a proper balance between the Federal and State Governments.
It’s high time that Washington listened to the people, respected the Tenth Amendment and secured the Constitutional rights of individuals and States to determine for themselves the best path forward concerning health care. This is the United States of America. We are a free people. As long as we limit and balance power in a manner consistent with the framework envisioned by our Founding Fathers, liberty will endure. So, when considering the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare: Repeal, Yes! Replace? The American people have spoken and their answer is, most assuredly, NO!

Saving the Climate Change Circus (cont'd)

When it is widely known that any Kyoto-style deal will be costly to the countries’ involved and make energy more expensive for the countries’ citizens, why would the EU stand out as the staunchest supporter? Canada has dropped out of the Kyoto accord “in order to save billions of dollars in potential non-compliance fees.” The US never signed on. Developing industrial countries, such as China and India, have repeatedly refused to participate because “rapid development is lifting millions out of poverty.”
Perhaps, herein, lies “the circus”—with the EU as the star performer.
The countries that have resisted, or rejected, binding greenhouse gas reduction agreements are generally countries with abundant natural resources: the US, China, India, Russia, and Canada. Australia, another country rich in resources, is still performing in “the circus.” The EU, on the other hand, has limited resources—leaving them to depend on nuclear power, natural gas from Russia, and oil imported from the North Sea and Middle East. The quest for oil was one of the factors that prompted World War II—both Germany and Japan had it in their sights.
For the EU to be energy independent, they must develop “renewables”—specifically wind and solar power. Wind and solar resources do generate energy, but they are more expensive than the traditional fuels that other regions have in abundance. Renewable energy costs put the EU at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace, perhaps, making it advantageous for the EU to support a scheme that artificially raises the cost of traditional fuels in competing nations. Hence, support for emission reductions that hurt other economies more than the EU, could make the EU the primary driver for climate-change interventions.
Could the EU’s lack of abundant natural resources have contributed to its current economic crisis? Italy provides an illustration of this hypothesis.
Italy is one of the EU members in need of a financial bailout.
At the introduction of the euro, Italy had a €25 billion trade surplus. Today, they have a €35 billion trade deficit. However, if its oil consumption is removed from the mix, Italy actually has a trade surplus. Therefore, if Italy could, somehow, reduce its dependence on oil imports, the country’s account balance would improve due to lower import volumes.
Renewables offer Europe “domestic” energy, albeit more expensive energy, and therefore provide Europe with energy needed for manufacturing and industry. However, more expensive electricity puts Europe at a competitive disadvantage with other markets—especially the United States.
Enter the premise of man-made global warming and climate-change interventions. American environmentalists embraced the potential energy reductions.
It almost worked. Had the US signed on to the Kyoto protocol and/or passed cap and trade, for example, our energy costs would be considerably higher than current rates due to forced implementation of renewable energy—rather than allowing the free market to pick winners. Instead, the jig is up.
Even the environmentalists acknowledge that they need a new approach. Yet, Europe clings to a global plan for emission reductions through the UN and instituted a Ponzi-like cap-and-trade program that would have enriched Eurocrats. It has discouraged scientific rigor and fueled the man-made global warming scheme, by encouraging and recognizing those who assisted in garnering favorable publicity for the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of man-made climate change. Maybe it has never been about saving the planet.
This premise leaves Europe in an economic tailspin, without hope of easy recovery, and grieves global governance supporters who believe that the playing field needs to be leveled.
President Obama’s energy policies—such as his support of cap and trade, resistance to developing America’s oil-and-gas resources, and backing of more expensive renewables, while killing affordable coal resources—make us the clown. In November 2012, Americans will decide if we, as a country, will go the route of Europe, or if we will have economic growth fueled, like Canada, by an abundant and affordable supply of energy. Will we vote to save the circus, or save America?

Swickard: Living energy large at a good price

Column by Michael Swickard, Ph.D. - Many years ago in the former gold mining town of White Oaks, New Mexico, someone realized the power station that drove the mining equipment had enough extra capacity to send power eleven miles to nearby Carrizozo. At the time Carrizozo did not have any electrical power which matched the fact that Carrizozo citizens had no electrical devices.
A line was strung and a light bulb at the barber shop would be turned on at noon one Saturday. For those who do not know, in the old days the barber shop was one of the unofficial meeting places in the town and therefore a central location sure to draw plenty of people. One cowboy was skeptical, “No way can electricity go eleven miles, even if it is downhill.”
At the time most people in Carrizozo could not see that much of a use for the electricity. The light was fine but the kerosene lantern worked fine. When I was young in the early 1950s there was no electricity at my grandfather’s ranch. It was just too far out of the way for any electric lines to find him.
So at the ranch wood was used for cooking and heating. Kerosene provided lighting. Washing clothes involved a tub and wash board. The car took us to town on dirt roads and used leaded gasoline. Our energy footprint was small. Thankfully, I now live in an energy rich state and for the most part do not even notice all of the millions of hours that it took to put up the electric lines, put in the natural gas, pave the roads and build energy consuming houses.
What changed were not the energy resources themselves, rather, the distribution system. Electricity came to the ranch when the distribution system was created by the Otero County Electric Cooperative. This required a complete wiring of the ranch house and then came another improvement. A propane tank was put in so we had a much nicer heating and cooking ability. The old Kalamazoo wood stove was moved out into a barn.
I went to college on foot because just out of high school in 1968 I could have a car or go to college, but not both. While both cars and college were relatively cheap, my resources were limited to one. Being on foot limited many things including dating since calling up a women and saying, “I will walk over to pick you up” was a deal breaker most of the time. Both during high school and in my first three years of college I was on foot. The bright side was no car payments or cost of operation.
In my fourth year I inherited a car and then could cheerfully complain about the awful parking situation. Walking may be good for your health but I certainly enjoy driving.
Since I have lived on a small energy footprint, I am aware of how difficult life in our country and state would be without the energy resources being available. The light switch still is of interest to me because it means I do not have to clean kerosene lamps every Saturday morning. Natural gas is ever so much better than wood for heating and I appreciate having a vehicle instead of walking everywhere.
Where do we get those energy resources? We have them in New Mexico. Often our bounty of energy is at odds with people who would not wish us to use those resources. It seems New Mexico has had a love/hate relationship with the oil and gas industry dating back to the first oil and gas wells in the 1920s.
At first the industry did not make that much money for the state and most extractive revenues still were concentrated on coal which had been a mainstay for many years. As pump jacks were assembled some people thought they ruined the pristine nature of New Mexico.
The complainers were few in number and the bounty of energy was embraced by most citizens. Why that is the smell of money was a common saying. What changed for New Mexico was not the fact New Mexico had these extractive resources as much as it was building a way to market for them.
We still have those issues of getting product to market and the issue that there is a backlash against everything tied to traditional energy production. Some have a fascination with “alternative” or “green” energy as a replacement, but the reality is that green energy is a political solution, not an energy solution and does not work in a traditional environment without government subsidies.
The extractive industries provide about a third of the money used by state government and maintains many jobs. Most importantly though, this industry provides the energy our state and country needs to survive. Just having the assets in the ground is of little importance since it is of no use in the ground. What is not realized by many critics of the industry is that it provides much of the money for the education system.
The oil and gas pioneer developers had to figure out how to drill for energy, produce the energy and get it to market in a way that still allowed a profit. That is still the issue. I have lived energy-small and energy-large. Energy-large is better. I do not want to go back to energy-small or even worse, no energy.

Public policy and regulatory decisions driving up electricity rates (continued)

Because most states have renewable portfolio standards (or renewable energy standards) that require power companies to produce a set percentage of their electricity from sources such as wind and solar. These renewable sources, however, increase electricity prices, use more land, and have other personal impacts.
Increasing Prices
A recent article in the Financial Times quotes Steve Sawyer of the Global Wind Energy Council. He said, “In areas of strong wind and plentiful land, such as west Texas or Colorado, wind power could be cheaper than fossil-fuel generation even without subsidies.” Yes, it “could” be—if the public policy and regulatory decisions keep driving up the price of electricity generated from traditional sources. But currently, renewable energy is clearly more expensive.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the shenanigans the legislature went through in Rhode Island to push an off-shore wind farm—even though the Public Utility Commission declared that it was “commercially unreasonable.” That story made clear that renewable electricity, despite what proponents say, is more expensive. In short, earlier this year, Rhode Island residents were paying 9.4 cents per khw. However, due to a drop in natural gas prices, in March the Public Utility Commission approved a 26% rate decrease, dropping rates from 9.4 cents per kwh to 6.9. By comparison, the contract for the wind-generated electricity started at 24.4 cents per kwh and includes a guaranteed 3.5% price increase bringing the wind-generated electricity to 47 cents per kwh in twenty years—making the wind-generated electricity roughly 4-8 times more expensive than the natural gas-fueled electricity.
While disposable income for most Americans has shrunk, rules and regulations—not market forces—have driven the price of electricity up, increasing energy’s share of people’s disposable income by 12%.
Land Use
As Lisa Jackson proudly stated, “There are states that are leading the way on solar or wind.” If she has her way, and utilities need to shut down their coal-fueled power plants and replace them with renewable facilities, we know the costs will be considerably higher—which some believe to be a worthwhile trade-off—but, what will that really look like?
In New Mexico, in order to meet the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, the primary utility company, PNM, is in the process of installing five major solar arrays around the state. Each of these industrial solar parks occupy fifty acres and have a capacity factor of one megawatt—or enough electricity for 1200 “average” homes.
The San Juan Generating Station, one of the state’s coal-fueled power plants targeted by Lisa Jackson’s EPA, consistently cranks out 1482 megawatts—or enough for 1.8 million “average” homes. Simple math and these real life scenarios, tell us that in order to replace the one coal-fueled power plant (which is built right next to the coal mine that provides an abundant supply) with the planned industrial solar parks would require 1482 of the arrays—which would cover 74,100 acres.
A similar comparison is available for wind. The New Mexico Wind Energy Center provides wind-generated electricity to PNM through 136 wind turbines on 9600 acres—yielding about 50 megawatts of usable power to serve 60,875 homes. To replace the San Juan Generating Station with wind would cover, using the New Mexico Wind Energy Center model, 284,544 acres. However, using the industry average, replacing the San Juan Generating Station with wind turbines would occupy 509,808 acres.
This does not take into account the additional transmission lines or back up power plants that will be needed for the intermittent resource. As noted in previous columns, environmentalists are obstructing industrial wind and solar parks due to the massive land use and others fight the instillations due to viewscape pollution. So public policy and regulatory decisions are making electricity more expensive while requiring massive land use and damaging habitat and degrading the viewscape. But there’s more.
Personal Impacts
Colette read an article on renewable portfolio standards that I’d written earlier this year. Last week she e-mailed me to ask about my comment: “It is not that renewable energy is wrong. There are many cases where wind or solar are the best option.” Following her name, her signature included, “Resident living with the incessant twirling and swooshing from 24 industrial wind turbines.” I e-mailed her. In her response she said, “I took exception to your statement because I believe that in the end things like wind energy are wrong even for those small scale situations where someone wants the visceral satisfaction that they are doing ‘something’ toward their energy usage.”
Colette proceeded to tell me her story of living with four wind turbines within about a half a mile from her backdoor—and 24 within about two miles from her farm and home. Back in 2006, Colette, and other farmers, were approached by a wind-power generation developer and offered the opportunity to “host” the industrial wind turbines. Many of the farmers saw wind as their “new crop to harvest.” Before signing the developer’s contract, Colette had an attorney review it. She was shocked at the restrictions that would be placed on her own land should she sign the contract—including putting the long-term ownership of her farm in danger. She did more research and found myriad reasons to fight the industrial wind energy project. She says, “Unfortunately there were forces in local government that were prepared for opposition, and that had already paved the way for development, regardless of community reaction.” Now, with 24 wind turbines within a few mile radius of her home, Collette says: “It’s not pretty living with these 400-foot behemoths and there are many times the incessant swirling and swooshing has me depressed and angry. The enjoyment of my home and property has been taken away. Other residents are suffering deeply with tinnitus, ear pain, migraines, and sleep disruption. Luckily my symptoms are not as severe and, other than the lack of sleep, I seem to be able to cope. Some neighbors have told me that they have resigned themselves to finding a way to live with the development because there is no hope of changing anything now that the turbines are up and running.”
The personal impacts have been greater than sleep disruption, tinnitus, or migraines. They are more than viewscape degradation or loss of enjoyment of one’s home and property. Reflecting on the multi-year battle, Colette says: it “completely shattered my faith in government and the environmental movement.” (An account of Collette’s experience can be found in the book Dirty Business.)
These snapshots are representative of what is going on throughout the western world. Colette is from Canada. In the European Union, according to the Financial Times, “energy bills have become an increasingly acrimonious political issue, and there are signs of similar tensions flaring in the US.”
The Oliver Wyman report states, “While the future outlook for electricity rates is largely dependent upon public policy and regulatory decisions, one fact is clear: substantial capital investments are required by the nation’s utilities to modernize the electric grid and meet proposed environmental requirements.”
However, unlike Colette’s neighbors, we do not have to be resigned to finding ways to live with the current public policy and regulatory decisions as they are not yet fully up and running. Significant impacts on future consumer prices are being debated today. In the midst of an economic war, we should not be arbitrarily raising energy costs. We need to push “legislators and regulators to find constructive solutions to keep rates low for consumers—including deferring or modifying rules and regulations that have significant capital requirements.”

Fundraising Bonanza (cont'd)

We all know that President Obama is not immune to the influence of donors on his decisions. With less than twelve months until the 2012 election, both the unions and the environmentalists will be buying—oops, I mean vying for—his favor. While some are calling his punt indecisive or a debacle, it could be a brilliant fundraising tactic as both sides over-donate in support of their positions. We also know that the Obama administration supports higher gas prices. The Keystone XL pipeline would have provided more stability in oil supply and pricing at a time when crude oil from Mexico and Venezuela is declining. The pipeline would have provided refiners in the Gulf region with a secure supply—and a supply from a friendly source. Less supply means higher prices. Without the XL pipeline on the horizon, prices are predicted to increase as they did following the delay announcement. Higher oil prices translate to higher prices at the pump. With the cover of environmental concerns as the cause, President Obama could put the pipeline off and raise gas prices without the average person realizing his responsibility for the increasing costs. With higher gasoline prices, the Government Motors Chevy Volt becomes more attractive—giving the president a win/win.
So President Obama chose to appease the environmental base and raise gas prices rather than to support the jobs that he claims to want. Additionally, the pipeline would have brought foreign money into the United States through increased exports of refined gasoline and provided a strong signal to the world markets that America is putting a long-term sustained strategy for expanding the domestic oil supplies we will need for decades to come. Once again, he has made a decision as America’s campaigner-in-chief rather that America’s chief champion.
While the President’s mind may have been made up regarding the Keystone XL pipeline on January 20, 2009, TransCanada made it easy for him. TransCanada expected that the pipeline would be routinely approved—all previous cross-border pipeline requests have been granted. They went through all the open houses and public meetings, did the environmental impact studies, and endured the most exhaustive and detailed review ever conducted for a crude oil pipeline. Nebraska, and most of the United States, is already a web of pipelines. However, they chose the cheapest route for the Keystone XL pipeline—which took it through the environmentally controversial area of Nebraska’s Sand Hills. By choosing the short route, rather than adding about 250 miles of pipeline, they gave the environmentalists an unlikely alliance: Nebraska’s Republican lawmakers and traditionally conservative farmers. Because the Republicans opposed the pipeline, it gave Obama additional cover—after all, even the locals didn’t want it. Had they been willing to move the pipeline to parallel the existing Keystone pipeline, avoiding the Sand Hills, it could through without the environmental agitation planting fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
One month before President Obama made his delay announcement, the TransCanada president of energy and oil pipelines met with Nebraska state legislators. He told them: “We understand that the best solution from your perspective is to move the route. We don't believe that is an option for us.” However, once the delay announcement was made, TransCanada has quickly agreed to re-rerouting as proposed by the Nebraska state legislature. Now they are pushing for an expedited review of the alternate route—which could allow the project to begin before the 2012 elections.
Environmentalists, angry over President Obama’s perceived weakness regarding his loosening of proposed EPA regulations, demonstrated for months to push their point—with the Center for Biological Diversity promising to keep up the public pressure. Previously, public and industry pressure made President Obama withdraw the EPA Ozone regulations. Note: public pressure works.
As America is in an economic war, we need what the Keystone XL pipeline has to offer. Keep the pressure on President Obama. Now that TransCanada has agreed to re-routing, they’ve called his bluff. Call the White House (202-456-1111) and tell President Obama to expedite the review and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
Of course, if we would develop our own domestic resources, we wouldn’t Canada’s and they could send it to China who is eager to help build a Canadian pipeline to the west.

Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy. Marita’s twentieth book, Energy Freedom, has just been released.

Salazar Contradictions (cont'd)

SO 3315 was announced to the surprise of most in the industry and to those in OSM. Charlie Boddy, a mining and government relations consultant with more than 40 years in the industry and former VP of government relations with Usibelli Coal Mine Inc., said when he first heard the announcement, he thought it was a joke. “It is,” he said, “without a doubt, the most bizarre proposal to come out of the Obama Administration.”
The fact that there was no consultation with the stakeholders, states, or Congress raises additional concerns. If there was a desire to work with the industry, the general belief is that they would have been involved. The order’s surprise element can’t mean good things for coal mining.
On November 4, as a part of a hearing on an investigation into a re-write of the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule, Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) stated: “In addition, we will also discuss the recent Secretarial Order requiring the merger of the Office of Surface Mining with the Bureau of Land Management. A proposal I am deeply concerned about impacting the ability of the nation’s ability to access our vast coal resources. Furthermore there are clear statutory limitations prohibiting the OSM from leasing or promoting coal, which is a key responsibility of the BLM.”
Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, issued the following statement: “I have serious concerns about this Secretarial Order to suddenly and dramatically alter the management of coal mining and the multiple-use of Western BLM lands. The Obama Administration has not made secret its desire to put an end to America’s coal-mining industry, and this appears to be one more step in that direction.”
Because of the “bombshell” nature of the announcement, the administration’s attitude toward the coal industry, the totally different missions of the OSM and the BLM, and the fact that they operate under different specific provisions and acts of Congress, the proposed merger can only be considered suspect.
In an internal memo to the DOI team, Secretary Salazar states: “This integration reflects our ongoing commitment to good government” and claims that it is about “Doing more in a limited budget environment.”
The OSM is a little agency by comparison to the BLM. OSM's 2011 budget appropriation is about $160 million compared to more than $1.1 billion for BLM. OSM has about 500 employees, compared to 10,000 at BLM. “In the scheme of government fat, OSM is one of the tiniest little targets you can take aim at,” said Kathy Karpan, a former OSM director. “It's a little, tiny entity that would be lost at BLM.”
Industry sources fear that OSM will be lost inside the BLM and view the move as a way to make coal mining more difficult; to delay permitting. Normally a coal mine can be permitted through OSM in less than a year. Permitting of a hard rock mine through the BLM can take 7-10 years.
The OSM primarily deals with mines on private or Indian lands—mostly in the east. They cooperate with the states. They do regulation.
The BLM primarily deals with federal lands—mostly in the west. They have little experience with private lands or state agencies. They generate revenues.
Like last year’s SO 3310 that circumvented Congress’ unique ability to designate Wilderness Areas by creating a new “Wild Lands” designation, SO 3315 brings authority into question. Insiders believe that a reorganization of this magnitude requires congressional action.
Some industry groups are taking a wait-and-see approach: “It may be a good idea, but no one really knows.” Coal mining companies are still evaluating, but initial reactions are not supportive.
History tells us that we do not need to “wait and see.” The longer there is silence, the harder it will be to reverse the order, which is scheduled to become effective December 1, 2011—following consultation with applicable congressional committees and will remain in effect until “amended, superseded, or revoked, whichever occurs first.”
While this may seem like a little issue in light of all the big problems we are facing in America, it is one more in a string of power grabs designed to take away authority from the states and move it to the federal government—meaning more centralized power. Don’t let them slip it in until “revoked.” Call Congress and stop SO 3315 before it starts. Ultimately, less coal mining means job cuts, higher electricity prices, and a diminished America.