We're diving deep into "geek world" today with a story that combines economic hardball, the periodic table of the elements, and a barely noticed provision of the Defense Authorization Act that seeks to break a monopoly which today gives China near-absolute control over the materials that make cell phones, electric cars, wind turbines, and pretty much every other tool of modern life possible.
If we successfully break the monopoly, we'll be able to create millions of new manufacturing jobs in this country-and if we don't, somebody else owns the 21st Century.
Ironically, the global warming we're trying to fight with new green technologies might be an ally in our efforts to make those very same green technologies happen.
There's a revolution in industrial processing going on, rare earths are at the center of it all...and in today's story, the revolution will be televised.
On sort of the same topic, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission is currently considering a rate case request from Xcel Energy. Guess what Xcel wanted to pass along to ratepayers as "expenses" totaling $120,000 ?
While Congress remains bogged down on health care, to say nothing of energy and climate, legislation, the executive branch has been very busy this year starting initiatives and issuing new rules and threatening regulations. This is the latest in that series of actions.
Two projects in Colorado are receiving investment money. More on them below...
Really? Really, Sen. Udall - that's what you're going to work towards in the Senate? And again, we see a Democratic Senator pledge to work with their Republican colleague toward a policy solution when it is quite apparent what McCain really wants [emphasis mine]:
President Barack Obama must put forth a White House plan as soon as possible that congressional leaders can debate, McCain said.
Is this a continuation of the Cons' view that executives make laws? Because if they do, then President Obama doesn't need the Congress for anything. No, McCain and his Con buddies just want to continue to use President Obama as a smear target. Sen. Udall - you cannot work with these people until they demonstrate they want to work with you. And no, sliming Democrats at every opportunity and trashing the deliberative process in your chamber doesn't count as working with you, in case you were curious or confused.
The Federal Reserve reports that the economy in in its Tenth District which includes Colorado "showed further signs of stabilization in June." The news comes as part of the Fed's July 29th Beige Book report covering United States economic conditions from June through mid-July. Major cities in the Fed's Tenth District include Denver, Omaha, Oklahoma City, and Kansas City where it is headquartered. Of the Fed's twelve districts, the Tenth District was one of three reporting signs of stabilization. Other regions reported weak economic activity or that the pace of decline appeared to be moderating. Only the Ninth District (Minneapolis) reported further shrinkage.
Published eight times a year the Beige Book is officially known as the "Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions by Federal Reserve District" and is based on a survey of businesses in each Fed district.
Here are the Fed's specific remarks on the Colorado economy in their entierty:
Consumer Spending Tourism spending rebounded in June but remained below expectations, especially at mountain resorts.
Real Estate and Construction Housing prices remained firm in Kansas and Oklahoma, while foreclosures weighed most heavily on the Colorado and New Mexico housing markets.
Energy Low natural gas prices created a particular financial strain on Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico producers where the spread between regional and national prices remained large.
The good news from the Beige Book survey is that as a center for aerospace, green manufacturing, and rapid transit construction Colorado may be poised for an early exit from the recession:
Technology-related firms reported increased business activity, with strength noted in clean technology and defense-driven aerospace. Like manufacturing, transportation firms reported a similar improvement in overall business activity.
Two items caught my eye today. The first, Xcel plans backup fee for solar, demonstrates how out-of-touch and greedy Xcel continues to be. Xcel wants to charge their customers who have solar panels to provide electricity when they demand more than what their solar systems provide. Those customers are already hooked up to the grid, of course, which immediately raises the question, "Why?!". Here are the details:
Xcel is proposing a 2.6 cents per kilowatt hour fee to provide electricity from the grid. That fee would be tacked onto the electricity rate that Xcel charges every customer. So those with solar panels would be charged more per kilowatt hour than those without solar panels. That's also on top of the $7 or $8 "service fee" that Xcel charges to cover meter reading and billing. The only spot of good news from this proposal is that existing solar customers would be grandfathered in - not subject to Xcel's new fees.
If a person's house is already hooked up to the grid and has been drawing power from dirty energy for any length of time, what justification could Xcel have to charge that person more per kilowatt hour if they install clean energy and reduce overall demand from our antiquated and overused energy transmission system? Moreover, solar panels can easily generate more power than an owner uses while collecting the energy. Customers are credited for that excess energy because it is used by the rest of Xcel's grid. Thus, Xcel's transmission and generation costs are actually lowered by these customers. So future customers will be penalized for that service? Do Xcel customer's have the ability to go to the PUC and demand that the energy they sell to Xcel should match the highest rate they have to pay Xcel? If they don't, then energy producers don't have equitable access to the energy market, do they.
Two articles from the ProgressNow Daily News Digest caught my eye this morning. The first is about additional clean energy development in Colorado. The other puts violent speech from a Con politician on display.
I'll start with the clean energy story: potential development in the San Luis Valley that is being looked at by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as part of an effort to build solar power infrastructure on public space in six Western states. Unlike Rep. John Salazar, who would rather condemn the planet to thousands of years of harsh climate than stand up to oil and gas corporations, Sec. Salazar's Interior Dept. obviously understands the dangers involved. And while Sec. Salazar might have a level of political cover that Rep. Salazar doesn't enjoy, one need only look at Rep. Markey's principled vote and courageous stand against Colorado's most extreme politicians to understand that that political cover isn't necessary to act.
Some details:
Salazar said he has signed an order setting aside more than 1,000 square miles of public land for two years of study and environmental reviews to determine where solar power stations should be built.
Parcels include 10,000 acres that sit on the east side of U.S. 285 between Antonito and the state line and just under 6,000 acres west of Romeo. A fourth parcel covers 4,000 acres northeast of the intersection of U.S. 160 and Colorado 150.
Salazar vowed to have 13 ''commercial-scale'' solar projects under construction by the end of 2010 on lands that have what he called excellent solar energy potential and limited conflicts with wildlife, other natural resources and land users. He set a goal for the projects to produce a total of 100,000 megawatts of solar electricity.
The money comes from the city's half-cent sales tax, collected especially for economic development projects that bring new revenue into the Pueblo area.
A 1/2 cent sales tax, in just this one instance, will create 140 high paying jobs in Pueblo. That tax and those jobs are an investment in the community of Pueblo. Cons would rather see that tax go away, and with it, this expansion and those jobs.
The Colorado Independent reports that a Shell Oil official is conceding company tests show massive amounts of water are required to produce oil shale:
A Shell Oil official confirmed Friday that the "in-situ" oil shale production the company is researching at its Mahogany facility near Rangely currently consumes about three barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.
Shell's flack then claims that the company's attempt to corner water rights on the Western Slope is actually intended to help the local communities and agriculture that would bear the brunt of oil shale's destructive production process.
"Large-scale commercial oil shale development would harm both West Slope and Front Range communities," said WRA Executive Director Karin P. Sheldon. "A shift of water to oil shale will dramatically change the landscape in the areas developed. It could mean an end to agriculture and to the historic economic base of these rural communities."
Sheldon said many of the energy company water rights date back to the 1950s and are senior to agricultural rights and rights held by ski resorts and water districts that would supply future residential growth, both on the Western Slope the and Front Range.
Not to mention the impact on downstream communities and ecosystems from the depletion of water systems like, say, the Colorado River.
Good thing we now have an Interior Secretary who doesn't believe Colorado's Western Slope needs to be an economic hostage to the oil industry.
Two stories caught my eye today in the Denver Post. johne wrote a little something up about the first one - Half of state's drill rigs idled. The other one is right next to the CO rig article in the paper version of the paper today.
"GOP Tries To Draw A Bead on Salazar", or perhaps it should have been titled, "GOP Throws Another Dart At Wall In Search For Relevancy". Having lost the White House last November in addition to being relegated to a smaller minority in Congress, the Cons are clearly desperate to bring any topic to the fore that has the least amount of traction in the public. Don't tell them I said so, but I doubt it will be this topic.
We have heard so much how the oil and gas regs are destroying drilling in Colorado. Well here is what the energy press is saying:
NEW YORK, Feb 20 (Reuters) - The number of rigs drilling for natural gas in the United States fell by 36 units last week, according to a report on Friday by Houston-based oil services firm Baker Hughes Inc.
The report showed there were 1,018 U.S. rigs drilling for natural gas, down about 412 from the same year-ago week.
The natural gas rig count peaked last year at just over 1,600 in September, but traders said tight credit and a 70 percent slide in gas prices over the last eight months have forced some producers to scale back drilling operations.
President Obama signs the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the Denver Museum of Natural History. The stimulus package has considerable funding for renewables and energy efficiency.
Whitehouse.gov had the above photo of the actual signing of the stimulus bill, called the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). (I'm shamelessly using whitehouse.gov bandwidth here -- they're hosting the photo. But, I figure the White House web site is also the people's web site ...)
Due to popular demand (WeatherDem, that means YOU!), I thought I would give a more detailed report on what I learned at the Rocky Mountain RootsCamp 2009 breakout session given by a representative of the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority. Whose name I foolishly did not write down. My bad.
The 2009 Colorado legislative session is underway and the Colorado Cons have made their intentions and general strategy quite clear. They will spend the 120 legislative days delaying the work of the legislature and distracting from actual problems in the lead-up to next year's elections. A frame is being established and Democrats need to ensure things get done despite the wasteful tactics the Cons are employing.
Example #1: State Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield) led an attack on regulations that were released last month by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. He and his followers are using a false talking point in an attempt to eviscerate the regulations at the behest of the fossil fuel industry. The talking point: any amount of regulation on industry activities will cause a devastating impact on the industry. Instead of being manhandled by regulations, drilling corporations have consistently threatened to pull up their stakes and move to other states to do business. This threat is simply ridiculous: would corporations willingly give up millions of dollars of profits in the face of justified regulatory activity? Of course not. But they keep pushing it nonetheless.
The Governor rightly puts clean energy at the heart of the economic stimulus plan. While the automotive and finance industries are failing, the renewable energy sector is booming.
Colorado has proven that clean energy investments create jobs and jump-start economic development. Renewable energy and energy efficiency have already created over 88,000 jobs in Colorado.
With our windy plains and sunny valleys, Colorado can repower America with clean, green electrons from coast to coast. A national investment in clean energy solutions will add billions of dollars and tens of thousands of new jobs to Colorado's economy.
With the leadership of Governor Ritter and others, President-elect Obama can enact a bold clean energy plan that turns around our nation's economy.
*Repower America with 100 percent of its electricity from clean sources such as wind and solar power;
*Refuel America by cutting our dependence on oil in half;
*Rebuild America with 5 million new jobs; and
*Reduce heat-trapping global warming pollution 80 percent by 2050.
For a copy of Gov. Bill Ritter's proposals for a national New Energy Economy stimulus package, click here:
http://www.environmentcolorado...
NYT has an interesting article from Thursday about the development of wind associations. The associations are groups of landowners who work together to get the best deal when wind developers come calling.
As the article details about one incident in Wyoming, sometimes the deals offered to individual landowners are way, way below actual value.
Something that bears mentioning is that micro power plants offers an alternative to vulnerable large power grids. Rather then have a national power grid there should be smaller grids that encompass a relative small number of users.
I first became interested in micro power a few years ago when I came across literature about micro turbine power and the energy inefficiencies of power transmission over long distances.
However nuclear power could very well be this form not large, multi billion dollar power plants that are too complex to be cost effective and safe.
News flash: Denver-based Berry Petroleum Co. announced Wednesday that it posted third-quarter earnings of $53.3 million -- a 98 percent increase over the third quarter of 2007.
With millions being made in Colorado's oil and gas fields, maybe Berry should have spent even more to fight Amendment 58.
But the problem for Berry and other large energy companies is that the truth is winning out on Amendment 58.
They tried to scare voters into thinking that Amendment 58 would raise gasoline and natural gas and even grocery bills, but none other than Xcel Energy knocked that down, calling it a "falsehood."
No, the truth is that Amendment 58 will cost the energy companies a little more money -- about what they pay in neighboring Wyoming. In fact, even if Amendment 58 passes, Colorado will still have the lowest effective severance tax rate among the nation's top energy-producing states.
We want Berry Petroleum and other energy companies to succeed. They are important to Colorado's economy. A small increase in severance taxes won't put much of a dent in that 98 percent increase in earnings.
The Bottom Line
During his time in Congress, former Rep. Bob Schaffer sided with Big Oil against the interests of Colorado residents. Rep. Shaffer:
Voted to give $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. That's $198 for each family in Colorado.
Voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Voted against clean energy policies that could reduce our dependence on oil and cut into the profits of Big Oil. In 2007, the top five oil companies earned as much in profits as it would take 2.9 million Coloradans to earn in a year.
Voted to protect $18 billion in subsidies for Big Oil. That's $170 for each family in Colorado at a time when those same families are paying $1,480 more a year for gasoline, compared to 2001.
Voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Voted against clean energy policies that could reduce our dependence on oil. In 2007, the top five oil companies earned as much in profits as it would take 2.9 million Colorado families to earn in a year.
and
Took $33,500 in campaign contributions from the oil industry during the 2007-2008 Congress.
RSS Feed
