In 2009, lawmakers in Jefferson City passed legislation charging a panel of House and Senate members to look into Missouri's Energy Future.
The 10-member committee was given a clear task: "Determine the best strategy to ensure a plentiful, affordable and clean supply of electricity that will meet the needs of the people and businesses of Missouri for the next twenty-five years and ensure that Missourians continue to benefit from low rates."
It was a tall order for a few months' effort but, late last month, the final report was released. It was so off-base that all four Democrats refused to sign it.
After the jump, read the report.
The 15-page report is a depressing read for renewable energy advocates.
The committee -- chaired by Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, and Rep. Jerry Nolte, R-Gladstone -- highlights the state's dependence on coal-fired power plants for more than 80 percent of its energy needs. It boasts that Missourians pay less than the national average on their utility bills and suggests that any change to the polluting, status quo could wreck havoc on the Show-Me State's economy.
Get comfortable with coal, the report suggests, because it's going to be the main source of energy for years to come. Instead of pushing a more diverse and renewable portfolio of energy resources, the report bags on solar and wind as unreliable and encourages "clean coal technology" and carbon sequestration (capturing the global-warming gas and pumping it underground). It even recommends that Proposition C, the Clean Energy Initiative that passed on the 2008 ballot, be expanded to include "low-carbon alternatives" (read: coal) as renewable options.
The study also lashes out at federal legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and curb climate change. "Cap and Trade in its current form would be devastating to Missouri's economic well-being," the report says. "We should urge each member of our federal congressional delegation to vigorously oppose the passage of that bill or similar legislation that would have a punitive impact on Missouri."
The report even cautions against energy efficiency measures or a state energy code (which is so radical most states already have one), warning: "The potential harm to the construction industry and other consequences could have a negative effect on job creation."
When Kansas City Sen. Jolie Justus received the final draft, she wouldn't sign her name. She didn't like the weak recommendations, the loaded political attacks and the fact that energy efficiency was mostly glossed over. But more importantly, she didn't sign because the committee didn't do its job. "It didn't look at our energy future," she says.
The other three Democrats on the committee withheld their signatures, as well.
But get ready for more cap-and-trade fear-mongering at the state Capitol this week. Conservative lawmakers will likely push a non-binding resolution telling Washington, D.C., to stick their climate-change bill where the sun doesn't shine.
Showing 1-2 of 2
Senator Jolie Justus (sounds like a stripper's name) looks pretty good in that pic. I'd like to see her in a bikini.
Well, they are right about solar. At this latitude and with our number of cloudy days, it doesn't make any sense economically. Wind is more promising, but will require a tipping point (read: higher energy costs) before large-scale infrastructure investment will take place. Unfortunately, this is an economic issue first and foremost, and things aren't going to change until the numbers justify change. (Remember $4 gas?)
like
dislike
