The Obama administration makes no secret of its dual strategy to regulate greenhouse gases. On the contrary, the administration has openly used the threat of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation under the Clean Air Act to prod passage of cap-and-trade bills that would make power-plant operators cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or pay for allowances to emit—with their cost of producing electricity and the consumer’s cost of using it to rise accordingly, whether they’re buying allowances or buying technologies to lower emissions.
That strategy got cap-and-trade through the House of Representatives last summer. But now, with the bill stalled in the Senate and presumed dead, and with the EPA well underway in its rulemaking, there’s a new roadblock. Who’s behind it? Big oil and coal companies? Electric utilities? Newly elected Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown?
None of the above. The serious resistance to EPA regulation has arisen within both houses of Congress. Perhaps more surprising, the resistance is not confined to the Republican minority but is bipartisan, and conspicuous among its leaders are senior House Democrats.
No Ordinary Turf Battle
No ordinary political issue would prompt a showdown between the current Congress and the EPA over regulatory turf. Congress and state legislatures routinely cede authority to regulatory agencies, letting them make the rules in full knowledge that if a rule proves unpopular, the elected lawmakers will blame the unelected bureaucrats.
Thus—knowing cap-and-trade would make absolutely everything cost more because today’s economy can’t function without electricity—many observers thought Congress would happily toss this hot potato into the eager hands of the EPA.
The agency was eager enough. At a news conference last December 7, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared herself “proud” to announce the EPA had decided carbon dioxide presents a threat to human health and was therefore “authorized and obligated to take reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”
Jackson said the finding “cements 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform. In less than 11 months, we have done more to promote clean energy and prevent climate change than happened in the last eight years.”
Looking to the climate summit in Denmark that opened the previous day, Jackson said the endangerment finding “also means that we arrive at the climate talks in Copenhagen with a clear demonstration of our commitment to facing this global challenge,” calling her announcement “another incentive for far-reaching accords in our meetings this week.”
But Copenhagen delivered no binding accords, far-reaching or otherwise, and within 24 hours after Jackson’s announcement, members of the legislative branch were moving to see that no EPA rule on greenhouse gases would be adopted either.
Feisty Farmers
On December 8, Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota’s sole member of the House of Representatives, issued a statement saying EPA greenhouse regulation “is exactly the wrong way to go, and I am against it. The last thing we need is government bureaucrats in Washington writing the rules when it comes to acceptable levels of greenhouse gas emissions. This will end up costing North Dakota jobs, and I will do everything in my power to fight this wrongheaded proposal.”
Eight days later Pomeroy introduced his “Save Our Energy Jobs Act,” a bill amending the Clean Air Act specifically to exclude greenhouse gases from being defined as air pollutants, putting them outside the agency’s regulatory reach. (The bill has attracted several co-authors, including Green Bay Democrat Steve Kagen.)
On February 1, Pomeroy, who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, denounced a $56 million Obama budget provision to fund EPA greenhouse rulemaking, saying that in a deep recession, “The last thing I want the EPA to do is start regulating greenhouse gases without specific direction from Congress.”
“That’s the wrong way to do things, and it could end up raising electrical bills and costing jobs,” Pomeroy added.
The following day Representative Ike Skelton (D–MO) rolled out a Clean Air Act amendment of his own. It excludes carbon dioxide, methane, and four other gases from classification as air pollutants “solely on the basis of its effect on global climate change” and goes further.
Anticipating EPA obstacles to an agricultural industry built around growing crops for fuel, the Skelton bill bars the agency from considering emissions related to international land-use changes in implementing a U.S. renewable-fuel program. Co-author Collin Peterson said this would “stop the EPA from punishing American farmers for deforestation taking place in foreign countries, and it would broaden the definition of renewable biomass in order to strengthen our own domestic renewable-fuels industry.”
Peterson chairs the House Agriculture Committee and held life-or-death power over the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House last June, bottling it up until he obtained broad concessions for agriculture and ultimately delivering a decisive number of farm-state votes. In January, Peterson said if the Senate sends that bill or one like it back to the House for final passage, he would vote against it.
“I have no confidence that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act without doing serious damage to our economy,” Peterson said. “Americans know we’re way too dependent on foreign oil and fossil fuels in this country—and I’ve worked hard to develop practical solutions to that problem—but Congress should be making these types of decisions, not unelected bureaucrats at the EPA.”
Sense of the Senate
On January 21 Senator Lisa Murkowski (R–AK) introduced a rare “disapproval resolution” to block EPA greenhouse enforcement under the Clean Air Act.
At press time, Murkowski had three majority Democrats among her 40 co-sponsors. If the resolution languishes in Barbara Boxer’s (D–CA) Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate rules require only 30 signatures on a discharge petition to bring it to the floor.
The Alaska Senator sounded a lot like the farm-state Representatives in saying her resolution is “necessary to avoid the ‘economic train wreck’ that would result from the EPA regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.”
“As the EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue to believe that this command-and-control approach is our worst option for reducing the emissions blamed for climate change,” Murkowski said.
What Happens Next?
The EPA plans to begin regulating motor vehicle CO2 emissions next month, with regulations for power-plant emissions expected to soon follow.
Collin Peterson takes a dim view: “The Clean Air Act was not meant for this,” the 10-term Minnesota Congressman says. “It was meant to clean up the air, to get lead out of the air. It was not meant to fight global warming.”
Though the pending cap-and-trade bill is often claimed to be an alternative, it, too, would mean eventual EPA greenhouse regulation, just not under the Clean Air Act and not until 2015, to address shortfalls in achieving legislated emission cuts.—Dave Hoopman
Odds are your home has a big-screen television, a satellite or cable box, a DVD or Blu-ray player —maybe two or three—plus possibly an Xbox, Wii, PlayStation, or other video game console. We depend on a large number of electronic gadgets these days―and not just for entertainment. Personal computers, stereos, alarm clocks, coffee makers, battery chargers, cell phones, microwaves… the list goes on and on.
Most of the electricity used in the average home goes toward heating and air conditioning, water heating, and lighting, all of which are significantly more energy efficient than even just a decade ago. Yet our demand for new electronic devices means we continue to consume more electricity every year―a whopping 15.6 percent rise since 2000.
“Despite anticipated improvements in energy efficiency, any energy savings are likely to be overshadowed by rising demand for technology,” cautions Nobuo Tanaka, executive director for the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous body. He estimates by 2030 consumer electronic use will climb threefold—equivalent to the combined residential electricity consumption of the United States and Japan.
However, there are ways to avoid the coming energy pile-up. For example, cell phones are now extremely energy efficient because of consumer demand for longer battery life.
“Many mobile devices are already far more efficient in their use of power than other products which run solely off a main electricity supply,” explains Tanaka. “Because extending the battery life of a mobile device is a selling point, manufacturers placed an emphasis on designing products which require very little power.”
If consumers demand manufacturers reach the same level of efficiency with other electronics like gaming consoles, televisions, and even alarm clocks, IEA believes energy use in this sector could be cut in half.
Appliance Accountability
Computers and monitors were the first products to receive an energy efficiency rating from Energy Star, a program launched in 1992 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Since then, more than 60 categories have been added, from dishwashers and windows to DVD players.
Energy Star-rated products deliver the same or better performance as comparable models while using less energy. Although actual energy savings depend on what’s being replaced, new Energy Star appliances save significantly more energy. For example, switching out a clothes washer made before 2000 with a 2010 Energy Star model could save a consumer up to $135 per year on his/her electric bill. Replacing a refrigerator made before 1993 could save up to $65 annually. However, 44 percent of refrigerators that could be retired and recycled are converted into a second fridge, given away, or sold—keeping inefficient technology in American homes.
In the wake of Energy Star’s success (more than 2 billion Energy Star-rated products have been purchased), DOE has been pushing for more items to meet efficiency standards. In January, manufacturers sent energy-use data on more than 600,000 residential appliances in 15 product categories to the department.
“The Department of Energy’s newly enhanced enforcement efforts are improving the quality of energy efficiency information available to the American consumer,” reports DOE General Counsel Scott Blake Harris. “We’ll aggressively pursue all manufacturers who fail to comply with these certification requirements or whose products violate the country’s energy efficiency standards.”
Silent Energy Drains
Oddly enough, many electronic devices draw power while waiting to be used. Very likely, your big-screen TV, DVD player, and stereo burn kilowatt-hours even when turned off. According to IEA, this standby (or vampire) load accounts for more than 5 percent of residential electricity demand.
Although the amount of standby power used by individual appliances may be small―often between 0.5 watts and 10 watts―a typical home may have 20 appliances on standby at any given time. For the last decade, IEA has encouraged appliance manufacturers around the globe to cut this wasted power to no more than 1 watt. The Energy Star program takes this measurement into account when certifying many appliances.
Cash for Appliances
Thinking about replacing an old refrigerator or washing machine? This spring the last of the state-specific “Cash for Appliances” programs, mandated by the federal stimulus bill, went into effect. These programs provide rebates ranging from $50 to $250 as an incentive for Americans to switch from energy-guzzling, outdated appliances to new Energy Star-rated alternatives.
As of January 1, 2010, cash-back rewards are now available under the Wisconsin State Energy-Efficient Appliance Rebate Program (SEEARP) by completing and submitting a mail-in reward application. The allocation for the State of Wisconsin is $5.4 million of the nearly $300 million available nationwide.
This program is funded in part by the Wisconsin Department of Administration, Office of Energy Independence. For details on how you can take advantage of the program, visit http://www.focusonenergy.com/Residential/loose_pages/recovery.aspx.—Megan McKoy, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Source: International Energy Agency, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, U.S. Department of Energy
During March and April, the majority of Wisconsin’s electric cooperatives conduct their annual meetings, inviting all member-consumers to directly participate in the co-ops’ business decisions.
A few co-ops set the gatherings in other months, but early spring has been the perennial favorite time, harkening back to Wisconsin weather and farmers’ schedules: late enough to increase the chance for avoiding snow and early enough so as not to interfere with spring planting. The accommodation was vitally important in the co-ops’ early years; the overwhelming majority of members were farmers.
Though declining numbers of farm families and increasing residential movement from cities to the countryside have changed electric co-ops’ demographics, annual meetings retain their favorite calendar spots. They also retain their importance to co-op operations. At most annual meetings, for example, members elect individuals to represent them on the board of directors, entrusting to those board members the welfare of the business the members co-own.
The Buck Stops
Democratic member control is a hallmark of cooperative business and is one of the guiding principles followed by co-ops of all types. Elections, relying on one-member-one-vote, are prescribed in co-op bylaws and in charters under state and federal law. If you want to know “where the buck stops” in a cooperative, look no further than members of the board of directors. They function much like an elected town board or city council—hiring a manager, endorsing policies, approving budgets, and representing the interests of the member-owners who elected them.
It’s a similar structure and assignment of responsibility in regional or national co-op organizations whose membership includes whole cooperative businesses.
National Treasure
Sixty-eight years ago this month, electric co-op directors met in Washington, D.C., to incorporate the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). From the region that included Wisconsin was Earle Stoneman, a Grant Electric Co-op (now Scenic Rivers Energy) director who was also on the boards of the Wisconsin statewide electric co-op association and the newly formed Dairyland Power Cooperative.
The NRECA board soon came to include a board member from each state where electric co-ops existed. As our story on page 7 notes, that director position for Wisconsin changed hands in February, the result of an election held among Wisconsin electric co-ops last November.
In succeeding Bayfield Electric Co-op’s Bob Kretzschmar, Adams–Columbia director Larry Becker joins a Wisconsin roster whose service dates to NRECA’s 1942 creation: Stoneman, Vernon Electric’s H.O. Melby; Lawrence Cole of Columbus REC (now Adams–Columbia); St. Croix Electric’s William Kelm; Ivan Woodman of Rock County Electric (now Rock Energy); Dan Kanack, Oconto Electric; and Kretzschmar.
Elected by their cooperative-director colleagues, who in turn are elected by local electric co-op member-consumers, our national association’s directors are part of the accountable, representative structure from which all co-ops draw strength.
Even if it comes roaring in like a lion, March is a sweet time of year in Wisconsin. Just head into the woods of virtually every corner of the state and you’ll see what makes this month so special: bags and buckets attached to maple trees collecting the steady drip of sap that will be turned into sweet, golden maple syrup.
Because our state is blessed with more than 500 listed “sugarbushes” producing maple syrup in far-ranging areas, all Wisconsinites can find a maple-syrup producer to patronize without having to travel far from home. Many of these producers host special events in March to celebrate this unique Wisconsin product.
And there’s plenty to celebrate: Wisconsin currently ranks fourth in the nation in maple-syrup production, and the numbers have been rising; latest figures from the State Department of Agriculture indicate there are approximately 620,000 taps in Wisconsin.
“That’s up from 600,000 taps in 2007, and up from 400,000 in 2006,” pointed out Cheryl O’Brien, Wisconsin’s 62nd Alice in Dairyland. “The whole maple-syrup industry generates nearly $6 million in economic activity; that’s part of Wisconsin’s entire $59.16 billion agricultural industry.” O’Brien will be on hand for the state’s first official tapping on March 6 at the Sweet Sweet Spring celebration at Norskedalen Nature and Heritage Center (www.norskedalen.org, 608-452-3424) in Coon Valley. This event will serve as the official kick-off of Wisconsin Maple Month, which runs from March 15–April 15, and it will feature demonstrations of maple-syrup making. Guests will also get to sample pure Wisconsin maple syrup at a gourmet organic pancake breakfast.
Sweet Sweet Sunday is this year’s official maple-syrup month event, but it’s not the only one. At the Maple Syrup Magic Open House March 20 at the Riveredge Nature Center in Newburg (www.riveredgenaturecenter.org, 262-375-2715), visitors can learn about the origins of maple-syrup making and see how sap was collected and cooked over an open fire. Organic pancakes topped with fresh maple syrup will be served.
The Brillion Nature Center in Brillion (www.brillionnaturecenter.net, 920-756-3591) is offering a family-friendly Maple Syrup Camp on March 27, where visitors can observe hourly maple tree-tapping demonstrations and learn both traditional and modern syrup-making methods.
The Ledge View Nature Center in Chilton (www.ledgeviewnaturecenter.org, 920-849-7094) will host Maple Syrup Sunday on March 28. Guests can take a guided tour of the surrounding sugarbush, learn how to tap a tree and collect sap, watch as the sap is turned into syrup, and enjoy a pancake breakfast.
Head over to Beaver Creek Reserve in Fall Creek (www.beavercreekreserve.org, 715-877-2212) on March 28 for another Maple Syrup Sunday, complete with guided sugarbush tours and demonstrations of maple-syrup production. This event is one of many that proves maple syrup is for more than just pancakes—it will be served over ice cream instead.
These are just a few of the state’s maple-syrup celebrations. Check www.travelwisconsin.com for additional listings. In addition, many of the state’s listed maple-syrup producers don’t schedule official open houses but welcome guests to their facilities during tapping to tour the sugarbushes and observe the syrup-production process. The Wisconsin Maple Syrup Producers Association (www.wismaple.org) keeps an updated list of the state’s producers; simply click on the map on the site to find a sugarbush near you, and call or e-mail to inquire about visits.
And if you can’t fit a visit in your schedule, you can still observe Wisconsin Maple Month by buying fresh maple syrup and enjoying it with pancakes, ice cream, vegetables, and baked goods. There’s no sweeter way to celebrate March.—Mary Erickson
