• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

R-CALF on Cap and Trade

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Washington, D.C. – Today, R-CALF USA sent a letter to each Senator and Representative to urge them to reject entirely the proposed ‘cap-and-trade’ legislation, also sometimes referred to as ‘pollution reduction and investment” (PRI).

“(The U.S. cattle) industry, like most of this nation, is one highly dependent on abundant and affordable energy, as most of our input costs are directly tied to energy, whether that’s in the form of irrigation costs, feed, fuel, fertilizer or other critical needs,” R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry wrote in the letter. “This legislation includes a host of provisions designed to drive up energy costs, thereby reducing energy consumption, but reduced energy consumption is not favorable to growing an economy.”

R-CALF USA urges Congress to reject this cap-and-trade legislation for the following reasons:

H.R. 2454 will add to costs for cattle producers and for the economy in general.

In documents released Sept. 15, 2009, pursuant to a FOIA request as reported by CBS News, the Treasury Department has put the cost of Cap and Trade at up to $200 billion per year in new taxes, or $1,761 per household. The document further reports that the burden of Cap and Trade will equal “all existing environmental regulation,” at a time when both cattle producers and the nation’s economy are struggling.

Further, Treasury’s cost estimates do not include the costs which will be placed on cattle producers and the economy in the form of higher energy costs and regulatory burdens, as Treasury’s numbers are limited only to new taxes.

Disproportionately higher rural electrical costs will have a severe impact on cattle producers.

Most independent cattle producers operate in areas served by rural electric co-ops. This legislation will penalize smaller, lesser-capitalized utilities that cannot readily adapt to renewable technologies vis-à-vis larger, better capitalized utilities. These provisions will result in higher costs to rural electrical users. (See Title I, Subtitles A and B, and the provisions dealing with efficiency/renewable electricity standards, early deployment of carbon capture, and performance standards for coal fired plants.)

HR 2454 is economic suicide.

China, India and Brazil, all with surging economies, have rejected the G-8 nations’ numerical targets at the recent meetings in L’Aquila, Italy. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said that “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.” Given that admission—coupled with the unequivocal positions taken by China, India and Brazil—why would this nation unilaterally choose to burden its economy even further in the face of: 1) $63 trillion of debt, and 2) unsustainable trade deficits?

As a consequence of the complexity and length of this legislation, there are many provisions that will affect cattle producers that have not been adequately analyzed.

Subpart C—Natural Resource Adaptation—is in essence a land and resource grab that will directly impact cattle producers. Section 471 provides that this subpart’s purpose is one of establishing “an integrated Federal Program to protect, restore, and conserve the Nation’s natural resources in response to climate change…”

Federal lands excepted, the “nation” owns no resources. Section 476, however, establishes a national “strategy” without regard to whether the resource is federally owned. Section 481 creates a national “Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Information Program,” which is more than an information gathering process. While creating a database, the data is intended to be used by “federal, state, local and tribal decision-makers to prioritize and target natural resources adaptation strategies and activities.” Included specifically is the identification and prioritization of “key parcels of non-Federal” in-holdings in the National Forest System, or National Grassland System…”

“This portion of the bill has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 emissions but everything to do with the control of natural resources, and it is rife with future conflicts and takings issues under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” Thornsberry pointed out in the letter.

“We urge you to reject this bill because, No. 1, it is too costly; No. 2, it will not impact CO2 levels in the face of non-cooperation by China, India and Brazil; No. 3, it places a disproportionate burden on rural electric cooperatives; and, No. 4, it contains provisions totally unrelated to CO2 emissions, but instead, regulations that will create a host of future conflicts between the federal government and states, private land owners and local governments over natural resource uses,” he concluded.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Well I know # 3 is correct. I have Citizens Electric and its a Co-Op and its more expensive than Black River Electric or even AmerenUE (I have no clue why, but it is) and this was in the October 2009 Rural Missourian....... now folks, who can afford a 50% or 77% increase in your utility bill. I know we can't as we had a $500 bill for one month last winter.

http://www.ruralmissouri.coop/BarryHart/BarryOct09.html

Cap and trade bill: Fix it or kill it
AMEC executive vice president Barry Hart
by Barry Hart

by Barry Hart

It’s not often that you find all of Missouri’s electric utilities — cooperative, municipal and investor-owned — agreeing on something. That’s why a recent letter sent to legislators caught the attention of so many people.

No less than eight logos certified the cover page of the letter, and it was signed by the same number of CEOs, including Associated Electric Cooperative’s Jim Jura and myself. No one I know could ever remember seeing so many utilities united in this way.

The historic document shared the common concerns of all the state’s utilities about the likely impact of climate change legislation being considered now by the U.S. Senate.

While the document included 10 pages, numerous charts and a whole bunch of data, its message was simple, clear and indisputable: If climate change legislation passes in its current form, the price all Missourians pay for electricity will dramatically increase.

“We believe this legislation will cause our customers to pay rate increases averaging between 12 percent and 26 percent starting in 2012 with the potential to reach as much as 50 percent should the utilities be forced to switch from coal to natural gas,” the letter related.

Some Missourians could eventually see 77 percent rate increases caused by the bill if passed, a study made by the utilities showed.

Because Missouri and other states in the Midwest have historically relied on coal for most of their power generation, consumers and businesses here could experience the highest rate increases in the nation under the Waxman-Markey bill recently passed by the U.S. House.

That bill, also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, would force many costly changes on the state’s utilities. To comply, we would have to make major changes to our generation fleet, buy more expensive low- or zero-emission power and switch fuels in existing plants, on top of the energy efficiency programs already in place to reduce demand for electricity.

Even after taking these costly steps, we would still be forced to purchase carbon allowances in an uncertain market driven high by Wall Street speculators and out-of-state utilities that don’t need them and don’t care about keeping electricity affordable in the Show-Me State.

It would be possible for Missouri’s electric utilities to turn their backs on consumers and simply pass along these new expenses in the form of massive rate increases. But no one signing this letter has a heart that cold. Because you own the cooperative, in our case those costs would be passed back to the owners.

The people in charge of ensuring affordable, reliable electricity for Missouri know that most Missourians cannot afford this kind of rate shock. This bill, crafted by legislators in East- and West-Coast states such as California and Massachusetts that already have sky-high rates and unreliable power, would kill jobs in the Midwest where family incomes are well below the national average.

With debate about to begin in the Senate, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association launched a campaign to send a clear message to senators on this issue. Missouri consumers once again responded, sending thousands of cards to Sen. Kit Bond and Sen. Claire McCaskill urging them to work with electric cooperatives to craft climate change legislation that is fair, affordable and achievable.

Along with my counterparts in other states, I will hand deliver these cards to the senators. I will tell them that legislation must be fair and affordable — or defeated.

During these troubled times, I believe keeping electric bills affordable ought to be a high national priority. If you agree with me, keep those postcards coming. If you need some for your neighbors, go by your local electric co-op office.

The economic future for all Missourians soon will be decided in the U.S. Senate, and we need Sen. Bond and Sen. McCaskill to put Missouri and you first.

Hart is executive vice president of the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives.
 
Top