Mar 15 Seifert Changes Mind; What’s Driving This Change?

Marty Seifert must be feeling the heat for supporting the Next Generation Energy Act. That's the only explanation for his introducing a bill that would roll back requirements mandated by SF4, which created a Renewable Energy Standard:

A Republican candidate for Minnesota governor is attempting to roll back a requirement that a quarter of the state's power come from renewable sources by 2025.

Rep. Marty Seifert of Marshall brings his bill to a House committee on Monday. It would erase the requirement approved two years ago, which he and a large legislative majority voted to put in place.

Seifert's bill would replace the gradually increasing energy standard with a "good faith" goal. When they approved the requirement, lawmakers and Gov. Tim Pawlenty said it would reduce reliance on dirtier power sources and drive up demand for homegrown electricity.

Rep. Tom Emmer is Seifert's main rival for the Republican gubernatorial endorsement. Emmer was 1 of 10 House members to vote against the 25 percent by 2025 goal when it was approved.

t's good to see Rep. Seifert finally start making his way back to the right side of this issue. I'd be even happier if Rep. Seifert admitted that he's voted for a system that's similar to cap and trade.

Rhonda Sivarajah, Rep. Seifert's running mate, says that he hasn't voted for cap and trade legislation:

I'd also like to discuss an issue that I've been asked about on the campaign trail regarding energy costs. I'm disappointed to hear about emails which have been circulating that clearly misrepresent Marty's position. Like me, Marty opposes "cap and trade" legislation. Over the past few years, DFL legislators have introduced "cap and trade" legislation which Marty has consistently opposed.

You deserve a substantive discussion of the differences between the candidates for governor, however, other campaigns are doing a great disservice when supporters are intentionally spreading false information to mislead activists. Rest assured, Marty Seifert and I strongly oppose "cap and trade" legislation, and as governor, Marty will veto any "cap and trade" legislation.

That last sentence is meaningless. Here's why:

There was a second important energy bill passed at the end of the 2007 session known as the Next Generation Energy Act (SF 145). This bill enacted "carbon emission goals" and directed the Commerce Commissioner to create a "climate change action plan." The bill specifically mandated that "[t]he state must, to the extent possible, with other states in the Midwest region, develop and implement a regional approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from activities in the region, including consulting on a regional cap and trade system."

SF145, which was signed into law in 2007, created the mechanism for a regional cap and trade system. The only way to change that is to repeal the Next Generation Energy Act.

I've told friends that voting for the M-RETS legislation and the Next Generation Energy Act would hurt Rep. Seifert with the activists the most of all the votes he's taken. I'd suggest that Rep. Seifert's new legislation proves that the green energy issue is hurting him.

Tom Emmer, the man that I'm supporting, got both votes right. Rep. Seifert didn't. The bills that Rep. Seifert voted for will create higher energy prices. They also create new bureaucracies. For a man that constantly says he wants to right-size, downsize and economize, it sounds more like Rep. Seifert voted to increase the size of Minnesota's government.

Tom Emmer took a principled stand because he didn't want Minnesota's energy costs to go up. Time has proven him to be on the right side of this issue.

Comments welcome at LFR.