Feb 13 Rep. Emmer: Let's Repeal Next Generation Energy Act

DISCLAIMER: I'm part of Rep. Emmer's steering committee for his gubernatorial campaign.

Rep. Tom Emmer issued this statement on repealing the Next Generation Energy Act:

St. Paul, MN - Rep. Tom Emmer has introduced legislation to remove Minnesota from the cap and trade scheme the state entered into with passage of the 2007 Next Generation Energy bill. In order to comply with the new law, Minnesota joined the Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System (M-RETS) which uses data from states and provinces in the Midwest to create a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) in the form of a tradable digital certificate for each MWh of energy produced.

"With the economy slowly recovering and the state facing another budget shortfall, the last thing we need is an artificial tracking system that will be used to raise our energy rates," said Emmer. "We need to get Minnesota out of this cap and trade system before the federal government starts penalizing businesses and homeowners for using more energy."

The cap and trade system was put in place as part of the Next Generation Energy Act that also forces utilities in Minnesota to produce 25% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2025.

The legislation (216H.02 subdivision 6) calls for the state to 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. The law also directs the Commissioner of Commerce to:

(1) determine whether other states are interested in establishing and cooperating in a multistate or regional greenhouse gas cap and trade allowance program;

(2) identify and prepare an inventory of greenhouse gas reduction resources available to support a multistate or regional greenhouse gas cap and trade allowance program;

(3) seek cooperation on a regional inventory of greenhouse gas emission sources; and

(4) prepare an inventory of available renewable energy resources within a state or region.

"Some of us fought very hard against the passage of this legislation in 2007 and I believe we should repeal this section of the law and get out of this system."

This is the right thing to do, in my opinion, for a number of reasons. Most importantly, switching over to more renewable energy is expensive. Windmills and solar power are more expensive than electricity generated from coal-fired or nuclear power plants.

It's also worth noting that nuclear power plants are excellent in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I suspect that a cost-benefit analysis would show that nuclear power plants shine compared with wind and solar, rivalling them in terms of greenhouse gas emissions while blowing them away in terms of cost. If that's the case, why wouldn't we focus on lifting the moratorium on nuclear power plants rather than on staying in this M-RETS system?

The Next Generation Energy Act imposes renewable energy mandates on utilities, which necessarily means that fossil fuel energy production must be cut. This means that technologies like clean coal technology that reduce pollution levels would be shunned because clean coal technology isn't a type of renewable energy.

After talking with an energy expert this week, I was told that the same people who champion cap and trade legislation are championing M-RETS because their goal is to get rid of fossil fuel energy production or at least get rid of it as much as possible.

Rather than locking Minnesota into this compact, Minnesota would be better off if they encouraged technology to maximize energy efficiency. M-RETS essentially assumes that renewable energy is the best path forward, both in terms of cost for families and in terms of limiting pollution levels. Based on existing data, we can't prove that.

That means we're making an assumption based more on wishful thinking than on verifiable information. That isn't the basis for solid legislative decisionmaking. That's more the basis for doing what's well-intentioned rather than doing what works. Personally, I'll cast my vote for doing what we know works.

The DFL can't let this legislation pass because it would force them to admit that they were wrong and, more importantly, voting for it would dry up the campaign contributions of the environmentalists.

That's unfortunate because that's the surest way of putting a higher priority on pleasing special interest allies rather than doing what's best for your constituents. That's the type of thinking that needs to be purged from the Capitol.

Comments welcome at LFR.