Dick Saslaw Votes Repeatedly Against The Environment

Yesterday was a day that has me wondering why I bother fighting for "Democrats" in this state. This is truly infuriating.

The first thing that happened was a 11-3 vote against Sen. Donald McEachin's energy efficiency bill, SB 71. This bill would have required "each electric utility to implement a portfolio of cost-effective electric utility energy efficiency programs that will reduce the consumption of electric energy by its retail customers by 0.3 percent of the forecast consumption for 2011, 3.9 percent of the forecast consumption for 2015, and 12.2 percent of the forecast consumption for 2022." Note that last figure, as SB 71 is actually a watered-down version of Sen. McEachin's 2009 energy efficiency bill, which had the 19% mandate which Tim Kaine's climate commission had recommended. This year, Sen. McEachin only put in 12%, but it was still rejected. Now, I could understand flat-earth, anti-environment Republicans opposing such a no-brainer, win-win bill. But what about Democrats like Majority Leader Dick Saslaw, Chuck Colgan, Yvonne Miller, John Edwards, Toddy Puller and Phil Puckett? What the hell is going on here?

As if that's not bad enough, we also had a mandatory renewable energy portfolio standard bill by Mary Margaret Whipple, SB 450, that was "passed by indefinitely" in the Senate Commerce and Labor committee. Voting to "pass it by" - kill it, in other words - were, once again, Democrats Dick Saslaw and Phil Puckett. However heinous their vote against Sen. McEachin's bill was, this one was truly outrageous. As Mary Margaret Whipple pointed out in her bill description, "[u]nder current law, the renewable energy portfolio standard program is a voluntary program." Voluntary? By Dominion "Global Warming Starts Here" Power? Yeah, right, that's going to work out really well! (snark) Currently, 27 states have Renewable Portfolio Standards, with 23 of those being mandatory. On the one hand, at least we have an RPS in Virginia. On the other hand, why wouldn't Democrats, including the guy we all worked so hard to make Senate Majority Leader, vote for an utterly non-controversial, no-brainer mandatory standard like 23 other states?

The bottom line is that these votes, particularly on Mary Margaret Whipple's bill, are inexcusable coming from the State Senate Majority Leader (note that Saslaw is a good friend of Whipple's; I'd hate to see how he treats his enemies!). Apparently, the way it works in Saslaw's Senate, we get a small victory one day (non-discrimination, that is until it's killed by flat-earth Republicans in the House), then the same day we watch as Democrats can't even support one decent energy efficiency/clean energy bill. I mean, I knew that Dick Saslaw was no friend of energy security, green jobs or the environment, but now that Democrats ostensibly "control" the State Senate, this is utterly unforgivable.

P.S. I'm sure the fact that Dick "Dick" Saslaw has received $125,508 over the years from Dominion "Global Warming and Energy Insecurity Start Here" Power has nothing to do with his votes yesterday. Nope, nothing at all (rolls eyes).

P.P.S. Thanks to Mark Herring, Creigh Deeds, and of course Donald McEachin, all of whom voted for SB 71 and against "passing by" (aka, "killing") SB 450.

"Generating Failure": Why Subsidizing Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

This morning, Senator Webb put out a press release on the proposed "Clean Energy Act of 2009," which he is co-sponsoring with Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN). The main thrust of this legislation is to provide $10 billion "in government-backed loans for the development of clean, carbon-free energy to bring in investors and project developers to jump start efforts that are otherwise too capital-intensive up front." Translation: taxpayer-provided nuclear power subsidies, and lots of 'em.

In addition to the $10 billion in nuclear power plant subsidies, the Webb-Alexander legislation would provide $1 billion over 10 years for "nuclear education and training;" $1 billion over 5 years to help bring new nuclear reactor designs to market; $500 million over 10 years "for much needed research to extend the lifetime of our current nuclear fleet and maximize the production of low-cost nuclear power;" and $7.5 billion over 10 years for research on "low-carbon coal," "technologies that will reduce nuclear waste," "battery technology," "advanced bio-fuels," and "low-cost solar technology." By doing all this, Webb claims, "we can effectively address our nation’s energy requirements and also the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions." Sounds great, right?

But wait, you ask, then why is this article entitled "Generating Failure?" There are many strong reasons, most of which are laid out in an excellent new report by Environment America, entitled, "Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming." The following graphs, which I believe make the case against focusing limited government resources on one of the least cost-effective strategies possible, are taken from that report. Enjoy.






To summarize, from the report by Environment America:

*"Early action matters in the fight against global warming."
*"New nuclear reactors would be built too slowly to reduce global warming pollution in the near term, and would actually increase the scale of action required in the future."
*"In contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources can make an immediate
contribution toward reducing global warming pollution."
*"Nuclear power is expensive and will divert resources from more cost-effective energy strategies."
*"Nuclear power is not needed to provide reliable, low-carbon electricity for the future."
*"To address global warming, U.S. policy should focus on improving energy efficiency and generating electricity from clean sources that never run out – such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal power."
*Finally, "State and federal leaders should: Oppose additional subsidies for nuclear
power; Reduce the nation’s emissions deeply enough to prevent dangerous impacts
from global warming, guided by the latest scientific understanding; Require the nation to reduce overall electricity use by 15 percent by 2020 and to obtain at least 25 percent of its electricity from clean, renewable sources of energy that never run out, such as wind and solar power, by 2025; Strengthen energy efficiency standards and codes for appliances and buildings; Invest in electric grid modernization."

I'd also point to Figure 9, which clearly indicates that nuclear power is at the bottom in terms of cost effective global warming solutions (and, I'd add, "cost effective energy solutions"). In contrast, energy efficiency - aka, "negawatts" - gives us the most bang for the buck of any other global warming solution. Energy efficiency is followed by 12 other energy sources - biomass cofiring, combined heat and power, wind, geothermal, etc. - before we finally get to nuclear power, which ranks above only "cleaner-coal"-based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. While I am certainly not against nuclear power per se, I am against spending limited government resources on the second-least effective (nuclear power) and also the least effective ("low-carbon coal") options out there. Frankly, this goes against everything I've ever learned, which is that you want to put your resources where you get the most bang for the buck. Unfortunately, this bill does the exact opposite.

UPDATE: For all the climate change-denying trolls in the comments section, this is my response to you. That answers all previous and future "questions" or "thoughts" by you on this subject.

Great News From Loudoun County!

Earlier today, the Loudoun County board of supervisors voted 5-4 to approve "a strategy that outlines how the county hopes to save energy, attract new growth and curb greenhouse gases in the next 30 years." Major kudos to Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (D-Potomac) for leading the charge on this one, and also to the other four members of the board (Supervisors Kelly Burk, Jim Burton, Sally Kurtz and Stevens Miller) who voted yes. Nice job!

As I discussed on December 3, this strategy is all "win," in that it will save the county money, create jobs, and protect the environment all at the same time. This vote will also make the county eligible for over $2 million in funding for energy efficiency projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In short, I believe that is what's known as a "total no brainer." Still, with Republicans opposing everything these days - even including proposals that are "win-win-win" - even "total no brainers" aren't easy to pass. Fortunately, this one did, despite opposition by the usual suspects (in this case Supervisors Lori Waters, Scott York, Eugene Delgaudio - and also Susan Klimek Buckley, who's not a "usual suspect" but voted totally wrong on this bill), and Loudoun County will be better off because of it.