Accessibility menu
State Representative Michael Beard
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
651-296-8872
For more information contact: Jodi Boyne 651-296-0640
OP/ED COLUMN
GLOBAL WARMING BILL SHOULD LEARN FROM ITS PREDECESSOR
By Mike Beard
District 35A, State Representative
As the 2007 legislative session hums along, I’d like to update readers on some local initiatives and talk about a new energy plan that I think leaves a lot to be desired.
There are three bills important to Scott County that I am carrying in the House. First, we are back again asking for some state bonding for the Scott County public safety training center. Last year we succeeded in getting $1 million of the $4.2 million needed and hopefully as bonding bills unfold over this year and next we will get the funding necessary for completion.
The second bill I am carrying will allow Scott County to streamline and energize its personnel administration system. The third bill will transfer direct budgetary control of the Scott County library system to the elected county commissioners, while retaining the appointed citizen board for operations and policy.
A few weeks ago I wrote about the “25/25” renewable energy bill, which has since become law. I stated then that it was not a perfect plan, but it earned my support because its sponsors effectively reached out to all the effected groups and developed something they could all accept. Now that energy has become a major topic in the Legislature, the 25/25 model is a good standard for how other energy bills should be developed.
But the second bill in this year’s energy wave does just the opposite. The authors behind the “Global Warming Mitigation Act” have made barely any attempt to bring people together. The result is a poorly-written bill that stands to do more harm than good. Instead of working with energy companies and expert professionals to set reasonable targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the bill arbitrarily imposes draconian targets and then allows the government to impose heavy fines and taxes on utilities that don’t meet them. That means higher rates for us, because we all know that taxes and fees are added to the prices we all must pay.
If our demand for electricity goes up (which it will no matter what, simply because we are a growing area) we will be in for a nightmare. The bill stops electric companies from building new generators or getting power from another facility until the state has its bureaucratic regulations in place. If demand outruns supply we’re just out of luck. When that happens, get ready for California-style rolling brown-outs.
But who will lose their electricity first? A rural customer who keeps the barn light on all night or folks like us in the metro area, where most of the state’s electricity is used? This poorly-conceived bill fails to even consider that simple question.
I get the feeling that my legislative colleagues are rushing way too fast with this bill. Only 30 years ago, scientists warned that we were in for disastrous global cooling. Imagine if we had pushed through hastily-crafted legislation in reaction. We would be stuck here today trying to undo a mess that we thought was going to be a real solution. I think a more reasonable approach is to slow down, bring all the relevant parties together and develop a reasonable and workable plan that controls pollution without turning off the lights, destroying our economic and cultural security or draining our checkbooks.
-30-
News Items
- Less Government Regulation Encourages Economic Growth - (Posted: 2012-02-27 00:00:00)
- MNDOT Awards Funding for Highway 101 Bridge Replacement - (Posted: 2012-03-30 00:00:00)
- Reform a Priority in 2012 - (Posted: 2012-01-25 00:00:00)
- Archived News Items
- Subscribe to RSS News Feeds
- Read more about RSS.