Reply from Senator McCaskill-Clean Energy and Congress

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:32 PM, <senator@mccaskill.senate.gov> wrote:

September 30, 2010

Dear St Louis Renewable Energy,

Thank you for contacting me regarding clean energy and oil spill liability legislation.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, in late July, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada introduced S.3663, the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010.  This bill would take four important steps toward addressing our country's longstanding energy challenges.  First, it would ensure that oil companies and not taxpayers will be held liable for any damage caused by future oil spills.  Second, it would reduce our energy consumption and create jobs by investing in Home Star, an energy efficiency program with bipartisan support.  Third, it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by making significant investments in vehicles that run on electricity and natural gas.  Lastly, it would protect our environment by investing in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.  If enacted, all the investments made pursuant this legislation will be paid for by increasing the amount oil companies are required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.  Leader Reid has announced plans for the Senate to consider this legislation in the coming months.

Recently, I have heard from many Missourians, some with concerns and others in support of S.3663.  Many Missourians are disappointed that the legislation does not attempt to put a price on carbon, include a renewable energy standard that will help diversify how we produce energy, or provide funding for the National Historic Preservation Fund.  Others have raised concerns about the impact this legislation may have on U.S. oil companies.  In addressing the latter point, I think it is important to note that oil companies receive billions in taxpayer funded tax credits every year to continue their operations in the United States.  In fact, in the first quarter of 2010, profits for the top five oil companies exceeded $21 billion, a 38 percent increase over first quarter profits in 2009.  There are, however, several Democratic and Republican senators currently working with the Senate Majority Leader to find compromise language that will address the concerns of those states where oil companies contribute significantly to the local economy.  I am hopeful an agreement will be reached in the coming months that wins broad support and ensures this legislation remains paid for, meaning that it would not add to the national debt in these fiscally-constrained times.

While I understand that many Missourians are frustrated that Leader Reid did not decide to bring legislation before the full Senate that directly address the issue of climate change by requiring a cap on carbon emissions or include a renewable energy standard, it should not be overlooked that this bill goes a long way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency, both of which will help to reduce our emissions and the amount of energy consumption.  I have been a longstanding supporter of efforts to address climate change and increase our use of renewable energy.  In fact, I supported the renewable energy standard that was passed by Missouri voters in 2008, which requires Missouri's utilities to produce 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2021.  I have also recently cosponsored the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act (S. 3813) introduced by Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, which would establish a federal renewable energy standard similar to the one supported by Missourians.  However, I remain concerned that the current proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions does not include enough protections for Missouri consumers, who have no choice but to rely on power generated from coal.  I believe we must and can do better for Missourians who are already struggling to make ends meet.  As this debate continues, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a solution that addresses the threat of climate change while protecting Missouri consumers.  

As Congress considers how to address these difficult challenges, please know that I will keep the interests of all Missourians in mind before I cast any votes.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at www.mccaskill.senate.gov.

Thank you for contacting the Office of United States Senator Claire McCaskill. We welcome your communication and look forward to hearing from you. Unfortunately, this mailbox is not monitored.
If you would like to send a message to Senator McCaskill, please visit the following website: http://mccaskill.senate.gov.
During business hours, you may reach the office immediately by calling 202-224-6154.
Thank you again for contacting the Office of Senator McCaskill.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Missouri-Clean Energy-Politics-McCaskill

Missouri news, views, and issues - Show Me Progress

Clean energy roulette - round and round McCaskill goes and where she lands nobody knows | More by: WillyK Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 21:41:26 PM CDT

It's a sure thing that Kit Bond will respect the GOP love affair with Big-Oil and King-Coal, not to mention his party's general policy of obstruction when it comes time to consider the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act - just consider his absurd response to new EPA clean air regulations. Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, may hew to her Republican-not-so-light line, but, given her recent actions in regard to clean energy initiatives, it's just possible that she may be coming around to understanding that CO2 emission control is part-and-parcel of getting to where we need to be, and that she needs to take a few risks and show some innovative, forward-looking leadership to help us get there. It is surely this possibility that has led organizations like  Repower America and Clean Energy Works to lobby as hard as they can to bring Senator McCaskill on board. Which brings us to a conference call earlier this morning organized by Clean Energy Works. The call, which consisted of brief presentations from Missourians representing political, business, farm, and military interests, fleshed out four compelling arguments for passing the American Power Act (and, I hope, for improving that flawed proposal): Clean energy alternatives are here right now: This point was made forcefully by Steve Flick, Board President of Show Me Energy Cooperative, "a non-profit, producer owned cooperative founded to support the development of renewable biomass energy sources in West Central Missouri." The Cooperative has used "stable biomass" as the basis for a "bio-pellet" that can be used for heat as well as to create electricity - recently the KCP&L utility company purchased the pellets to try them out as an alternative to coal for generating electricity. Better yet, given McCaskill's concern that Missourians not "get the short end of the stick" economically, bio-pellet production has the potential to increase farm income. One of the goals of the Cooperative, for instance, is to  "provide additional revenue streams for farmers and producers for their products by utilization in biomass energy production."

WillyK :: Clean energy roulette - round and round McCaskill goes and where she lands nobody knows

Clean Energy is politically viable: State Senator Joan Bray (D-24) observed that the public is ahead of the policy makers and wants the transition to clean energy now. She noted that the Massey coal mine disaster and the current catastrophic BP oil spill have brought home to Americans the costs of doing nothing. The public expects action not dithering from a congress that, according to Bray, doesn't seem to be able to "walk and chew gum at the same time." This argument might reassure our politically cautious McCaskill, especially since it is supported by some recent polling (see also here). McCaskill, who professes to worry about the impact of precipitate action on the business climate, should also be receptive to Bray's observation that Congress must make prompt decisions about energy for economic reasons as well, since businesses need to be able to rely on known rules if they are to plan intelligently. Clean Energy makes us more secure: Jack Hembree, a U.S. Army veteran from Springfield and a member of Operation Free discussed the fact that because most of our oil comes from the Middle East - only 3% of our consumption is supported by domestic oil production - we will have no choice but to continue our military involvement in the region until we can move to clean energy. Listening to Hembree, it occurred to me that since McCaskill claims to support our troops, given the role of oil in putting them in harm's way, how can she do other than to vote for the American Power Act? Clean Energy has no downside: Ralph Bicknese, of Hellmuth & Bicknese Architects in St. Louis offered this formula for evaluating the real costs of our energy sources: just ask what happens when things go wrong. Coal? Produces coal ash that ends up in unlined and unregulated sludge ponds. And what's wrong with that? Think about toxic chemical byproducts seeping into your water, not to mention spills - remember what happened in Kingston Tennessee? Oil? If I need to spell the downside out, you've been living in a cave for the last four decades. Nuclear? As Bicknesse put it, when Nuclear goes wrong, it goes very wrong. Think Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and then think abut the problems inherent in storing poisonous waste with a half-life of a couple of millennia. Not to mention that power from nuclear energy is expensive. It's a dangerous energy source and it's not cheap. Wind, solar? Maybe there are some little implementation problems but nothing that can go catastrophically wrong - no downside at all really. Biomass? essentially no downside that can't be easily dealt with. Given Senator McCaskill's obvious understanding of at least some of the issues, as she articulates them on her Website, if she continues to walk backwards, as she did in her response to the proposed EPA regulations, we must demand that she tell us just why the considerations above do not convince her to not only support, but work to improve the American Power Act. So go call her - let her know that if she does the right thing, we'll have her back in 2012.

Tags: Murkowski resolution Rockefeller Resolution, EPA, clean energy, aces, American Power Act, Claire McCaskill, missouri, Operation Free, Show Me Energy Cooperative, Joan Bray, Clean Energy Works, Repower America, (All Tags)













Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com