July 27, 2010

To: The Laker Newspaper

From: Tom Casey, Board Member, West Metro Global Warming Action Group, Inc.

Re:  Letter to Editor – Candidates’ Position on Energy Issues

            The West Metro Global Warming Action Group, Inc. (WMGWAG) is a Minnesota non-profit corporation whose mission is to alleviate the deleterious effects of global warming by building a renewable and environmentally sustainable energy economy.  WMGWAG does not endorse candidates for public office.

            To inform Minnesota voters about candidates’ positions on energy issues, WMGWAG transmitted a 3-question (“yes” or “no”) survey to all candidates for governor, State Senator (District 33), and State Representative (Districts 33A and 33B). After the primary election reduces the number of governor candidates, a follow up questionnaire, which asks for essay answers, will be submitted to the remaining candidates.  Their answers will be published before the November general election.

            The three questions – along with candidates’ responses - are as follows.  (Note: a hyphen indicates that the candidate did not reply.)

            Question 1.  Do you intend to meet the energy policy goals as stated in Minnesota’s “Next Generation Act of 2007” – i.e. that “… (1) the per capita use of fossil fuel be reduced by 15% by the year 2015, through increased energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives; and (2) 25% of the total energy used in the state be derived from renewable energy resources by the year 2025”?   
(See Minn. Stat. 216C.05, Subd. 2.)

            Question 2.  Do you support Minnesota's moratorium on building new nuclear power plants?

            Question 3.  Do you support increasing state funding for energy/efficiency rebate programs for Minnesota citizens?

            Footnote 1: Although Rep. Tom Emmer did not reply, he voted against the “Next Generation Energy Act of 2007.”

            Footnote 2: Although Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher did not reply, she voted for the                                     “Next Generation Energy Act of 2007.”

            Footnote 3: Rep. Tom Emmer did not reply.  He was not present for the House vote in 2010 on the “Hilty Amendment.” (See footnote 4 below for explanation of this amendment.)

            Footnote 4: Although Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher did not reply, she voted against the “Hilty Amendment” during the 2010 Session.  (This amendment would have repealed the nuclear power moratorium, but added conditions to building a new nuclear power plant.  The “Hilty Amendment” was adopted by the House and incorporated into a larger energy bill, which Rep. Anderson Kelliher voted for.  Ultimately, this energy bill stalled in conference committee and did not pass.)

            Footnote 5: Although the 3-question (“yes” or “no”) survey was mailed to all Senate and  House candidates in District 33.  Our only reply was from Kim Kang, candidate for State Representative in District 33B. 

            Because there are only three candidates in Congressional District 3, we mailed a different questionnaire and asked for a response in an essay format. We received replies from Jim Meffert and Jon Oleson.  Representative Erik Paulsen did not reply. These essays can be viewed on our website at: www.wmgwag.org

            Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Thomas E. Casey

Board Member

West Metro Global Warming Action Group, Inc.

2854 Cambridge Lane

Mound, MN 55364

(952) 472-1099

Questionnaire

Candidate:               Jim Meffert (DFL)

Office Sought:                       U.S. Representative, District 3

Campaign Manager:            Alex Falconer

Website:                    www.jimmeffert.com

Email:                          info@jimmeffert.com

1.      How will you address climate change and move the U.S. towards energy independence?

By supporting sensible legislation that eliminates subsidies for oil, gas, coal, etc. and shifts our priorities to renewable.  I will also support incentives to encourage development and use of renewable energy sources.  We are losing out to countries like China and Denmark in the race for a green economy, and if Congress doesn’t shift its priorities, we will face even more long-term, serious consequences than we already face.  The U.S. must be much more aggressive in reducing emissions and must be a world partner and ratify treaties to do the same.

2.      What amendments, if any, would you make to the proposed American Power Act/American Clean Energy and Security Act to increase the emphasis on renewable energy?

I support this legislation – it is more aggressive than what the Administration has proposed and takes significant steps toward energy security.  As to amendments, I would support measures that will increase our conversion to renewable energy and provide incentives that serve as a ‘catalyst’ to make the U.S. the green energy leader.  That said, not being an expert in this area, I would look toward experts for advice on how best to attain these goals.  The U.S. has continually delayed on enacting meaningful reforms, and it’s time we get aggressive.

3.      Do you support Minnesota’s moratorium on building new nuclear power plants?

Yes, I support the moratorium because nuclear power is not renewable and leaves a legacy of spent nuclear waste.  For decades the federal government has said it will have a permanent site for storage of this waste, but there has never been a resolution of this and I don’t believe there will be.  We cannot build more plants while ignoring the waste caused by existing plants.

4.      What is your solution for storage and disposal of nuclear waste?

The federal government should fulfill its commitment for a permanent site but since that hasn’t happened, we need alternatives.  I am not an expert on this and am open to the best suggestions from experts, not from politicians.  We need storage and disposal that is secure and safe.  The move to allow construction of more nuclear plants when we have never dealt with the nuclear waste issue is irresponsible.

5.      Do you support taxpayer subsidies of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and other non-renewable sources?

No on all counts.  We will never meet our goals for non-renewables, nor will we break our addiction to fossil fuels if Congress doesn’t shift its priorities.  Eliminating these subsidies is a symbolic start.  Fully engaging in renewable through investments on a large scale is a sensible mechanism to make a shift. 

Responses to WMGWAG Questionnaire to

Jon Oleson, Independence Party Endorsed Candidate

for Congress – MN 3^rd Congressional District

                                           http://jonolesonforcongress.com/

1.      How will you address climate change and move the U.S. towards energy independence?

Recent information flow regarding ‘climate change’ has been politicized and fraught with misinformation.  As on any issue I insist we follow high, common sense standards to obtain accurate information, open-mindedly hear all viable perspectives, debate vigorously yet respectfully, then act  based on what’s right---not serve special interests, the powerful, or political parties.  We currently have relative national agreement that energy independence is an important objective.  We must leverage that advantage, reveal and rebuff powerful interests that benefit from status quo, and act strategically so that we achieve independence thoughtfully and not solve one problem while creating others.

2.      What amendments, if any, would you make to the proposed American Power Act/American Clean Energy and Security Act to increase the emphasis on renewable energy?

[My understanding of the American Power Act (proposed) is based on a World Resources Institute summary.]

The proposed APA seeks energy independence from the wrong perspective.  Americans know we need energy independence.  The entrepreneurial spirit of America has already shown we can develop renewable/non-exhaustible energy sources. We need to mitigate the negative outcomes of carbon based and nuclear fuels---but view these actions as buying time to fully move to better energy sources.  Wind, solar, wave, hydrogen and other sources are researched, viable, improving, growing.  Going into ‘mass production’ and increasing the ROI on R&D will make America energy independent.  An energy independence act must support such activity and eliminate fossil fuel’s vice grip hold on policy.

3.      Do you support Minnesota’s moratorium on building new nuclear power plants?

Yes.  As outlined in #2, we must dramatically increase use of renewable energy sources.  This could ultimately eliminate the need for risky sources such as nuclear.  My campaign insists on giving all viable perspectives an opportunity to present their case.  Quality research must be studied to determine if new technology can confidently assure very safe outcomes.  The moratorium can be lifted only if and when the process outlined in #1 justifies doing so. 

As with all non-renewable energy sources now in use, nuclear energy production must be phased out as renewable/non-exhaustible sources can totally provide for America’s conservation minded energy needs.

4.      What is your solution for storage and disposal of nuclear waste?

I do not have a good solution.  It is such nasty stuff that ‘not in my backyard’ has dominated citizen and politician thinking.  Nonetheless, we must store and dispose of the waste---including re-storing waste that’s been stored with less appropriate methods.  We need to conduct ongoing research and apply it until nuclear power plants can be phased out.  Given the half life of radioactive waste, the research and action will need to continue into the foreseeable future.  I will follow the process outlined in #1 response to legislatively promote the best course of action.

5.      Do you support taxpayer subsidies of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and other non-renewable energy sources.

No.  I will consider facts and the logic of specific exceptions if they are short term proposals---e.g., subsidize pollution reduction retrofits to existing viable plants in economically depressed areas.  Note that I believe that our nation too readily subsidizes too many businesses and projects.  Subsidies are typically more special interest influence-driven than real-need driven.  I believe that, given a level playing field, renewable energy production will do well in a free enterprise, market based economy.  Roadblocking and cost increasing strategies by powerful fossil fuel based companies---such as controlling electricity transmission lines---must be outlawed.

Addendum: I have served Bloomington as a Planning Commissioner for nearly two years.  This experience has increased my awareness of 1) the many ways we can live a more sustainable lifestyle and 2) how governmental units can encourage (regulate as may be necessary) private enterprise actions that provide structure to sustainable practices.  It is my observation that many business leaders, at least at the small to mid-size business level, are very willing to collaborate to help create a sustainable future.

Jon Oleson

Candidate for 3^rd Congressional District Seat

in the United States House of Representatives