LOCAL IMPACTS: Efforts to combat climate and increase alternative energy supplies won some campaigns but lost others.
Image: Flickr/Tony Pelliccio
Environmentalists scored a victory in the New Hampshire governor's race last night but lost one of the biggest state energy fights of the year over a renewable ballot proposal in Michigan.
Meanwhile, the governor's race in Washington -- which could determine the status of proposed Northwestern coal ports and renewable policies -- remained too close to call as of press time.
In New Hampshire's gubernatorial contest, Democrat Maggie Hassan defeated Republican Ovide Lamatogne with more than 54 percent of the vote. The race was watched closely by climate advocates because of Lamatogne's pledge to pull the state out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the nation's first operating cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases.
"Thank you, New Hampshire, now let's get to work," said Hassan in a short victory speech.
Hassan was instrumental in the state's participation in the regional carbon trading program in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, known informally as RGGI. Lamatogne -- who was named "conservative of the year" in 2011 by the New Hampshire branch of the group Americans for Prosperity -- said the program raised energy costs.
Hassan's victory could "breathe new life" into the program, which is undergoing a critical regional review that could determine whether its emissions limits are strengthened, said Barry Rabe, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan. Supporters of RGGI say it raises money for energy efficiency projects.
The Michigan ballot initiative, known as Proposal 3, would have amended the state constitution and raised the state's portfolio standard, requiring utilities to obtain 25 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2025. The current standard requires 10 percent renewable generation by 2015.
Votes against renewables or against constitutional amendments?
The ballot proposal in Michigan gained national attention, partly because it bucked the trend of states considering bills that would freeze or reverse existing renewable standards, rather than raise them. Green groups from as far as away as San Francisco funneled money into the state campaign.
Michigan's two main utilities spent millions of dollars fighting the measure via an umbrella group. They said the proposal would raise costs, create regulatory confusion and lead to thousands of wind turbines in congested areas. Supporters said it would jump-start the state economy, create thousands of clean energy jobs and slash emissions at the same time (ClimateWire, Oct. 12).
The state official election site showed a decisive loss for Proposal 3, despite polls earlier this year suggesting a possible victory.
The proposal failed partly because of voter skepticism about amending the state constitution, said Rabe, who did not have a position on the plan. He noted that other ballot proposals that would have amended the constitution failed last night in Michigan, as well.
The outcome shows that the idea of amending renewable standards this way is a "stretch" politically, he said.
There also was a sense in the state that the ballot proposal was not "homegrown," considering the interest of so many outside groups, said Rabe. Heavy advertising against the proposal likely played a role in the defeat, he said.
Critics of Proposal 3 said that incorporating renewable energy standards into the state constitution would open the door to lawsuits. Many supporters said, however, they had few other options, considering that the state Legislature has not been amenable to raising standards.
Wash. ballots still 'trickling in'
In Washington, Democrat Jay Inslee took an early lead in the gubernatorial race over Republican Rob McKenna, but the race might not be resolved by today, considering the state's use of mailed ballots.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentRenewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) subsidies - a particularly COWARDLY, DECEITFUL, DEVIOUS way to supply MASSIVE Wind & Solar subsidies hidden from public scrutiny, and MONEY-NO-OBJECT. Amazing not one of these slimy politicians will actually check to see whether these Wind & Solar scams actually reduce emissions and what is the carbon abatement cost of these scams. Answer Wind DOES NOT reduce emissions in most cases, and even in the odd case where it does the Carbon Abatement cost is at least 10X higher than other alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of climate change, I enjoy breathing air that is not polluted with fossil fuel exhaust, and swimming in oceans, lakes, and rivers that are not polluted with fossil fuel byproducts. I also like drinking tap water that doesn't have to be distilled or reverse osmosis. And, I like going outside without having to wear a breathing mask. Unfortunaetly, that is not going to be possible 100 years from now due to the large percentage of our population who simply don't care about the future of our planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""Wind DOES NOT reduce emissions in most cases, """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLIE!!! Wind power absolutely reduces CO2 emissions.
"""and even in the odd case where it does the Carbon Abatement cost is at least 10X higher than other alternatives."""
Then use solar.
"""Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) subsidies - a particularly COWARDLY, DECEITFUL, DEVIOUS way to supply MASSIVE Wind & Solar subsidies hidden from public scrutiny, and MONEY-NO-OBJECT. """
Yeah, right. What did they do, pay off the "National Enquirer"?
Wind does not reduce emissions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHolland:
tinyurl.com/apoop2v
Ireland:
tinyurl.com/bhyyfr5
Colorado & Texas:
tinyurl.com/5tr9g4h
Ontario:
tinyurl.com/b8twur4
Retired Bell Labs Electrical Engineer's analysis showing Wind does not significantly reduce emissions:
tinyurl.com/bx7ogh2
"...Then use solar..."
Solar is an effective energy source, unlike Wind. And is much more dependable and matches the first half of daily peak demand quite well in sunny areas, like Southern USA. But it is outrageously expensive, and you just can't even run southern sunny areas on energy that costs over 20 cents per kwh minimum, and that is stretching it. You are talking economic collapse and bankruptcy.
I have a very hard time believing your sources. The data that I have seen shows that windpower reduces emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""But it is outrageously expensive,"""
It's not, especially with some of the newer solar cell designs, like solar paint and multilayered solar cells.
"..I have a very hard time believing your sources.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether you believe or not is of ZERO significance. Truth has no connection to your faith.
"..It's not, especially with some of the newer solar cell designs, like solar paint and multilayered solar cells.."
You're kidding right? Those new solar designs of yours haven't made it out of the laboratory, haven't even made it to the point of being outrageously expensive.
First: true. Excellent point. I still don't trust your sources, though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond: Meh. Multilayer cells were used on Spirit and Opportunity, and worked better than could have been hoped for. Solar paint should already be on the market, and is designed to be dirt-cheap (not that existing technology is prohibitively expensive for middle-class Americans).