Comments on: AZ CAP and TAX Dams Uphill Battle

By: Mark Lewis

Mark Lewis — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:49:02 +0000

CAP is the largest provider of renewable water supplies in AZ.Unfortunately the supplies are pumped with carbon based coal fired power plants in Northern AZ. The EPA is out of control again in the Obama administration just like it was in the Clinton administration.

We are going to rebalance the relationship between compliance with EPA unfunded mandates on AZ water users and the CAP mission to provide sustainable water suppler to 80% of the states population.

We will probably have to sue the Obama administration like we did to the Clinton administration. We won the fight against Clinton team, and we will win the fight against the Obama team.

A giant waste of time and money that enriches lawyers not the people or the environment.

By: Susan Bitter Smith

Susan Bitter Smith — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:23:43 +0000

THe real fear for CAP is not really CAP and TRADE legislation but current rules being promulagated by the EPA on coal fired plants. Those rules are moving on a fast track and create huge problems for the continued operation of the Navajo Generating Station. CAP’s leadership has been diligently keeping property taxes low, but water rates themselves could be impacted by this federal action. Calls are needed to all members of Congress to stop EPA’s current proposal.

By: DSW

DSW — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:25:41 +0000

It’s stunningly stupid and irresponsible that we are still not advocating and utilizing the natural decay of atomic particles to generate power. This source of power can go for years of reliability and have a minimal impact on the environment.

By: todd

todd — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:29:27 +0000

VV,
The report is not an estimate that water rates will increase 400% but rather this discussion is explaining how CO2 allowances costs could impact water rates. Again, the report states the authors have no idea what allowance costs will be. I have no idea what you are taking issue with in my statement since you just sling an insult.

The White Paper also fails to note the significant incentives industry will be getting to deploy carbon capture and sequestration which will lower carbon emissions counted against coal burning plants.

By: Gayle

Gayle — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:12:17 +0000

Donutwarrior-

RU secretly T Boone? SO smart there!

VV- Thx for the validation. As you noted, all the points were referenced and it takes one click to see the original text. Whether the libs like it or not, Solar and Wind are not feasible.

By: Veritas Vincit

Veritas Vincit — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:11:07 +0000

re: #1 … JMac had better remain totally committed in opposition to Cap & Trade.

re: #2 … interesting concept, should be considered.

re: #3 … solar will never be cost effective as long as the sun is missing for 12 hours per day (not counting cloudy days). Also, what are the toxic components of solar panels that have to be considered?

re: #4 … as usual Todd, just like a good liberal you ignore the fact that the report is considering the potential consequences of the actions. Something you completely ignore in your attempt to divert attention to the literal text.

re: #5 … Where in the hell do you get a 15 to 20% differential? Smoking something you wish to share? You obviously are not including availability of the resource in your calculations. Someone get Bill a Tin-Foil Hat.

re: #6 … simple and accurate for those bothering to research the issue without patchouli coated glasses.

Donutwarrier … Veritas is impressed. Someone who understands the energy equation. Amen brother.

Now to the key question posed in the blog:
“Is the state of Arizona ready for the federal designs on energy?”

Hell No. The Fed has NO place in energy policy or design. That is a state issue. Anyone knowing the history of the FERC knows why it was created and when and for what purpose. As for the USDOEs EIA? Should be abolished because it serves no useful purpose.

America’s energy infrastructure was developed and build before major federal regulation. During the 30s, the fed aided in energy development through hydroelectric in the western states on public lands.

The REA was an excellent boost to energy development in the U.S.

However, the fed was a welcome partner NOT an adversary foe.

CAPnTRADE will induce a recession to become a major global depression before 2014.

By: Donutwarrior

Donutwarrior — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:43:17 +0000

Based on my conversations with people who do know what it will cost, the CAP assumes $100 per ton for carbon, which may be high. May be (initially) closer to $50 per ton which results in a 200% increase, doubling the cost of water. Solar is great, but not as a base load, since it would only allow CAP to pump during the day. Water supply is not something I would like to be at the mercy of the weather. This is the problem with solar in general: it CANNOT serve as the base load supply, but is otherwise good for shaving daytime peaks. As long as we fail to acknowledge this limitation, we will never become energy independent. Solar will NEVER completely replace other forms of energy generation, no matter how much we wish it to be so.

By: Bruce Ash

Bruce Ash — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:24:23 +0000

CAP AND TRADE = CAP AND TAX

CAP AND TRADE A SCHEME TO FINANCE OBAMACARE.

CAP AND TRADE WILL BE AWFUL FOR AMERICAN INDUSTRY/ECONOMY

CAP AND TRADE A SURE JOB KILLER

CAP AND TRADE WILL HAVE ZERO TANGIBLE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:12:54 +0000

There currently is a 15-20% price differential between electricity generated thru carbon and solar. That differential is shrinking as solar becomes more efficient and carbon gets more expensive. The point is that if (when) the cost of carbon-generated power increases by 20 percent, then solar will be cheaper, and if it is smart CAP would start using it. Thus (making Todd’s point) projecting a 400 percent increase in the price of water is ridiculous

By: todd

todd — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:06:15 +0000

Gayle has misread what the CAP report states. The CAP report is not saying there will be a 400% increase in water costs, it is just lays out an example of what the multiplier effect of an arbitrarily determined carbon emissions control charge. The report states it has no idea what the cost of emissions control charge will actually be.

By: Rightwoman Gayle

Rightwoman Gayle — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:50:35 +0000

Solar is such a great idea, yet in practice, becomes overwhelming on a large scale. If it was efficient, we’d see more of it in AZ. Capitalists would love to have independent energy, yet we do not see buildings, offices using much of it at all.

The Internet became such a daily used tool because of its cost-profit value. Solar is not there yet.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:59:11 +0000

I don’t dispute CAP’s current reliance on coal. On the other hand, the canal runs through some of the best land in the world for solar energy. What if the right-of-way along the canal was lined with solar panels (with battery storage for night-time pumping)? I bet they could actually reduce energy usage under such a plan.

By: DeAnn

DeAnn — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:54:26 +0000

We need to make sure Sen. McCain sticks to his current stand against Cap and Trade. In the past he has co-sponsored Cap and Trade legislation.