A review of Nancy Young Wright’s website is very revealing. She lists ten issues and here is the gist of what she says:

 Budget:  “. . . She will push to protect funding for education . . .Businesses want a strong educational system . . .We must plan and provide for schools, parks and other infrastructure . . “

 From FY 2000 to FY 2009 (est), total Federal, state, County and local spending on K-12 has increased 88%, or an average of 8.8% per year, about twice the rate of inflation. The data source is the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Per pupil funding has increased 49% or about 4.9% annually, or about 1.5 times the rate of inflation. It appears that, contrary to Nancy Wright Young’s position, the schools are adequately funded. The problem is the school administrators are not using the funds properly.

 Economic Development:  “Nancy believes that the key to improving Arizona’s economy lies in investing in our public schools and universities . . .”

 As stated above, the Legislature is adequately funding the schools. School administration is the problem. In 2009, only 56.9% of the school dollar reached the classroom. The Office of the Auditor general found that declining classroom dollar percentages indicated supplanting, which means that schools administrators are shifting Classroom Site Fund (CSF) monies from the classroom to non-classroom purposes: a violation of State statute. 

 Education:  “. . . Nancy will fight to restore our public schools . . .She will push for higher salaries . . . Once we have rebuilt our schools to an adequate level of funding . . .”

Instead of voting for higher taxes and more money for schools, Nancy Young Wright should be actively looking at where the problem lies: school district administrators. Shifting CSF funds to transportation and other non-classroom categories directly harms the students. The Auditor General has found a clear association between classroom dollars and student achievement. Districts with higher classroom dollar percentages appear to have higher percentages of students who met or exceeded AIMS Math, Reading and Writing Assessments. This association holds true even after controlling for the effects of poverty.

 Energy:  “. . . She supports incentives for solar energy and research for clean alternatives. She supports Green construction . . .”

 Nancy Young Wright’s counterpart, Cheryl Cage, who is running against Al Melvin for State Senate, supports solar.  Ms. Cage stated in an Op-Ed that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars [sic] invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” What Ms. Cage did not say is the solar jobs will be low paying while the nuclear jobs will be high paying. Also, for every solar 13.5 jobs created other industries will lose 30 jobs.  It’s obvious that neither lady has really thought about solar energy and its impact on our economy.

 Environment:  “. . . She will advocate for clean air and water for our state. . .” 

 Well, that’s nice. I bet everyone reading this article will advocate for clean air and water. The question is how do we meet the challenge? How will it be funded? It will have to be executed on a State and Regional basis. How to get there? Nancy Wright Young did not say.

 Health care:  “Nancy supports programs to attract and retain the health care professionals we desperately need.”

 Well, this is nice too. When the Obama health bill passed, 46 million uninsured were added to Medicaid and other government programs. At that moment, the United States suddenly had a physician shortage (“Physician Shortages: How’s That for Hope and Change,” 10/09) of over 54,000 primary care physicians. Training physician takes time and money. So does training Nurse Practitioners and Physician assistants in the numbers now required.

She also failed to discuss health care rationing taking place since ObamaCare was signed into law. Arizona’s AHCCCS is slashing benefits to enrollees over age 21.  Physicians are already refusing new Medicare patients and dropping existing patients due to low reimbursement rates. Medicare Advantage patients will lose their Medicare Advantage benefits due to reduction in Medicare funding by Nancy Wright Young’s Democratic Party. Nancy Wright Young failed to comment on the depth of the problem or propose any solutions. 

 Open Government:  “”Nancy is a strong advocate for citizen participation and will fight to preserve our right to the initiative and referendum process . . .”

 This is a daring stand. Unless I missed something, no one has advocated taking the initiative and referendum away from the people.

 Taxes:  “Nancy believes that Arizona’s entire tax structure must be examined for fairness and stability. Our current budget crises in Arizona can be traced to too much dependency on sales tax and on a lack of diversification in our economy . . . She supports impact fees for the costs of new infrastructure such as roads, sewers, parks and schools to lessen the tax bill to existing residents.”

 Arizona got into trouble with increased spending under Governor Janet Napolitano. I agree with Ms. Wright’s statement that our entire tax structure must be examined for fairness and stability.  States like Texas, Nevada and Florida prosper without an income tax. Why can’t Arizona?

 I also disagree with implementing new impact fees (increased taxes) for costs of new infrastructure. The fees will be passed on to the consumer in the price of the product or commodity. Taxes are too high now.

 Transportation:  “. . . Nancy supports statewide cooperation on a transportation plan that includes alternative transportation, impact  fees for roads, and local control . . . She strongly supports the rail system connecting Tucson and Phoenix and the provision of bio-diesel and alternative fuel stations for the general public.”

 Again, a nice sentiment but clearly not thought out. The increase in ethanol production has caused the price of corn to sky rocket. Tortillas in Mexico almost doubled in price. Bio-diesel and alternative fuels are exotic subjects for which there is no mass of customers. What is needed is serious discussion on what our communities need versus what they can afford. Nancy Young Wright offers no serious discussion.

 Veterans:  “Our veterans deserve our support and adequate resources for medical care, education and continued care . . .”

 Thank God she got this one right.

 Of the ten issues she listed on her web site, Nancy Young Wright had one answer for Budgets, Economic Development and Education: pour more money into public schools.  This is after the Auditor General has found school districts are mismanaging the money they already have. To provide additional money to school districts to mismanage is insane.

 Nancy Young Wright supports solar energy, which will destroy more jobs than it creates. Clearly, she has not seriously thought about the long term effects of alternative energy impacts on our economy.

 She took a breath-taking stand for clean air and water without providing any policy details.

She repeated the problem of physician shortages without stating how many physicians we’re going to need, how we’re going to find them, how we’re going to fund them . . . obviously she has no clue. That’s why she could only state the obvious problem.

 Nancy Young Wright’s position on open government was vacuous. Her response on taxes was higher taxes in the form of impact fees. Her comments on transportation were superficial.

 We want our representatives in Phoenix to think. Where are Nancy Young Wright’s ideas? Where is her ability to think outside the proverbial box and create new solutions?  Higher taxes and pouring more money into education as school administrators mismanage their spending is outrageous.

 Serious issues demand serious thinking by our elected representatives. Nancy Young Wright has demonstrated she is not serious. She is a blinded shallow thinker, narrowly focused on pouring money into public education without accountability, without checks and balances but with sheer abandon.

 Nancy Young Wright is not a serious thinker. The Democratic Party can do better than Nancy Young Wright.

Goldwater Institute study recommends court or legislative intervention to restrain ACC’s appetite

PHOENIX – The Arizona Corporation Commission has over-stepped its constitutional boundaries by making rules and regulations in areas our state founders never intended it to control, according to a new report from the Goldwater Institute.

The study, “Rediscovering the ACC’s Roots: Returning to the Original Purpose of the Arizona Corporation Commission,” shows Arizona’s founders deliberately created the Corporation Commission as an agency with limited and defined powers. The Commission was created to protect residents from fraudulent investments and price-gouging by electric and water companies. But instead of keeping utility rates low, the ACC now is forcing utilities to create electricity from certain types of sources which are more expensive, says study author Benjamin Barr, a senior fellow with the Goldwater Institute and CEO of Government Watch.

“The ACC has usurped the Legislature’s role to set energy policy and it will cost consumers $2.4 billion over the next 15 years,” said Nick Dranias, director of constitutional policy at the Goldwater Institute.

The report reviews records from the 1910 Constitutional Convention and finds that delegates specifically rejected attempts to create an agency with sweeping authority over all incorporated businesses. Instead, the constitution was written to limit the power of Corporation Commission so that it only regulated in-state railroads, financial businesses and certain utilities. That power over utilities was further limited to establishing reasonable payment rates for customers.

Mr. Barr recommends that Arizona courts recognize the intended purpose of the Corporation Commission and require the agency to operate within the limits in the state constitution. The Goldwater Institute is challenging in court the Commission’s legal authority to require the use of renewable energy, saying the mandate violates the separation of powers and other constitutional provisions.

The Arizona Legislature doesn’t have to wait for the courts, however. The report recommends that the Legislature reassert its authority by conducting an audit of the Corporation Commission. The audit would review the Commission’s various divisions and actions to determine if they are within the ACC’s constitutional boundaries. Depending on the audit’s findings, the Legislature could reshape the Corporation Commission or ask voters to assign its duties to other state agencies and shut it down entirely. Arizona is one of only six states that still has a utility regulator that operates outside of the traditional branches of government.

Click here to read “Rediscovering the ACC’s Roots: Returning to the Original Purpose of the Arizona Corporation Commission.”

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty. Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
The House Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Committee recently modified Senate Bill 1154 with a “strike-everything” amendment that seeks to increase the state’s gasoline tax. Some years ago, a “temporary” tax of 1 cent per gallon was passed to help clean up leaky underground gasoline storage tanks. That tax is scheduled to end in 2013. SB 1154, as amended, would extend this tax for another five years.

It’s hard to see how this one-cent fuel tax ever passed state constitutional muster in the first place. Article 9, Section 14 of the Arizona constitution states gas taxes should be dedicated purely to maintaining roads and streets where this tax has been spent on nothing to do with roads. It’s doubly hard to see how a tax extension, if passed with less than two-thirds of the Legislature, would not violate the constitution’s prohibition on such tax increases.

The ostensible reason for extending this fuel tax is to build up a fund for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to have at its disposal for future underground storage cleanups. ADEQ has had 20 years to build the fund to its legal maximum of $60 million, but $58 million has been taken by the Legislature to help balance the budget.

Regardless of the status of the fund, there has been plenty of time for private parties to clean up leaky storage sites. Since 2006, any new leaks must be repaired with insurance purchased by owners of private underground storage tanks. Owners of storage tanks with leaks prior to 2006 have used public funds to subsidize their cleanups long enough. If there are abandoned sites that still need to be cleaned up, the Legislature needs to find the funds from existing sources rather than continue this “temporary” tax simply because they robbed the money generated from that tax in the first place.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE,
Contact: James Valvo (703) 224-3200

U.S. House Candidate Jim Waring Applauded for Signing No Climate Tax Pledge

PHOENIX—The Arizona chapter of the free market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity (AFP-AZ) and the Arizona Energy Forum today applauded U.S. House candidate Jim Waring (3rd District) for signing the group’s “No Climate Tax Pledge.” Waring joins more than 400 lawmakers and candidates on the federal, state and local levels pledging to “oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.”

“The one thing elected officials should be able to agree on is that global warming shouldn’t be used as an excuse to hike taxes on citizens and businesses,” said AFP-AZ State Director Tom Jenney.  “We encourage all of Arizona’s elected officials and candidates for elected office to sign the pledge.”

Other Arizona signers include U.S. Representatives Trent Franks, John Shadegg, and Jeff Flake, as well as numerous federal candidates, state senators and state representatives.

“The Arizona Energy Forum is pleased Jim Waring has signed the pledge,” said Chairman Troy Hyde.  “His pledge is an excellent example for other candidates and lawmakers who oppose a climate tax.”

Cap-and-trade took its first step toward enactment last year when the U.S. House narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey energy tax bill, which escaped the lower chamber by a scant seven votes despite significant bipartisan opposition.  The U.S. Senate has struggled to pass companion legislation, with several key Democratic senators expressing opposition to the energy tax bill.

President Obama has made no secret of his support for the bill, which would be the largest tax increase in American history.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office scored the House plan as an $846 billion increase in federal revenue, a burden that will be borne by taxpayers and consumers for decades to come.

“Using the guise of climate change to transfer dollars from hard-working citizens to bureaucratic big government is unacceptable,” said Jenney. “Regardless of their stance on global warming, this should be common ground for all of our elected officials at all levels of government.”

The pledge is available online at www.NoClimateTax.com.  AFP does not endorse candidates.  All elected officials and candidates are encouraged to sign the pledge and go on the record in opposition to using the climate change issue to increase taxes and grow the size of government.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best way to safeguard individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP has more than 975,000 members, including members in all 50 states, and 30 state chapters and affiliates. More than 60,000 Americans in all 50 states have made a financial investment in AFP or AFP Foundation. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org
###

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
It was like a scene from Atlas Shrugged: Polly Shaw of China-based Suntech told an Arizona House Government Committee hearing that massive solar production subsidies and even bigger consumer subsidies were not enough. If the Legislature passed House Bill 2701 and repealed the Arizona Corporation Commission’s rules that require utility companies to purchase increasing amounts of solar energy over the next 15 years regardless of the projected $1.2 billion cost to consumers, her company would pull its operations and a few dozen jobs from the state.

The Committee rejected her threat, approving the bill 5-2. But the next day, Governor Jan Brewer and Speaker of the House Kirk Adams, who co-sponsored the bill before deciding to kill it, successfully pressured the primary sponsor, Representative Debbie Lesko, to withdraw it.

Solar may be the most-subsidized industry in America, and is perhaps the only product that the Arizona government forces people to buy regardless of cost or technological feasibility. Solar doesn’t yet make sense as a wide-spread energy policy, and the mandates vastly exceed the Commission’s rate-making authority. That is why the Goldwater Institute is challenging the rules in court and 51 legislators co-sponsored the bill that would repeal them.

So, the solar lobby invoked the one word that will make normally sensible elected officials do crazy things: jobs. Yes, Suntech will employ 75 people. But between the lavish subsidies and costly mandates these may be the most expensive jobs ever created. Nevertheless, the strategy eventually worked; the bill is dead for now.

Suntech’s Shaw claimed the bill would “obliterate the demand for solar,” which may be true if that demand primarily is government-created. Mandate-based industrial policy didn’t work out well in the Soviet Union and it won’t work in Arizona. What’s especially perplexing, though, are the supposedly “pro-market” politicians who think its time has come.

Arizona should stop spending more and more in a frenzied competition with other states over who can give the biggest subsidies to solar and instead create a favorable tax and regulatory climate for all businesses, large and small, in any industry.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

This was too much fun to pass up!  Thank you Kyle-Anne Shiver!! Who wrote this delightful piece…

http://bigjournalism.com/kashiver/2010/02/28/former-veep-goes-girly-man-has-hissy-fit-in-pages-of-new-york-times/

This piece of pure, dribbling, drooling emoting is going to either make you collapse in a torrent of tears or retch into the nearest barf bag.  The only human beings on the planet to whom this editorial would appeal are a bunch of 13-year-old girls without a single clue between them.

With hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, Al is going all out to save his massive investment in the Global Warming hysteria.  Here, he comes up with histrionics befitting the amount of personal loss he stands to suffer.

Ok, so this isn’t totally about Arizona … or is it?

How about the AzCC’s Residential Energy Standards?  Or the AzCC’s stepping out from their legal role as rate-payer watchdog and into making energy policy for Arizona that is; A) out of its pay-grade by the Arizona Constitution, and B) totally based on a outright fraud.

The RES and subsequent foray into “Green Energy” at all costs, without a thought to the real cost per Kwh for fantasy sources of reliable energy is a dangerous road for Arizona’s economic future.

Cost per on demand 24/7 available Kwh of “green electric generation” cannot compare with *clean coal* and *clean nuclear* power period.  Windmills and acres of solar panels dotting the landscape with miles of transmission towers and lines crisscrossing the environment altering the patterns of migratory birds and thunderstorms might be a Quixotic vision of an environmentalists utopia, but unfortunately reality bites.  The sun doesn’t shine 24 hours a day, so you need environmentally unfriendly Lithium batteries to store the energy for later use.  The wind doesn’t blow 24 hours a day in exactly the right velocity and direction to provide on demand electricity for job producing industrial small businesses in a cost effective way.

Time to debunk the Green Dream.   We’ve even heard that schools in Arizona are spending unrestricted amounts of money to “green” up their classrooms.  Shouldn’t that be money better spent with the teachers and kids on real learning?

Anyway, until someone politically stands up and says “Look Mommy!  The Emperor is wearing NO clothes!!”  we will continue down the path to an “Olive Drab Green” future rather than the pretty green that Al Gore would have us believe in.

For Immediate Release: February 22, 2010

Nuclear Energy Could Generate 7,743 Construction and 3,000 Nuclear Engineering Jobs in Arizona

ASU Study Predicts Non-Carbon Energy Impacts

PHOENIX – According to a study by Arizona State University, Arizona could gain 7,743 highly paid construction jobs and 3,000 atomic engineering jobs if the plan proposed by Arizona House Leadership gets passed. ASU’s Steidman Institute prepared an economic impact report for industry leadership last week showing significant benefits to the high paying jobs that would be created by such a massive multi-billion dollar atomic energy construction project. If another atomic energy plant is constructed in Arizona, the 414 jobs could be created within 24 months and up to 7,743 jobs within the 7 year construction period.

Last Monday President Obama awarded a $9.3 billion loan guarantee to the Southern Cos., the main power provider in Georgia to simulate high tech jobs in the atomic energy sector. A request for Arizona’s share of atomic energy planning and development money was passed in the Arizona House Energy and Water committee last week on a straight party line vote in HCM 2014.

Governor Brewer came out in support of solar, atomic and other non-carbon sources of energy last month in speeches to industry groups.

House Bill 2767, which is an Energy Parks concept plan, includes tax incentives, tax exempt loans for solar, atomic, wind, geothermal, and other non carbon energy sources, as well as a 50 year strategic energy plan. This bill goes to Government committee and if passes, advances to the full House next week for consideration. “This Energy Park incentive bill closely matches the incentives Utah passed last June, with the addition of a 50 year statewide energy strategy plan. We can’t let Utah beat us in the non-carbon energy race, like they beat us in basketball,” Representative Warde Nichols said, the bill’s co-sponsor.

The construction and development of a new atomic energy facility in the State would provide Arizona families with $2.46 billion in new disposable income, and provide the state $457 million in new revenues according to the ASU study. “These are private sector jobs, private sector projects, and public sector benefits,” said Representative Tobin. “It only makes sense that we should grow private sector high energy physics projects in atomic energy just like we grew the high tech bio medical sector years ago.”

ARIZONA ENERGY FORUM PRAISES OBAMA’S PROPOSED ENERGY POLICY, PLEADS FOR SENATE SUPPORT 

PHOENIX, AZ:  Today, the Arizona Energy Forum (www.azenergyforum.com) praised President Obama’s pledge to pursue nuclear power and off-shore drilling in his State of the Union speech.

The organization, which is comprised of Arizonans concerned about our energy future, was formed to achieve energy security for the United States and hold the elected officials accountable for shaping energy policies.

Chairman Troy Hyde said, “We are greatly encouraged to have the President say that he wants to pursue these important energy issues and we will be writing to both Senator McCain and Senator Kyl encouraging them to push the President toward those goals.  We’ve been skeptical about the President’s interest in making the U.S. energy independent and secure, but since he put these issues on the table, we hope our Senators will use this opportunity to hold him to his pledge.  These energy sources are the best way to secure our nation’s future for jobs and clean energy.  Today we have hope that President Obama has finally seen that we have the resources, means and perhaps the will to move forward on these issues.  We’ll ask our Senators, who both support these efforts, to do all they can to get government out of the way so production can begin.  

The Arizona Energy Forum also encourages all who share their interest in energy security to contact the President and their elected officials to ask them to use the moment to push for off-shore drilling, building more nuclear power plants and expansion of the use of clean burning coal. Please visit www.azenergyforum.com and become a member by signing our pledge of support. 

#####

Reading like a poorly drafted high-school term paper, Gabby Giffords delivers this nonsensical letter to the Sierra Vista Herald. Gabby rambles incoherently about climate change, oil independence, military supply lines, global warming, and how solar panels will not only protect the United states but the US Military fighting in Afghanistan.  It is written so poorly that one would have to conclude that she hastily penned  it on the school bus in route to first period.   Please tell me Gabby, that you had a staffer ghost-write this one for you.  Since we now “grade” our elected officials, you definitely do not get a B+ for this term paper.

The safety and security of the United States will depend on how well we as a nation address the challenges of climate change. [Huh?]

That was reaffirmed for me at the recent United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, which I attended as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation.

Opponents of climate action argue there is no proof that greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change and therefore we should not expend significant effort to reduce those emissions.

But many of the steps that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions are steps we must take to increase our national security — specifically by weaning ourselves off oil.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am concerned about how our dependence on oil threatens our national security. As a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, I am confident that renewable energy, especially solar energy, can be a key solution.

The Department of Defense accounts for 80 percent of the federal government’s energy consumption. Three-quarters of the department’s energy is used for military operations — and 94 percent of that energy comes from petroleum.

Where does that petroleum come from? In 1970, we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today, it’s more than 65 percent and growing.  By depending on foreign sources for two-thirds of our oil, we are in a precarious position in an unpredictable world.

The impact of our oil dependence is more than just a vague, geopolitical risk — it is felt directly by our troops on the front lines every day, where they use petroleum for everything from armored vehicles to air conditioners.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office determined that transporting fuel to the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan poses tremendous security risks and logistical burdens to U.S. armed forces.

For the military, greater fuel efficiency and solar power prove their worth with lives saved and battles won.

Our dependence on oil weakens us at home, as well. In his recent speech on Afghanistan, President Barack Obama noted that we cannot be militarily strong unless we are economically strong.

Yet our nation spends more than $400 billion a year on foreign sources of energy. That’s money taken out of our economy and sent to foreign nations — and it is draining the lifeblood from our economy.

However, a recent report by the Solar Energy Industries Association found that solar can meet 15 percent of our nation’s electricity demands by 2020. That would mean 800,000 new jobs for American workers.

Clearly, reducing our dependence on imported oil and switching to domestic, renewable energy sources would make our nation more secure.

Because it understands this, the Department of Defense is taking the lead on energy efficiency and renewables. The military has set an ambitious goal of obtaining 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The results of this effort are apparent in Tucson at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. A vast array of 80,000 solar panels soon will provide power to 900 homes for Air Force personnel and their families.

Now the rest of our country must follow.

We in Congress recently took an important step to make solar power even more effective — and attractive — in the years ahead. The House of Representatives gave strong bipartisan approval to my Solar Technology Roadmap Act, a bill that would boost federal research for the development of improved solar energy technology.

This bill would advance solar research and help move new technologies from laboratories into our homes, businesses and military bases. I am hopeful the Senate soon will consider my bill and send it to the president.

Our dependence on oil is a threat to our national security — but we have the knowledge and the tools to address the challenge.

The United States military represents the paragon of American ingenuity, discipline and dedication. They are applying those traits to the development of a 21st century energy policy, one that will not only reduce emissions, but also make us and our men and women in uniform more secure.

In 1970 we imported 24% of our oil.  Jimmy Carter promised then to “wean us off of foreign oil?”  President Peanut created the Department of Energy, whose main goal was to gain energy independence for America.  30+ years later, the Dept of Energy has a budget of $24.2 billion, 16,000 employees, and  approximately 100,00 contract employees.  The results? Now we import 65% of our oil.  Job well done!

Gabby bounces back and forth between oil and solar as though they are interchangeable commodities.  “We have to get off of oil and the solution is solar”, is her theme and that is just plain lunacy.  We will NEVER not need oil.  For the last thirty years, I have heard day in and day out that solar is the answer and viable solutions are just around the corner [if we only spend enough money].  The idea that the government has to subsidize the solar energy industry for innovations to come to fruition is moronic at best.  The company that finally develops the big breakthrough in solar tech will become a multi-billion dollar global company overnight.  That is enough incentive for any business, not some tax-payer funded House bill.

Gabby states [and gets it wrong] that “Our dependence on oil is a threat to our national security”.  Our dependence on foreign oil is the threat to our national security.

Gabby should be made to answer the  questions that arise from her op-ed.  Such as; How will solar panels help our troops in war zones?  How has your Solar Initiatives helped us win battles on the war on terror?  As a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, can you please explain why our dependence on foriegn oil has increased under your watch?  The list of questions is long.  What questions do you want answered?

I can’t wait to see that new Humvee with solar panels on the top of it. You know, the one that’s saving lives and winning battles.

Grassroots to Protest “Carbon Crooks” Thursday in Scottsdale

SCOTTSDALE—The Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) announced today that it will team up with the Scottsdale Tea Party and FreedomWorks to protest economically damaging “cap-and-tax” legislation at the Edison Electric Institute’s annual board of directors meeting in Scottsdale on Thursday morning, January 7.

The protests will take place from 8:00 to 11:00 a.m. at the Scottsdale Road entrance to the Fairmont Scottsdale Hotel, at 7575 East Princess Drive, in Scottsdale (85255) and will feature marchers holding signs with slogans such as “Welcome, Carbon Crooks!” Above the Fairmont, an aerial protest banner will read, “EEI: Don’t wreck America with cap and tax.” AFP national policy director Phil Kerpen will be present to answer questions from the press and the public about the economic effects of the cap-and-trade proposals moving in Congress. Arizona Senator Sylvia Allen (R-Eastern Counties) is also scheduled to speak.

“The cap-and-tax bill would do serious damage to America’s economy and standard of living, said Kerpen. “The electric utility industry should be fighting the legislation with all its resources, but instead, it’s lobbying in favor of cap-and-tax in the vain hope of cutting a deal with the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress.”

The aerial banner will be sponsored by JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy, who explained that the electric utility industry is apparently giving up on efforts make profits by producing more electricity and selling it at competitive prices. “Instead,” Milloy said, “in exchange for supporting the Obama administration agenda, the utilities want government-guaranteed profits for selling less electricity. That means consumers and taxpayers will be picking up the tab—paying more for energy and getting less.”

The protests will occur as EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) address the utility CEOs inside the resort. “The presence of Administrator Jackson and Sen. Graham, along with such notorious rentseeking CEOs as John Rowe of Exelon and Jeff Sterba of PNM Resources should be of great interest to grassroots activists,” said AFP Arizona director Tom Jenney. “We need to expose the huge corporate welfare handouts hidden in the cap-and-trade legislation.”

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP has more than 500,000 members, including members in all 50 states, and 24 state chapters. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org

By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute

Twenty years ago a biologist showed me a graph from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that showed an alarming increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Then I noticed the graph’s scale was logarithmic and made even small increases look exaggerated. I’ve been skeptical of the science behind global warming ever since.

Now there’s ClimateGate. Somebody hacked the University of East Anglia’s e-mail server in England and downloaded e-mails to and from scientists in the Climate Research Unit, perhaps the world’s premier climate research center. The messages show scientists engaged in politics over science. One damaging e-mail includes this remark:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

“Mike” is Michael Mann, made famous by the “hockey stick” temperature diagram Al Gore helped popularize. It first appeared in a UN report on global warming and purports to show that earth’s recent temperature is the highest in a thousand years, using tree ring data to reconstruct past temperatures. Mann apparently grafted in data from unrelated modern sources to get the desired result when ring data didn’t cooperate.

Add to this the recent confession that raw temperature data have long been destroyed. These data are the basis of the two main datasets used by the UN for its policy reports. Now nobody can actually check the methodology of the data that’s being used to dictate international policy.

Given the lack of reliable, replicable, scientific evidence of global warming, it calls into question the wisdom behind the Arizona Corporation Commission renewable energy standards that will cost Arizona utility customers billions in the coming years. The Commission should rely on more than questionable science before they strike a multi-billion dollar blow to Arizona’s already fragile economy. I’ve got plenty of raw data to back that up, by the way.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

We’d heard so much great publicity about the new affordability of solar power we got a solar installer to give us an estimate during August this year.  Arizona’s sunshine seemed just too abundant to let go to waste.  Our house is roughly 3,000 sq feet, including a small, unfinished basement, so it’s a very typical, average sized residence.

The estimate for solarizing our house was $60,000.   We had to rub our eyes before reading  it again;  sixty thousand dollars and the word, “affordable,” didn’t naturally go together.    Plus, because of trees next to the house, we would need to set aside a piece of ground on the property the equivalent of the footprint of an ample  guest house to place the solar array.    Neighboring houses of the equivalent square footage have been on the market for $120,000, still unsold for two years, down from initial offers of over $200,000, $250,000 and $300,000.   How can anyone justify an outlay of $60,000 for house that might eventually sell for $110 – 100,000 or even LESS, when houses aren’t selling, and jobs are disappearing?

To further expose the problem, even with “sell-back electricity” sugar plum assurances, it’ll take far more than a decade to recover the cost thru “savings” – about the time the aged batteries will need to be completely replaced and well-advanced towards the end of the useful life of the solar panels, and the entire battery-panel combo also will have additional costs to be maintained and serviced, plus a weekly added chore to be kept clean of DUST – which in our Arizona region is pervasive.    And APS still will bill a fee because once on the grid, one stays on the grid, even if one isn’t using it.

If it was truly cost-effective, people would already be solarized without being forced to.  If it BECOMES truly cost-effective, not falsely thru subsidies, which don’t make anything cheaper, just shift costs around, people would be lined up to convert right over to it.   But it’s not, and it won’t be anytime soon.

How about a partial conversion?
$8,000 up front to solarize JUST the WATER HEATER.

What’s going to happen when people living hand-to-mouth in $120,000 homes are hit with higher electrical bills because they DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to shell out $60 GRAND to convert their homes?   Or as the hopeful installer said, “It ends up to be only about $25,000 after tax rebates.” What? “Only?”

No one gets the tax rebate until the money’s been paid out.  Who is going to be able to get any energy loan approved when they can hardly meet their current obligations of mortgage, utilities and other monthly expenses, like … food?  Who is going to dare to stretch their shaky finances to take on more debt?   Scofflaws do it all the time, but more people who are more responsible than that will not add debt they think they cannot repay.

Solar rebates are ultimately funded through taxes, today’s reality is a shrinking tax base as people lose their jobs, so the government demands MORE money through higher taxes, a vicious cycle of increasing debt burdens on a public increasingly unable to pay.  Callously, the government, to force inefficient solar, is pushing punitive higher energy costs that the utility companies pass on to the consumer – people will be punished on both sides of the energy equation.   The sunny rhetoric for “sustainability” is eclipsed by unsustainable real-life costs.

New EU-US energy council to be set up early November

According to the EUObserver in a recent article:

The EU and the US will set up a joint energy council at ministerial and commissioner level to streamline policy initiatives relating to green technologies, research and energy security on both sides of the Atlantic, a US official told this website.

As soon as I hear that ministers and the kommisars from the US and EU are getting together to harmonize energy policy, I know what that means: hold onto my wallet.

“Energy is an important foreign policy priority for the US and a very important component of our bilateral relationship with the EU. We wanted to have a form of engagement with the Europeans to reflect that and to raise it to the policy level, to the cabinet level,” the US official said in a phone interview, under condition of anonymity…

However, it was released that the US will be represented by none other than (drumroll), Hillary Clinton.

We know the goal of Cap and Trade, Copenhagen and now this is heading in one direction: higher taxes for Joe SixPack, US citizen.  Get ready for energy price increases on the order of 20% over today before the end of Obama’s first term as well as at least a 20% increase in taxes on your energy uses.

Hey, why not take advantage of the solar industry subsidies passed by our conservative legislature?  Buy your solar panels now.  I hear even Phil Gordon is pawning some.

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Arizona’s consumption of electrical power has been growing at about three times the rate of the United States’ as a whole. Unless we open the market to let more suppliers in, Arizonans will be at risk of electricity shortages, spiraling prices and miss out on the benefits of innovation in renewable energy spurred by competition for their business. That’s why the Goldwater Institute recommends restructuring Arizona’s electricity markets for competition.

Restructuring would rewrite the regulations governing Arizona’s electricity market and allow for competition among generators, distributors and retailers of electricity. It would allow entrepreneurs to open new businesses to produce, distribute, and sell electricity. The competitive electricity market in Texas increased generation capacity by 35 percent from 1998 to 2006. In Britain, a similar expansion in capacity ultimately lowered rates 30 percent in 10 years.

Restructuring will also give customers who want to buy and use green energy the freedom to do so. Right now in Arizona, there are homebuilders who want to create green subdivisions which generate and supply their own renewable electricity. Restructuring would make this possible.

Today three experts on electricity restructuring will be at the state Capital to talk about how Arizona could begin a restructuring process and how restructuring could encourage the use of more renewable energy. The discussion is open to the public and we encourage you to join us:
 
Date:   Thursday, November 12, 2009
Time:   10:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Location:   Arizona State House of Representatives, Hearing Room 3, 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix

A successful restructuring effort will unleash entrepreneurs to freely generate more electricity to meet demand and to innovate in developing energy sources of all types, especially green, while maintaining stable prices. Restructuring, when done right, has never failed, indeed it has been successful in Texas, Pennsylvania and Britain. It will succeed here too.

Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

Phoenix–Late yesterday the Goldwater Institute continued its legal challenge of the Arizona Corporation Commission’s authority to impose renewable energy mandates on utility companies and surcharges on consumers to pay for those mandates.

In 2006, the Arizona Corporation Commission passed a rule requiring electricity companies to produce an increasing amount of the power they supply to consumers from renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power. As part of the mandate, the ACC required electricity companies to impose a surcharge on each of their customers. This tax is expected to cost Arizona families and businesses $2.4 billion over the next 15 years.

“These regulations may be the largest intrusion into private business in Arizona’s history, and consumers are picking up the tab,” said Clint Bolick, director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.

The Goldwater Institute filed suit against the ACC because under the Arizona Constitution the Commission’s authority is limited to protecting consumers from excessive energy prices. It does not have the authority to set energy policy, which is the legislature’s role, and it doesn’t have the authority to require utilities to charge more.

The Institute also has weighed in on a related issue involving the Commission. Solar panel manufacturing companies like Tempe-based Solar City are working with school districts to finance solar panels that will provide power to the schools. But the ACC is considering regulating solar panel manufacturers as utility companies, which would increase their costs and add mountains of compliance red tape.

But solar firms do not meet any of the normal conditions that would allow the ACC to regulate them as utilities: solar firms do not produce energy–they are simply facilitators that enable private entities to generate their own energy; the firms are not a “natural monopoly”; and they are not required to provide service–customers choose whether or not they want to buy their service, unlike a traditional electricity company.

“The ACC is trying to impose a 20th Century regulatory structure on 21st Century technology,” continued Bolick. “Instead of command-and-control regulation, government needs to let technology flourish in a free economy. There are plenty of entrepreneurs who would relish the chance to supply green energy to customers who want to buy it.”

This appeal of a September 2009 Maricopa County Superior Court decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals is the latest round in Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission, initially filed by the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation in June 2008.

For more information on this and other Goldwater Institute litigation, visit www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.