Blog for Rural America
President Should Set Transmission Reform as Top Energy Goal
Wed, 01/25/2012 - 12:31 — Paul Mansoor
Although the energy goals mentioned during his recent State of the Union address were laudable, President Obama must now turn attention to the improvement of our nation’s electric transmission system. Upgrading and expanding clean energy transmission will create jobs, spur new industries, and lead to a more-sustainable future for rural America.
The President’s energy agenda covered the basics, calling for an “all-of-the-above” domestic energy strategy, utilizing off-shore oil deposits and natural gas pockets, all while promising to ensure the safety of civilians with improved regulations on hydraulic fracturing.
President Obama was right to target hoary oil subsidies that inhibit the adoption of clean energy, and advocated a “doubling-down” of American effort in renewables like wind and solar. However, with only the briefest mention of transmission upgrades, he didn’t address a fundamental issue--and opportunity--that rural America faces.
Overhauling existing lines and building new ones will require tremendous capital, yet the direct and indirect financial benefits are mammoth: “Every $1 billion of U.S. transmission investment supports approximately 13,000 full-time equivalent years of employment.”
This is about more than numbers: to repair existing lines, junction boxes and transformers; construction and maintenance crews will be put to work. Erecting towers for new transmission cables will require immense planning, engineering, and community engagement. Many rural areas are sitting on a fortune in untapped wind energy resources, underdeveloped only because of stifling bottlenecks in our current system. Often remotely located, these rural communities can connect to the larger network with new electric lines, creating market accessibility for their wind energy.
Furthermore, improved transmission diminishes the need for energy storage options, since the electricity can be transported more efficiently from places of abundance to areas of need. System improvements will create jobs today while building a robust framework for tomorrow..
Improving and expanding transmission is non-partisan and resource-neutral: all energy sources are treated equally over the copper wires. Regions rich in wind-resources will benefit from increased transmission, but so will solar, geothermal, and hydropower efforts. Renewable energy, the lifeblood of a sustainable future, is ready to flow; we must now improve the veins and arteries of our electrical grid to bring economic life to rural areas.
President Obama is correct in understanding that energy is closely linked to the economy and health of our nation, and his administration’s efforts are commendable. But the focus should be on our transmission system: the short- and long-term benefits are too bountiful to put off any longer.
Caveat Emptor—Communication Vital to Wind Development
Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:37 — Steph Larsenby Paul Mansoor, Energy Policy Intern
Determining where wind turbines are placed, or sited, is a major component of wind energy development, and clear communication within communities, and between communities, landowners and energy developers, is vital for project success.
Before moving across the country recently, I made plans to lease an apartment.
“Is the place clean?” I asked.
“Yup.” said the landlord.
“And the unit is ready for me to move in?”
“Absolutely."
Fourteen hours of driving later, I was disappointed to be standing in a cluttered room with rampant filth and bemused roaches. My disappointment centered squarely on myself: after all, I had assumed that the landlord shared my definition of “clean.”
I should have asked more detailed questions, such as “When were the carpets last shampooed?”, “Any issues with vermin?”, or “Are the walls free from excrement?” Had I gathered more detailed, relevant information, I could have avoided the pitfalls caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding.
Just as explicitly stating my values, expectations and concerns would have saved me from a terrible apartment, communities too must be up front about their needs and expectations when confronted with an opportunity for wind development. It is essential that wind developers consider local input in the early stages of project planning. Since communities are composed of varying interests who likely view wind development differently, each concern must be addressed.
While a landowner might favor wind siting for the extra revenue, other members may be concerned over the aesthetic impacts each turbine may have. Successful wind projects require community cooperation, and for communities to agree they need the time, space, and resources to fully digest the pros and cons of wind development.
Wind developers want to build, but they have a responsibility to provide forums for community input and information exchanges, presenting unbiased, peer-reviewed information for communities to consider. Community meetings, open house events and articles in the local paper can go a long way in an effort to build consensus. Since misunderstandings or unclear assumptions between communities and developers can delay or derail wind projects, it is to their mutual benefit to engage openly and honestly with all stakeholders and concerns. Furthermore, wind developers that misrepresent or ignore facts in order to close deals will have to answer to (rightfully) outraged constituents.
Asking relevant questions and receiving honest answers is essential for communities and developers to navigate wind siting—let both sides beware.
Rural Health Wins in Super Committee Failure
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 16:23 — Brian DepewThe recent news that the so-called "Super Committee" was unable to reach an agreement on large spending cuts may be the best outcome for rural health care access.
Cuts being considered by the committee included deep reductions in rural health programs that make limited special payments to some rural hospitals to account for the challenges of delivering care in rural areas.
Cuts to Medicaid and to the new health insurance premium support tax credits in the Affordable Care Act were also being considered by the committee. Such cuts would hit rural people disproportionately hard because utilization of Medicaid is proportionally higher in rural areas. Health insurance premium tax credits, which go into effect in 2014, are similarly expected to have higher rates of use in rural areas where incomes are lower and self-employment is more common.
No deal by the Super Committee means these cuts are off the table for the time being.
However, in the absence of an agreement on spending cuts, across-the-board cuts will now be triggered in 2013. Many health programs are exempted from these automatic, cuts, including Medicaid, the Childrens Health Insurance Program and the premium tax credits that start in 2014. Medicare benefits are also largely protected from cuts.
But not all health care programs are protected. The across-the-board cuts will increase out-of-pocket health care expenses for low and moderate-income people who enroll in new state-based health insurance marketplaces beginning in 2014 by cutting cost-sharing provisions.
Also included in the automatic cuts is a two percent cut for all Medicare providers. Because retirees account for a higher percent of the rural population, Medicare payments make up 40% of rural critical access hospitals payments, compared to 32% for urban facilities. That means cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates will disproportionately harm rural hospitals.
Congress could still make changes before the automatic cuts go into effect in 2013. Further changes may once again raise the prospect of deeper cuts to programs that support access to health care in rural America.
TransCanada to Re-Route Pipeline Plan
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:13 — Tom MeansTransCanada president Alex Pourbaix officially announced yesterday that the pipeline will not be routed through the Sandhills.
“We will never live through this nightmare again,” said Mike Flood, Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature who first broke the announcement on the legislative floor.
In an attempt to appeal to both proponents and opponents of the pipeline, Senator Flood apparently worked out his own deal with TransCanada. His amendment to Senator Annette Dubas’ bill, LB1, would give Nebraska’s Department of Environmental Quality the authority to conduct the required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This means that while the environmental study will be free from TransCanada’s bias, it’s Nebraskan taxpayers floating the bill.
Yesterday, President Pourbaix gave the amendment his public approval. “We’re confident that collaborating with the state of Nebraska will make the process much easier,” said Pourbaix.
The rerouting takes care of many potential dangers associated with Keystone XL’s presence, yet concerns still remain. The newly proposed route still crosses Nebraska and the Ogallala Aquifer, and is 30 to 40 miles longer.
Any approval, no matter where located, will result in an increase in greenhouse gases and other harmful pollutants. When foreign corporations route potentially hazardous, carbon-emitting oil through our homeland so it can be shipped overseas, the cause for concern should be inherent.
This agreement does not diminish the importance of state-based legislation designed to govern routing decisions. It’s critical that legislation applies to this pipeline as well as any that may be proposed in the future. By engaging in plans to exempt Keystone XL from any rerouting legislation, our lawmakers continue to find ways to circumvent responsibility.
Keeping the pipeline out of our Sandhills is a victory. Allowing plans to move forward is not. Thanks to all of those who played a role. Let’s keep fighting.
State Department Delays Pipeline Permit
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 16:21 — Tom MeansCaught between a rock and a hard place, the Obama administration is expected to delay its decision on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. A statement was released today by the State Department stating that an “in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes” will be required before a national interest determination can be made.
The input of folks in Nebraska and across the nation made a strong contribution to the State Department’s decision. “We received comments on a wide range of issues including the proposed project’s impact on jobs, pipeline safety, health concerns, the societal impact of the project, the oil extraction in Canada, and the proposed route through the Sandhills area of Nebraska, which was one of the most common issues raised,” said the State Department. This conclusion was developed after a “transparent, thorough and rigorous review of TransCanada’s application.”
Perhaps indicating concern over the State Department’s handling of the project, last week President Obama expressed his thoughts on Keystone XL’s route in an interview with Omaha station KETV: “They’ll be giving me a report over the next several months, and, you know, my general attitude is, what is best for the American people?” said Obama, “We need to make sure that we have energy security...but there’s a way of doing that and still making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected, and that’s how I’ll be measuring these recommendations when they come to me.
A delay in the decision-making process allows the State Department to properly consider alternatives to TransCanada’s preferred route while also providing relief to Nebraska representatives concerned with the legal fallout of any rerouting legislation passed.
This development would not have taken place if not for the concern of individuals and groups who attended meetings, submitted comments, and rallied against an intimidating foreign corporation. You should be proud.
The Center for Rural Affairs would like to thank everyone for their hard work. Each letter, call, statement and message made a difference. Though the battle is far from over, this is a win for our citizens, our environment, and for the institution of democracy.
