ALEC - Recognizing the Large and Growing Need for Commercial Nuclear Energy

[kristopher]

Resolution Recognizing the Large and Growing Need for Commercial Nuclear Energy and Urging the President and Congress to Make Steady Progress toward a Permanent Geologic Repository for Used Commercial Nuclear Fuel and Such Nearer-Term Priorities as Interim Fuel Storage and Research into Fuel Reprocessing and Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle


Model Resolution

WHEREAS, America’s 103 commercial nuclear plants generate 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity with remarkably high levels of efficiency and reliability while producing zero emissions of pollutants or greenhouse gases; and

WHEREAS, projected U.S. electricity demand will increase by 40 percent by the 2030, requiring the nuclear industry to bring online 50 gigawatts of additional generation just to maintain nuclear energy’s present 20 percent share of the electricity generation fuel mix, and

WHEREAS, more than a dozen nuclear utilities and consortia are actively exploring plans to pursue construction and operating licenses for more than 30 new commercial nuclear reactors in the next several years; and

<snip>


NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the American Legislative Exchange Council hereby urges the President and Congress to work together with the commercial nuclear industry, State and Local governments and other interested parties to encourage development of safe new nuclear plants as a key component of American fuel portfolio diversity and energy security; and

<snip>

Approved by ALEC Board of Directors in 2007.


http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-recognizing-the-large-and-growing-need-for-commercial-nuclear-energy-and-urging-the-president-and-congress-to-make-steady-progress-toward-a-permanent-geologic-repository-for-used-commercial/

[nykym]

1. OK lets set up storage facilities

next door to every ALEC location.
they seem to thrilled with it - enjoy!

[kristopher]

2. But hey....

They have demonstrated over and over again how highly they prioritize the public welfare and they obviously are motivated by their great concern over climate change, so we can ignore that it is ALEC.

[kristopher]

3. ALEC to States: Repeal Renewable Energy Mandates (‘Electricity Freedom Act’ model bill adopted)

ALEC to States: Repeal Renewable Energy Mandates (‘Electricity Freedom Act’ model bill adopted)
by Todd Wynn
November 1, 2012

“Households in 29 states are and will continue to see higher electricity rates, lower economic growth and, subsequently, lower standard of livings without outright repeal of these crony capitalist policies.”

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation’s largest non-partisan association of state legislators boasting more than 2,000 members from all 50 states, recently adopted a firm stance opposing misguided government intervention into the electricity market which works against affordable, reliable electricity.

ALEC’s model bill for state legislators, entitled the Electricity Freedom Act, repeals a state’s renewable energy mandate stating:

“…a renewable energy mandate is essentially a tax on consumers of electricity that forces the use of renewable energy sources beyond what would be called for by real market forces and under conditions of real competition in generation resources…”

- See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/11/alec-repeal-state-energy-mandates/#sthash.4Bsxs4aN.dpuf

[cprise]

4. How embarrassing. n/t

[kristopher]

10. Yep, those ProNuclear AntiRenewable folks at ALEC are sure worried about climate, aren't they?

Now remember, according to these same people, lowering GHG emissions is the reason we MUST have nuclear power.

State Withdrawal from Regional Climate Initiatives

WHEREAS, there has been no credible economic analysis of the costs associated with carbon reduction mandates and the consequential effect of the increasing costs of doing business in the State of ______;

WHEREAS, forcing business, industry, and food producers to reduce carbon emissions through government mandates and cap-and-trade policies under consideration for the regional climate initiative will increase the cost of doing business, push companies to do business with other states or nations, and increase consumer costs for electricity, fuel, and food;

WHEREAS, the Congressional Budget Office warns that the cost of cap-and-trade policies will be borne by consumers and will place a disproportionately high burden on poorer families;

WHEREAS, simply reducing carbon emissions in the State of ______ will not have a significant impact on international carbon reduction, especially while countries like China, Russia, Mexico, and India emit an ever-increasing amount of carbon into the atmosphere;

WHEREAS, a tremendous amount of economic growth would be sacrificed for a reduction in carbon emissions that would have no appreciable impact on global concentrations of CO2;...

http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/state-withdrawal-from-regional-climate-initiatives/

[kristopher]

5. ALEC’s New Tactics to Weaken Renewable Laws

Q&A: ALEC’s New Tactics to Weaken Renewable Laws

How serious a threat does ALEC pose to renewable energy development?


MIDWEST ENERGY NEWS, KARI LYDERSEN: AUGUST 14, 2013

<snip>

Though bills meant to revoke or undercut renewable standards in numerous states failed last session, clean energy advocates say the model Market Power Renewables Act and the Renewable Energy Credit Act proposed by ALEC’s energy task force during the conference pose a fresh threat.

The Market Power Renewables Act argues for a “voluntary market” that would allow people to invest in renewable energy if they choose without instituting mandates, and it claims that such an approach could lead to more renewable energy development overall.

The Renewable Energy Credit Act would expand the types of energy that would count toward credits. It would also remove caps on the proportion of an RPS that can be met through credits, a provision now enshrined in many states’ laws. And it would also allow the renewable standard’s full term (for example, through 2025) to be met in advance by bulk purchases of credits to meet future requirements.

The ALEC conference also included presentations by the American Petroleum Institute on local hydraulic fracturing bans; a talk characterizing offshore energy as “good sense and good cents”; nuclear energy’s role in baseload electricity production; and the U.S. EPA’s “assault on state sovereignty,” hosted by a representative of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

<snip>

Full interview follows at
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/qa-alecs-new-tactics-to-weaken-renewable-laws?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Headline&utm_campaign=GTMDaily

[kristopher]

6. In Chicago, ALEC Reboots Failed Strategy for Attacking Renewable Energy Policies

In Chicago, ALEC Reboots Failed Strategy for Attacking Renewable Energy Policies

Jeff Deyette, asst director of research & analysis, Clean Energy
August 7, 2013


Having failed completely in its attempt to repeal state renewable electricity standards (RES) during the spring 2013 legislative season, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is shifting gears. Their new strategy is more nuanced, but the goal remains the same: support their fossil fuel cronies by rolling back renewable energy policies. Fortunately, this latest scheme is likely doomed to fail as well.

Some explaining to do
This week, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) will host its annual meeting in Chicago, during which the group, which provides powerful corporations with behind-closed-doors access to legislators for the purpose of drafting ‘model legislation’ that serves their interests, will discuss the next phase of its ongoing effort to dismantle state renewable energy policies across the country. But first, ALEC leaders will likely have to explain their failures to their fossil fuel industry funders, including Koch Industries, Exxon-Mobil, and Peabody Energy.

Just last year, ALEC made it very public that repealing state RES policies would be a legislative priority in 2013, doubling down on its recent efforts to roll back these standards. ALEC adopted model legislation, written by climate skeptics at the Heartland Institute and innocuously dubbed the “Electricity Freedom Act”, which had the sole purpose of repealing state RES policies. Along with the Heartland Institute and a host of fossil fuel-funded cohorts, ALEC launched a disinformation campaign targeting several state RES policies, including high-profile attacks in Kansas and North Carolina.

The good news is that ALEC’s efforts completely failed: not a single state RES was repealed. Instead, 14 new pro-renewable energy bills became law nationwide, including stronger RES targets in Colorado, Minnesota, and Nevada.

Don’t mess with success
How did ALEC misfire so badly? ...

More at: http://blog.ucsusa.org/in-chicago-alec-reboots-failed-strategy-for-attacking-renewable-energy-policies-197

[kristopher]

7. Amazing how many fronts they wage this effort on.

Pronuclear + antirenewable = ALEC?

Seems like a safe assumption.

[bananas]

8. Joe Romm points to Luntz’s infamous (and still must-read) 2002 “Straight Talk” memo on messaging

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/14/2467371/msnbc-chris-hayes-on-conservatives-deny-climate-problem-they-hate-solution/

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes On Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem: They Hate The Solution

By Joe Romm on August 14, 2013 at 4:54 pm

<snip>

For you Millennials out there, Luntz’s infamous (and still must-read) 2002 “Straight Talk” memo on climate change messaging was designed for conservatives who want to sound like they care about global warming even as they twist the knife in deeper:

Technology and innovation are the key in arguments on both sides. Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord could cost the United States billions. Rather than condemning corporate America the way most environmentalists have done in the past, they attack us for lacking faith in our collective ability to meet any economic challenges presented by environmental changes we make. This should be our argument. We need to emphasize how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.

More than a decade later, the playbook is exactly the same!

<snip>

[kristopher]

9. ALEC: ProNuclear, AntiRenewables (and ProFossil Fuels)

Notice how when ALEC and its minions push nuclear power they are suddenly and incongruously believers in climate change and the harm from carbon? From the OP:

"WHEREAS, America’s 103 commercial nuclear plants generate 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity with remarkably high levels of efficiency and reliability while producing zero emissions of pollutants or greenhouse gases..."

But all other times:
Intrastate Coal and Use Act
http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/intrastate-coal-and-use-act/

Resolution on Best Available Control Technology FOR Coal-Based Electric Generation
http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-on-best-available-control-technology-for-coal-based-electric-generation/


Yep, it is very, very obvious that their support for nuclear power is based on concern about GHG emissions and climate change.

Resolution Opposing EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck
WHEREAS: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed or is proposing numerous new regulations, particularly in the area of air quality and regulation of greenhouse gases, that are likely to have major effects on the economy, jobs and U.S. competitiveness in worldwide markets;

WHEREAS: EPA’s regulatory activity as to air quality and greenhouse gases has become known as the “train wreck,” because of the numerous and overlapping requirements and because of the potentially devastating consequences this regulatory activity may have on the economy;

WHEREAS: Concern is growing that, with cap-and-trade legislation having failed in Congress, EPA is attempting to obtain the same results through the adoption of regulations;

WHEREAS: EPA over-regulation is driving jobs and industry out of America;

WHEREAS: Neither EPA nor the Administration has undertaken any comprehensive study of what the cumulative effect of all of this new regulatory activity will have on the economy, jobs and competitiveness;

WHEREAS: EPA has not performed any comprehensive study of what the environmental benefits of its greenhouse regulation will be in terms of impacts on global climate;

WHEREAS: State agencies are routinely required to identify the costs of their regulations and to justify those costs in light of the benefits;

WHEREAS: Since EPA has identified “taking action on climate change and improving air quality” as its first strategic goal for the 2011-15 time period, EPA should be required to identify the specific actions it intends to take to achieve these goals and to assess the total cost of all these actions together;

WHEREAS: The Legislature supports continuing improvements in the quality of the nation’s air and believes that that such improvements can be made in a sensible fashion without damaging the economy so long as there is a full understanding of the cost of the regulations at issue;

WHEREAS: The primary goal of government at the present time must be to promote economic recovery and to foster a stable and predictable business environment that will lead to the creation of jobs;

WHEREAS: Public health and welfare will suffer without significant new job creation and economic improvement, because people with good jobs are better able to take care of themselves and their families than the unemployed and because environmental improvement is only possible in a society that generates wealth.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the legislature of {insert state} calls on Congress:

1. To adopt legislation prohibiting EPA by any means necessary from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, including if necessary defunding EPA greenhouse gas regulatory activities.

2. Imposing a moratorium on promulgation of any new air quality regulation by EPA by any means necessary, except to directly address an imminent health or environmental emergency, for a period of at least two years, including defunding EPA air quality regulatory activities.

3. Requiring the Administration to undertake a study identifying all regulatory activity that EPA intends to undertake in furtherance of its goal of “taking action on climate change and improving air quality” and specifying the cumulative effect of all of these regulations on the economy, jobs, and American economic competitiveness. This study should be a multi-agency study drawing on the expertise both of EPA and of agencies and departments having expertise in and responsibility for the economy and the electric system and should provide an objective cost-benefit analysis of all of EPA’s current and planned regulation together.

http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-opposing-epas-regulatory-train-wreck/

[kristopher]

11. Kick

ALEC's policy wish list is unambiguous -

1) More Fossil Fuels

2) More Nuclear

3) Kill Renewables

When someone supports 2 & 3 they are serving the agenda of ALEC