Legislative Letter concerning HF 72

I haven't posted in a while, just haven't had the inspiration, so I thought I would throw up a piece of writing I did recently. I sent this letter to many house legislators including Representative Downey, my representative, concerning HF72, a bill in the Minnesota House that would remove the CO2 emissions limit on power utilities. If you'd like more information on the bill, including the text, check out this link to the Minnesota Legislature's site: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF72&ssn=0&y=2011

 As a Minnesotan I do not support House File 72. If passed, HF72 will decimate the emerging renewable energy market by allowing power utilities to construct new power plants that increase statewide power sector carbon dioxide emissions (ie: non-renewable energy plants). According to the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, the renewable energy sector already employs 59,600 people—a number that is expected to grow to 64,000 by 2016. By allowing utilities to build more non-renewables this bill could drastically reduce or eliminate the 4,400 new renewable energy jobs expected to be created and threaten the livelihood of the 59,600 Minnesotans already employed in this sector. Supporters of repealing this ban argue that it is hindering Minnesota’s economic recovery and hurting job creation. However, if HF72 were not passed, power utilities would have to respond to increased energy demands with further development of renewable energies. In multiple studies, renewable energies have been shown to generate more jobs per dollar invested and more jobs per megawatt generated than non-renewables (Baker & Lehmer, n.d.). One study found that over a 10-year period the wind industry creates 5.7 jobs per million dollars invested, the solar industry creates 5.65 jobs, and the coal industry creates only 3.96 jobs (Fripp, Kammen, & Kapadia, 2006). Minnesota power utilities have even said that they won’t need more coal power for at least the next 15 years (Hemphill, 2011). That’s 15 years before coal power creates jobs for Minnesotans.

Additionally, Minnesota Statutes, section 216H.03 further protects the 59,600 Minnesotans working in the renewable energy sector by banning the import of non-renewable energy from other states. Without this ban the Minnesota energy sector would certainly contract more power to be bought from other states sending money and jobs out of Minnesota’s economy. Minnesota has no fossil fuel resources (U.S. EIA, 2011) and therefore all fossil fuels used in Minnesota must be imported. This dependence is unhealthy for Minnesota’s economy. However, Minnesota has ample renewable energy resources. According to the U.S Department of Energy, Minnesota has the capacity to harvest 489,270 megawatts from wind power, equal to 1,679,480 gigawatt hours annually. These numbers were adjusted to include land not likely to be developed such as wilderness areas or urban areas. Minnesota is also a nationwide leader in the production of biofuels; producing 1,117 million gallons of ethanol in 2010 (Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2010). This level of production is projected to generate $3.1 billion in economic output and employ 8,395 Minnesotans in 2010 (MN Dep.Ag).

Why encourage fossil fuel use when Minnesota leads much of the country in renewable energy resources? Why send Minnesotan’s money and jobs to other states when Minnesota has ample energy resources? In tough employment times like these it is irresponsible for any Minnesota legislator to pass legislation that hampers economic recovery.

As an alternative to HF72 I propose that a Minnesota Made Energy tax credit program be created for Minnesota businesses. Minnesota Made Energy is defined as energy that is derived from a resource that originates in Minnesota. The program would be open to all businesses that pay the state corporate income tax. The goal of this legislation is to increase the consumption of Minnesota Made Energy by 10% in Minnesota’s business sector by 2015. The most common Minnesota Made Energies are wind power; either direct transport or through Xcel’s wind energy program, biofuels; any biofuel produced using grown-in-Minnesota inputs and refined in Minnesota, and finally solar; using collectors or systems manufactured in Minnesota. Once 20% of a company’s total energy use is Minnesota Made they get a 2% reduction off their state corporate income tax liability. Additional thresholds will be set at 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% and 100% Minnesota Made energy. At each of these thresholds the company gets an additional 1% off the tax liability totaling a 10% reduction at 100% Minnesota Made energy. The Minnesota Commerce Department would be in charge of this regulation. By achieving increased Minnesota Made Energy use, this bill will grow Minnesota’s local energy sectors; positively affecting Minnesota’s economy and putting Minnesotans back to work.

Minnesota Made Energy, fuel for Minnesota’s future. 

Thanks for reading! My posts will probably continue to be few and far between but I hope you find them  thought provoking.

The State of the Union adress, hope rekindled.

I'd like to add my two cents about the State of the Union speech. I am surprised that I am hopeful still the day after the adress. Obama created a different kind of hope for a different vision than during his candidacy. His speech, along with Paul Ryan's response, gave me legitimate hope for a moderating of American politics.

The way I feel about my politics is such; Yes I ascribe to a certain political theory, ie liberal or conservative or socialist or communist or tea partyist. Yes, in an ideal world I would get everything I want. But our world is not ideal, our system is not ideal, and our ideals are not ideal. Nothing/no one is perfect. By accepting this it is easy to take a step towards personal political moderation. 
The next step for we the people is to infuse our state and national legislatures with similarly moderation minded representatives. That may mean voting for someone you don't always agree with or, instead of voting for candidates based on party, voting based on the candidates moderate v partisan views. Personally, I would rather vote for someone who sees the value in compromise and knows how to be a mature adult and work with people they disagree with than a partisan Democrat or Republican who believes it's their way or the highway.

I know I am not alone in this thinking. And while we probably disagree on some things, I hope some of my thoughts reverberated with some of yours. Moderation is the new school of American politics. The pendulum is swinging back towards valuing sensibility over bigotry, agonism over antagonism, actually-doing-something-about-huge-issues-ism over arguing-all-day-because-then-we-don't-have-to-adress-the-tough-issues-ism.

Middle School drama in our highest House?

Being "civil" is the next big fad in Washington.
These two seemingly sane guys had the "unprecedented" idea to sit together at the state of the union adress! See this Star Tribune article

You may feel that this is just as an amazing event as this writer thinks it is. I certainly do.
And I am certainly excited by it. But I can't help feeling like I'm back in middle school.
"ZOMG becky is going to sit by jimmy at lunch??" pretty much summarizes this article.


I feel like I've seen this before on TV or something...
Except the media is the guy in the commercial and instead of getting angry and crashing the car they freak out and yell the news out the car window.

(No, I am not advertising for Allstate)

This begs the question, why is it that such seemingly basic acts are being hailed as immortal feats?

Shouldn't republicans and democrats sitting by each other be so common that it is not news worthy (Perhaps we need to desegregate congress???) and true acts of civility and bi-partisanship will have to occur to receive attention?

But these are just my simple thoughts, what do you think?

The Exposition

American politics today is growing increasingly partisan. Within it compromise is equated to weakness, the line between pundit and candidate has become hazy, and the use of violent rhetoric is the top political strategy. The attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on January 8th has brought the violent nature of politics into sharp public scrutiny. And while there is no evidence to show the gunman had been motivated by any of the violent rhetoric it should not get a free pass. 
It is time for us to examine our political culture, is this what we want it to be like? This event has forced the culture to a turning point. Will it fall further into the destructive cycle of bigotry or will America rally itself back to sanity? And if it does where do we go from here? 

Three important definitions:

Agon: A verbal contest between two characters in a Greek drama both of whom appeal to the audience, neither having any necessary claim to the truth.

Agonism: A political theory which emphasizes the potentially positive aspects of certain forms of political conflict.

Agonist: One who ascribes to the political theory of agonism.

I believe a move away from antagonism and towards agonism is a necessary action.

Agonistic discussions allow for and encourage conflict that leads to a better understanding of the issue. They realign arguments to focus on the issue rather than the arguments being a contest of who can drop the most incendiary words the fastest. 

Agonism is not a new idea:

Fast-backward to a pre-revolution America. It's 1739 and Methodist minister George Whitefield has been barred from preaching in churches in Philadelphia. Benjamin Franklin gathers funders and builds a lecture hall "expressly for the Use of any Preacher of any religious Persuasion." This open arena created a space where differing views could be spoken. A space that invited and entertained conflict. Only in these open arenas can one become truly knowledgable. A democracy fails without a civic public. A civic public cannot exist without knowledge. 

Agonism is not dead, just rare:


The state of Minnesota recently elected Governor Mark Dayton (D). He won with 43.6% of the votes, only 8077 votes more than Tom Emmer, the republican candidate. Minnesotans also elected a republican house and senate. The stage had been set for an atypical war of the words congressional session.
But then I read this article. Here is a summary of the section I was most interested in.
Dayton signed an executive order to opt Minnesota into the newly expanded federal Medicaid program on Wednesday. Crowding the governors office along with the media and supporters were a sizable number of people opposed to the signing. Instead of having the critics removed by security Dayton let them stay and offered them time with the microphone to voice their concerns. 


While the article does not name this act agonistic it most certainly is. Dayton provided a space for all concerned to voice their opinions.  To me this seems like an occurrence that shouldn’t be remarkable enough to remark on. Unfortunately it seems to be such. The writer even calling it "unprecedented" and shocking.

Today we find the pulpits of civil debate controlled again by the preachers of hyperbole and fear. 
This blog is a modern day incarnation of the open lecture hall in Philadelphia. I will be posting news stories that I find interesting or that people send to me. Commenting on them, inviting you to comment on them. Then having a nice thoughtful constructive discussion.

All are free to read. All are free to think. All are free to comment.

The goal of this blog is to help you and I become elegant agonists. To help us find within ourselves the lost art of agonism and begin to practice it. From there then we may spread it to our companions. In the end we can hope to break at least ourselves free of the stupefying status quo.


Feel encouraged to leave your thoughts. This is my first post, any tips, hints, constructive criticism is appreciated.


     "The Bee gathers honey from all sorts of Flowers to encrease the common Stock, and our Assembly is the common Hive into which every Man's Thoughts and Sentiments ought to be carried."