Obama’s environmental-policy reversal will have immediate impact in Minnesota

Preliminary artist's rendering of the Big Stone II plant.
Preliminary artist’s rendering of the Big Stone II plant.

President Barack Obama left no doubt Monday that his administration will move aggressively to address “long overdue” energy and environmental issues and, in a pointed reversal of U.S. policy under George W. Bush, he said that “ideology will no longer trump sound science.” 
He said carbon emissions must be reduced to stem the ill effects of climate change, and oil consumption must be reduced to protect national and economic security from over-reliance on oil imports. Half of U.S. oil is imported.  
Obama’s new policy direction will have immediate impact on two front-burner issues in Minnesota:

• The Big Stone II Power Plant in South Dakota on Minnesota’s western border. It would add 4.5 million tons of carbon at a time when the state is struggling to reduce greenhouse gases. Last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) put a hold on air-quality permits issued by South Dakota for the plant; that action, coupled with Obama’s carbon-reduction drive, could derail plans for the $1.5 billion 550-megawatt electric generator.

• The so-called Clean Cars proposal that nearly passed the Legislature last year. The Obama announcement will help move it along this year in the face of aggressive opposition by the auto and ethanol industries. The bill would reduce carbon emissions in passenger vehicles, a first-ever attempt to regulate carbon from cars and trucks, initiated by California and, now, 13 other states.
‘A whole new day’
For environment and energy policy “it’s a whole new day,” said Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park. She’s the lead author of the Clean Cars bill and said Obama’s action to reverse a years-long EPA denial of a waiver for California to regulate carbon “paves the way for the Minnesota Legislature and the governor to adopt this money-saving standard.”

State Rep. Melissa Hortman
State Rep. Melissa Hortman

Hortman said she expects that Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s reticence on the legislation may soften now that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has announced that he’s backing a similar measure for his state. Like Pawlenty, Crist is often mentioned as a 2012 Republican presidential contender; the thinking goes that Pawlenty won’t want a rival to gain ground on green issues that are expected to dominate the next four years.
The Obama announcement on Monday amounted to a reversal of the Bush administration’s policy on anything related to climate change. Bush initially denied that climate change is real, ordering the phrase scrubbed from speeches and news releases throughout government and even threatening climate scientists like James Hanson at NASA, who has been outspoken in warning that global warming is as serious as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.
Even after Bush grudgingly went along with the fact of global warming, his administration frustrated all efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon from coal-burning power plants and passenger vehicles.
In opposition to powerful lobbies
With his environment and energy-policy push, Obama is standing up to some of Washington’s best-funded and entrenched lobbies: electric utilities and the auto industry, along with their allied unions that have pretty much had their way ever since they stopped efforts by President Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter to improve auto mileage in response to the 1970s Arab oil boycott. It wasn’t until last year that the political landscape shifted enough for Congress to enact the 2007 Energy Act with modest fuel-efficiency improvements, in exchange for massive federal subsidies to help fund plant conversions to make smaller cars (this was before the recent auto bailout). 
In St. Paul, the new wind behind the Clean Cars bill is also a slap at the Minnesota Auto Dealers’ Association, which last fall spent upwards of $30,000 to defeat Hortman — who, despite the campaign against her, won reelection handily.
In addition to giving a lift to science-based concerns about climate change, Obama repeated his oft-stated campaign pledges to work to overcome national and economic-security concerns in a nation that imports half the oil it consumes.
“It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil,” Obama said in a White House announcement.
‘This time will be different’
Others have said the same thing in pushing their agenda for biofuels or clean coal or nuclear power. But the president made it as clear as a trout stream that “this time will be different.”
He said he would direct the EPA to prepare to approve California’s long-sought authority to regulate auto carbon emissions. As well, he said the auto industry must further improve fuel economy of vehicles by 2011 and achieve a 40 percent mileage improvement by 2020, both remarkably aggressive mandates given the stonewalling of the last 30 years.

State Rep. Jean Wagenius
State Rep. Jean Wagenius

“I’m overwhelmed by the president’s clarity and by his understanding that we have to base our decisions on science,” said Rep. Jean Wagenius, DFL-Minneapolis, who chairs the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division Committee. “It makes you wonder if you’re going to wake up and find you’ve been dreaming.”
Wagenius and Sen. Ellen Anderson of St. Paul, along with Rep. Bill Hilty of Finlayson and Sen. Yvonne Prettner-Solon of Duluth, all DFLers, have led the often-rancorous legislative efforts to curb carbon emissions.
The Next Gen mandates
After years of trying, in 2007 they succeeded in winning legislative approval of the Next Generation Energy Act, which mandates an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 with interim limits in 2015 and 2025.
Despite initial support by Gov. Tim Pawlenty for the “Next Gen Act,” his Office of Energy Security (OES) — housed in the Commerce Department — spent most of last year refusing to abide by the law’s requirement for the administration’s plan to meet even the easiest targets, 15 percent reductions from 2005 levels by 2015.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty
Gov. Tim Pawlenty

The report (PDF) that was finally sent up to legislators last week, more than a year late, took 40 pages of material repeated from earlier reports to say that, essentially, the Legislature will have to choose from a long list of policy proposals assembled by Pawlenty’s own 56-member Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MGAAG).
The OES’ first director, Edward Garvey, left office amid open criticism by legislators — including Hilty and Anderson — that he talked about climate change and said nothing. The report sent to legislators by Garvey’s successor, Bill Glahn, was seen as more of the same long talk and little action. Glahn and the report’s co-author, Assistant Commissioner David Thornton at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, both declined repeated requests for explanations as to why their report contains so little substance given all the time it took to produce.
Sees positive economic effect
In Monday’s announcement Obama he faced head-on the persistent criticism that carbon-reduction and auto mileage improvements would have a negative economic effect. In fact, the president said, he believes the opposite is true.
He said that a new “green energy economy” in his proposed economic stimulus package would initially result in 460,000 jobs and a million or more as his policies take shape. As well, he said, the fuel-economy mandates would not only save consumers at the gas pump, but by developing green cars the U.S. auto industry stands to gain through expanding domestic and world markets.
It is widely expected that Obama will also follow up on campaign pledges to develop a so-called “cap and trade” system that utilizes market forces to create incentives to reduce carbon emissions. Under it, government would set a cap — or ceiling — of allowable carbon emissions and then require polluters to purchase ever-increasing carbon credits. During the campaign, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain also supported California’s carbon-emission waiver and a “cap and trade” system.

Ron Way covers the environment and energy issues. He can be reached at rway [at] minnpost [dot] com.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (25)

  1. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 10:14 am.

    in minnesota we are going to see our electricity and gas bills skyrocket all due to the actions of the minnesota state legislature.
    1. minnesota has banned the expanding of the cleanest and most reliable energy on the earth = NUCLEAR ENERGY.
    2.minnesota has mandated we expand the most expensive and unreliable energy – wind energy.
    3. minnesota has mandated coal power plants be converted to natural gas – this mean power plants will be compeating with home owners for natural gas – causing the prices to increase.
    4. minnesota has prevented the builing of a major power line which would bring cheap electricity from big stone II in south dakota to minnesota.


  2. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 10:20 am.

    the environmentals have shut down the construction for the big stone 11 power plant. this plant would have provided cheap and reliable electricity for minnesota which will be needed for the state to grow and prosper. the major user of energy is industry. this action will cause our electricity cost to skyrocket. companies will move out of minnesota and seek states with lower energy costs. this will cost jobs to move elsewhere. coal provides 60% of electricity in the united states. the loss of jobs will be the cost for environmental restrictions – are you ready to pay that price. there are NO VIABLE REPLACEMENTs FOR COAL IN THE NEAR FUTURE OR THE FAR FUTURE.

  3. Submitted by Diana Green on 01/29/2009 - 11:40 am.

    Please cite scientific fact rather than simple rhetoric if you want your argument to be taken seriously.

  4. Submitted by Brian Simon on 01/29/2009 - 12:16 pm.

    FYI to the editors: the Governor of Florida spells his name with a ‘t’, not a ‘p’.

  5. Submitted by Dave Thompson on 01/29/2009 - 12:24 pm.

    Well, I certainly hope that YOUR way of life gets destroyed, you SUV driver. Even if we adopt green policies, it will take a thousand years for CO2 levels to come back down to where they are today.

  6. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 12:27 pm.


    State Rep. Melissa Hortman
    State Rep. Jean Wagenius

  7. Submitted by Lance Groth on 01/29/2009 - 01:08 pm.

    It’s amusing how the anti-science/anti-intellectual/dittohead global warming Deniers flock to articles such as this to regurgitate whatever nonsense Limbaugh and his ilk have been feeding them. I will in fact follow Mr. Granneman’s advice and thank Representatives Hortman and Wagenius, though not in the way Granneman meant. I’ll thank them for their steadfast support of sane environmental policy.

    Money does not trump everything, though those on the right have trouble understanding that. A healthy ecosystem trumps utility bills. Why anyone would want to leave their kids and grandkids a degraded planet, less beautiful, less ecologically rich, less able to sustain life, than the one they inherited – just so they can keep a few more bucks in their pocket – is unfathomable to me. Nice family values there.

    Thank god for the election of Obama, and it delights me to no end that already in the first two weeks of his administration he is systematically, policy by policy, erasing Bush’s abominable legacy. We now have a president who is intelligent, who respects science, who surrounds himself with the best and the brightest, and is determined to simply do what is right. How refreshing. And there’s nothing all the Deniers in the world can do about it.

    Maybe now we can stop abominations like Bigstone II and get on with the work of substituting sustainable technologies, and mending this sorely abused world. We are neither separate from nor above nature. To quote Aldo Leopold, “one of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds.” We must educate those who do not understand this.

  8. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 01/29/2009 - 02:16 pm.

    Mr. Granneman: Coal and other non-renewables only LOOK cheaper for the moment. When the world begins to run out of oil, watch the prices of everything made from oil and coal skyrocket beyond measure unless we have made the switches recommended by environmentalists.

  9. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 03:02 pm.

    hello mr Lance Groth
    when it is -25f outside i hope your home is powered by a windmill. i want my power to come from a cheap reliable coal or nuclear power plant.
    and dont forget to have plenty of wood and candles handy.

  10. Submitted by Michael Rhodes on 01/29/2009 - 03:16 pm.

    As a recent MinnPost article points out, we should be far more concerned about compact land use. The idea of a “green car” is misleading, since even highly fuel-efficient cars will simply contribute to more driving, ultimately increasing the amount of energy used and encouraging sprawl. We need to start factoring this into any discussion on cars and emissions.

  11. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 04:16 pm.

    you requested i back up my claims with evidence
    here is my evidence
    Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas.

    This is not what President-elect Barack Obama’s energy and climate strategists would want to hear. It would be anathema to Al Gore and other assorted luminaries touting renewable energy sources which in one giant swoop will save the world from the “tyranny” of fossil fuels and mitigate global warming. And as if these were not big enough issues, oilman T. Boone Pickens’ grandiose plan for wind farms from Texas to Canada is supposed to bring about a replacement for the natural gas now used for power generation. That move will then lead to energy independence from foreign oil.

    Too good to be true? Yes, and in fact it is a lot worse.

    Wind has been the cornerstone of almost all environmentalist and social engineering proclamations for more than three decades and has accelerated to a crescendo the last few years in both the United States and the European Union.

    But Europe, getting a head start, has had to cope with the reality borne by experience and it is a pretty ugly picture.

    Independent reports have consistently revealed an industry plagued by high construction and maintenance costs, highly volatile reliability and a voracious appetite for taxpayer subsidies. Such is the economic strain on taxpayer funds being poured into wind power by Europe’s early pioneers — Denmark, Germany and Spain – that all have recently been forced to scale back their investments.

    As a result this summer, the U.K., under pressure to meet an ambitious E.U. climate target of 20 percent carbon dioxide cuts by 2020, assumed the mantle of world leader in wind power production. It did so as a direct consequence of the U.K. Government’s Renewables Obligations Certificate, a financial incentive scheme for power companies to build wind farms. Thus the U.K.’s wind operation provides the ideal case study — and one that provides the most complete conclusions.

    The U.K. has all the natural advantages. It is the windiest country in Europe. It has one of the continent’s longest coastlines for the more productive (and less obtrusive) offshore farms. It has a long-established national power grid. In short, if wind power is less than successful in the U.K., its success is not guaranteed anywhere.

    But wind infrastructure has come at a steep price. In fiscal year 2007-08 U.K. electricity customers were forced to pay a total of over $1 billion to the owners of wind turbines. That figure is due to rise to over $6 billion a year by 2020 given the government’s unprecedented plan to build a nationwide infrastructure with some 25 gigawatts of wind capacity, in a bid to shift away from fossil fuel use.

    Ofgem, which regulates the U.K.’s electricity and gas markets, has already expressed its concern at the burgeoning tab being picked up by the British taxpayer which, they claim, is “grossly distorting the market” while hiding the real cost of wind power. In the past year alone, prices for electricity and natural gas in the U.K. have risen twice as fast as the European Union average according to figures released in November by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While 15 percent energy price rises were experienced across the E.U., in the U.K. gas and electricity prices rose by a staggering 29.7 percent. Ofgem believes wind subsidy has been a prime factor and questions the logic when, for all the public investment, wind produces a mere 1.3 percent of the U.K.’s energy needs.

    In May 2008, a report from Cambridge Energy Research Associates warned that an over-reliance on offshore wind farms to meet European renewable energy targets would further create supply problems and drive up investor costs. No taxpayer respite there. But worse news was to come.

  12. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 04:16 pm.

    In August, the most in-depth independent assessment yet of Britain’s expanding wind turbine industry was published. In the journal Energy Policy gas turbine expert Jim Oswald and his co-authors, came up with a series of damning conclusions: not only is wind power far more expensive and unreliable than previously thought, it cannot avoid using high levels of natural gas, which not only it will increase costs but in turn will mean far less of a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than has been claimed.

    Oswald’s report highlights the key issue of load factor, the actual power generated compared to the theoretical maximum, and how critical it is to the viability of the wind power industry. In 2006, according to U.K. government statistics, the average load factor for wind turbines across the U.K. was 27.4 percent. Thus a typical 2 megawatt turbine actually produced only 0.54 MW of power on an average day. The worst performing U.K. turbine had a load factor of just 7 percent. These figures reflect a poor return on investment. But this poor return is often obscured by the subsidy system that allows turbine operators and supporters to claim they can make a profit even when turbines operate at a very low load factors. So what’s the bottom line? British consumers are paying twice over for their electricity, funding its means of production and paying for its use as end users.

    Variability is one of the chief criticisms levelled at wind power. When the wind drops or blows too hard, turbines stop spinning and you get no power. Wind turbine advocates have claimed that this can be avoided by the geographical spread of wind farms, perhaps by creating an international “supergrid.” But, as Oswald’s report makes clear, calm conditions not only prevail on a fairly regular basis, they often extend across the country with the same conditions being experienced as far away as France and Germany. Worse still, says Oswald, long periods of calm over recent decades occurred in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

    Periods of low wind means a need for pumped storage and essential back-up facilities. Oswald told The Register online news service that a realistically feasible U.K. pumped-storage base would only cope with one or two days of low winds at best. As regards back-up facilities, Oswald states the only feasible systems for the planned 25 gigawatt wind system would be one that relied equally on old-style natural gas turbines. As Oswald says however, the expense of a threefold wind, pump storage and gas turbine back-up solution “would be ridiculous.”

    The problems don’t end there. The British report highlights what more and more wind farms would mean when it came to installing gas turbine back-ups. “Electricity operators will respond by installing lower-cost plant ($/kW) as high capital plant is not justified under low utilisation regimes.”

    But cheap gas turbines are far less efficient than big, properly sized base-load turbines and will not be as resilient in coping with the heavy load cycling they would experience. Cheaper, less resilient plants will mean high maintenance costs and spare back-up gas turbines to replace broken ones that would suffer regular thermal stress cracking. And of course, the increasing use of gas for the turbines would have a detrimental effect on reducing carbon dioxide emission – always one of the chief factors behind the wind revolution.

    Oswald’s report concludes also that the all this wear and tear will further stress the gas pipeline network and gas storage system. “High-efficiency base load plant is not designed or developed for load cycling,” says Oswald. Critically, most of the issues raised in the independent report have not been factored into the cost of wind calculations. With typical British understatement, Oswald concludes that claims for wind power are “unduly optimistic.”

    We think they’ve been blown away.

  13. Submitted by Lance Groth on 01/29/2009 - 04:19 pm.

    @Mr. Granneman – as a matter of fact, I agree with you on nuclear power, as it is benign with respect to global warming. Environmentalists who still oppose it have got it wrong – as has been argued eloquently by no less a greenie than James Lovelock. The threat of global warming far outweighs concerns about nuclear plant waste. The waste can be contained and handled, and we should be building as many plants as possible.

    But coal has got to go. The environmental damage from burning coal is unacceptably high. Take a look at photos of the air in some of China’s cities (when the power plants haven’t been shut down to accommodate the Olympics) if you don’t think so. And there is no such thing as “clean” coal.

    BTW, no one is promoting wind as the sole solution. Merely as one part of a comprehensive solution. Oilman T. Boone Pickens wouldn’t be betting heavily on wind if it weren’t viable.


  14. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 04:23 pm.

    hello mr Bernice Vetsch
    the environmentalist have lied to you

    there is no shortage of oil and gas
    the united states has an estimated supply of coal which has been estimated to supply us coal for another 200 years. same with natural gas.
    there is more an more oil being discovered everyday. it has been estimated that north dakota has more oil than saudi arabia – check out the balken oil fields. argentenia has new major oil finds and also large new oil fields discovered off the coast of cuba- the chineese are developing the cuban oil.
    the united states problem is we have people in this country that do not want to develope our natural resources – they would rather hand the gas money to an arab rather than an american
    the solution is to DRILL NOW DRILL MORE.

  15. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 04:28 pm.

    The International Climate Conference in New York also featured hundreds of climate experts from around the world, who issued a March 4 “Manhattan Declaration” on man-made global warming, stating in part:

    1) “That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”

    2) “That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.”

    3) “That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.”

    The declaration resolved that “scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method.”

  16. Submitted by Lance Groth on 01/29/2009 - 05:23 pm.

    @Mr. Granneman –

    Just a few quick comments on your list of Deniers.

    – Most of them are not climatologists. Being a scientist in one field of study does not make you an expert in another.

    – Meteorologists are not climatologists. I’m not even sure they qualify as scientists. They’re certainly wrong a lot. In any case, weather is not climate. Weather is what you see out your window. Climate is a matter of decades, centuries & millenia. Knowing something about what causes thunderstorms tells you nothing about climate.

    – If you pay attention to the news, you know that 10,200 earth scientists (various specialties) were recently surveyed as to whether they believe that current global warming is largely anthropogenic. 90% agree that warming exists (kind of a no-brainer – the ice isn’t melting because it’s getting colder…), and 82% agree that human activity is the culprit. Among climatologists, the latter figure is 97%. I’ll repeat that – 97% of climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming. Among meteorologists (who again, are not climate scientists), the figure is 64%. Unsurprisingly, the figure is 47% for petroleum geologists – gee, no bias there, eh? If you missed the original report, here’s a link for your convenience:


    You can always scrape up Deniers, but almost none are legitimate climatologists, and most of the rest are paid by or have other connections with the oil industry.

    – Finally, it is a basic, undeniable fact of physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 in a atmosphere retains heat. This is high school science class stuff. If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it retains more heat. This is one aspect you Deniers never address. If increased CO2 is *not* to result in higher temps, then you must explain how a basic physical property of the gas fails to operate. If you can, you should write a book, because it will be news to chemists and physicists. (Hint: Don’t say increased CO2 follows warming – that’s just radio talk show b.s.) So … enlighten us if you can … how is it that increasing the amount of greenhouse gas will not result in warming? (You might want to look at some photos of the arctic regions, say, a hundred years ago vs. today, you know, just as a sanity check.)

    Finally – you’re arguing primarily in terms of dollar costs, and I’m arguing in terms of restoring a healthy planetary ecosystem (which we require for our own survival). Apples and oranges. Arguments based on money do not persuade me – partly because you ignore the costs of a ruined ecosystem. So we’ll never meet in the middle, unless you suddenly start to care about the kind of environment you live in.


  17. Submitted by Lance Groth on 01/29/2009 - 05:27 pm.

    @Mr. Granneman – BTW, here are links of photos of air quality in China. The second is of Tiananmen Square – it looks like a vision from an apocalyptic scifi movie. This is what happens when you burn a lot of coal. Is this what you want to breathe?



  18. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 07:32 pm.

    hello mr. Lance Groth
    Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.

    group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

    Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.


  19. Submitted by david granneman on 01/29/2009 - 08:38 pm.

    here is a list of 31,072 more Deniers

    31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
    including 9,021 with PhDs

    Purpose of Petition

    The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim
    of settled science and an overwhelming consensus in favor of the
    hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological
    damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As
    indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number
    of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

    Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters
    frequently claim that only a few skeptics remain skeptics who are
    still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused
    global warming emergency.

    It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in
    science including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the
    clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is
    evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not skeptics.

    These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused
    global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that
    government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily
    and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural
    environment of the Earth.

    392 of these scientists are living in minnesota –
    including Michael Fairbourne – wcco channel 4 meterologist
    for a list see the petion project

  20. Submitted by Joe Musich on 01/29/2009 - 10:14 pm.

    So the newest tactic is to fill up every possible pixel on my moniter with nosense in support of old technology. I’ll just keep believing it’s a new day. But I also will follow the facts and leave the faith for the believers in vampire. Love the Dylan line about energy vampires.

  21. Submitted by Brian Donovan on 01/30/2009 - 06:23 am.

    Louisiana Enacts the Most Comprehensive Advanced Biofuel Legislation in the Nation

    Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law the Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative, the most comprehensive and far-reaching state legislation in the nation enacted to develop a statewide advanced biofuel industry. Louisiana is the first state to enact alternative transportation fuel legislation that includes a variable blending pump pilot program and a hydrous ethanol pilot program.

    The legislature found that the proper development of an advanced biofuel industry in Louisiana requires implementation of the following comprehensive “field-to-pump” strategy developed by Renergie, Inc.:

    (1) Feedstock other than corn;
    (2) Decentralized network of small advanced biofuel manufacturing facilities;
    (3) Variable blending pumps in lieu of splash blending; and
    (4) Hydrous ethanol.

    Renergie looks forward to working closely with the Obama-Biden administration to:
    (a) reduce U.S. dependency on imported oil;
    (b) repeal the ethanol import tariff;
    (c) maximize the environmental benefits of ethanol-blended transportation fuels; and
    (d) create jobs in rural areas of the United States by growing ethanol demand, specifically hydrous ethanol demand, beyond the 10% blend market.

    Please feel free to visit Renergie’s weblog (www.renergie.wordpress.com) for more information.

  22. Submitted by david granneman on 01/30/2009 - 10:28 am.

    you are probably sitting in front of you computer, after coming home from your high paying
    job, eating a delicious meal, in your well lite and warm comfortable home.
    you believers are so inteligent that you problably realise that this way of life requires ENERGY.
    you believers have banned nuclear power
    you believers have banned coal power
    you believers want all fossil fuels banned.
    you believers are now trying to stop the massive power lines needed to bring power from windmill farms.


    ten years from now when you have lost your job, your computer is dead, you have no food to eat and your home is dark and cold – you can sit there and smuggly say – you have saved the planet.

  23. Submitted by david granneman on 01/30/2009 - 11:31 am.

    hello global warming followers
    the news just reported that North Dakota, unlike Minnesota, has a budget surplus
    many Minnesotans are going to North Dakota to get jobs as there is a surplus of good paying jobs.
    why is North Dakota having good times while Minnesota is suffering.
    the difference is Minnesota thinks taxing and goverment spending brings prosperity.
    in North Dakota they are creating prosperity by developing their energy resources – they are drilling to produce the oil
    reserves in the Balken Oil Fields.

  24. Submitted by Andrew Eggenberger on 01/30/2009 - 01:39 pm.


    I have to question the etiquette of (re)publishing large portions of documents in the comment section. It hinders discussion in a venue that was specifically designed for it. It looks like to got the information from web sources. Why not post the url?

  25. Submitted by david granneman on 01/30/2009 - 02:29 pm.

    hello Andrew Eggenberger

    the reason i put the information in the comments is because i think the global warming followers do not want to see the real scientific information unless it is put in front of them. if i gave the url for the information i doubt they would make the effort to get the information – rather they preferr to listen to a failed politician for their information

Leave a Reply