Democratic Governor's Conference Call on Energy
Posted by Stuart Staniford on June 22, 2006 - 2:46pm
Update [2006-6-22 14:46:4 by Stuart Staniford]: I'm moving this story uptop again for anyone who managed to attend to report/discuss.
The Democratic Governors Association invites Oil Drummers to a conference call with Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski. The call is Thursday, June 22nd at 1:45 p.m. EDT/10:45 a.m. PDT. You have to RSVP and can submit a question at this page. I encourage anyone who has the time to show up, ask probing questions, and report back on what they have to say.
Update [2006-6-22 16:59:51 by Super G]: Our very own Robert Rapier listened in and even got to ask a question. Read his impressions in the comments.
“Any coward can fight a battle when he's sure of winning, but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he's sure of losing. That's my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.”
—George Eliot
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
RR
I thought I had seen a short item on Energybulletin.com on this, but cannot find it now. It covered a South Dakota highway department person stating they were going to have to do just that.
Do you recon the people planning to drive 20 or 30 miles to work on secondary roads from their "country homes" are going to like driving on gravel that is minimumally maintained - ie meaning lots of washboarding <BG>.
You might find the following URL interesting:
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=102620
Partial quote:
Potholes might not get filled and worn-out roads might not get paved as quickly as planned this summer. This is all because the cost of asphalt is out of sight. Asphalt, or blacktop, as we call it in the South, is largely made of petroleum products.
Take a look at this graph, from the California Department of Transportation, which clearly shows the rising cost of a ton of asphalt from July of 1990 to March 2006. Here is a link to the same paving asphalt price index in table form. Search here for other state-specific information.
This also brings up a question for the light rail/street car people. At what point can/will cities no longer be able to afford to accept new paved roads in new suburban subdivisions due to the unaffordable costs to maintain them? Might they then require gravel roads, but add the requirement for the developer to include streetcar tracks in the (primary) gravel roads?
Additionally, what is the current status of the use of ties in light rail/ streetcars? Are they still using wood ties treated with petroleum preservatives? Recycled plastic ties? Concrete ties? (I know the freight railroads in the west particularly are switching to concrete ties)
Concrete ties and poured concrete are the two most common nationwide. Concrete ties may last a century with "light duty". New wooden ties are an oddity today (too expensive, not as long a life).
New suburban development post-peak ??? IMHO, not an issue.
They are mostly used in low or medium budget spur lines and old less used raillines. This is almost a trap for the old lines since gravel + wooden ties + segmented track is more expensive to maintain then mackadam + concrete ties + fully welded track. The trend is that all lines carrying passanger traffic or heavy cargo get fully welded lines and the rest seems to slowly be abandoned. About 80% is fully welded but we dont have as heavy axle loads as in the US, we envy your rail technology. One iron ore line use 30 000 kg/axle, most new track or renovations are built for 25 000 kg/axle and all bridges etc for 30 000 kg/axle.
The nice thing with a high axle load is that more of the total weight of the train can be cargo and with a large load profile (loading gauge?) you can fit the same load on fewer carriages lowering the capital cost and getting higher capacity per m of switchyard track etc.
Plastic ties seems like a promising idea, especially if they can use low quality recycled plastic and perhaps even recycled fiberglass from for instance chredded windmill blades or boats?
They work perfectly with wooden ties (both are resilient and not stiff like concrete ties) and a plastic tie can be sklipped in between wooden ties for repairs. They last longer and are cheaper than wooden ties.
Progress and wider roads have brought us noise, pollution, and thousands of people who simply drive by our town with no notion of where they are or where they are going but mostly concerned with how fast they can go.
Gravel roads would do wonders for slowing down the traffic.
My impression is that the lifelenght of a road depends on the roadbed quality and the axle weight of the heaviest traffic. Low quality paving seems to be almost a waste of effort since doubling the material used more then doubles the life lenght.
RR
The best you can do is embed some basic premise in your question and hope they will allow you to pose that sound bite.
Example: "Mr./Miss Politician, what good will it do us to drill in ANWR and off our scenic coasts if domestic decline rates will exceed domestic discovery rates no matter what, as M. King Hubbert correctly predicted?"
Regardless of how the politician responds, if the question gets asked (and I doubt it will be, because "they" filter their questions just like the Republishcans filter theirs), you will have at least gotten the embedded message out that decline rates exceed discovery rates. Maybe someone out there will say to themselves, is that true? I'm going to do some research.
In the ownership society, "we" is the corporation that maximizes return to its shareholders. $RO$I=max. There is no other equation.
I wish we could let go of all this nonsense.
What? And lay bare the reality they "we" are "them"? Then who would we be able to blame for everything?
But before we start, note: I was just wondering out loud who the "we" is in this original text:
My suspicion is that "we" is Big Oil; and "best use" is a code word for maximized profits. You all must be shocked, shocked that I could have such impure thoughts. "We", but of course, must mean the entirety of humanity and "best use" means helping the poor and feeding the children, yes, indeed. I apologize for having had delusional thoughts and for not recognizing reality for what it is.
Yes, your good intentions were apparent.
I was cynically pointing out that "we" has different meanings to different people.
There is a certain "we" who go to war and make the "ultimate sacrifices" when "their" country calls on them.
There is a certain other "we" who get the no-bid contracts as windfalls of war.
There is a certain "we" who suffer the pain at the pump because our wages are frozen thanks to the helping invisible hand and the threat of a globalized labor pool.
There is a certain "we" who enjoy record profits as the "numbers" for "their" companies leap from one stratum to a next higher one and as they promise trickle down rewards to those who lick their boots.
Yes, "we" will make the "best use" of ANWR once "we" get their hands on this supposedly reserved wildlife refuge that was supposedly reserved for America's posterity. And after that refuged oil is depleted, then what? Then what will the "we" on this side of the table do in order to keep going?
"Thanks again for singing up."
I hope they don't ask me to sing. The last time I did that in public, well, it wasn't pretty.
RR
"WASHINGTON20 - Non-OPEC crude oil producers like Russia and Canada will fill about two-thirds of the world's oil demand growth through 2030, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday.
Oil producers will pump about 38 million barrels per day (bpd) more in 2030 than they did in 2003 to meet growing demand, the EIA said in its yearly international energy outlook.
Advertisement
Global oil consumption will rise to 118 million bpd in 2030 from 80.1 million bpd in 2003, the EIA said.
Some 38 percent of the increase will come from OPEC cartel members including Saudi Arabia, and the rest will come from non-OPEC members, the EIA said."
more follows....
source, Reuters: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060620-0600-energy-eia-opec.html
Question: Ummmm, I thought non-OPEC oil has peaked already, am I wrong about this? and as for Saudi Arabia... It will be interesting to see how the Iranian situation pans out. Ditto Iraq. Saudi Arabia could also experience tumult, and as Mr. Kunstler likes to say just become "Arabia" again.
Please analyze and dissect, I'm interested in everyone's opinion!
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/26/121441/891
there's a whole bunch of questions in there that I can guarantee will at least be interesting.
But yes, folks should read back through that to come up with some relevant questions. We should really ask them specifics. My fear is that this is just going to be another pandering political event where we bash the oil companies and the Republicans, and don't really address long-term solutions to the problem.
RR
http://www.coolcities.com/whatscool/background/
but there are others as well.
If you like Jenny G, then please, please donate some of your time or money to her campaign for reelection. She's under a lot of pressure from a very rich Republican who is putting out TV ad after TV ad. His tactics seem to be working :-(
Likewise, perhaps The Oil Drum could host a Q & A and provide a form where politicians could post their questions. We could screen them in advance. Of course, this idea is based more on a premise like Science Friday or Talk of the Nation on NPR where we are the experts and the politicians can ask us to comment...
Just a thought.
Governor Kulongoski moving state government to 100-percent new renewable energy
Governor accelerates timeline to reach 100-percent renewable electricity by 2010 in state government
Salem--Governor Ted Kulongoski told the State Sustainability Board today that he has raised the bar in pursuit of using new renewable energy in Oregon, and that he has set a higher goal for electricity use by state government--by 2010, just four years from now, the Governor wants new renewable electricity to account for 100 percent of state government's electrical needs.
-- Not bad.
I'll be in on the call, as a lifetime Oregonian. I'm eager to hear Ted's take on this stuff. He's up for a challenging re-election, too. I'm no big fan of his (he beats the R running against him by a long-shot, though), but moves like the above press release are definitely encouraging.
Order the Guard home to lay rail.
I just ran a shoestring campaign for Governor in the Dem primary here in Maine on a "peak oil/local economy/powerdown" theme. http://www.mainecommonwealth.com
There are lots of things Governors can do. More than any other office holder. The problem is global, but the solutions are local. The Governor, however, must be there to back up the local solutions because CAFTA/GATS/Commerce Clause and so forth all come into play.
Federal energy policy is to send in the military. The states - like Maine - that say the free market will solve the problem share that energy policy - war. But we have to get ahead of the market - even war-profiteer SAIC says this in Hirsch report. Ordering the Guard home to lay rail [while we can still get it] redirects state energy policy into a cooperative mode rather than a conflict mode.
Used to be most towns in Maine were connected by interurban light rail system. We have to figure out how to do that again and we cannot wait for the market to do it for us. It is an emergency, and like the trade issues I mentioned above, bringing back the Guard for such a purpose is uniquely the job of a Governor.
That platform got me 25% of the vote in the June 13 primary against an incumbent Democrat. That struck me as a very positive result - that so many people were so receptive.
We are in an energy emergency and a Constitutional crisis because of the way the Feds are responding; the Governors need to act boldly. It's their ball.
Sounds like a good plan, with the Guard. I just got a form response from Rep Tom Allen about his ANWR opposition, and replied, thanking him, but raising the bar with my views on the greater energy problems emerging, and I suggested that, as well as looking into electrified rail and other infrastr. investments, that we redirect the LIHEAP funds in part back into the dwindling 'insulation and efficiency' initiatives. I understand that funds were moved over into more 'oil payment supports' last year, at the expense of the very work that would get poor Mainers some actual reduction in the amount of fuel they needed.
Thanks for putting your hat in the ring!
Bob in Portland
I believe that the cities and states with excellent mass transit, enjoyed by all classes of people, will win. People will want to live in those states and cities as the price of gas goes up and up.
What can we do on a city or state basis to encourage the building of excellent mass transit?
Rick
Granholm when first. The gist of her comments:
Fuel prices too high
Oil companies making too much money; she wants legislation to cap profits
Claimed that oil companies are not investing in alternative energy technologies
Piled on oil companies again; really vilified them.
Really pushed ethanol; says Michigan needs a huge number of ethanol plants.
Thinks we need more E85 pumps.
Once again, said oil companies are not eager to cap profits.
At this point, I was thinking we really need a new political party. But they then went to Kulongoski. He really talked up the conservation angle, and he came across as less political, less prone to posturing, and discussed what Oregon is working on. He has established targets for government agencies, and in 4 years wants all government agencies to run off of 100% renewable electricity. He said he drives an E85 vehicle. Said the state is making large investments into alternative electricity - wave, geothermal, wind, solar. Also noted that Oregon has no coal or oil deposits.
Now, on to the Q&A.
Question 1 from Pittsburgh: "Why have oil company profits gone up as gasoline has gone up?" Of course Granholm took this one, as it was another opportunity to score political points by attacking oil companies. Her answer: Because they aren't regulated, and they can get away with it. Says we need to regulate oil companies like public utilities.
Question 2: I already had a favorable impression of Governor Kulongoski, but he chose to answer question 2 from "Robert in Billings". That's me. :) My question was prefaced by a comment that all of the proposed solutions are doomed if we don't get serious about conservation. They omitted my swipe at ethanol (I had said "ethanol is not the answer") but surprisingly they did include my comment "who among you has the courage to tackle this politically sensitive issue (conservation)?" Kulongoski: "Robert is absolutely correct", and he sounded like he meant it. He went on to describe some of Oregon's conservation measures - such as increasing standards for appliances. He said state governments must lead by example, and concluded with "Again, Robert is correct. We must look at ourselves in the mirror and decide that we must change our behavior". Kulongoski scored big points with me.
Question 3, from Michigan: Do you support PHEVs, solar, wind, etc? Granholm: Absolutely! Talked about giving personal property tax breaks to alternative energy providers, and said she was sitting in her hybrid as she was answering the question.
Question 4, from Oregon: How do you get the private sector to buy into alternatives? Kulongoski: Explained how Oregon moved to sustainable forestry practices, and said they must do the same for energy. He also mentioned the importance of combating global warming.
That's my very quick assessment. Much more impressed with Kulongoski than with Granholm, even before he answered my question. :)
RR
Excellent. The Oregon Gov's rational leadership is further proof that come postPeak crunchtime he will help spearhead the drive for biosolar secession and the creation of the state of Jefferson. Mike Ruppert of FTW was smart to relocate there in Ashland. Oregonians have no other choice as they have no native oil or coal.
http://www.jeffersonstate.com/
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
As an Oregonian this is actually proves what a sad state of affairs we are in. If our State is one of the top states pushing renewables, (excluding ethanol which is a questionable renewable) our country is in deep doo doo.
The only positive is that state governments, in their internal operations, are setting a good example.
I cleaned this up a bit, slightly tempered my criticism of Gov. Granholm, and formatted it some. Here again were my impressions of the call today.
--------------------------------------
Today (6-22-06) the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) hosted a conference call on energy policy. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski hosted the call, and listeners were able to submit questions beforehand. They answered 4 questions, including the one that I submitted. :)
Overall, it was a mixed bag. Gov. Granholm came across like a politician, offering solutions, but also out to score political points. Gov. Kulongoski sounded sincere, really focused on conservation, and did not attempt to score political points. It felt almost like a "good cop, bad cop" routine from my perspective.
I took notes, but hopefully they will make the transcript or a recording available. Gov. Granholm went first. Her "left hook" was "oil companies are bad". Her "right cross" was "ethanol is good". She went for the left hook most of the time. Here was the gist of her comments:
Fuel prices are too high, and oil companies are making too much money. She wants legislation to cap profits. She claimed that oil companies are not investing in alternative energy technologies (this is not true, but maybe they aren't investing in the ones she wants them to invest in). She made a passing remark at conservation, but didn't sound too passionate about it. She piled on oil companies again and really vilified them. (My concern before-hand was that this would be the tenor of the call). She really pushed ethanol, and she said Michigan needs a huge number of ethanol plants. She thinks we need more E85 pumps, and complained that the oil companies have not been eager to embrace them. Near the end of her opening statement, she reiterated that oil companies are not eager to cap profits. (What sector is eager to cap profits?)
At this point, I was thinking that America really needs a new political party. But they then went to Gov. Kulongoski. He really focused on the conservation angle, and he came across as less political, and more focused on finding solutions than in scoring points. He discussed what Oregon is working on. He has established targets for government agencies, and in 4 years wants all government agencies to run off of 100% renewable electricity. He said the state is making large investments into alternative electricity - wave, geothermal, wind, solar. He also noted that Oregon has no coal or oil deposits, which is one driver in their push for sustainability. He did mention biofuels, and also seemed to think ethanol will play a big part. He said he drives an E85 vehicle.
They then went to the Q&A. We were allowed to submit questions prior to the call, and they selected four questions to answer. I don't like this format, because it lends itself to easy political posturing. Question 1 reaffirmed my fears.
Question 1 from Pittsburgh: "Why have oil company profits gone up as gasoline has gone up?" Of course Gov. Granholm took this one, as it was another opportunity to score political points by attacking oil companies. Her answer: Because they aren't regulated, and they can get away with it. Says we need to regulate oil companies like public utilities. She said that profits are too high, and that we need to restrict profit margins. (I hope she understands the difference between a profit, and a profit margin).
Question 2: I already had a favorable impression of Governor Kulongoski, but he chose to answer question 2 from "Robert in Billings". That's me. :) They omitted part of my question, so here is the complete question I submitted:
And here is what they read and answered:
Gov. Kulongoski: "Robert is absolutely correct", and he sounded like he meant it. He went on to describe some of Oregon's conservation measures - such as increasing standards for appliances. He said state governments must lead by example, and concluded with "Again, Robert is correct. We must look at ourselves in the mirror and decide that we must change our behavior." Gov. Kulongoski scored big points with me.
Question 3, from Michigan: Do you support PHEVs, solar, wind, etc? Gov. Granholm: Absolutely! She talked about giving personal property tax breaks to alternative energy providers, and said she was sitting in her hybrid as she was answering the question.
Question 4, from Oregon: How do you get the private sector to buy into alternatives? Gov. Kulongoski: He explained how Oregon moved to sustainable forestry practices, and said they must do the same for energy. He also mentioned the importance of combating global warming. Again, I thought he sounded passionate and sincere.
That's my very quick assessment. If you listened in and heard something different, or think I missed any important points, let me know. I was much more impressed with Gov. Kulongoski than with Gov. Granholm, even before he answered my question. :) I guess the one thing that struck me as ironic is that Gov. Granholm's "cheap fuel for everyone" routine is at complete odds with Gov. Kulongoski "we must conserve" routine.
RR
A $1 million/MW = 1,000 MW. At 30% load factor = 300 MW average (and both states have plenty of hydro to balance out wind). A nice step.
http://democraticgovernors.org/news/1097/democratic-governors-discuss-americas-energy-future
I will listen to it again and see what I might have missed. I already remember from the article Granholm's "25 by 25 Blueprint". I didn't mention that, but I was trying to eat lunch and write at the same time. :)
RR
Ted Kulongoski from Oregon, I was much more interested in hearing what he would say. Earlier this year I attended a talk here in Maine by a visiting planner from Oregon Energy Office - one who had been involved in modelling Limits to Growth. I learned that Oregon was going out of its way to keep a small steel mill going for post peak oil. He spoke of bicycle factories, PV factories and appliance efficiency - he was in Maine to look at a very high efficiency heat pump. So I was interested in hearing about Oregon.
Maybe I heard it wrong, but Kulongoski sounded pleased that Oregon had no oil or coal. His focus on conservation is right on. The Energy Office guy kept talking about LESS, LESS, LESS. An E85 car, that's a lot better than the 2% biodiesel mix they are using here in the Governor's mansion to show how forward thinking Maine is.
Appliance efficiency - yes - a very much overlooked low hanging fruit. But it can't be just tax credits - needs to extend into the landlord and tenant world. What about a plan that merges conservation and efficiency into the utility "standard offer" as opposed to tax credits.
Kulongoski is hip to building a nearby PV factory though he didn't get into it further.
Robert's question - Kulongoski understands that the effort will come from the states, NOT the feds. Yes.
They didn't ask my question, about how the states will move ahead of the market [eg as Hirsch report recommend]. And no one mentioned public transportation.