Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
Democrats are pushing for a vote on federal climate change legislation, perhaps as early as Friday, despite continued misgivings from farm-state Democrats like U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell of Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District.
U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (photo: boswell.house.gov)
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House released a revamped, 1,201-page version of H.R. 2454, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi filed the legislation with the Rules Committee on Monday night, clearing the way for a vote by week’s end.
Boswell, along with the 28 other Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee, has vowed to oppose the bill unless changes are made.
“The goal is reducing emissions,” Boswell spokesman Mark Daley said. “Under the way it is written now, it will hurt Iowa utilities and ultimately Iowa families.”
The legislation seeks to reduce emissions by imposing a national limit, or cap, on greenhouse gases. It would then allow polluters to buy and sell their emissions credits. If a polluter emitted less than its allotment, it could sell the excess.
Daley said the current bill gives half of the credits to utilities based on sales rather than their carbon emissions, which would favor large utilities on the coasts that rely more on nuclear energy or hydropower over Midwestern utilities that are more dependent on coal.
“The congressman wants to switch the formula so that it is based on emissions and not upon sales,” Daley said. “Ultimately, what will happen now is, under the bill the way it is drafted, coastal utilities will have a windfall profits and the people paying for it will be Midwestern and rural families through rate increases.”
Supporters of the legislation counter that the point is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in order to prevent global warming. Utilities would simply be paying the price for relying on coal, and once they reduce emissions, they can reduce their costs.
“If it looks like people on the coast are benefiting, it is because the energy mix is very different on than in many parts of the country,” said Sarah Saylor, senior legislative representative with environmental law center Earth Justice.
Poor and moderate-income people would be protected from rate increases with money raised by sale of emission credits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation would cost an average of about $175 per household every year. However, cost would be borne more heavily by wealthy Americans. Low-income families will actually see a benefit of $40 a year, largely because some portion of the revenue will be used to fund a rebate and tax credit for low-income families.
A study conducted by the Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that the average cost per month for utilities in Iowa would increase by about $4. Iowa’s largest utility, MidAmerican Energy Co., predicts increases of up to 25 percent.
Overall, there are only a finite number of allocations available, and since those allocations are going to be reduced over time, the debate over allocation percentages is more a “game of musical chairs” that over time will work itself out if a bill is passed, Saylor said.
Daley said there are also concerns about costs to farmers.
“The things they have to purchase — feed, fertilizer, everything — is based upon energy. So the cost for them is going to be much greater,” he said. “Farmers will be forced to shoulder the cost of this bill without any assistance.”
Saylor countered that under the current bill, farmers will have the opportunity to reduce emissions and get credit for sequestering carbon.
“They could end up making money off of this program,” she said.
The revised bill does have one change aimed at winning over rural Democrats. The bill now gives the smaller power utilities — those that have under 4-million megawatts of capacity — a free 0.5 percent slice of the cap-and-trade program’s emission allowances.
Boswell is happy that the change has been included, Daley said, but staff is still combing through the 1,200-page bill to see what still needs to be done in order to win his support.
“We are hopeful we can get changes made and pass legislation that is fair to everyone,” Daley said.
Follow Jason Hancock on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter