Special Report: The Public Policy Debate on Alternative Energy Solutions
Beginning today, TechFutures will bring you special reports from Gary Smith of the Greater Cleveland Partnership on how the Executive and legislative branches of our state’s government are addressing alternative energy opportunities in Ohio. Over the course of the next ten weeks, we expect to receive regular updates from Gary, and will post them here as Special Reports. Today’s comes in two parts: first, Gary’s opening coverage of the hearings, followed by a summary report of some of the initial testimony.
Here is Gary’s first report:
As a lobbyist for the Greater Cleveland Partnership (GCP), part of my job is to follow the inter-workings of our state government here in Ohio and to advocate on certain issues as they come before the General Assembly. The Greater Cleveland Partnership is interested in the process of developing our public policy agenda (which includes alternative energy issues) and you may review our positions, starting March 20, 2007 at our main web site.
Admittedly, watching the legislative process is sometimes as thrilling as watching paint dry; however, every once in a while, the wave of public policy washes ashore a topic that is bigger than the process itself—and thus commands a thorough examination. With the commencement of the 127th General Assembly and the start of a new era in Ohio politics with the election of Democrat Governor Ted Strickland, change is most definitely in the wind—literally!
There has been a paradigm shift at the state level. Government officials seem now to recognize that it is time to take a serious look at alternative energy solutions. For the legislature’s part, Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Jon Husted (R-Kettering) created a new standing committee for just this purpose: The House Alternative Energy Committee, chaired by Representative Jim McGregor (R-Columbus). Northeast Ohio representation on the committee includes Representative Josh Mandel (R-Lyndhurst) and Lorraine Fende (D-Willowick). You can find a complete list of the committee members here.
During the first hearing of this new standing committee, Chairman McGregor explained that the intent of this “study committee” was to hear (over the next ten weeks) from experts on the issue, learn of their differing opinions, and work with interested parties, the Ohio Senate, and Governor Strickland on these emerging alternative energy issues. Unfortunately, since the committee’s original meeting on March 7th, they have yet to reconvene. My calls seeking an explanation have been, as of yet, unreturned. I look forward to reporting to you, on these pages, the work these bodies do with respect to the alternative energy debate.
If you or your organization would like to present your thoughts on the matter, you can contact the Chairman McGregor’s office at (614)644-6002.
The first hearing of the committee entertained two presentations. The first presentation was by Mr. Kerry Stroup, the manager of state relations for PJM Interconnection—an independent operator of transmission facilities owned by AEP and Dayton Power and Light. He went on to discuss PJM’s primary mission—maintaining the reliability of the bulk power system. An in-depth treatment of Mr. Stroup’s testimony will follow this post as a second entry.
Governor Strickland appears to be doing his part as well with respect to offering public policy initiatives that seek to address alternative energy solutions. Last week, Strickland released some of the details of his Executive budget proposal which includes, among other provisions, the creation of an Energy Strategy Development Fund and increasing the Advanced Energy program by $5 million. Additionally, in his introductory letter, Strickland proclaims that “to build a strong energy industry in our state, the Executive Budget calls for the coordination of almost $1 billion in energy related programs to use energy as an economic development driver in Ohio.” You can view the complete budget summary here on the GCP website.
More details on the biennial budget will be revealed this coming Tuesday when the bill is introduced in the Ohio House. The House Finance and Appropriations committee, chaired by State Representative Matthew Dolan (R-Novelty), will begin its deliberations soon thereafter.
With Chris’s help, I will continue reporting on alternative energy issues as things progress in Columbus. I hope you found this update informative, and I look forward to your feedback and ideas.
Thank you.
Gary Smith
March 19th, 2007 at 6:06 am
I propose several possible solutions to our sprawling congestion woes and unbelievable budget allocated to roadway development. It is tiered on improving the efficiency of the highway system. It is fairly simple and has already had relative success in limited niches in the market. I propose expanding these niches to the rest of Ohio to set the stage for energy and economic reform to include credits as a means of growth and thus enabling several Ohio cities posed with EPA regulations to meet the demand by 2009.
Below is an excerpt from the letter that I wrote to Larry Flowers, my Ohio Senate Represenative from District 19. His reply suggested that I air my ideas toward the newly formed committee on alternative forms of energy.
“RE:Automotive Fuel Economic Standards
Dear Mr. Flowers and Staff:
Please reconsider your stance on automotive standards for cars sold in the US.
I propose several topics, which I’m sure you’ve heard already.
1. Standardize regenerative braking on all new models and offer credits for retrofitting vehicles
2. Standardize electronic governors that are tuned at 55 mph, the optimal wind resistance speed, and offer credits for retrofitting cars.
3. Offer credits for alternative forms of transportation, since transportation is using 67% of the US oil demand, while this will undoubtedly reduce peak demand it will economically reduce new cars sold, and this is my point.”
By reducing peak demand for oil you also reduce peak air emissions from cars. The gasoline taxes will take a hit, but the freeways will be able to accomodate more cars more efficiently. In addition, high speed fatalities will be reduced and so will accidents in general due to the reduction of the speed differential between the max speed and the minimum speed. Therefore, congestion decreases even more. The only major public argument is that driving whatever speed you want to is an American right, but ask those same individuals whether or not they have control over the speed of a flight, or the speed of a train or bus, and, you know, if there was no energy crisis (diminishing returns on worldwide oil production), smog problems in Ohio, hour long patrol/police investigations causing rush-hour congestion due to law suits and insurance companies gathering evidence from Ohio highways on fatality accidents, general congestion in Ohio, or investigations of price gouging by oil companies (an enormously vain waste of taxpayer dollars) or a serious consideration of a carbon tax, and a posted upper speed limit of 65 MPH despite the average speed of 74 (the self-imposed limit for most drivers) or any of the thousands of other problems caused by not regulating cars for optimal performance, then I would definitely not be swayed by some naysayers argument. Instead I hold fast and true, because I believe this is the proper way to move forward in Ohio and the U.S. Furthermore, this proposal is benefiting taxpayers on a grand scale in an indirect way. It forces limits on dwelling distances from work! Over the world’s history, the mean travel time has not changed at all (approximately 22 min.). Given enough time this will impose a limit on developer’s interest in Ohio’s real assets, our farmland, because people will not be willing to increase their commute to intolerable lengths. In addition, this may likely spurn new ideas for new and acceptable modes of transportation. Believe it or not, Ohio used to be home to the country’s most advanced transportation system (inter-urban electrified railways) and we had over 1,000 miles more track than any other state. Strangely, this perfectly good and efficient means of transportation was literally bought out and dissolved one company at a time between 1928 and 1930 by none other than the automobile and oil industry. Yes, it was an excellent alternative to the car, and yes, to have a monopoly you must reduce competition, so goes the story. However, exurban growth is continuing to drain Ohio’s budgets to keep up with infrastructure costs. Essentially, developer’s are getting a huge subsidy to develop farmlands, since we put in new roads to accomodate the growth, water, sewer, electric, etc., for a quick buck on cheap land. THIS GROWTH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.
“The time to act is not in 2012 or 2020, but today, this year, right now. Please hear the voice of the people and allow us to have our children enjoy the prosperity of the energy revolution.
Thanks for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
United States Citizen, Engineer and Father-To-Be.”