Green Energy -Oregon's Electricity Prices to Increase 23.9 Percent

March 25, 2011, see http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20472&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

Economic Effect of Oregon's Renewable Portfolio Standard
"In 2007, Oregon passed Senate Bill 838 (SB 838) which established a state renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The RPS mandates large utilities (those providing 3 percent or more of the state's electricity load) to supply a minimum percentage of electricity sold to retail customers derived from new renewable resources. Specifically, SB 838 requires that Oregon's public electric utilities increase the percentage of electricity generated from new renewable energy sources, say researchers at the Cascade Policy Institute and the Beacon Hill Institute.

Since renewable energy generally costs more than conventional energy, many have voiced concerns about higher electricity rates. Moreover, since Oregon has a limited ability to generate new renewable energy, the state will start from a low power generation base. In addition, some renewable energy sources (wind and solar power in particular) require the installation of conventional backup generation capacity for cloudy, windless days. The need for this backup further boosts the cost of renewable energy.

In the aggregate, the state's electricity consumers will pay $992 million in 2025.
Oregon's electricity prices will increase by an average of 1.73 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), or 23.9 percent, in 2025.
By 2025 the Oregon economy will lose an average of 17,530 jobs, within a range of between 10,025 jobs under the low-cost scenario and 24,630 jobs under the high-cost scenario.
In 2025, the RPS mandate will reduce annual wages by an average of $275 per worker, within a range of between $157 per worker $385 per worker."

Source: David G. Tuerck, Michael Head, and Paul Bachman, "Economic Impact of Oregon's Renewable Portfolio Standard," Cascade Policy Institute/Beacon Hill Institute, March 2011.

Senate Never Approved Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention

See Wall Street Journal Op/Ed article by Douglas J. Feith at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703858404576214412589911054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

"This month, President Barack Obama declared he has a "legal obligation" to treat wartime detainees according to provisions of a treaty that the United States has never ratified. The maneuver raises a basic question: Who makes law for Americans?

The treaty Mr. Obama cited is Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions on the laws of war. Drafted in the mid-1970s, the Carter administration signed Protocol 1, but President Ronald Reagan, after years of interagency review, concluded that it is "fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed," because it contains provisions that would "undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war."

Reagan noted that one of its provisions would undo the traditional distinction between international and non-international conflicts. Another would grant prisoner-of-war status and other privileges to irregular forces—even if they fight in civilian garb and violate the laws of war by using terrorism."

Japan Proves Nuclear Power is Safe

See Wall Street Journal Notable and Quotable, Wednesday March 23, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216473287331538.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

"Writer George Monbiot in the Mail and Guardian online, March 22:

"You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear- neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation."

Miami Mayor Recalled - Raised Property Taxes 14%

See http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-usa-florida-election-result-idUSTRE72F0EC20110316
Reuters March 15, 2011 article by Kevin Gray

Angry voters oust Miami-Dade mayor in special vote
■ "Voters in Miami-Dade, one of the most populous U.S. counties, removed Mayor Carlos Alvarez from office in a special vote on Tuesday triggered by popular anger over a hike in property taxes."
■ "Official results showed 88 percent of voters backed the effort to oust the once-popular mayor, who is his second four-year term."
■ "The Cuban-born Alvarez came under criticism last year when Miami-Dade, saddled with record high 12 percent unemployment and the same budget deficits faced by many local and state governments, introduced a property tax increase to help fund vital services including police and public schools."
■ "The 14 percent tax hike was imposed despite double-digit declines in real estate values as south Florida was hammered by the U.S. housing and mortgage foreclosure crisis."
■ "Alvarez, 58, was also criticized for raising salaries for some county employees as well as backing a deal to use nearly $350 million in public funds to build a new stadium to house the Florida Marlins baseball team in Miami's Little Havana district."

Obama Spent $740.6 Million to Win Presidency Outspent McCain 4-to-1 Last 9 Weeks

See Bloomberg at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=anLDS9WWPQW8
Spending Doubled as Obama Led Billion-Dollar Campaign
By Jonathan D. Salant - December 27, 2008

■ "In capturing the presidency, Obama, 47, became the first major-party nominee to reject federal funding for the general election. He spent $740.6 million, eclipsing the combined $646.7 million that Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry spent four years earlier."
■ "McCain spent $227.7 million; among Republicans, that was second only to Bush’s $269.4 million in 2004."
■ "Arizona Senator McCain, unlike Obama, accepted $84.1 million in public financing for the general election, a decision that barred him from raising money privately. Obama outspent him by a 4-to-1 margin from Sept. 1 through Nov. 24, FEC records show."
■ "The League of Women Voters, Democracy 21 and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group are among the organizations urging congressional overhaul of campaign financing. 'The way Washington works is not going to change until we fundamentally change the nation’s campaign finance laws,' they said."

North Dakota Economy Booming 3.8% Unemployment - California 12.4%

See Wall Street Journal MARCH 15, 2011 Why North Dakota Is Booming By JOEL KOTKIN
■ "They're drilling for oil, attracting high tech, and keeping the tax burden moderate. Result: 3.8% unemployment"
■ "progressives in California—which sits on its own prodigious oil supplies—abhor drilling, promising green jobs while suffering double-digit unemployment, higher utility rates and the prospect of mind-numbing new regulations that are designed to combat global warming and are all but certain to depress future growth."
■ "Between 2002 and 2009, state employment in science, technology, engineering and math-related professions grew over 30%, according to EMSI, an economic modeling firm. This is five times the national average."
■ "North Dakota now outperforms the nation in everything from the percentage of college graduates under the age of 45 to per-capita numbers of engineering and science graduates. Median household income in 2009 was $49,450, up from $42,235 in 2000. That 17% increase over the last decade was three times the rate of Massachussetts and more than 10 times that of California."
■ "North Dakota is a right-to-work state, which makes it attractive to new employers, especially in manufacturing"

400,000 Birds Killed Every Year in America by Wind Turbines

400,000 Birds Killed Every Year in America by Wind Turbines
See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704296604576197023673837168.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
NOTABLE & QUOTABLE Wall Street Journal MARCH 15, 2011
Raffi Khatchadourian on the BP oil spill in the New Yorker, March 14:

"It is possible to fight a forest fire and not be distracted by how the calamity was caused, and whether the cause taints the integrity of the people who deal with it. But oil spills are saturated in blame and political confusion—and opportunity. There is a sense that they are not accidents but accidents waiting to happen, and thus acts of greed. As a result, oil-soaked birds and fish come to symbolize a reviled industry's heedless behavior. Every year, as many as four hundred thousand birds are killed in America by electricity-generating wind turbines, but they do not make the cover of Time."

Why North Dakota Is Booming? 3.8% Unemployment

See Wall Street Journal Op/Ed piece by Joel Kotkin
MARCH 15, 2011 Why North Dakota Is Booming
They're drilling for oil, attracting high tech, and keeping the tax burden moderate. Result: 3.8% unemployment..

■ "progressives in California—which sits on its own prodigious oil supplies—abhor drilling, promising green jobs while suffering double-digit unemployment, higher utility rates and the prospect of mind-numbing new regulations that are designed to combat global warming and are all but certain to depress future growth."
■ " Between 2002 and 2009, [North Dakota] state employment in science, technology, engineering and math-related professions grew over 30%, according to EMSI, an economic modeling firm. This is five times the national average.
■ " North Dakota now outperforms the nation in everything from the percentage of college graduates under the age of 45 to per-capita numbers of engineering and science graduates. Median household income in 2009 was $49,450, up from $42,235 in 2000. That 17% increase over the last decade was three times the rate of Massachusetts and more than 10 times that of California."
■ " North Dakota is a right-to-work state, which makes it attractive to new employers, especially in manufacturing"

Los Angeles Community College District's Green Energy Program

Surprise. This was a front page story, page 1 of the Los Angeles Times March 6, 2011 regarding the Los Angeles Community College District's green energy program?

See "Grand dream loses sheen in glare of daylight" at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-build6-20110306,0,4909175.story.

I could goal: "Not only would the nine colleges sever ties to the grid, saving millions of dollars a year, they would make money by selling surplus power. Thanks to state and federal subsidies, construction of the green energy projects would cost nothing upfront."

There was a giveaway that they were spending somebody else's money: "cost estimates for taking the nine campuses off the grid ranged as high as $975 million — this for a college system that in 2010 spent less than $8 million on power bills."

The article doesn't connect the dots with our national policy, but I think you can replace "Larry Eisenberg" with the name "Barack Obama" and that's basically what the President is doing to the United States.