Rogers Demands Answers from EPA Administrator

In case you missed it, Kentucky Fifth District Congressman Hal Rogers took EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to task for the wrong-headed and out-of-control actions of her agency in the Obama/EPA 'War on Coal'.

EPA's Clean Air ruling lashes coal-producing Kentucky

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency's declaration Monday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public's health could deeply impact Kentucky's multimillion-dollar coal economy.

The announcement, which comes as an historic climate change conference gets underway in Copenhagen, could set the groundwork for broader cap-and-trade policies in the United State — the kinds of policies the state's coal companies and most of the state's congressional delegation have long tried to block.

“What his arbitrary administrative edict would do is what Congress has refused to do statutorily — tell coal-burning utilities how much, or little, coal can be burned,” said Rep. Hal Rogers, a Republican. “It could prove devastating to Kentucky’s coal industry and cause havoc to our working men and women of eastern Kentucky.”

Meanwhile, Kentucky environmentalists lauded the EPA’s announcement as a first step toward addressing global warming and curbing pollution.

For the full story click here.

Climategate - Hide the Decline!

Cap & Trade on Life Support, Alternative Energy Bill More Likely

The NY Times describes Cap and Trade as being “in limbo.” The EPA and Senator Barbara Boxer, whose Senate committee will produce the ultimate Senate Bill, are not giving up on the legislation. Meanwhile, Senator Inhofe says put a fork in it:

“The delay is emblematic of the division and disarray in the Democratic party over cap-and-trade and health care legislation, both of which are big government schemes for which the public has expressed overwhelming opposition.."

Complicating the effort is a looming Copenhagen summit intended to be a platform for a new, international global warming treaty; think of it as Kyoto II. Environmentalists feel the administration’s hand will be weakened if there’s not a Cap and Trade bill by that summit.

Then there are ongoing discussions with China which could result in a bilateral agreement (presumably a treaty) on emissions. Senator Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington state, back from a recent visit to China, indicates that she feels a bilateral treaty was the most likely option.

To complicate things further, there’s the recent EPA decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant:

Also coming soon: U.S. EPA rules to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and power plants -- regulations that are more than a decade in the making and premised on the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.

"You can take a big bite out of the U.S. global warming pollution under the existing law," Doniger said, who added that it would not be too difficult to quantify the emission reductions from combining the new federal rules.

GreenTechMedia is even more pessimistic than the NY Times:

The hopes of passing a massive climate and energy bill through Congress this year appear to be dimming, as the bill takes a back seat to health care and financial reform.

Or perhaps the "climate" and the "energy" portions of the bill will be separated, since boosting clean energy and energy efficiency is a far less controversial prospect than the carbon cap-and-trade regulations that are now part of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

That's the word from Democrats in the Senate, including high-ranking Sen. Dick Durbin, Reuters reported Thursday. The Illinois Senator told Reuters that health care reform and financial regulation could supersede action on the climate and energy bill, which passed the House in June but faces an uphill battle in the Senate.

We’ve been saying for weeks that an Alternative Energy Bill is much more likely. The Billings (Montana) Gazette, one of the leading newspapers in the state for a couple of moderate Senate Dems, reccomends just such a bill.

Here’s their take:

To create a win-win for Montana, cap-and-trade portions of the bill should be replaced with incentives for entrepreneurial solutions. Specifically:

• Replace costly subsidies for politically favored technologies with preferential tax treatment for increased research and development spending on both proven and experimental energy sources. Entrepreneurs, not Washington politicians, are more likely to discover cost-effective solutions for cleaner energy.

• Improve patent protection for new energy technology discoveries to improve the cost/benefit of entrepreneurial risk-taking.

• Limit frivolous lawsuits that obstruct both proven and experimental domestic American energy development to lower energy costs.

We have a long tradition of sending representatives to Washington who stand up for hardworking Montanans. We're confident that Sens. Baucus and Tester will do the right thing for Montana's unique environment and economy.

Cross Posted @ Cyberhillbilly.com

Cap and Trade Debate Makes Boucher Vulnerable

Here's the Washington Independent:

Kilgore would be a great recruit. His brother won the 9th District by 12 points, his best showing in the entire state, during a lackluster run for governor in a bad Republican year. In 2008, John McCain carried the district over Barack Obama by 19 points. It’s the kind of seat that the GOP stopped targeting while playing defense in 2006 and 2008, but Boucher’s support for cap-and-trade legislation has it looking again.

And here's RedState.com's take on a Kilgore candidacy:

Virginia state Representative Terry Kilgore may run against subcommittee chair Rick Boucher - who was long thought invulnerable.

Boucher Set to Flip Against Cap and Trade?

This is fascinating given how much Boucher seems to be in the driver's seat with the Cap and Trade debate in the House. At a town hall meeting Boucher indicated he wasn't really for the measure:

U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher voted for cap-and-trade legislation but said
hedoesn’t endorse the House-passed version of the bill…

“I voted for it because I had to do that to be part of the process andto make the changes that have been made,” Boucher said of the bill that passedby a seven-vote margin in the House and is now being considered by the Senate…

What is driving his involvement, said Boucher, is the U.S. Supreme Courtdetermined two years ago that greenhouse gases are pollutants.

“As a consequence of that decision, the Environmental Protection Agency is,for all intents and purposes, effectively required to regulate greenhouse gases,…” Boucher said.

“The debate about whether or not we will have regulation is over. So the only
question is will EPA regulate or … will we have congressionalregulation that
does balance economic effect against environmental effect? Giventhat choice,
industry would rather have Congress do this. Industry needs andwants a bill to
pass.”

[...]

Boucher added the easy thing for him to do with the cap-and-trade billwould have been to just vote no.

“And I could have done that,” he said. “But that would have been acowardly thing to do, and it would not have served well the interests of thedistrict I represent
with its large coal industry and the fact that so much ofthe electricity we
consume is coal-generated. ... I would have been out of the debate.”

The Kingsport Times, in the headline for the story from which the above quote has been snipped, suggests Boucher will seek further legislative changes should the measure come back to the House, but I saw no indication of where Boucher said that in the body of the article.

Read More @: http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9016458

Cross Posted @ www.cyberhillbilly.com

Congressman Hal Rogers (R-KY) on Cap and Trade

"Hello. This is Congressman Hal Rogers.

"As we head into September I wanted to bring yourattention to an important issue that will be facing the Congress in theupcoming months. "Cap and Trade" is a bill that passed the House inJune without my support and is now up for debate in the U.S. Senate.Though the bill claims to protect our environment, in reality it isnothing more than a $646 billion "carbon tax" paid by every American,rich or poor and every business, small or large. Every time you turn onyour lights, the tax would begin.

"I don't need to remind you that gas prices are alreadyrising and utility rates are going up. With nearly 11% unemployment inKentucky, its no secret that our people are hurting.

"Yet despite the hard times America is in, PresidentObama and Speaker Pelosi are determined to pass this "Cap and Trade"bill that will charge consumers a fee just for turning on the lights,driving to work, or heating their home in the winter.

"Even worse, Kentucky will be hit the worst from thisboondoggle because 95% of our power comes from coal, and this bill takesdead aim at coal. If this "Cap and Trade" bill becomes law, we will gofrom the lowest electricity rates in the nation, to the highest - anestimated increase of hundreds of dollars a year when fully implemented.

"Kentuckians can't afford this national energy tax, nordo they want it; rather, the people of Kentucky want energyindependence. That means sound investments in alternative energytechnologies like clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear. It meanspassing an affordable energy plan that breaks our dependence on foreignoil and unlocks the vast energy resources sitting untapped on Americansoil and our coastlines."

"Let me know how you feel. Visit my website at halrogers.house.gov."

Forbes: Cap 'n Trade in Trouble, Alternative Energy Bill More Likely

From Forbes:

Senate passage of a cap-and-trade emissions reduction regime this autumn is less than a 50-50 proposition; it is much more likely that Congress will approve an energy bill that promotes a renewable energy standard for electricity production. If cap-and-trade fails this year, Obama may attempt to revisit a simpler carbon tax scheme in 2010 as economic recovery gathers pace.

Read More @:
www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/energy-reform-carbon-gas-business-oxford-climate-change.html

Cross Posted at www.Cyberhillbilly.com

Impact of the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Legislation on Kentucky

Kudos to The Heritage Foundation for very informative analysis about the direct impact of Waxman-Markey on Kentucky. As the national media continue to focus on healthcare reform, we should continue to focus our concerns on how this energy bill will impact each and every individual now and in the future.

Please take time to read this important analysis of the real impact on the Kentucky economy. You have read the full report by clicking here.

"Workers and families in Kentucky may be wondering how cap-and-trade legislation would affect their income, their jobs, and the cost of energy. Implementing Waxman-Markey would put a chokehold on Kentucky's economic potential, reducing gross state product by $5.94 billion in 2035."

The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

We can always rely on The Heritage Foundation to cut through the clutter to provide common sense solutions and analysis on matters of great importance. Please read the following analysis of the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax plan. This horrible piece of legislation will devastate every family, especially low and middle income families already hurt by the 2009 Great Recession.

"After a truncated debate and last-minute changes, the House of Representatives narrowly passed climate-change legislation on June 26, 2009, designed by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA). The 1,427-page bill would restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industry, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas."

For more information on this important legislation that will impact the lives of every single living American...and those yet to be born...click here.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: 10 Questions on Energy for Governor Steve Beshear

In a continuing series of one-on-one interviews with opinionmakers, Kentucky Energy Forum recently had the opportunity to pose "10 Questions on Energy" to Governor Steve Beshear. In this exclusive interview, Kentucky Energy Forum presents Governor Beshear's detailed response to our questions.

Kentucky Energy Forum: In 2007, Kentucky passed landmark legislation to provide energy incentives for businesses looking to locate in Kentucky. While there have been some amendments to this law, in what ways would you propose, during the 2010 legislative session, to refine/to improve the legislation and to attract new industry to Kentucky?

Governor Beshear: Currently, the Energy and Environment Cabinet is developing and coordinating its 2010 legislative package for my review and approval. Just as in 2009, the cabinet’s proposed legislation will help implement my comprehensive energy strategy, Intelligent Energy Choices for Kentucky’s Future. Working with our state legislators and the Cabinet for Economic Development, we will certainly address new and refined incentives for retaining and attracting industries to Kentucky while at the same time keeping oversight on our state budget and revenue needs. This approach worked well during the 2009 special session and I believe it provides a template for the 2010 regular session. Once I finalize my legislative package for the 2010 session I will share it with all Kentuckians.

KEF: Should the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill pass Congress and become law what impact do you think ‘cap-and-trade’ would have on the coal industry in Kentucky?

Governor: Per the 2007 – 2008 Kentucky Coal Facts, “Almost 92 percent of all coal consumed in the U. S. was in the electric power sector…” Essentially all coal- fired electric power generation will be subject to regulation in Waxman – Markey. In the short run, given that approximately 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is generated using coal, a plan to reduce greenhouse gases will impose costs upon utilities that rely on coal. The alternatives available in the near term to electricity generators to comply with the Waxman – Markey bill would be to: (a) reduce the use of electricity by demand response or similar programs; (b) switch to less carbon-intensive fuels (such as natural gas and biomass); or (c) buy credits to offset the carbon emitted by the generation. The cost of buying credits, which would be passed along to consumers in rates, would increase the cost of coal-fired electricity. All three near-term alternatives would decrease the demand for coal.

The long-term impacts upon the coal industry will depend upon the success of the research efforts into new carbon management technologies and the development of new ways to utilize coal such as coal-to-liquid transportation fuels and coal-to-synthetic natural gas.

KEF: Continuing the discussion on cap-and-trade, what is your plan to support the coal industry should cap-and trade legislation become law?

Governor: There are currently no controls available for the carbon dioxide emitted by power plants. However, the University of Kentucky’s Center for Applied Energy Research in partnership with the Energy and Environment Cabinet, and utilities in Kentucky have formed the Carbon Management Research Group to fund research and pilot projects to study the feasibility of retrofitting existing power plants to capture carbon and to study generation technologies that could more easily capture or reduce/eliminate the carbon emitted per kilowatt hour. In addition to the work on the carbon reduction and carbon capture, the Kentucky Geological Survey, the Energy and Environment Cabinet, and private industry have been actively researching the capacity for geologic storage (sequestration) of captured carbon in Kentucky.

Also, there are many low-carbon options available for powering electric generation (solar, wind, biomass, nuclear, hydro, etc.). As these sources are developed, and as demand for electricity is reduced by improved efficiency (both in consumer use and in generation/transmission), demand for coal for electric power generation will decline.

Supporting the coal industry at today’s coal production rate or higher will depend on developing the industries to produce higher value products such as liquid fuels and synthetic gas as proposed in Intelligent Energy Choices for Kentucky’s Future.

The success of all of these efforts will determine how the coal industry is impacted in the long run.

KEF: In seeking a diversified energy industry and positioning Kentucky to be a leader in a new green economy, what methods would you consider important to ensure Kentucky is a leader in this new green economy?

Governor: As laid out in Intelligent Energy Choices for Kentucky’s Future, I believe that Kentucky will have to succeed in several areas to remain a leader in the energy industry. We need to improve energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings, we need to develop our agricultural resources to augment coal in the generation of electricity and liquid fuels, we need to develop economic methods of capturing carbon dioxide so that our coal resources can be utilized to continue generating electricity and also to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for liquid fuels. We can also become a leader in manufacturing of new energy products such as solar panel and battery storage for automotive and utility use.

Our efforts in working with the University of Kentucky, the University of Louisville and Argonne National Laboratory to secure a Battery Manufacturing Research and Development Center reflect Kentucky’s effort to lead in this direction.

Kentucky Energy Forum: In your opinion, what are the most viable energy technologies currently available to deploy to benefit Kentucky?

Governor: The most viable energy technologies are energy efficiency (to reduce wasted electricity generation and unnecessary demand for natural gas and liquid transportation fuels); biomass for co-firing in coal-fired electric power plants; nuclear electricity generation; electric cars; and coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels. These technologies will support the Kentucky coal industry, and increase energy independence and national security by decreasing American demand for imported petroleum-based fuels.

KEF: To reduce costs for State Government, what measures are you taking to reduce energy use, increase energy efficiency, and to transition to alternative fuels?


Governor: To reduce energy usage and increase energy efficiency the state is moving forward on several fronts. These efforts complement strategy one (energy efficiency) in Intelligent Energy Choices for Kentucky’s Future.

As part of a process established under HB2 that passed in the General Assembly and I signed into law in 2008, all new state government buildings or major renovations must be built to LEED standards, with increasing levels of sustainability with increasing dollar amount invested. A core component of LEED certification is energy efficiency.

We are also utilizing Recovery Act funds for several projects: hiring staff to increase the amount of energy efficiency retrofits of existing state buildings through performance contracting; funding a Green Bank revolving loan fund that will support energy efficiency improvements to government buildings; installing energy management control software in 75 state buildings; and investing heavily to expand the existing Kentucky Energy Efficiency Program for Schools (KEEPS). KEEPS is designed to educate teachers and students on wise energy usage, provide an energy manager in nearly 80 school districts to help develop and implement energy management plans and expand technical support to schools. I have also directed that Recovery Act dollars be leveraged to fund solar power on one or two schools being designed as first-in-the-nation net-zero energy schools. These net–zero energy schools are designed to be so efficient they supply as much energy back into the power grid as they draw from the grid over the course of a year.

Additionally, I have set fuel-efficiency goals for state-owned vehicles in Intelligent Energy Choices for Kentucky’s Future to help improve the commonwealth’s energy independence from petroleum-based transportation fuels.

KEF: In what ways do you intend to target ‘energy stimulus funds’ for the greatest benefit to Kentucky?

Governor: Recovery Act funds are being heavily invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy. I am directing funds to be used to improve energy efficiency in state government buildings, schools, agricultural operations, homes, commercial buildings, industrial facilities, local governments and in the electrical grid itself. While not all Recovery Act applications from Kentucky have been approved to date, you can see a complete summary of projects that have been funded with a $52.5 million package under the State Energy Program on the Energy and Environment Cabinet Web site.

KEF: What is your view on the potential for synergy between the agriculture and energy industries to create co-generation opportunities?

Governor: The integration of agriculture and energy is essential for Kentucky to achieve success in a carbon-constrained economy. The Energy and Environment Cabinet is actively engaged with agricultural and academic interests on development of biomass resources in Kentucky. An announcement on the success of this synergy will be forthcoming.

KEF: What measures do you propose to aid Kentucky homeowners in becoming more energy efficient? Would tax credits and tax incentives play a role in that strategy?

Governor: I am proposing several initiatives to help make homes more energy efficient. I have directed the Public Protection Cabinet to review, for possible adoption, the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code, which US DOE estimates could reduce energy consumption nearly 12 percent, saving homeowners approximately $235 per year. Recovery Act funds will be used to support training for code enforcement officials, contractors and others in the construction industry on how to build better homes. Funding will also be provided for hiring HVAC inspectors.

I have worked with Secretary Miller and the Finance and Administration Cabinet to create a Clean Energy Corps that aims to provide weatherization services to 10,000 low- to moderate-income homes over the next three years. Recovery Act funding is providing $72 million to the Weatherization Assistance Program to improve low-income housing efficiency. To reach the middle- to upper-income households, a Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program will be funded in partnership with the Kentucky Housing Corporation and utilities across the state. This program assists homeowners in identifying energy savings opportunities, helps them locate a contractor to make the improvements and verifies that the improvements were properly installed. The average household can expect a 20 percent reduction in energy usage. Kentucky already has a variety of tax credits and incentives for residential energy efficiency. Additionally, rebates provided by selected utilities and federal tax credits can provide up to 30 percent off on eligible home energy efficiency improvement projects. The Energy and Environment Cabinet is also applying for Recovery Act funds to establish a State Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program that will provide Kentuckians rebates on their ENERGY STAR appliance purchases.

KEF: Do you consider the construction of coal-to-liquid facilities in Kentucky a realistic option in Kentucky? How would carbon capture and sequestration be managed?

Governor: Developing a coal-to-liquids (CTL) industry is not only realistic, it is highly desirable. It will greatly strengthen the American economy by reducing our dependence on imported oil. CTL will help cushion the American economy from possible supply disruptions and wild price fluctuations in foreign oil. At the same time, it will provide a reliable domestic market for coal, create thousands of jobs in the CTL plants themselves and generate additional thousands of indirect jobs supporting the industry.

Kentucky should displace coal to generate electricity by developing carbon- neutral electricity sources. In turn, that coal should be used to displace imported petroleum by manufacturing diesel fuel and gasoline from the coal. Compared to the current practice of generating electricity by burning coal and making transportation fuels from petroleum, Kentucky will achieve a 30+ percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for each ton of coal diverted to CTL, WITHOUT carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). If CCS is ever proven to be a viable technology for carbon control, a 75 percent capture and sequestration of the carbon dioxide made during the CTL manufacturing process will result in an overall decrease in CO2 of well over 50 percent.

CCS from new CTL facilities can be accomplished for a fraction of the cost of CCS from existing coal fired power plants. First, most of the CO2 generated in a CTL facility is captured and compressed as part of the liquid fuels manufacturing process, so there is no incremental cost to accomplish that like there is in a traditional coal-fired power plant. Second, building the CTL manufacturing facilities directly on top of formations most likely to accommodate CCS will minimize the cost of sequestering carbon dioxide from these facilities.

SPECIAL REPORT: 10 Questions on Energy for State Representative Robin Webb

In an effort to highlight the issues related to energy independence and security, the Kentucky Energy Forum is highlighting the candidates for District 18 State Senator in the special election to be held on Tuesday, August 25.

You may visit State Representative Robin Webb's campaign website by clicking here.

Personal statement by State Representative Robin Webb: As a former coal miner and having an energy educational background as having an A.A.S. in Mining Technology (Surface Mine Production), and B.S. in Energy and Reclamation (emphasis in Underground Mine Safety) from Morehead State University, and having many law school hours from Chase College of Law in Coal, Oil, Gas, Environmental and Public Utilities Law, I have much experience in the energy field. I have been an environmental prosecutor with the Natural Resource Cabinet, and In House General Counsel for the fourth largest coal producer in the nation with operations in eight states.

I presently serve on the Energy and the Natural Resources standing committees of the House, as well as the First Vice-Chair of the Appropriations and Revenue Committee. I serve on the Council of State Governments Energy Committee and Chair the Energy Committee for the National Federation of Women’s Legislators. I have served on every working group on energy legislation during my tenure in the House.

QUESTION ONE

KENTUCKY ENERGY FORUM: Do you believe that tax incentives should be awarded to energy companies to encourage investment in Kentucky? Do you believe these incentives should be extended to promote increased coal mining and natural gas development? Do you believe these incentives should be expanded to existing companies?

WEBB: I support and have voted for incentives for energy exploration and production. I have assisted in the drafting of and participated in the work group for all the major energy legislation and incentive packages during my tenure in the legislature. I have been involved with the promotion of fossil fuel and in the expansion of our energy portfolio.

QUESTION TWO

KEF: Do you support tax incentives for ‘thin-seam’ coal mining to encourage extraction of hard-to-mine coal?

WEBB: I support and have voted for thin seam mining initiatives for maximization of existing resources.

QUESTION THREE

KEF: Do you support the general principal of cap-and-trade to lower air emissions and/or reduce the carbon footprint? Please explain you position in detail on this issue.

WEBB: I am very concerned that cap and trade legislation will have an adverse impact on the existing energy supply and the output of electricity that would have devastating effects for business and consumers. I am for lowering the carbon footprint worldwide, yet feel the best way to do so is clean coal technology and carbon sequestration technology which I have supported and funded in Kentucky for years.

QUESTION FOUR

KEF: How would you propose to encourage development of alternative transportation fuels in Kentucky? What would you view as the top three alternative transportation fuels?

WEBB: Clean coal technology and biomass are alternative options.

QUESTION FIVE

KEF: In your opinion, does the growing of industrial hemp present itself as a viable option for biomass feedstock? Please explain why or why not? What other sources of biomass feedstock do you consider as a viable feedstock?

WEBB: Hemp was originally utilized in the development of the diesel engine and it is a viable option but for cannabis classifications and restrictions in existing law. The Kentucky General Assembly previously authorized a study at the University of Kentucky for evaluation of development as a feedstock. Federal law would be a hindrance of the development of hemp. The University of Kentucky is presently evaluating the value of a variety of feedstock, including switch grass.

QUESTION SIX

KEF: What role does energy efficiency play in a comprehensive energy plan for Kentucky?

WEBB: Energy efficiency is a component of a comprehensive energy policy that is needed for Kentucky. I feel the state and its agencies should lead by example and we have incorporated initiatives along those lines in previous energy legislation. Enhancement of these initiatives will be sought in future sessions.

QUESTION SEVEN

KEF: What steps should State Government take to reduce and/or improve energy use in its functions, such as transportation fuels and energy efficiency?

WEBB: Fleet management, energy utilization evaluations of buildings and facilities management, diversification of fleet, i.e. hybrids, fuel efficient cars, and other measures can achieve cost savings and set an example.

QUESTION EIGHT

KEF: Do you see renewable energy, such as wind, solar and hydro, as viable options for energy diversification in Kentucky? What would you do to promote implementation of these energy sources, if they are viable?

WEBB: Yes, all forms of renewable energy should be promoted and utilized to their maximum potential. Our energy portfolio must be diverse to meet the demands of the population and our economy.

QUESTION NINE

KEF: What would you do to support energy workforce training and education, besides existing workforce development and higher education programs?

WEBB: We must adapt existing programs to incorporate and include training and educational components in the existing and potential renewable energy economy.

QUESTION TEN

KEF: Including specifics in your district, what impact does the energy industry have on your district? What future prospects are there for energy development in your district and how you would work to promote that development?

WEBB: My district is historically a coal, oil and gas economy, both in production and employment impact. Energy transportation on the river and rail, and trucking is an important part of our regional economy. Alternative renewable crops are being grown in the district along with initiatives involving energy production from waste materials. Consumption of energy and the impact of additional costs impact the district because of the major industrial users in the district. Along with the economics of the consumer impact, major users are an important consideration in the formulation of our regional energy plan.

SPECIAL REPORT: 10 Questions for Dr. Jack Ditty

In an effort to highlight the issues related to energy independence and security, the Kentucky Energy Forum is highlighting the candidates for District 18 State Senator in the special election to be held on Tuesday, August 25.

You may visit Dr. Jack Ditty's campaign website by clicking here.

QUESTION ONE

KENTUCKY ENERGY FORUM: Do you believe that tax incentives should be awarded to energy companies to encourage investment in Kentucky? (part one)

DITTY: Yes, we should make every attempt to encourage companies to invest here. Kentucky has the workforce and natural resources that are a perfect fit for energy companies looking to relocate.

KEF: Do you believe these incentives should be extended to promote increased coal mining and natural gas development? (part two)

DITTY: Yes, coal and natural gas will continue to be an integral part of energy production in the future, and these incentives will help companies to find new ways to burn coal more efficiently and safely.

KEF: Do you believe these incentives should be expanded to existing companies? (part three)

DITTY: Yes, we should protect existing companies that are currently providing jobs in our communities; they should not be excluded simply because they are already in Kentucky. Please provide detailed answers. Any incentives offered to companies should be performance-based and tied to new job creation.

QUESTION TWO

KEF: Do you support tax incentives for ‘thin-seam’ coal mining to encourage extraction of hard-to-mine coal?

DITTY: Yes.

QUESTION THREE

KEF: Do you support the general principal of cap-and-trade to lower air emissions and/or reduce the carbon footprint? Please explain you position in detail on this issue.

DITTY: Lowering air emissions is a worthwhile goal, but using a utility tax, and dressing it up as “cap and trade” is not the solution. Funding research that will create full-scale production methods that burn coal cleanly will significantly lower emissions at a faster rate than cap and trade. States like Kentucky will suffer dire consequences if a utility tax is passed. We have an electricity rate that is one of the lowest in the country, which helps us to attract business and create jobs. Cap and trade would, by some estimates, triple the average Kentucky electricity bill, while allowing New York and California to lower their rates.

QUESTION FOUR

KEF: How would you propose to encourage development of alternative transportation fuels in Kentucky? What would you view as the top three alternative transportation fuels?

DITTY: Funding performance-based grants will give companies the tools they will need to advance research that is underway in Eastern and Western Kentucky. Coal to Diesel, Coal to Synthetic Natural Gas, and Biomass

QUESTION FIVE

KEF: In your opinion, does the growing of industrial hemp present itself as a viable option for biomass feedstock? Please explain why or why not? What other sources of biomass feedstock do you consider as a viable feedstock?

DITTY: Hemp was at one point one of Kentucky’s biggest exports, but it has been over 150 years since hemp was grown on a commercial basis. Switchgrass or wood fiber seems to be the best feedstock for biomass energy production. Corn was under consideration, but the recent spike in corn prices due to ethanol production makes it a less appealing source.

QUESTION SIX

KEF: What role does energy efficiency play in a comprehensive energy plan for Kentucky?

DITTY: Everyone should take steps to consume as little energy as possible. This will result in lower utility bills, a cleaner environment, and higher quality of life in Kentucky.

QUESTION SEVEN

KEF: What steps should State Government take to reduce and/or improve energy use in its functions, such as transportation fuels and energy efficiency?

DITTY: We should make sure that tax dollars are spent in the most efficient way possible. Any state agency or equipment should be held to a higher standard when it comes to energy efficiency. Kentucky should lead by example and make every aspect of state government as efficient and productive as possible.

QUESTION EIGHT

KEF: Do you see renewable energy, such as wind, solar and hydro, as viable options for energy diversification in Kentucky? What would you do to promote implementation of these energy sources, if they are viable?

DITTY: Renewable energy is more suitable in other parts in the country, than in Kentucky. Our topography is not suited for wind and solar, and Kentucky does not have a large supply of running water that could be used to consistently supply electricity. However, if any renewable energy source is shown to be effective and consistent, they should be open to receive incentives just like any other source of alternative energy.

QUESTION NINE

KEF: What would you do to support energy workforce training and education, besides existing workforce development and higher education programs?

DITTY: I would push for an increase in focus on the science and math curriculum in our schools. Science and math have proven to be the cornerstone of creating a workforce that has the technical knowledge to compete in our rapidly changing workplace. I would also advocate to increase the number of programs offered by KCTCS that are specific to the energy field. Energy companies look for a workforce that is well skilled in math and science, and Kentucky can level the playing field when we are competing with other states for new industry by providing graduates with the critical knowledge needed to be engineers and technicians.

QUESTION TEN

KEF: Including specifics in your district, what impact does the energy industry have on your district? What future prospects are there for energy development in your district and how you would work to promote that development?

DITTY: Naturally, Ashland Oil is a great example of a company that has been an integral part of our community for generations. Ashland Oil has been able to survive all these years by paying attention to the changing landscape in which they operate. New processes are evolving every day and businesses have to be flexible and proactive to keep their company on the cutting edge. Our district has been, and we will continue to be tied to energy production. By finding ways to burn coal cleaner and extracting hard to reach oil and natural gas, we will utilize our abundant gift of natural resources in new ways, which will keep Kentucky competitive in the fight to make our country more energy independent.

Obama: Electricity Rates Will Increase Under Cap and Trade

Heritage Foundation: Will Cap and Trade Save the Earth?