Des Moines Register. February 9, 2018
Why Iowa shouldn’t roll back energy efficiency
The endless debate over using coal vs. wind vs. natural gas vs. nuclear power often misses an obvious point: It’s cheaper, and cleaner, to save energy than make energy.
This shouldn’t be a light-bulb moment. Energy-efficiency measures have the potential to slash energy consumption (by nearly a quarter in some studies), save money and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Everybody loves saving energy, right? A 2014 survey showed 97 percent of Iowans surveyed support increasing use of energy efficiency. It’s a pillar of Gov. Kim Reynolds’ Iowa Energy Plan.
Apparently not everyone, however. Iowa lawmakers are attempting to significantly roll back the state’s energy-efficiency programs, such as home energy audits and the rebates Iowans get to install smart thermostats or energy-saving appliances. One bill would eliminate requirements that Iowa utilities provide such programs.
Another bill, Senate Study Bill 3093 - which passed a subcommittee on Wednesday - would scale back energy-efficiency programs, as well as enact a long list of utility-friendly measures. The bill would provide a way for investor-owned utilities to raise rates without Iowa Utilities Board approval. It would also allow the state’s largest users of power to opt-out of energy-efficiency programs.
Alliant Energy and other utilities and business groups support 3093, but MidAmerican Energy is listed as “undecided.” That’s odd, since much of the bill’s contents match a filing that Iowa’s largest utility made with the Iowa Utilities Board in November.
Under that proposal, MidAmerican would spend $359 million on energy-efficiency programs between 2019 and 2023. That’s 30 percent less than its spending in its current five-year plan.
MidAmerican touts the savings to consumers that would result: $58 a year for the average residential customer.
“Putting customer cost impacts first means that this plan will result in ’right-sizing’ MidAmerican’s energy-efficiency programs compared to past plans,” the filing says.
“Right-sizing” is a euphemism for “shrinking.” It really means the cost isn’t “right” for the utility’s biggest customers. These industrial customers should be able to opt out of energy-efficiency programs, MidAmerican argues in the filing, and as a result could realize an average annual savings of $435,000.
“That’s short-term savings,” said Josh Mandelbaum, staff attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center. Investing $1 now in energy efficiency can mean $2 to $3 saved, according to the IUB. It can postpone the construction of new electric-generation plants.
Iowa has a strong reputation as an efficient, relatively clean energy producer. In 2017, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ranked Iowa seventh for its $38 per-capita spending on electric efficiency.
Gov. Reynolds has the opportunity to preserve, even strengthen, this Iowa advantage. She can stand up for her energy plan. She can urge greater energy-efficiency goals not just for major power companies, but also municipal and rural utilities. Instead of declining to comment on the utility bills until they reach her desk, she can send a message now. She can emphasize that conservation is, indeed, conservative.
She can follow other Republican governors such as Rick Snyder in Michigan, who signed a law in 2016 to strengthen the state’s energy-efficiency and renewable-energy programs.
Or she can line up behind her party leaders in Washington. The Trump administration has asked Congress to cut the Energy Department’s renewable-energy and energy-efficiency programs by 72 percent in fiscal 2019, according to draft budget documents obtained by The Washington Post.
That’s wrong-sizing, and Iowa knows better.
____
Sioux City Journal. February 7, 2018
Religion in public schools works if line isn’t crossed
A bill introduced last month by a dozen House Republicans would direct the Department of Education to prepare materials and teacher training for a public high school course focused on the Hebrew Scriptures and the Bible’s New Testament.
In our view, this bill is unnecessary.
In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled requirement of daily Bible readings and prayer in public schools are unconstitutional, but the decision in Abington versus Schempp allowed religion in public school curriculum. While government can’t promote or put down a religion, the court said teaching in public schools of religion’s role in history and literature is acceptable.
In writing for the majority 8-1 opinion, Justice Thomas Clark said: “It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. … It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.”
“Schempp became the founding document for teaching about religion in school,” Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center and vice president of the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute, said in 2013, 50 years after Abington versus Schempp. “It is a very powerful document . that we still use today in working out these issues.”
When it comes to instruction of religion in public schools, in other words, it’s all about the approach taken - by the state, by the school and by the teacher.
Like the U.S. Supreme Court, we don’t have an issue with study of Christianity in public schools, so long as it’s within limits allowed by law today. We support these limits:
- The instruction must be academic, not devotional.
- Study of Christianity should be included within broader instruction of all religions. In fact, we believe value exists for any Iowa public high school student who takes a course in world religion, including the Christian religion.
- No school should be required to offer and no student should be required to take such a class. If a school district wishes to offer the class in Iowa, the Department of Education should provide the necessary materials and training to support the decision.
In our view, Iowa legislation that would cross any of those lines invites legal action the state would be wise to avoid.
____
Fort Dodge Messenger. February 8, 2018
Voters show support for Iowa Central
Iowa Central Community College is an enormous asset to Fort Dodge and all of north central Iowa. Consequently, it’s very good news indeed that on Tuesday area voters approved a $25.5 million bond proposal that will enable further strengthening of this vital educational institution.
Not only does Iowa Central provide affordable educational opportunities for adults of all ages, but it also helps make certain that workers with the right technical skills are available to present and potential employers. The college is a vital part of the economic growth strategy for our part of the Hawkeye State.
Iowa Central is a very well run institution. It uses efficiently the monies it receives from property taxes, state general aid, tuition and fees, and donations from its many community supporters. Therefore, we feel certain that these additional financial resources will be used prudently and effectively to enhance the college.
The Messenger strongly supported this bond proposal. We are delighted that so many of our region’s residents joined us in showing their support for Iowa Central by voting to approve this funding. We congratulate the college on receiving such a strong endorsement from our region’s voters.
___
Quad-City Times. February 9, 2018
Keep cops out of immigration
Iowa can’t afford tax cuts, governor.
Aren’t Republicans supposed to be all about local control?
Oh, right, that only applies on issues that work best for them.
Apparently, local policing isn’t one such issue. At least, that’s the takeaway from legislation working its way through the Iowa House.
Police chiefs oppose the so-called “sanctuary city” bill, that aims to force local police agencies to arrest, hold and question suspected illegal immigrants.
So, too, do fraternal orders of police. Immigration advocates. Law enforcement experts. The list goes on and on.
And yet, the legislation that would sap funding from local departments, for refusing to waste resources on federal immigration raids, still has breath in its lungs. In fact, it passed Iowa Senate in 2017, so only the House stands between it and the governor’s desk.
“Sanctuary cities place the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of that of their own citizens,” said Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, after his subcommittee OKd the bill late last month.
Obviously, there are a few problems here.
For starters, the term “sanctuary city” isn’t legally correct. It exists only in partisan talking points, a brash, simplistic way of boiling down highly varied approaches to law enforcement.
Take Scott County, for example, where the Sheriff’s Office recently began honoring retainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an already constitutionally questionable move. Sheriff Tim Lane went out of his way to promise that his deputies wouldn’t suddenly be hunting for illegal immigrants. And yet, one would be hard-pressed to accuse the Republican Lane of constructing a sanctuary county. But, under this half-baked bill, he would be, unless his deputies were actively participating in immigration raids and asking people about their immigration status. It would be a massive waste of finite resource.
Lane’s approach is middle of the road, even by Iowa standards. Departments in Iowa City and Storm Lake, for example, are significantly more hands off. Add to that policies in liberal coastal cities, such as San Francisco, and it becomes increasingly clear that the core term used to justify this unnecessary bit of pandering legislation is without legal meaning nor value.
Thing is, there are solid, fact-based reasons to keep local police agencies out of immigration enforcement. As Lane said, his department has more pressing issues, such as guns and drugs. Plus, immigrant populations - both legal and illegal - tend to be disproportionately susceptible to crime and abuse.
Protecting these people equates to protecting the community at large. And it’s a job that becomes nearly impossible once an immigration raid or two has destroyed all mutual trust between police and the policed.
This is why cop after cop lined up to oppose this legislation that serves only to placate a rancorous political base.
Few things are more tiresome than this flavor of politically motivated legislative hackery. They’re downright unpalatable when flying in the face of expertise and good policy.
No party wraps itself in the flag and lauds men and women in uniform more than the GOP. They cling to a narrow view of patriotism. They grouse about specious affronts to the troops, such as the simple act of protesting at a football game. They label protesters anti-cop and draft legislation, as happened last year in Iowa, wholly intended to crush constitutionally protected dissent.
And yet, as this bill’s continued existence shows, some members of Iowa’s GOP are more than willing to throw their sacred cows under the bus if it means scoring a few political points.
____
Please read our comment policy before commenting.