For this batch of bills, Jim and Donna Crawford have written over 2000 words of evaluation and analysis on the proposed legislation. The least we can do is study them and assist Jim & Donna in their efforts to provide impetus to our legislators in order for them to know we aren’t twiddling our thumbs:
From Jim Crawford:
I oppose HB 242 and HB 243. HB 242 establishes a Renewable Energy Transmission Authority Development Fund and then HB 243 appropriates $1,500,000 to put tax payer money into the fund.
The purpose is a thinly disguised attempt to provide additional tax payer subsidies for overly expensive, inefficient, and unreliable wind energy. Wind farms are scattered over huge expanses of rural land far from population centers where the pitifully small amount of generated electricity is used. The transmission infrastructure is not available or inadequate to move power from remote locations. The power produced is so uneconomic, it cannot pay its own way.
These renewable energy projects cannot exist without massive tax payer subsidies. Wind energy has been heavily subsidized for over 20 years now and still cannot exist without a subsidy that pays the producers more money per kilowatt than it can be sold for. This additional subsidy just adds insult to injury for us tax payers.
These two bills need to die in committee. It would even be better if the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority would be repealed. There is no reason why there should be a special group dedicated to renewable energy transmission. Energy infrastructure deficiencies should be addressed by looking at the needs for all energy sources and not singling out a chosen source. An energy transmission authority would be more useful.
I oppose HB 259 Recover Damages from Natural Resource Injuries. This is a recycled bill from 2011 that is a poorly disguised attempt to stop any use of state natural resources. It creates an all-powerful resource czar with rule making authority. It puts anyone setting foot on state-owned land in jeopardy of prosecution for exhaling carbon dioxide into the air or driving a vehicle which emits exhaust onto state property.
The bill is fraught with all kinds of unintended consequences.
HB 259 includes as natural resources land, minerals, soils, geological resources, air, surface and ground waters, drinking water supplies, aquifers, drainages, arroyos, biota, fish, wildlife, and supporting habitats, and vegetation not owned by a private person.
HB 259 states that unless the release of the injurious substance was in compliance with a government issued permit, damages for an intentional or unintentional release are declared to be the liability of the owner or operator of a facility at the time of the release; any person who previously owned or operated the facility during a time in which the injurious substance was released, placed, disposed, or treated; and any person who arranged for release, placement, transport, disposal, or treatment of the substance. The bill defines facility as a site or area where an injurious substance is deposited or disposed of, including buildings, pipelines, treatment works, wells, pits, ponds, ditches, landfills, vehicles, and storage containers. Since vehicles are considered to be a facility any perceived damage by a vehicle can be charged against the owner whether intentional or not.
The bill provides the Natural Resources Trustee with rule making authority and provides specific direction pertaining to which substances may be classified as injurious to natural resources, including substances already identified in state or federal environmental legislation which now of course includes carbon dioxide. The bill also refers to oil in any form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes, as well as toxic wastes that may be hazardous to human health as potentially injurious.
HB 259 it total overreach. Existing remedies are already in place that provide adequate resource protection. The agencies will continue to seek compensation for damage pursuant to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and any other applicable federal laws.
I oppose SB 101 Energy Conservation Bonds. This bill provides for tax payer supported bonds designed to implement the goals of the radical global warming crowd and global governance advocates. The bond proceeds all go to support expensive, inefficient, and unreliable renewable energy projects to head off unsubstantiated global warming.
It is a tactical blue print for local implementation of the United Nation’s Agenda 21 approved by GHW Bush in 1992 and implemented through executive order by Clinton in 1993. Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally in every area in which humans have an impact on the environment.
Agenda 21 calls for reduction in energy use; reduction in water use; enforcement of alternative energy use, specifically wind and solar; controls over development, specifically the creation of mixed use neighborhoods that contain high-density housing units (high-rise or extremely small lots) along with office space, stores and open space that will eliminate the use of cars; development of public transportation and high-speed, light rail trains; etc. All of these policies are based on the scare tactic that man is creating global warming, a charge that is now in great disrepute throughout the world.
Most of the above elements appear in SB 101 Section 1 A (4) as “qualified conservation purposes”.
New Mexico has no business facilitating implementation of United Nations globalist policies.
NEXT (From Donna Crawford)
OPPOSE SB 105
As a tax-payer and rate-payer in New Mexico, I would not want One million dollars taken out of the general fund, or any other fund, to make an appropriation to Santa Fe Community College to set up a “Smart Grid Workforce Training Program” or a “Microgrid Innovation Laboratory”, research park, and testing center, for the following reasons: 1) maybe the “Science, Technology and Telecommunications Committee (Interim) knows what this is all about, but probably the rest of the legislators do not know and neither does the public (no transparency) 2) Smart grid technology is a term that refers to devices and “smart meters” that communicate through Internet protocol, rather than proprietary communications systems 3)The 2009 federal stimulus included $3.4 Billion in smart grid investment grants, and New Mexico should not have to spend any more taxpayers dollars on this “investment”. Did NM pass up the opportunity to receive some of these grants? If our lawmakers were “on the ball”, you would know where to get private money for this project (I know) 4) If the main object of this bill is to train people for “green jobs”, you must be kidding. For every green job created, two and a half regular jobs are lost. The U.S. could lose 6.6 million to 11 million jobs while creating 3 million largely temporary green jobs (Larry Crouse, Washington State Representative) 5) Do you really believe that citizens of the U.S. are going to stand by and permit utilities to install Smart Meters in our homes? Smart meters are a total invasion of our privacy and a detriment to our health. California, Nevada and other states have already begun Smart Meter removal. 6) The Smart Grid accelerates energy costs and does not make energy more efficient. It is a tool of UN Agenda 21 energy control, enabling the energy provider to charge the highest possible rate and to shut down power during higher consumption periods. It is also a business plan for citizen surveillance without a warrant.
This quote is taken from the FIR (Fiscal Impact Report) of SB 105 “The microgrid innovation consortium is assembling its initial cohort of members, including New Mexican, national and international stakeholders. It has begun work on developing innovative solutions to practical challenges in the field, the lab and consortium support the U.N. Sustainable Energy for All program and are collaborating with Sandia National Laboratories on challenges related to this initiative. MSL also supports ongoing commercial microgrid development programs in Kenya, Uganda, and elsewhere”. The initiative is endorsed by the New Mexico federal congressional delegation and the city and county of Santa Fe have passed resolutions in support.
It is clear that the College of Santa Fe, the NM Delegation, and the radical environmentalists in our NM Legislature are all in favor of subjecting U.S. citizens to the rulings and laws of the United Nations under U.N. Agenda 21. As NM Legislators, I would think you would want to save the sovereignty of our nation, rather than give it away to the United Nations.
These are only a very few reasons why One Million dollars of our taxpayer money should NOT be given to Santa Fe Community College.
NEXT: (From Jim Crawford)
I oppose SB 33 Expand Low-income Residential Energy Program. This bill wants to give away $1,000,000 to reduce energy consumption by increasing energy efficiency of low-income homes. The assumed benefits will be lower energy consumption resulting in lower energy bills for low-income families.
This program is just another feel good program dreamed up by the radical global warming crowd who want to use the plight of low-income families as a straw man to justify their plans to reduce energy use and lower carbon emissions.
In the over all scheme of things, energy use by low-income households is a mere drop in the bucket. Low income households are certainly not the major players in energy consumption, so any reductions from total energy use and reductions in carbon emissions from this program will not even be measurable.
There is no clue of what will be done to improve energy efficiency. I suppose it would mean giving out curly light bulbs, caulking, weather-stripping, replacing windows, etc. The idea being that increased efficiency will reduce use and result in lower energy bills. Here again these kinds of energy efficiency improvements can only result in pennies of savings. There is no way savings in energy bills will off set the million dollar expense.
If low-income families need help with energy bills, why not be honest and provide direct aid that helps with the real problem and not disguise it behind some green feel good excuse? The million bucks would mean a lot more to low-income families if it helped pay the bills rather than having new caulking. We already have the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is chronically under funded and could use the funds for direct assistance.
If I have to spend my tax dollars for low-income welfare programs, I prefer for it to go direct to those in need rather than to the businesses that will be paid to do the energy efficiency improvements. Paying somebody a lot of money to install caulking or weather stripping to save a few cents on an energy bill does not make sense. Low income families should be the beneficiaries, not people that are probably already have higher incomes than many of us paying the bills.
Another thing that would help with energy bills for all families, would be for the legislature to repeal the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and other statues that mandate and subsidize the use of high cost, uneconomic, and inefficient renewable energy which is making our energy rates skyrocket. The RPS is estimated to cost NM electric rate payers $2.3 billion additional by 2020. These rate increases will have a disproportionate impact on low-income folks. If you want to help the low income folks you would do more by ending this renewable energy foolishness than by weather-stripping their houses.
I support HB 188 Contractor Agreement with Labor Organizations. This bill deals with public service contracts. It prohibits a state or local agency from requiring a contractor to enter into or observe agreements with labor unions. Likewise on the flip side it also prohibits a state or local agency from prohibiting a contractor from entering into and observing agreements with labor unions. It is a totally fair proposition.
This is an excellent free market bill. It puts the contractors squarely in charge of their own business, hiring, and pay practices. The recent trend for local government to force contractors to pay the going union wage even if the contractor uses a different pay schedule, only inflates project costs and wastes tax payer’ money.
When contracting, the cardinal rule for state and local governments should be to be thrifty with us tax payer’s hard earned and reluctantly released tax dollars. Contracts should be awarded to the lowest qualified bidder period. Contractors need to be able to base their bids on their own known employment situation. If the contractor agreeing to union wages wins the bid, that contractor deserves the business but the lowest bid should prevail.
19 Lucero Road
Los Lunas, NM 87031