Congressman,
I support energy independence, and I am in favor of developing alternative, less destructive and more efficient sources energy.
I believe most Arizonans and probably most Americans have similar desires, although our ideas of arriving at those goals may differ.
What I think we can all agree on is that it is not helpful to anyone when measures are passed with little or no time for consideration by those being represented. Even less so for those who have been chosen to represent us, such as yourself. Indeed, how can the peoples will be represented at all if the information is not in hand for the people to even have a will?
Committees may debate, delete and add points and amendments ad nausium but that is to be able to have something to present to the representatives and by proxy to the people that an opinion may be formed and debate ensue.
Instead, It seems measures are decided upon and the requisite votes obtained long before these measures are presented on the House floor, and before those outside committees have an opportunity to understand any of the details and possible implications on how these measures will be implemented, even when the general intent of the bill is known.
It seems to me to be unconscionable then, for any person who considers themselves a representative of the people's will, to vote in favor of any measure without a reasonable amount of time understand and grasp it implications, regardless if one agrees or disagrees with it's intent.
As a registered voter in the 5th district of Arizona, I beg you then to not vote in favor of H.R. 2998, or any bill, unless a reasonable amount of time be given the general assembly of the House to read and discuss this measure.
If then this bill passes, it will with eyes wide open by leaders and not with eyes shut from blind followers.
Sincerely,
Cory Brown
Update: I got a response back from Harry Mitchell regarding my email to him. I am pleased to hear that he did not vote for this bill (I suppose I could have checked that on my own) and that he had some of the same concerns as I had. Despite his vote on other bills that I disapprove of, I am glad to see that he is not a strict party line Democrat and can at least stand against of his own party when he feels it necessary. Here is his response in full:
Dear Mr. Brown,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the H.R., 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me on this important issue.
One of my chief priorities in Congress is to improve our nation's energy policy. I strongly support an energy policy that fosters the development of clean, alternative domestic sources of energy. This will improve our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, boost our economy by creating jobs and spurring economic development while combating global climate change by reducing carbon emissions.
In considering how to vote on H.R. 2454, I focused on two key questions: First, will this bill fight global climate change and make the investments to deliver the results we need? Secondly, will this bill provide Arizona with the opportunity to develop our burgeoning green economy?
Unfortunately, the answer to both of these questions is no.
Despite my no vote, the measure passed by a vote of 219 to 212.
In my view, this legislation is an example of Washington at its worst. Instead of working to implement a transformative, forward-looking energy policy, this bill turned into a partisan political game, with concession after concession granted simply to round up votes for passage rather than strengthen the bill.
If enacted, the bill will literally re-commit the United States to coal. This is a step backwards at a time when it is so vitally important for us to move forward. Clean, renewable energy should be our chief priority, not fossil fuels.
H.R. 2454 would invest $60 billion in an attempt to develop technology to capture coal carbon emissions and bury them underground or in the ocean. The process known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), raises many troubling questions. First, we do not even know if such technology is possible. More disturbing, however, we do not know what the environmental consequences of burying all that carbon would be. The idea reminds me of the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, which was supposed to become a repository for our nation's nuclear waste. It sounded like a good idea at first, but after billions of tax dollars spent, it raised serious safety and environmental questions.
I believe that investments in carbon-neutral energies like solar are ultimately a better use of our precious research and development dollars.
On this and other fronts, I believe that the bill is a bad deal for Arizona. It asks us to pay more for our energy, but fails to deliver what we need to help us grow our emerging solar industry.
Solar energy is an abundant and free energy source that generates energy during the hours of the day that electricity costs are the highest. Moreover, large-scale solar projects will stimulate our economy by creating jobs and boosting commercial development.
In Arizona, Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service are developing the world's largest solar energy plant outside of Gila Bend. The Solana solar generating station will create 1,500 to 2,000 jobs and provide clean, emission-free energy for 70,000 homes. Solana is expected to ultimately spur $1 billion in economic development.
Finding financing for large-scale projects like these is difficult, especially in the current economic environment. I introduced an amendment to H.R. 2454 to make financing more available for solar energy, by allowing private and non-profit investors to participate in a grant program that assists with the financing of these kind of projects. Unfortunately, my amendment was blocked, did not receive a vote, and was left out of the final bill.
I am also deeply concerned by a provision stuck into this bill that would give the federal government the power to overrule Arizona's decisions about where we choose to place our power lines. The Arizona Corporation Commission should retain control of these decisions, not regulators in Washington.
Finally, I am also concerned about the impact this legislation could have on our utility bills. I realize that addressing global warming will likely require an investment. However, I do not believe that Arizonans should be asked to pay more to double-down on coal, and leave its emerging solar industry without the help it needs.
I believe we can do better, and I am committed to working with my colleagues to achieve a better bill.
Since joining Congress, I have been proud to help move our country toward energy independence and build a green economy. I voted for the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will create more than 500,000 green jobs through alternative energy tax incentives and investments. I have also supported renewing solar investment tax credits, which are critical for the solar industry. Furthermore, I voted for the Energy Independence and Security Act, which increases fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This law will cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 24 percent by 2030.
Once again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. If you have additional questions or concerns on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.
If you would like to receive email updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to sign up for my newsletter at http://www.mitchell.house.gov.
Sincerely,
Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress
Posts
