John Shimkus, Rodney Davis team up to show hypocrisy on energy prices

Congressman Rodney Davis usually does a good job of sounding vaguely moderate, even when he's pursuing extremely conservative policies, so I'm a little surprised to see him co-author an energy editorial in a Champaign newspaper with his mentor, former boss, and national punchline for anti-science extremism, John Shimkus.

Shimkus and Davis joined forces for an editorial to let you know they oppose new carbon regulation proposed by Obama's EPA because it may result in rate increases. They neglect to mention their record of supporting large rate increases, as long as the money is going to the coal industry.

Shimkus enthusiastically supports the new Prairie State coal plant that resulted in rate increases of 30% or more for municipalities and co-ops that invested in the Peabody project. He continued to brag about his support for Prairie State, claiming it provides "affordable power" and was a "smart investment" even after the hidden costs hit consumers. Wind power would have been a safer investment to keep rates low. Rate increases for a coal plant earned praise from Shimkus despite his opposition to the supposed "job-killing" rate increases that might be caused by EPA protecting human health.

Shimkus and Davis both lobbied extensively for Tenaska's coal plant proposed in Taylorville, Illinois. They requested federal support from the same energy loan program they attacked when it financed Solyndra. The loan program is good for coal, bad for solar, according to Davis and Shimkus.

Tenaska admitted their coal plant would raise electric rates, which is why their bill to mandate hikes was opposed by the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. An Illinois Commerce Commission study found that the plant's energy prices would be significantly above the market rate for both wind and nuclear power. Davis and Shimkus continued their support of the plant, despite knowing it would raise rates.

Davis and Shimkus remain perfectly consistent. Rate increases and taxpayer subsidies are good for coal, and bad for clean energy.

It's also interesting to note that Davis continued his dance of questioning (but not explicitly denying) the scientific consensus that man-made pollutants are driving the climate crisis. The Davis/Shimkus line that "temperatures rise and fall over time" is an obvious reference to the natural cycles argument used by climate change deniers. They don't acknowledge that the coal industry is the top source of man-made pollutants leading to climate change impacts on the regional economy, such as interrupting river barge traffic and deterioration of Illinois cropland.

A major goal of climate change denier groups is to spread just enough doubt about man-made pollutants causing the problem that the public will hesitate to support policies that could lead to rate increases. Davis' strategy of focusing on potential rate increases while treating the science as an unsettled question is copy and pasted from the Exxon/Koch Brothers playbook.

Davis objected last month when the League of Conservation Voters ran an ad calling out his pattern of refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus. His spokesperson complained that Davis was taken out of context when he repeated the claim made in a discredited article that climate change stopped 16 years ago. But, he still didn't say Davis disagreed with the misleading statement he chose to bring up, and now he's back to spreading natural cycles nonsense. Clearly, the LCV ad accurately reflects Davis' position as a denier, despite his spokesperson's attempt to nitpick inconsequential details of how it was worded.

Rodney Davis knows that a majority of the 13th Congressional district won't support an anti-science zealot like his mentor, John Shimkus. He also knows the Republican base demands the Tea Party position of denying climate change. I'm curious to see how long Davis can continue walking this tightrope without giving a plain answer on where he stands.

Rodney Davis Peddles Debunked Tractor Dust Regulation Conspiracy Theory

The EPA wants to regulate tractor dust. Can you believe that? It's getting to the point where a man can't even drive his tractor down a dirt road without big government getting in the way!

That's what Congressman Rodney Davis wants you to believe anyway. It's a good soundbite and the fact that it's complete nonsense hasn't stopped some politicians from peddling this conspiracy theory no matter how many times it's debunked.

Davis sponsored an amendment to let the Department of Agriculture comment on EPA regulation. In speeches and press statements, he argued that EPA is out of touch with rural America by reviving the old yarn that they want to regulate tractor dust on dirt roads.

Congressman John Shimkus was telling this dusty story back when Rodney Davis was still on his staff. Since then, the EPA administrator has said several times that there's no plan to consider regulating tractor dust, and multiple news organizations have debunked the talking point. At this point it should be absolutely clear to everyone that it simply isn't true.

Undeterred by reality, there's even a bill called the "Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act." What it actually does is prevent EPA from enacting regulations of soot and particulate matter that are only applied to major sources of industrial pollution, not farms. These are pollutants, often from coal power plants, that cause lung disease, heart attacks, asthma attacks, and other deadly health problems.

In other words, this has nothing to do with protecting rural America. Politicians who talk about tractor dust regulation want rural Americans to fight for the coal industry's right to kill them a little faster.

Davis offered his amendment to the REINS Act, which was passed by the House with his support. This Tea Party bill is designed to kill new regulation that protects the environment, public health, or deal with climate change. One expert put it this way:

The REINS Act is a proposal that may seem benign and appealing on the surface, but in fact, it is radical in concept and would be perilous in execution.  The bill could, in effect, impose a slow-motion government shutdown, and it would replace a process based on expertise, rationality and openness with one characterized by political maneuvering, economic clout and secrecy.  The public would be less protected, and the political system would be more abused.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more far-reaching, fundamental and damaging shift in the way the government goes about its business of safeguarding the public.

Davis does his best to sound like a reasonable moderate in press interviews. But judging by his actions, he has the same extremist anti-environment, anti-health agenda as his mentor, John Shimkus.

Help me, EPA, you're my only hope!

I was disappointed during the election when many environmental writers downplayed the role of Environmental Protection Agency regulation on coal. It was a timid response to the "war on coal" hype.

Sure, there's not exactly a war on coal. There's a war to save modern civilization as we know it from climate change disasters. The coal industry just happens to be on the pro-ending-modern-civilization side.

The argument downplaying EPA action bothered me. First, because I think it was somewhat disingenuous. You can't honestly go from bragging one week about how many proposed coal plants activists have stopped, often by using EPA regulation as a tool, and the next week pretending the movement doesn't exist. It's the kind of defensive, weak-kneed messaging that gives tree-huggers and liberals a bad reputation. The low price of natural gas may be the bigger factor in determining the future of coal, but compliance with regulation is an important part of the cost/benefit analysis companies do when making decisions about building or retiring coal plants.

That rhetorical retreat was troubling because EPA may be our last best hope of dealing with carbon pollution during the next 2-4 years. The climate change movement will be forced to rediscover their conviction to cheer EPA action as a positive.

It's not hard to see why. The House is still controlled by a Republican majority in the pockets of oil and coal. Even though most of them campaigned on being bipartisan, they made similar promises in 2008. We saw how that turned out.

The Senate has a small Democratic majority, but the Democratic caucus still includes fossil fuel Senators like Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin. Plus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems uninterested in exposing oil and coal Democrats to controversial votes. He refused to bring cap-and-trade to the floor two years ago because it didn't have 60 votes to pass, but then allowed three failed votes on stripping EPA authority to limit carbon emissions.

So, a big legislative solution like cap-and-trade is about as realistic as "clean coal." I've seen suggestions about a carbon tax. As much as Congressional Republicans hate the idea of any tax increase, I can only imagine the category 5 hissy fit they would throw over a tax increase to deal with a problem they won't even admit exists. I'd be happy to see someone try, but I won't hold my breath.

What I'll hold out small hope for in Congress is another jobs bill focused on energy efficiency, improving the grid, and promoting renewables. That was the best part of the stimulus bill, and we need another big round of green jobs spending in term II. Preferably, they should target spending in coal regions to offset job losses.



That leaves us with the authority a previous, more functional Congress already granted EPA to limit air pollutants. Obama moved forward with expanded EPA protections after Congress failed to act during his first two years in office. Some regulations have been stalled, like CSAPR. That needs to be completed along with better rules on mountaintop removal, coal ash, and air emissions like carbon.

My number one hope for Obama's second term is that he moves forward much more aggressively with EPA limits on deadly coal pollution.

Combine that with Obama's campaign comments and this is what a second term energy policy could look like:

• Renewed effort to cut oil subsidies.
• More spending on energy efficiency.
• Extending clean energy production tax credit.
• More mass transit spending through transportation budget.
• Renewed call for a clean energy portfolio standard.
• Hopefully combine that with more aggressive air regulation and a green jobs bill to speed up the transition to new energy sources.

That plan may be better than a cap-and-trade bill filled with special deals for oil and coal lobbyists.

Of course, even that won't be easy because major pieces would still require Congressional action. During the next four years, environmentalists and progressives will have to work out whether they can play a role in promoting positive action by Obama and EPA, or whether they will limit themselves to nursing every disappointment, as so many pundits and bloggers did during his first term.