Recently, I participated in a meeting with fellow legislators from around the country involved in the Coalition of Legislators for Energy Action Now (CLEAN).
 
Among other developments, we heard about the U.S. military's institutional efforts to “go green” as a first step in the Department of Defense's recognition that energy dependence is a national security risk. Energy diversity is an imperative, especially in light of the global disruptions caused by weather disasters brought on by climate change, change accelerated in part by our overuse of greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuels.
 
The concerns of our military chiefs are shared by Americans. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 83 percent of respondents favored the idea that Congress “this year” pass an energy bill that provides incentives for using solar and other alternative energy sources. This exceeded the support of any other action proposed, including “overhauling the federal tax code.”

So I was pleased that Governor Branstad, in his “Conversation on the State of American Energy,” recognized that Iowa should have a comprehensive, balanced, sustainable energy strategy that supports national security, focuses on creating jobs in Iowa and protects the state’s quality environmental resources.

In view of this commitment, however, I question the governor’s plan to eliminate Iowa's office of energy independence without a clear structure and policy in place to carry forward this important work.
 
As part of the ongoing budget negotiations, I scratch my head over the spending plan that Governor Branstad embraced. House Republicans propose to gut the appropriations which make state government a meaningful stakeholder and investor in energy job creation initiatives.

These include the Power Fund, the Grow Iowa Values Fund, as well as the business incubator and technology transfer programs at our public universities. Considering that energy is one of the six industry clusters identified for promotion by the Iowa Innovation Council (on which I serve as a representative from the House), the proposed cuts are contradictory at best.

Plus, these cuts betray many Iowa communities which have been shedding blood, sweat and tears on initiatives which will pay long-term dividends but require the bold expenditure of political capital and the investment of public trust. This is because much of the payback will be our children’s to reap as much as it will be our own.

My city is a good example. Mayor Roy Buol and the City of Dubuque were honored June 17 with a 2011 Mayors’ Climate Protection Award sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The group recognizes innovative practices in cities that increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead of looking for promising local models to build upon, to date the House’s main contribution to the dialogue on energy has been a bill that puts all of our energy eggs in the nuclear basket. HF 561 requires utility customers to pay in advance for nuclear power, with no guarantee of any return on their investment. All efforts to diversify this bill and make it more comprehensive and balanced were rebuffed.

Meanwhile, the leadership in the House of Representatives is sitting on bills that would advance energy efficiency, natural gas vehicles, biomass, industrial co-generation, high performance public buildings, solar energy and other alternative and renewable sources of clean energy.

Rather than encourage us to make these a priority, Governor Branstad’s “conversation” at the Iowa Energy Forum focused on the Canadian tar sands, domestic oil drilling, shipping wind power to Illinois and other out-of-state “opportunities” that would only weaken Iowa’s energy self-reliance.

I also note the irony of the governor hosting a leadership summit on energy while Iowa's utilities and consumer advocates were meeting at the Iowa Utilities Board. The discussions confirmed that plenty of opportunities to advance energy efficiency remain on the table. At the governor's summit, energy efficiency was mentioned only in passing, and not as a source of meaningful part of our energy security portfolio.

Despite the contradictory signals being sent by the Branstad Administration, I look forward — along with my colleagues in the Iowa House — to working with the governor and his department directors, rolling up our sleeves and putting Iowa back to work with a truly comprehensive plan to secure Iowa’s clean energy future. This is what Iowans and virtually all Americans want.