Aberdeen American News, Aberdeen, June 11, 2014
Cutting CO2 emissions the right thing to do
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules that will force South Dakota utilities to decrease their total carbon dioxide emissions by 35 percent by 2030.
Fifteen years, 35 percent.
Certainly, this is something that can be done — for both the health of our environment and our own health. However, despite the obvious benefits, the proposed rule has ignited a battle of the superpowers: it's wind and natural gas against coal and its allies.
The EPA ensures that its proposal "builds on what states, cities and businesses around the country are already doing," as EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told the Orlando Sentinel editorial board earlier this month.
Wind energy has seen a boom in our state, and it looks like it will be the direction energy conservatives and environmentalists will push the rest of the energy industry toward. After all, it makes sense to invest more into what we are already investing in. (Unless, of course, you own a coal company or work in the coal industry.) For us, that's natural gas and wind.
However, Gary Hanson, chairman of South Dakota's Public Utilities Commission, warns that natural gas, while it is an alternative now, might be the victim of the next EPA regulation change because it also emits carbon dioxide.
Those opposed to the new rules claim that cutting emissions will increase electricity bills and the cost of doing business. The EPA is quick to note that the flexibility and timeframe of the proposed cuts will actually result in smaller consumer electricity bills in or by 2030.
Look, not all change is good. And not everything that will change with this proposed rule will be good. The EPA acknowledges that, along with decreased dependency on coal, there will be job losses in plant construction and mining — but they also figure more jobs (upward of 34,000 more) will be created than lost between 2021 to 2025.
Now, has the EPA always been right? Nope, but that's been to its benefit, too. Dean Baker, a Washington, D.C., economist and the co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told ThinkProgress that historically what the EPA has projected new regulations would cost has been significantly less than their actual cost. Why? Because they do not take into consideration new innovations and only base their predictions on what we know and have today.
That's something we thought of, too. In 15 years, with all of the advancements in technology that we have already made, will a 35 percent cut be enough? Given what is considered "cutting-edge" now versus 15 years ago, we can't be certain.
Bottom line: For our future, cutting carbon dioxide emissions is the right thing to do. Sure, there will be growing pains but, if we don't do it now, it will be another conversation that just keeps happening.
The EPA is set to finalize its proposal mid-2015.
Argus Leader, Sioux Falls, June 7, 2014
City must find way to annex tracts
In a city such as Sioux Falls, where growth is a constant, annexations are to be expected.
Currently, the city's attention is on the Prairie Meadows subdivision, a collection of 75 homes near the intersection of the Tea-Ellis Road and 41st Street. Sioux Falls has grown to and beyond that subdivision in recent years, and it's time for those residents to become part of the city.
If only the process were that simple.
In reality, annexations can often be contentious, bulky, lengthy processes. This one is shaping up to be no different.
Complicating things is the price tag hanging over the Prairie Meadows residents to join up with the city of Sioux Falls. The estimates on costs to individual homeowners to upgrade streets and other infrastructure to meet city standards is from $17,000 to $100,000. No matter how enticing the added city services might be, that is simply a large financial hill to climb for most of us.
To their credit, city officials are doing the right thing by trying to work with the property owners in Prairie Meadows. The city is offering loans to help residents pay for the upgrades, allowing them to repay the cost over 20 years at 3 percent interest. In the past, such loans had to be paid off in five years.