The Special Session that Didn’t Need to Be
A couple weeks ago I Tweeted, “Only for Rep. Les Gara would I eat at Denny’s.” That prompted several people to ask my how my lunch with Les went, and why, given all the great choices of places to catch lunch, Rep. Gara had chosen Denny’s. My meeting with Les Gara was actually at the weekly Bartlett Club luncheon, held every week on Thursday at noon… at Denny’s. I had heard he was going to speak on the special session, so I wanted to be sure I was there to hear what he had to say.
I didn’t get much new information, but there were lots of people there who didn’t realize all the ins and outs, and Rep. Gara laid it out clearly as he always does. As I sat down today thinking, “I really have to find my notes and get that post up about the special session,” I realized that Rep. Gara himself had already done it for me. So, thanks to him, I’m off to run some errands and you can hear it from the horse’s mouth.
And for those of you in Anchorage (or anywhere) who want to keep up on the schedule of speakers at The Bartlett Democratic Club, you can now follow them on Twitter!
And now Les Gara on the $100,000+ Special Session that didn’t need to be.
The Energy Efficiency Debate
On Monday we’ll decide whether to override Governor Palin’s veto of $28.6 million in energy efficiency funds. To receive those federal funds, we have to certify to the U.S. Department of Energy that Alaska will make “good faith” efforts to adopt policies – by 2017 – requiring 90% of our new buildings and homes to meet energy savings standards. The efficiency standards aren’t terribly controversial – they require we build with energy savings in mind, by using better insulation and multi-paned windows. Contrary to claims some have made, the new rules expressly allow for local exemptions from these rules whenever there are better ways to achieve efficiency given Alaska’s local conditions.
The cheapest way to reduce our reliance on increasingly expensive fossil fuels isn’t to just add renewable energy production. While that’s part of a good diversified energy plan, the first, smartest, and cheapest thing we can do is build our homes and buildings so they use less energy in the first place. And that’s what the first topic of Special Session involves.
Former Governor Palin, and Governor Parnell, have objected to sending the required energy efficiency certification to the Department of Energy. We’re the only one of the 50 states to refuse to do this, and to refuse the federal energy funds that would come as a result. That’s $28.6 million that the Legislature voted across party lines to accept, and that former Governor Palin vetoed this Spring.
Our former and current Governors have both objected to adopting the required energy efficiency rules because, as our former Governor stated to FOX News recently, they are “ kind of a one-size fits all building code, that isn’t going to work up there in Alaska and really prohibits opportunity to build and develop, and just wasn’t going to work up there in Alaska, so I vetoed that bucket of money.” OK, those are what we in the business call “platitudes.” Frankly, some who disagree with the Governor have used them too. So, how about adding a few facts to this debate?
The claim that Alaska would have to adopt a “one size fits all” federal code is, uh, verifiably false. You wouldn’t know that because it’s been repeated a dozen times in the press, and no one’s ever asked people making the claim to provide any factual backup.
The energy efficiency rules our Governor and former Governor have objected to actually says this: That Alaska will try to make “good faith” efforts by 2017 to implement an energy efficiency code “that meets or exceeds the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2007, or achieves equivalent or greater energy savings.” (emphasis added; same exemption language in residential section). That is, we can ignore code provisions that don’t make sense in Alaska. We can adopt different rules, tailored to local conditions, if there are cheaper, smarter ways to make a home or building more efficient.
And what are these rules that “Aren’t going to work up here?” They are rules the state already follows for any home financed by AHFC, the state’s housing agency. AHFC requires that any home they finance comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standard (BEES) – effectively an Alaska equivalent to the standards required by the federal law mentioned above. And the normally conservative Alaska Homebuilders Association says Alaskans will save money, and energy, if Alaska adopts these efficiency rules. Why? Because good insulation that saves on heating fuel makes sense. Windows that don’t leak heat make sense.
And here’s the more important thing. According to experts we’ve contacted, complying with these rules will SAVE MONEY. A recent EPA report states: “At the building level, the ‘payback period’ on any increase in upfront costs is typically short. A Nevada study estimated that upgrading the energy efficiency of commercial buildings to comply with the code would cost about $1.60 per square foot but would result in $0.68 per square foot of energy bill savings per year, meaning a simple payback of about 2.4 years.” (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/buildingcodesfactsheet.pdf). We’ve been advised the winter climate savings will likewise be very positive, though I’d certainly like to see a written study on top of the verbal assurances we’ve received from efficiency and construction experts.
Here’s one of those “only in politics” head-scratchers. The legislature, with former Governor Palin’s support, is spending $300 million to hire energy raters and contractors so Alaskans can retrofit existing energy-inefficient homes, to make them more efficient. It’s cheaper to build them right in the first place. I haven’t heard an explanation for how one can support the former, but not the cheaper alternative of building homes and offices right the first time. There’s a reason. There isn’t a good explanation.
So – on Monday I plan to vote to override Governor Palin’s veto. Our national energy savings policy has two sound purposes. First, we want our nation to reduce a dangerous dependence on foreign energy sources. The cheapest way to do this is to reduce the energy we use. Second, we want to save consumers money. Building under these efficiency rules saves money.
Lt. Governor Craig Campbell?
Earlier this year former Governor Palin chose to nominate Dept of Corrections Commissioner Joe Schmidt to be the next-in-line if we ever needed a new Lt. Governor. Nominating a “third-in-line” is required by the Constitution. Mr. Schmidt accepted the designation, the Legislature considered his candidacy, and we voted to approve him.
In July, without any explanation (no exaggeration here), Governor Palin said Gen. Craig Campbell was going to be the new Lt. Governor upon her resignation. She didn’t say why, or acknowledge that this change in plans would require a Special Session. We still don’t know what prompted the change in plans, and whether the reasons are sound, unsound, or halfway in between.
When asked during a recent hearing about this, Lt. Governor nominee Campbell said: “To this date, I don’t know if the change in plans was the result of the Governor’s change in mind, or Mr. Schmidt. For whatever reason the Governor decided she was going to do it differently. I don’t know if she had conversations with Comm. Schmidt or not – not my business. I don’t know what her thought process was as to why and when she made that change.”
Beyond this, neither Governor Palin nor Mr. Schmidt have offered any explanation for why one or both of them changed their mind. The public has only received a few pro-forma letters from the Governor and Mr. Schmidt that the change is in our “best interests”. (You can read those letters in the attached PDF). At a minimum, we’re entitled to an explanation—like a month ago—from those who, by changing their minds, have made a Special Session necessary.
Here’s the Hobson’s choice we’re left with. Unfortunately, former Governor Palin’s new choice, General Craig Campbell, can’t take this position under the Constitution and the clear wording of state law without prior confirmation by the Legislature (a poorly reasoned AG’s Opinion to the contrary, notwithstanding). So, right now, we don’t have a Lt. Governor. If the Legislature doesn’t agree to the change in designation from Mr. Schmidt to Mr. Campbell, we’ll still have no Lt. Governor. So—we either have to agree to accept the new nominee, or we’ll continue to have no Lt. Governor.
I would have liked the Governor to ask Mr. Schmidt to honor the confirmation process we’ve already been through – at least until the Regular Session – so that a Special Session on this issue isn’t needed.
Thank you for posting this today. It will be very helpful to have this information at hand when the session starts on Monday.
I did think, however, that Joe Schmidt had said he didn’t want to take the lt. gov position under the present circumstances and felt it would be inappropriate for someone who had ‘gone to high school’ with Palin to be in the Lt. Gov position due to her resignation. I thought he had said he only expected to be called upon in case of an emergency. Will have to research – again.
Oh, First hooray!
“a one-size fits all building code, that isn’t going to work up there in Alaska and really prohibits opportunity to build and develop”
It’s cheaper to build energy-inefficient buildings?
Thanks AKM. I like Les Gara, reminds me ya got some good ones up there! This whole Lt Gov thing is puzzling.
Writing from Alaska – I remember something about Joe Schmidt too. I think on Shannyn’s show when she interviewed Weichowski (sp?) he said Schmidt had changed his mind then changed it again….or maybe that was someone else???
Rep. Gara, does Mr. Campbell know why he was designated to be Lt. Governor?
Did he asked to be nominated? When did he get nomination?
Maybe $P and Mr. Schmidt made it possible for the “splitsville” rumor? They both “split” from their hi-up gubmint jobs…
Seems to me that if that process requires a person to be nominated and approved that that person is it unless that person declines via a written document… at which time, another person be designated and approved. Doesn’t seem that that was done. Sooooo… Campbell’s still the approved guy, eh?
Campbell needs to do what he’s been appointed to do… or send in a letter withdrawing.
The whole situation is like an SBD… Palin laid an egg but only after she’s gone does everyone else have to deal with the smell.
oops… sub Schmidt in for Campbell
Campbell did Palin a huge favor. After saying she had NOTHING to do with overseeing the AK National Guard and had NEVER given them any orders, he backtracked on the statement a short time later. This boosted up Palin’s credentials during the VP bid. Campbell got another “star” for the hyperbole, and now he gets to be Lt. Gov. – unless the Legs can see through this travesty.
Better NO Lt. Gov. OR, better yet, ask the REAL Governor (Parnell) to name a Lt. Gov. of HIS choosing, subject to approval of Legislators.
Yeah, what Lori said.
Finally, someone is mentioning BEES, Alaska’s own energy standards; virtually the same standards as the Federal ‘State Energy Program.’
As a home rule state Alaska does not need to (can’t) impose requirements on other jurisdictions. So Palin is just reiterating her misunderstanding of the program.
BTW ASHRE, the folks that wrote the standards, have a method of characterizing climate zones, based on the heating and cooling “Degree days.” (The cumulative daily difference between indoor and outdoor temps.)
The standards are flexible and work in varying climate zones across the globe. It seems they’ve actually done this before.
Palin has not.
I see Cambell’s appointment as a Blago “pay to play” by Palin. Getting a promotion and an appointment to Lt. Gov. sure smells to me – I wonder if the Lagislators will see it that way?
I’m sure all you Alaskans can sort this sh!t out.
She left carnage everwhere. And she’s doing her best to create more. I don’t know if I can use the word “terrorist,” there. Platitudes indeed. What a joke she is.
I loved this newsletter by Rep Gara! He so clearly stated what we have all been puzzled and misled about – why did Mr. Schmidt decline or let himself be pushed down by what’s her name? I read, no he changed his mind. Then I heard, he changed it back. Then I heard the twit told him he was “out” and Campbell was in. Then came the usual conspiracy theory – of which I don’t credit Palin with enough brains to come up with. Anyway – some of these were stated in Alaska’s media, and contradicted each other – but did anyone follow up?
I almost feel as though I’m constantly dangling here in Alaska – we get a tidbit, with promise to follow the story, then nothing. C’mon – this is Alaska with barely over a half million residents – what can be so difficult about following up on a story, even if it’s just making phone calls (which are CHEAP!)? Palin’s administration didn’t want to talk to anyone unless they had “media credentials”, so individuals and bloggers were just going to get the usual soap opera run around from her. But the media with credentials, where were they? This is no small matter.
I trust the twit so little that I don’t want Campbell just because she has made a habit of making very poor choices in her criteria for appointing people to State positions. And he’s the one that did the weird “about face” about Sarah’s involvement in leading the National Guard and ended up with a new promotion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-friedman/alaska-national-guard-gen_b_125083.html
“Campbell was promoted to lieutenant (three-star) general within the state National Guard by Palin on September 7, 2008.”
As much as I like many of Rep. Gara’s ideas, actions and accomplishments – I feel that overall our Legislature is going to be as wimpy as our press about pressing this issue BEFORE confirming Mr. About Face.
Unless Parnell is all smitten with Campbell, I agree with Lori. He should appoint and then have approved a Gov Lite of his own choosing. After all, he’s the one who will have to work with him/her… NOT SP!
Who does she think she is, anyway? Appointing someone in an administration not her own?
Barf.
Doesn’t AK also lack a REAL AG? Seems there is an “acting” one, but not an approved one.
Or did I miss something?
Wow, I just realized that I’m getting all hot under the color again thinking about the TWIT leaving poop droppings – I was so ready to be rid of her, have actually managed to be a bit zen about it and forget she existed, or care that she existed because she’s not our Gov!
But here I am with BOTH of these issues making me gnash my teeth because she is just so incredibly lame and was a horrible state administrator. I guess I can go back to being more zen when the session is over, and we are truly moving forward without any mention of the TWIT or her stupid minions and even stupider ideas. Once again, I’m looking for a necrotic, foul smelling salmon to slap her with!
@ samper
Yes, we only have an acting AG. He must be confirmed at the regular session, not a special session, as per the state constitution.
Sullivan is acting AG. He too must be confirmed. But there’s no room on the agenda for that. One day session and it’s back to fishing. These legislators are really worked. What is it, $50 plus, and per diems.
@ pvazwindy
Sullivan has to be confirmed during regular session.
Here’s the Hobson’s choice we’re left with. Unfortunately, former Governor Palin’s new choice, General Craig Campbell, can’t take this position under the Constitution and the clear wording of state law without prior confirmation by the Legislature (a poorly reasoned AG’s Opinion to the contrary, notwithstanding). So, right now, we don’t have a Lt. Governor. If the Legislature doesn’t agree to the change in designation from Mr. Schmidt to Mr. Campbell, we’ll still have no Lt. Governor. So—we either have to agree to accept the new nominee, or we’ll continue to have no Lt. Governor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why can’t Parnell appoint his OWN Lt Gov.?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would have liked the Governor to ask Mr. Schmidt to honor the confirmation process we’ve already been through – at least until the Regular Session – so that a Special Session on this issue isn’t needed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So why doesn’t the legislature ask him?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I find Mr Gara to be full of excuses. If they would have impeached Palin after the Branchflower report, none of this would be happening.
There are always choices and if Campbell turns out to be a problem for Alaska , it will be the legislatures fault again.
The state legislature really blew it when they did not impeach Palin for her abuse of power over troopergate.
If that does not warrant impeachment in Alaska, what does?
What does a governor have to do? Murder a baby at high noon in front of the state capitol buildings?
The legislature gave her the green light to carry on and did she EVER!
In my humble opinion, Alaskans should hold this legislature responsible for all Palin’s actions after The Branchflower report.
What a waste of time and money for nothing but, MORE abuse of power.
They say that there was “no political will”.
All that means is that, not a single legislator, had the intestinal fortitude to protect the people of Alaska from a governor who THEY found to have extensively abused the power of her office.
By doing nothing, the legislature made itself irrelevant to the people of Alaska.
I know just how difficult it is to keep up with governor grifter.
But the responsibility and blame sits directly at the feet of the legislature who knew better, and whose JOB it is to protect the people of Alaska.
The legislature should have been the first people to look at the legality of the Alaska Fund Trust and SarahPac.
If the legislature did it’s JOB there would be no need for citizens to file so many ethics complaints.
I think it is the untold story, as everyone focuses on what scam Palin will come up with next
I stand corrected.
This stuff really gets me worked up and there’s nothing I can do but support, those that can initiate change. Glad there’s not a town hall mtg here tonight, I’d probably get arrested, if I didn’t check my attitude at the door.
Well, yes you do. You have Joe Schmidt. I’ll bet he’d serve until Parnell has a chance to select someone else and go through the legal process.
So. are the Legislators going to interview Mr. Campbell as they have other in other confirmation hearings / committees?
@ Martha #22
—————————
I agree. The Branchflower Report’s findings should have been followed up with strong corrective action against the governor. They essentially gave her carte blanche to act like a little dictator until she quit.
I have no respect for Palin and little to none for the legislators. They helped launch an atrocity of a politician who sows hate and fear in her wake upon the entire country. Gutless foolishness by the legislators….for which we’re all paying the price.
Mudflats is running very slow for me so I am late to the game here as usual, and I also had to look up some
data for this. My topic here is the energy efficiency funds. I recently saw a question that is also fitting in
this context, what do conservatives conserve? I think the answer will become clear.
Most of you may not recall that after the super secret energy policy meetings held by Cheney at the start
of the first term of his administration energy conservation was summarily declared to be useless and
ineffective. It was not even an option. So I decided to look at what would have happened if some form of
energy conservation had been invoked back then and sustained and increased until the end of last year.
Doing these kinds of calculations becomes quite complex if you try to allow for all the variations so I had
to make several simplifying assumptions, in every case I took the worst case, the least optimistic.
The program I modeled was quite simple, get as many people as possible to drive a little less each year.
Ten miles a week less or 520 miles less per year. I assumed there were 120 million drivers in the US and
that that number remained constant. I also assumed that the average mileage of the vehicles driven was
16 mpg and remained constant. Further I assumed that only half of all drivers would participate at first
but as new drivers joined the program they could get on the curve by cutting their mileage the same
amount original participants had over the years and that the overall participation would increase from
50% of drivers in 2001 to 85% of drivers in 2008. Each year another 10 miles per week would be cut from
the total mileage of a participating driver. So by 2008 85% of drivers would be driving about 4160 miles
less per year than they did in 2001. That would amount to a cumulative reduction of 12% of total mileage
over seven years.
I calculated two numbers, the gallons of gasoline saved, and the retail value of that savings based on the
EIA statistics for the cheapest gasoline nationwide for each year. During the period considered the price
of gasoline increased 232%.
In the first year, 2001, 50% of drivers driving 10 miles a week less, would have saved roughly 1 billion 950
million gallons of gasoline at a cost savings of ~$2.7 billion. Not such a big deal? But of course with
increasing participation and cumulative effects, in 2008 those numbers would have been 26.67 billion
gallons of gasoline and $85.7 billion. The total savings over the whole 7 year period would have been
103 billion gallons of gasoline and $258 billon in cost. Averaged over all drivers the cumulative savings
would come out to a little over $2000, it would of course be higher for those who participated from the
beginning and zero for those who participated not at all. An investment in a savings account at 1.6%
interest would have earned $825 less and an investment in the stock market… well, you might have
been wiped out by a margin call.
With the numbers being thrown around these days a paltry quarter of a trillion dollars does not seem
like much. Or does it? This overly simple and crude example is just a hint of what we could have done.
The objective of this post is simply to point out that those who argue against efficiency and conservation
are actually liars. Anyone with a basic grasp of arithmetic can figure it out to a first approximation. Anyone
with a grasp of basic logic could also work out the implications of using less and being more efficient by
doing more with what we do use.
I am quite sure that rural Alaskans are very familiar with how to make do with what they have, their
protestations that they are again threatened by famine and cold in the coming winter are not false claims.
All Palin was doing by rejecting energy funds was pandering to a tiny minority of wealthy interests such
that she could feed from their trough to fatten her political, partisan, extremist carcass.
The simple answer to the above stated question of what conservatives conserve is profits for their
corporate sponsors and graft for themselves.
The leg is following the law re: Lt Gov/Campbell and Parnell appointing someone isn’t an option. Besides if I remember correctly Parnell is fine w/Campbell as Lt Gov.
The Alaskan leg is left with a big mess to clean up. While it is true they didn’t impeach Palin it is ALSO true that the public didn’t recall her so IMHO ya take it from here – no point in playing the blame game. Sarah Palin is ultimately responsible for what she did or didn’t do for her state. Besides for all we know she quit because she was told she WOULD have been impeached or recalled before her term was over.
I hope from here on out the Alaskan public write, call, email their legislature on all issues of concern and let them know what the people want. Example: If you don’t want Campbell or Sullivan let them know right now (o:
Krubozumo – Wow thanks for your comment! Very well written and makes a person think.
Excellent and I recommend others read it (o:
I sure wish the national MSM would have covered the need for a costly special session & the whole Schmidt/Campbell saga. Instead, they focus on the shiny object dangled in front of them, never seeing the real action.
duchessofdork – I agree, so troubling as it seems the days of accurate important news reporting are gone (along with Cronkite, rest his soul).
We used to be able to rely on the MSM to sort the wheat from the chaff, now we get mostly the chaff and it’s disturbing. Remember when news was news and we had ET and shows like that for the shiny stuff? Now it’s all the same )o:
michigander – it’s all “infotainment.”