Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

RITTER: Obama would bolster state's energy economy

By Gov. Bill Ritter, Special to the Rocky

Published October 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Bill Ritter is a 200-1 favorite

Bill Ritter is a 200-1 favorite

Related Stories

More Speakout

More stories »

When it comes to our next president, Colorado needs what George W. Bush has failed to deliver and what John McCain won't provide. We need a leader who will guide this nation through troubling times, transform our economy and be a strong federal partner for Colorado.

That leader is Barack Obama.

We Coloradans pride ourselves on individualism, independence and go-it-alone libertarian leanings. But the fact is that our fate is partly tied to those we elect to make decisions and establish policies in Washington. Since I've been governor, Colorado has often been on the short end of the Washington stick.

Colorado doesn't need four more years of Washington's failures around jobs, the economy, business development, energy, transportation, health care and health insurance, Social Security, education, climate change, immigration and the protection of our mountains, forests, water and wildlife.

Obama has a clear vision of change for America, a forward-looking agenda that in some cases amplifies what we already are achieving here in Colorado, and in other cases would take us in a new direction for the 21st century.

The contrast between the two candidates is particularly striking when it comes to crafting a diversified, comprehensive and modern national energy policy.

As home to vast natural gas resources, Colorado is helping to meet America's energy needs. There are more than 36,000 active oil and gas wells in Colorado, and this year the state will issue nearly 8,000 new drilling permits - a 700 percent increase from 10 years ago.

But John McCain's short-sighted and single-minded "drill, baby, drill" policy is no policy at all. It's a bumper-sticker slogan, and it fails to recognize that even if we drilled every possible square inch of land and shore, we would only find about 3 percent of the world's reserves. For a country that consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, that math doesn't add up.

In contrast, Obama would create a diversified energy future for America. He would invest $150 billion over 10 years to build a clean-energy economy, create 5 million new jobs and advance the next generation of energy and fuel technologies. He would retool domestic auto plants so we can produce plug-in hybrids and a new fleet of American cars and trucks right here at home, cutting carbon emissions and addressing climate change.

Obama's plan for an American "New Energy Economy" would be one of the greatest nation-building efforts this country has ever seen.

If John McCain believes his experience makes him more qualified to serve as president, his experience has hurt Colorado. He has rejected higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars. He has rejected increased investments in renewable energy. He has opposed extending tax credits to help grow the wind and solar industries - industries vital to Colorado's future. Instead, he supports tax cuts for oil companies when they are earning record profits.

As our country struggles to regain its economic footing, Obama has displayed presidential-caliber steadiness, thoughtfulness and leadership.

His economic plan would protect taxpayers, provide middle-class relief to homeowners, provide economic incentives and tax breaks to businesses, reinvigorate the economy through transportation and other construction projects, and help states like Colorado overcome our economic challenges.

Likewise, Obama's health care plan would lower health care premiums for individuals, families and businesses, while McCain would impose a massive tax hike on the middle class, leading 20 million American workers to lose coverage.

In 2006, as I campaigned in every county and every corner of Colorado, I laid out a vision for Colorado's future - a future that affords every resident the opportunity to achieve their God-given potential. I called it the Colorado Promise.

In 2008, as Obama campaigns for the presidency, he calls it the American Promise. When he accepted his party's nomination in Denver, he said: "It is the American promise that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain, that binds us together in spite of our differences, that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen but what is unseen, that better place around the bend."

Barack Obama would bring the leadership and the change this state and this country need to successfully navigate those bends in the road.

Bill Ritter is Colorado's 41st governor.

Comments

  • October 25, 2008

    12:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    EXrepublican writes:

    Done. Voted today...

    As long as you keep a close eye on Coffman... we should be ok.

  • October 25, 2008

    5:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    eoj writes:

    Yes Bill,
    You are so right, Obama will do just as you have i.e. make decisions on energy without consulting the energy experts. We are on a fast track for a huge increase in the electric power cost.

    The renewable energy concerns

    Developing renewable energy, we can forget economics. Here's a cost breakdown:

    Nuclear 1.9 cents/kW
    Coal 2.5 cents/kW
    Natural Gas 7.0 cents/kW (this has varied from 6 cents to 12 cents recently)
    Wind 20 cents/kW
    Solar 40 cents/kW

    Note: this is the price the utility pays!

    People, fuel, and physical plant hardware -- e.g., capital -- make up electric costs. Rates recoup those costs. All solar and wind must be backed up with 24/7 power plants, most likely gas since it takes less time get on line.

    Just a few years ago, Colorado’s rate was 7 cents/kWh. That’s jumped to 11.5 cents/kWh, today. Newspapers say the rise will continue, raising affordability concerns.

    According to the papers, this winter some people won’t keep their homes heated. Those who decide how we will use energy should show more concern for the poor. Is it fair for people in Boulder to set electricity rates, statewide? Lawyers and scientists who direct policy should disclose their interests, and justify their qualifications. Someone should represent the poor, who must endure poor energy choices. Gas, Wind & Solar -- clean energy sources -- caused most of the recent energy cost increases. Tax credits and incentives made them look better, yet states even loose tax revenue by sponsoring these programs. Their real cost is hidden.

    Scientists and nobel laureates dictate policy, but shouldn't they listen to those who can project costs? The loudest voices today have no engineering background. While college kids may find high rates easy to discount, subjecting the poor to their preferences isn't fair. We must base every energy solution on actual costs. We shouldn’t piggyback choices onto everyone else, especially those least able to afford pricey solutions.

  • October 25, 2008

    6:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    eoj writes:

    Bill,
    Here's what you get when "big brother" decides how we will answer the energy needs;

    Recently DOE announced their solar power system at the Washington DC Headquarters building.
    Cost $30 Million, electric power savings projection of $26,000 per year.
    System will generate 200 MW hours of electricity per year. Panels have an expected life of 25 years, so $26,000 times 25 years equals $650,000. Now let’s divide $30 Million by $650,000 equals 46 times what they would have paid for electricity from the grid. Most of the USA is going down this same path regarding renewable energy with no publicizing the real cost. DOE is proud of this installation, I’m embarrassed that they can’t do the simple math that would demand cost effective solutions. We as a country are simply better than this.

    We need reasonable electric power solutions. When energy solutions are created out of the political mind they are always wrong. Business advances are always the result of proper cost benefit analysis. This needs to be in front of the American People and Congress as they continue down this very expensive path.
    Reference Links;
    U.S. DOE Headquarters to Get $30 M Solar PV System
    February 14, 2007
    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/r...

    September 9, 2008

    U.S. Energy Department Turns on Headquarters’ Solar Energy System
    http://www.energy.gov/news/6521.htm

    Just remember Bill this the DOE (Department of Energy).
    Q -So what would the interest be on that $30 million/year at say 4%?
    A - $1,200,000
    That $26,000 "savings/year" is looking pretty ugly!

  • October 25, 2008

    7:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    MoMoney Ritter omits a point. The Governor of Colorado, Ritter, is using his authority to block the development of oil reserves in Colorado. But he doesn't hesitate to blame Washington or Bush.

  • October 25, 2008

    8:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ghoax writes:

    coming from the same who is behind Am. 58, they are not pro energy, pro economic growth, they are simply anti oil and gas. Ritter himself was behind protests and lawsuits over Roan, then whines about how little they (the government) actually "got".

    It's oil, natural gas and shale that's here in Colorado. Wind and Solar are great little ways to sway the masses, but, very few politicians have brought up the transmission issue, how they will stop the same crowd that thwarts oil and gas production citing "ohhh they'll ruin the view forever".

    From the rate hikes, to chasing the oil and gas business out of Colorado, its clear that this regime is in bed with the Federal environmentalist fascist regime that works against us instead of "by the people and for the people"

    Lower energy costs should be on the forefront of every politicians mind, instead, they hide behind the false front of AGW as they push their socialist past the un informed and misled public.

  • October 25, 2008

    8:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    olsonmt writes:

    This from a man who plea bargained illegal alien felons to an agricultural trespass charge. His judgement and interpretation of the facts are suspect at best.

  • October 25, 2008

    9:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    socrates writes:

    Ritter is right. Oil is not much of an industry here in Colorado, but Natural Gas is and so is wind and solar. Natural gas works hand in glove with wind and solar, so as each of these industries rise, the gas industry rises with them and Colorado prospers.

    McCain doesn't understand any of this and all Palin understands is drilling. There's a need for the next president to have a better understanding of the complexities of our energy future.

    Obama's the guy.

  • October 25, 2008

    9:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    EXrepublican writes:

    So the fear of Clean energy is prevalent. poor republicans, new things are scary arent they?

    The whole argument of more expensive solar, wind and Geothermal bills. Is that those sources are not as SUBSIDIZED as gas, coal and oil. (so yes on 58!) Infrastructure are indeed expensive, in the short term. However those costs are offset over time by the duration and life expectancy of the generating apparatus.

    Take Geothermal for instance... with no moving parts, it will have lower maintenance costs, and exist longer than finite resources like oil and gas...

  • October 25, 2008

    9:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    PaleoConservative writes:

    "But John McCain's short-sighted and single-minded "drill, baby, drill" policy is no policy at all. It's a bumper-sticker slogan"

    A bumper-sticker slogan? Kind of like the Democrats' "We can't drill our way out of this problem?" The Republican "bumper sticker slogan" offers a solution, or at least part of one. Ignoring cheap and available energy resources offers us nothing.

    And Ritter calls McCain's drilling plan single-minded? Did Tax Ritter even read John McCain's energy plan? Here's a link:

    http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/I...

    McCain calls for consumer tax credits for zero-carbon emission vehicles, encourages ethanol and flex-fuel vehicles, mandates enforcement of CAFE standards, offers tax credits for alternative fuel research, commits money to clean coal research, offers tax credits for wind, hydro, and solar power, and sets goals for building new nuclear power plants. Does this sound "short-sighted and single-minded?"

    Ritter obviously has not read McCain's energy policy, yet he feels qualified to write an op-ed about it. How did this man ever become governor?

  • October 25, 2008

    12:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    LazyR writes:

    You just keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid Bill---

  • October 25, 2008

    9:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Greenwood01 writes:

    As usual, Ritter is full of BS. He has no clue about exploration and production. His knowledge of the oil & gas business extends to the end of the gas pump, and he probably lets his wife fill the tank. He's not capable !

  • October 27, 2008

    7:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    The only way to meet our energy needs while reducing greenhouse gasses is to drive for more nuclear energy. Wind and solar is like cutting your lawn with scissors. Nuclear is a mower. The fact that Obama is against nuclear energy makes him a fool. The fact that Ritter believes in him, makes him an even bigger fool. The fact that they are all following the king fool, Al Gore, and confusing voters with optimistic propaganda about the uncoming fleecing of America for the wind and solar industries makes them dangerous criminals.

  • October 27, 2008

    9:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    VVVV,

    Nuclear, is indeed, one way to reduce greenhouse gasses, but not the only way. It provides mostly dependable base load production, although nuclear plants are sometimes taken off line for months at a time for various reasons. Remember our own Fort St. Vrain plant? Admittedly, it had exceptional challenges but it was offline more often than not.

    Solar can be an excellent source of peak load energy in summer months when long sunny days cause consumers to run their AC for long hours. This technology is rapidly improving and costs are coming down. Wind can play a role as well as the wind often blows when the sun doesn't shine. Neither wind or solar, even with storage, can match nuclear's base load potential. All three offer environmental challenges depending upon such factors as geographical placement, surface disruption and wildlife impacts. In the case of Nuclear power, the Nimby and regulatory processes guarantee that new plants are many years in the future.

    I contend that conservation and efficiencies need to be embraced above all other considerations. The kilowatt hour of energy not consumed is the cheapest kilowatt hour. Efficiency measures for homes, businesses and industry utilize off the shelf technology and can benefit our energy situation immediately, rather than 5-15 years down the line. They also save the consumer money in bad times and good. I believe that more money needs to be spent on energy efficient lighting, cooling, heating and household appliances. Conservation is only part of the answer, but it buys us time and saves money in the process.

  • October 27, 2008

    10:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    nancylaplaca writes:

    The prices given above by eoj are for power plants THAT ARE ALREADY PAID FOR. Sure, nuclear's cheap when the plant was paid for, and maybe even changed ownership at bargain basement rates.

    NEW nuclear is about 15-17 cents/kWh -- maybe. No one really knows because no one has built a plant in over 20 years.

    The Washington state nuclear plant -- dubbed WPPPS -- remains that largest single municipal bond default in the history of the U.S. at $22 billion -- yes BILLION.

    New coal is 10 cents/kWh
    New wind is 5-7 cents/kWh
    New Concentrating Solar Power WITH 6 hours solar thermal storage is 11-12 cents/kWh, and will reach grid-parity in 2015.
    Solar PV is relatively expensive at 18-22 cents/kWh, but solar PV uses ZERO water, and emits no pollution.

    Coal fired power plants emit 40% of ALL CO2, two-thirds of acid rain, and one third of mercury. COAL IS MAKING US ALL SICK AND KILLING THE PLANET.

    Don't you get it? (And coal is not "clean," despite the hundreds of millions spent by the coal flaks: see www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc

    By 2015, we will be in a world of hurt because crude oil will be depleting about 3-6%/year; and natural gas will also be on a steep decline.

    The energy crisis will make our financial meltdown look easy. And right behind are serious and permanent effects from global warming.

    Let's wake up.

  • October 27, 2008

    10:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    nancylaplaca writes:

    One more thing: rates have increased dramatically because FUEL COSTS ARE INCREASING RAPIDLY.

    Natural gas has increased over 10%/year for the past decade - see www.eia.doe.gov and go to the natural gas page.

    Coal is increasing rapidly as well.

    And as the price of crude oil goes up -- so goes natural gas and coal.

    Do you honestly think we have unlimited supplies of these fossil fuels?

    As Kenneth Boulding said "the only people who believe in unlimited resources on a finite planet are madmen and economists."

    Or just google the Denver Post website and read Xcel's rate increase requests -- they are all for fuel, NOT for efficiency or renewables.

    Some people just don't like reality.