DISCLAIMER: I am a member of Tom Emmer’s Steering Committee.

During Monday’s livechat, Marty Seifert was asked this question:

I have heard some talk about your views on cap and trade, that you would not vote for that…but how come you voted for an energy bill while serving in the state legislature?

Here’s Mr. Seifert’s response:

Marty Seifert: The energy bill you are referring to was not a cap and trade bill. 39 of 49 House Republicans voted for the bill, including Rep. Emmer’s supporters Laura Brod and Matt Dean. I am not for cap and trade any more than those two solid Republicans are. Governor Pawlenty negotiated this bill which started out much worse than the final product. My energy plan is to lift the nuclear moratorium and expand affordable energy choices. I am absolutely opposed to any cap and trade scheme.

I wanted to gather some information on M-RETS before forming an opinion so I did some research into M-RETS, (which stands for Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System). Here’s one of the first tidbits of information I found out about M-RETS:

The Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System (M-RETS) tracks renewable energy generation in participating States and Provinces and assists in verifying compliance with individual state/provincial or voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and objectives. M-RETS is an important tool to keep track of all relevant information about renewable energy produced and delivered in the region.

Currently, several States and Provinces participate in M-RETS: Illinois, Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have policies in place requiring or strongly encouraging utility development of renewable resources. Additional States and Provinces in the region are expected to join M-RETS after launch. M-RETS uses verifiable production data for all participating generators and creates a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) in the form of a tradable digital certificate for each MWh.

In other words, the legislation authorizes the tracking of how much reneewable energy is being generated and the creation of something called a renewable energy credit. This sounded suspiciously similar to the carbon credits that will be traded if Cap and Trade is ever enacted so I contacted an expert in the energy field. This expert said that this type of infrastructure could turn out to be a preliminary step towards establishing a Cap and Trade program.

To be fair, this expert said that establishing a Cap and Trade program isn’t a guarantee. During this exchange, it was confirmed that this legislation isn’t about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just about increasing renewable energy production.

The next logical step, I was told, was enacting legislation mandating a certain level of renewable energy production. While that might sound good, the reality is that renewable energy is significantly more expensive than energy created by coal-fired or nuclear power plants.

According to this website, there are some benchmarks that they want to achieve. Here’s a couple of interesting tidbits of information that should be considered:

The standard for Xcel Energy requires that eligible renewable electricity account for 30% of total retail electricity sales (including sales to retail customers of a distribution utility to which Xcel Energy provides wholesale service) in Minnesota by 2020. Of the 30% renewables required of Xcel Energy in 2020, “at least” 25% must be generated by wind-energy or solar energy systems, with solar limited to no more than 1% of the requirement. The solar provision was added by S.B. 550 in May 2009. In effect, this means that the wind standard is at least 24%, solar may contribute up to 1%, and the “remaining” 5% may be generated using other eligible technologies.

In other words, if legislation passes that changes the goals to mandates, Minnesotans’ utility bills will significantly increase. It’s important to remember that this isn’t about controlling greenhouse gas emissions, though the activists that push Cap and Trade are the activists that pushed this legislation through.

Finally, Seifert’s mention that Matt Dean and Laura Brod voted for this legislation is irrelevant. First, this is about the voting decision Marty Seifert made as opposed to the voting decision Tom Emmer made. In this instance, Tom Emmer voted against more expensive energy bills for Minnesota’s taxpayers. Second, according to the House Journal’s recording of the final vote, Matt Dean voted against the final passage of the bill along with Bruce Anderson, Mark Buesgens, Chris DeLaForest, Mary Liz Holberg, Paul Kohls, Mark Olson, Ron Shimanski and Kurt Zellers.

The information in this paragraph can’t be ignored:

Utilities are required to file annual compliance reports with the PUC detailing their retail sales, REC retirements, and REC trading activities. If the PUC finds a utility is noncompliant, the commission may order the utility to construct facilities, purchase eligible renewable electricity, purchase RECs or engage in other activities to achieve compliance. If a utility fails to comply, the PUC may impose a financial penalty on the utility in an amount not to exceed the estimated cost of achieving compliance. The penalty may not exceed the lesser of the cost of constructing facilities or purchasing credits and proceeds must be deposited into a special account reserved for energy and conservation improvements. The PUC is authorized to modify or delay the implementation of the standards if the commission determines it is in the public interest to do so.

I’d love hearing Mr. Seifert explain how this mandate is substantially different from a cap and trade system. Specifically, I’d like to know whether this isn’t just another way to wean us from fossil fuels.

Technorati: Energy, Cap And Trade, Renewable Energy, M-RETS, Renewable Energy Credits, Marty Seifert, Activists, Environmentalists, Tom Emmer, MNGOP