Author Archives Laura Arnold

Indiana House Congressional Delegation Votes 7-2 for ‘No More Solyndras’ Act (H.R. 6213); Link to Roll Call to See How They Voted

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   September 19, 2012  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Dear Indiana DG Readers:

For some background on this issue, see Loan Guarantees for Clean Energy. You might want to have this handy when you contact your Member of Congress to discuss their vote on this important issue.

By the way, if you contact your Member of Congress about their vote on this legislation AND you receive a written response, please share it with me and our readers. Deal?

Laura Ann Arnold, Mailto:Laura.Arnold@indianadg.net

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 9/14/2012 to pass the 'No More Solyndras Act'. H.R.6213: To limit further taxpayer exposure from the loan guarantee program established under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Overall, the breakdown was as follows:

Ayes: 245 (Democrat: 22, Republican 223)

Nayes: 161 (Democrat: 157; Republican 4)

Abstained: 23 (Democrat 11; Republican 12)

The breakdown of how the Indiana House Congressional Delegation voted is as follows:

Rep. Peter Viscloskey [D, IN-1] Nay

Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2] Aye (Note: Donnelly is not seeking re-election to the U.S. House but is running for the U.S. Seante instead.)

Rep. Marlin Stutzman [R, IN-3] Aye

Rep. Todd Rokita [R, IN-4] Aye

Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5] Aye (Note: Burton is not seeking re-election and is retiring from the U.S. Congress

Rep. Mike Pence [R, IN-6] Aye

Rep. Andre Carson [D, IN-7] Nay

Rep. Larry Bucshon [R, IN-8] Aye

Rep. Todd Young [R, IN-9] Aye

To get more details on how your Member of Congress voted on this issue, visit http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2012/h/584

There has been a lot written about the failure of Solyndra. Just Google Solyndra and you will find all kinds of articles.

PV-Magazine: Underpinning its U.S. market expansion, Fronius has announced it will begin inverter production at new headquarters in Portage, Indiana soon.

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   September 18, 2012  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

This morning (9/18/2012) I talked to Tony Saucedo, Central States Regional Sales Manager, Fronius, and he told me that they move into their new building in Portage, Indiana on Monday, September 24, 2012. He expects that later this year the new facility will be available for tours. Please let me know if you are interested in participating in one of these upcoming tours. Email me at: Laura.Arnold@IndianaDG.net.

Welcome to Indiana, Fronius!

Laura Ann Arnold

The Austrian-based company will also introduce its Fronius Service  Program to the U.S.

Thomas Enzendorfer: Fronius will become  number one in the U.S. market by 2015.

Solarpraxis/Hans-Christoph Neidlein

Thomas Enzendorfer, sales director Fronius USA, told pv  magazine at this year's Solar Power International, which closed its doors  yesterday, "The U.S. is our number one market internationally." As such, Fronius  plans to begin the manufacture of its photovoltaic inverters in Portage soon.  The new location, scheduled to be inaugurated on September 23, will boast a  workforce of 100.

US$30 million has been invested in the new facilities, including a $9 million  U.S. Department of Energy grant. "We are still in the planning phase how to  shape our inverter production there, but we will start production [soon],"  Enzendorfer said.

The family owned company will also launch its Fronius Service Programme  (FSP). "Already 1,100 US installers are on our waiting list for FSP," said  Enzendorfer. He is confident that Fronius will become "number one in the U.S.  market by 2015," due to its installers service and "unique" modular inverter  concept.

This year, the growth rate of Fronius inverter sales in the U.S. already  reached 45 to 50%, according to Enzendorfer. "The main focus of our inverter  business in the U.S. will be also in the future small installations with 1 to 12  kWh," he concluded.

Edited by Becky Beetz.

Read more: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/fronius-expands-us-operations-aims-to-become-number-1-inverter-supplier_100008491/#ixzz26qHiAxGM

Take our IndianaDG Poll: What should happen with federal subsidies of renewable energy?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   September 18, 2012  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

This poll is identical to the one in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, September 17, 2012.. See previous blog post http://wp.me/pMRZi-PX.

WSJ: The Energy Subsidy Tally; WSJ Poll: What should happen with federal subsidies of renewable energy?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   September 17, 2012  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

I found this article in the on-line version of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). I am a home delivery subscriber here in Indianapolis to the WSJ, however, my copy of the paper today does not show this story on page A-12 of my edition. By the way, there was a special section of the WSJ yesterday (9/17/2012) entitled, "Investing in Energy" including the following articles:

  • The Economics of Installing Solar: Figuring out whether you save money depends on a lot of factors--especially where you live, by Yuliya Chernova;
  • Shedding Light on Subsidies: What incentives exist for renewables? And how exactly do they work?, by Javier Espinoza;
  • Building a Green Consumer; Energy users need financial incentives. But money alone isn't enough, by Dr. Paul C. Stern;
  • The Very, Very Green Home, by Mara Lemos Stein;
  • OPEC Looks to the Sun for Strength, Middle Eastern Countries figure the less oil they consume, the more they have to export, by Benoot Faucon; and
  • In Iran, the Wind Blows Free. of Sanctions, That Is., by Benoit Faucon.

There is also a side bar story entitled, THE READERS WEIGH IN: RENEWABLES and an on-line poll question as follows:

What should happen with federal subsidies of renewable energy? Join the conversation at WSJ.com/Reports. I have included the same identical questions in a poll for IndianaDG readers in the next blog post. See http://wp.me/pMRZi-Q7

There is also a story entitled, Blackouts Are a Fact of life. Let's Deal With Them, Four Steps to making sure that outages do as little damage as possible, by Dr. Jay Apt.

Laura Ann Arnold

August 17, 2012, 6:47 p.m. ET

Wind and solar get the most taxpayer help for the least production. Wind and solar get the most taxpayer help for the least production.

President Obama traveled to Iowa Tuesday and touted wind energy subsidies as the path to economic recovery. Then he attacked Mitt Romney as a tool of the oil and gas industry. "So my attitude is let's stop giving taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that don't need them, and let's invest in clean energy that will put people back to work right here in Iowa," he said. "That's a choice in this election."

There certainly is a subsidy choice in the election, but the facts are a lot different than Mr. Obama portrays them. What he isn't telling voters is how many tax dollars his Administration has already steered to wind and solar power, and how much more subsidized they are than other forms of electricity generation.

The facts come in a 2011 report from Mr. Obama's own Department of Energy. The report—"Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010"—identifies $37.16 billion in federal subsidies. These include special tax breaks, loans and loan guarantees, research and development, home heating assistance, conservation programs, and so on.

[Editor's Note: This is a 100+ page report which you can download, read yourself and then reach your own conclusions. EIS_US-energy subsidy-2010]


The nearby chart shows the assistance that each form of energy for electricity production received in 2010. The natural gas and oil industry received $2.8 billion in total subsidies, not the $4 billion Mr. Obama claims on the campaign trail, and $654 million for electric power. The biggest winner was wind, with $5 billion. Between 2007 and 2010, total energy subsidies rose 108%, but solar's subsidies increased six-fold and wind's were up 10-fold.

The best way to compare subsidy levels is by the amount of energy produced. But the Energy report conspicuously left out this analysis, though Congress specifically requested it.

Energy said that "caution" should be used in calculating the taxpayer handouts "relative to their share of total electricity generation," because many wind and solar subsidies are for "facilities that are still under construction." It also warned that "Focusing on a single year's data does not capture the imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years" for other energy sources.

This sounds suspiciously like a political dodge, because subsidies for renewable energy date to at least the 1970s. The problem is that wind and solar still can't make a go of it without subsidies. Solyndra is merely the most famous of the solar-power failures. Earlier this month United Technologies sold its more than $300 million investment in wind power, with CFO Greg Hayes telling investors, according to press reports that: "We all make mistakes." He added that the market for renewables like wind "as everyone knows, is stagnating." Someone alert the White House.

The folks at the Institute for Energy Research used the Energy Department data to calculate a subsidy per unit of electricity produced. Per megawatt hour, natural gas, oil and coal received 64 cents, hydropower 82 cents, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.29 and solar a whopping $775.64.

So for every tax dollar that goes to coal, oil and natural gas, wind gets $88 and solar $1,212. After all the hype and dollars, in 2010 wind and solar combined for 2.3% of electric generation—2.3% for wind and 0% and a rounding error for solar. Renewables contributed 10.3% overall, though 6.2% is hydro. Some "investment."

Zooming out for all energy, the Congressional Research Service did its own analysis of tax incentives last year. It found that in 2009 fossil fuels accounted for 78% of U.S. energy production but received only 12.6% of tax incentives. Renewables accounted for 11% of energy production but received 77% of the tax subsidies—and that understates the figure because it leaves out direct spending.

By the way, these subsidy comparisons don't consider that the coal, oil, and natural gas industries paid more than $10 billion of taxes in 2009. Wind and solar are net drains on the Treasury.

All of this suggests a radical idea. Why not eliminate all federal energy subsidies? This would get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers—mostly losers.

Mr. Obama's plan to eliminate oil and gas subsidies would lower the budget deficit by less than $3 billion a year, but creating a true level playing field in energy, and allowing markets to determine which energy sources are used, would save $37 billion. That's an energy plan that makes sense.

A version of this article appeared August 18, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Energy Subsidy Tally.

Election 2012: Indiana GOP is eager for November; Key Indiana House Districts to watch; Shifting of power in Indiana House

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   September 17, 2012  /   Posted in 2012 General Election, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Aug 19, 2012 | By Chris Sikich chris.sikich@indystar.com

Contentious partisan battles have gridlocked the Indiana Statehouse and sidelined legislation for two years, but neither Democrats nor Republicans see the solution in working together.

Instead, they will ask voters to settle the legislative differences at the election booth. Republicans, poised to dominate the state ballot in November with new GOP-drawn districts, hope to achieve a supermajority in the House and Senate. They also expect to keep the governor's office.

Democrats are counting on a last-minute leadership coup to stave off the potential landslide.

Two years of across the aisle fighting have left voters like Ryan Puckett wishing the focus would shift from party politics to compromise. The 39-year-old Indianapolis resident wants Republicans and Democrats to figure out how to fund transit and reasonably protect the environment.

"I feel like partisanship is playing way too big of a role," he said. "We've come to the point where compromise is a dirty word, and it's incredibly frustrating for a guy like me."

Lawmakers will consider a host of issues in 2013, such as mass transit in Central Indiana, school funding to and economic development. The winner at the polls will dictate how those topics are approached.

With U.S. Rep. Mike Pence the front-runner in the governor's race in several polls, both parties are concentrating now on pouring money into battleground districts in the Indiana House and the Indiana Senate. The details of who is behind those dollars and where they will be spent won't be public record until October, when campaign finance reports are due.

Campaign mailers and TV spots are popping up in about a dozen targeted districts scattered throughout the state. Most of the 100 House and 25 Senate districts on the ballot are in solidly Republican or Democrat areas. There are few toss-ups.

Republicans are preparing for wins big enough to sweep through their agenda in 2013. From Pence to individual candidates for office, the GOP is staying on message: It's about improving the economy and job creating. The GOP strategy to boost business includes tax reform and less regulation.

But there's no doubt social issues also are in play. Republicans say they are eager to enact more restrictions on abortion and take the next steps toward instituting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Some party members, though perhaps not a majority, say they will push issues such as teaching creationism in schools and curbing illegal immigration.

Not that voters would be privy to all of those discussions. The real debate in a legislature ruled by a supermajority could be held behind closed doors. State law would allow Republicans to caucus in private to discuss their strategy for passing legislation.

"If the Republicans have a supermajority and the Democrats can simply be ignored," said Andy Downs, director of the Fort-Wayne based Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics, "the fighting will be within the party. On the downside, we won't see all of that because it will happen in the caucus room."

Cutting losses

After ruling the Indiana House in eight of the past 11 election cycles, Democrats were if not silenced then certainly ignored in the past two legislative sessions.

They unsuccessfully pushed for more environmental regulations, anti-bullying rules in schools, and more accountability and oversight for the Department of Child Services, which has been criticized for its handling of reports of abused children. Leaders say they will try to push those issues again.

But for the Democrats, this election is about cutting losses. With November looming, they fired former House Minority Leader B. Patrick Bauer's election team in August after overthrowing him in July.

New Minority Leader Linda Lawson, Hammond, has charged Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka, with directing a new election strategy.

The message is clear. Democrats want to convince moderate and independent voters that they need checks and balances in government. By narrowing the focus from every contested district to only the battleground districts, Fry hopes for a realistic outcome -- cutting potential Democrat losses to three or four seats.

"Pat just doesn't know how to run campaigns, point blank," Fry said. "All I can tell you is in 2010 the handwriting was on the wall in August, and he failed to recognize the freight train coming down the tracks."

That year, Republicans won big throughout the country, and Indiana House Democrats lost a dozen seats, ending a 52-48 majority.

It could take several elections, Fry believes, for Democrats to claw their way back to a majority in the Indiana House. And Democrats admit there is no end in sight to the Republicans' long-held majority in the Indiana Senate.

The new maps in both chambers have boosted GOP chances to hold a 37-13 supermajority in the Senate and increase a 60-40 margin in the House. If Republicans can pick up seven more seats in the House, they would have a large enough advantage to pass laws even if House Democrats walk out -- the only recourse for the minority party at the Statehouse the past two years.

Fry has a workable strategy, said Robert Dion, a political professor at the University of Evansville. If Republicans gain supermajorities in both chambers, he said it's likely to be short-lived. After all, the GOP managed to control the House during some sessions in the 1990s and 2000s under Democrat-drawn maps.

"Something will happen that allows the Democrats to claw their way back," Dion said. "They certainly can't get much worse. There is a bottom."

It all has voters like Frank Brems wondering if the system itself is broken.

The 29-year-old Lafayette resident says Republicans seeking a supermajority only makes sense: Political parties are made to promote their agenda. It's a failing, he believes, of the two-party system. He is ready for a system that focuses beyond two points of view.

"If the Democrats were in charge, it's not likely to get any better," he said. "They like to do things their own way. If we had more than two parties, we might actually have to have a dialogue."

Fundraising is the name of the game

In races from the Capitol to the edges of the state, fundraising will be as important as message.

Lawson, who did not respond to several interview requests, already has launched a blitz to appeal to potential donors. With the leadership change, Democrats likely are playing catch-up with Republicans in the race for dollars.

Looking back two years, Republicans outspent Democrats $7.8 million to $7.2 million on House races and $2.3 million to $1.7 million on Senate races.

Democrats' hopes are on urban areas, such as Indianapolis, Gary, South Bend and Evansville.

Republicans are pinning their chances on the suburbs and large swaths of rural land that dominate Indiana's landscape.

Primary races offer a glimpse of party confidence. Democrats didn't bother to field a candidate in 25 of 100 House Districts. Republicans, by contrast, didn't field candidates in 15 races. Both parties have since filled out their ballots with appointments.

Before the primary, House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, admitted Republicans were eyeing a supermajority in the House. Now, he says Democrats about-face on strategy could impact the election.

He is confident Republicans will keep their majority in the House, but he says obtaining the super majority will be difficult. And he does plan to release specific policy stances in coming months.

"It's going to be an interesting three months," he said.

Some voters want Republicans to dominate state government.

Larry Kehoe, 48, Carmel, believes they should try to win as many seats as possible, believing that will lead to smaller and more efficient government.

"If the people of Indiana are smart enough, they'll want to vote Republican," he said.

Others see room for cooperation. Sam Bridegroom, 46, a Fishers business owner, says the Republican idea to lessen regulations would help him grow his information technology company. It's a real problem, he says.

But creating legislation allowing voters to decide whether to beef up mass transit in Central Indiana would be the biggest boon, he said.

Transit legislation, both parties agree, will need bipartisan support that has so far been elusive.

"The government needs to be worried about things people can't do for themselves," Bridegroom said. "We can buy a car, but we can't buy a firetruck. We can't build roads, we can't buy trains and we can't build public transportation."

Districts to Watch:

After taking control of the Indiana House in 2010 with a 60-40 margin, Republicans are poised to increase their edge. Democrats, though, are counting on new leadership to control losses.

Here are 14 battleground districts key to each party’s success on Election Day:
District 5

Jerod Warnock, D-Mishawaka. Dale R. DeVon, R-South Bend.

District 15

Thomas C. O’Donnell, D-Highland. Harold (Hal) Slager, R-Schererville.

District 26

Rick Cornstuble, D-Lafayette. (I) Randy Truitt, R-West Lafayette.

District 31

Katie Morgan, D-Marion. (I) Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City.

District 42

Mark C. Spelbring, D-Rockville. Alan P. Morrison, R-Terre Haute.

District 43

(I) Clyde Kersey, D-Terre Haute. John Cunningham, R-Terre Haute.

District 45

(I) Kreg Battles, D-Vincennes. (I) Bruce Borders, R-Jasonville.

District 56

(I) Philip Pflum, D-Milton. Mark J. Brim, L-Richmond. Richard (Dick) Hamm, R-Richmond. William Eric Atkinson, R-Pershing. (write in).

District 60

(I) Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington. Peggy Mayfield, R-Martinsville.

District 69

Jim McCormick, D-Seymour. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour.

District 74

Michael (Mike) Schriefer, D-Santa Claus. Lloyd Arnold, R-Leavenworth.

District 76

W. Trent Van Haaften, D-Mount Vernon. (I) Wendy (Mac) McNamara, R-Mount Vernon.

District 81

(I) Winfield C. Moses, Jr., D-Fort Wayne. Alexander “Alex” Avery, L-Fort Wayne. Martin Carbaugh, R-Fort Wayne.

District 97

Justin Moed, D-Indianapolis. AJ Feeney-Ruiz, R-Indianapolis.

Follow Star reporter Chris Sikich on Twitter at twitter.com/ChrisSikich. Call him at (317) 444-6036.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shifting of Power

Control of the Indiana House has shifted back and forth in the past two decades, with Democrats, who drew legislative maps in 1990 and 2000, generally coming out on top. Republicans drew new districts in 2011. House lawmakers are elected to two-year terms.

Here's a look at the election results:

1988: 50 Democrats, 50 Republicans.
1990: 52 Democrats, 48 Republicans.
1992: 55 Democrats, 45 Republicans.
1994: 56 Republicans, 44 Democrats.
1996: 50 Democrats, 50 Republicans.*
1998: 53 Democrats, 47 Republicans.
2000: 53 Democrats, 47 Republicans.
2002: 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans.
2004: 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats.
2006: 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans.
2008: 52 Democrats, 48 Republicans.
2010: 60 Republicans, 40 Democrats.

*Democrats were in control because of a change in state law that gives control to the party that wins the governor's office when it's on the ballot or the secretary of state's office when it's on the ballot.
--Mary Beth Schneider

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG