Both Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Tom Harkin voted Saturday morning for a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.

Seven Republican candidates take the stage tonight as Fox News and the Iowa GOP co-host a presidential debate in Sioux City. I’ll be live-blogging after the jump, where I’ve also posted some recent news about the race in Iowa.

UPDATE: Scroll down for the live-blog.

Several Iowa power plants are among the largest emitters of certain toxic heavy metals, according to a new report by the Environmental Integrity Project.

Only ten Democrats in the U.S. House supported a bill approved last night to extend the payroll tax cut and some unemployment benefits. All three Iowa Democrats crossed party lines to vote for this legislation, which has drawn a rare veto threat from the White House.

UPDATE: Scroll down for Representative Dave Loebsack’s statement on this vote.

SECOND UPDATE: I’ve added a statement from Representative Steve King.

Governor Terry Branstad promised during last year’s campaign to transform the Iowa Department of Economic Development into a public-private partnership. Yesterday he named 18 leaders of Iowa companies to two new state economic development boards.

The list of appointed board members are after the jump, along with background and the full text of Branstad’s executive order creating the Iowa Partnership for Economic Progress board.

This Halloween weekend seemed like a good time to highlight some tricks and treats from the news headlines.

At the Moving Planet climate change event in Des Moines on Saturday, I heard a few activists talk about organizing against former State Senator Swati Dandekar’s confirmation to the Iowa Utilities Board. The Iowa Senate will consider her nomination during the 2012 legislative session.

I would advise environmentalists not to waste their time on that particular hopeless cause. Senate Democrats may be unhappy that Governor Terry Branstad jeopardized their control of the chamber by nominating Dandekar, but they are not going to block her confirmation.

Democratic State Senator Swati Dandekar is stepping down from the legislature in order to accept an appointment to the Iowa Utilities Board, the Des Moines Register reported today. Her resignation forces a special election this fall in Iowa Senate district 18, which covers suburban and rural areas in Linn County.

Democrats currently hold a 26-24 Iowa Senate majority, so a Republican victory in the special election would deadlock the upper chamber for the 2012 legislative session. Follow me after the jump for a district map and first take on the race to replace Dandekar.

The volatile stock market, Wisconsin recall elections and run-up to the Ames straw poll have dominated political news coverage this week, overshadowing a story that may have more far-reaching implications. Starting in 2014, fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards will apply to medium and heavy-duty trucks for the first time in U.S. history.

One of the most surprising Iowa House Republican winners from 2010 now has a Democratic challenger. Altoona City Council member Joe Riding announced yesterday that he will run against State Representative Kim Pearson in the new House district 30, a swing seat covering much of eastern Polk County.  

Dubuque area residents are still dealing with the aftermath of more than 10 inches of rain in a 24-hour period this week, which caused massive flash flooding and road closures. It was a one-day record for rainfall. Governor Terry Branstad changed his schedule on July 28 to inspect the damage.

The Register’s Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa wrapped up today in Davenport. From what I’ve read and seen on the news, it sounds like the pass-through and overnight towns generally did a great job providing refreshments and entertainment for the riders. It can’t have been pleasant bicycling and camping out in this week’s high heat, but thousands of riders made it all the way to the Mississippi River. RAGBRAI officials made minor route changes in Davenport, fearing flooding after the heavy rain in Dubuque, but the river stayed in its banks.

A little more than a year ago, flooding washed away the dam at Lake Delhi in Delaware County. The lake quickly drained, ruining what had been a popular resort area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency denied funding for people who owned houses on the former lake. Property values and tax receipts are way down. In the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund bill for fiscal year 2012, state legislators included funding for a Lake Delhi dam restoration study, as well as “intent” language regarding future funds for reconstruction. Branstad used his item veto power to remove the planned funding to rebuild the dam, saying any commitment was premature before the study results have been received. More details on Branstad’s veto are after the jump. I see his point, but the veto will hurt local efforts to secure other financing for the project.

It’s worth noting that Branstad urged state legislators to pass a bill this year promoting nuclear reactor construction in Iowa, even though MidAmerican is only one year into a three-year feasibility study on that project. The pro-nuclear bill passed the Iowa House but didn’t come up for a floor vote in the Iowa Senate.

This week Kiplinger released its 2011 list of “Best Value Cities” nationwide, and Cedar Rapids was ranked number 9. Analysts cited strong local employers, good amenities, reasonable home prices, and a good recovery from the 2008 flooding. Kiplinger mentioned major downtown renovation projects but not the I-JOBS state infrastructure bonding initiative, which was a crucial for financing those projects. State Representative Renee Schulte, who represents part of northeast Cedar Rapids, cheered the praise from Kiplinger. Like all other Iowa House Republicans, she voted against the I-JOBS program. Schulte won her first election in Iowa House district 37 by just 13 votes in 2008. The Democrat she defeated, Art Staed, is seeking a rematch in the new House district 66 in 2012.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

The House of Representatives approved a bill yesterday to extend the National Flood Insurance Program through fiscal year 2016. The overwhelming majority (406 votes in favor) included Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03), as well as Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05). After the jump I’ve posted statements from Loebsack and Boswell on this bill. Loebsack’s press release mentions key improvements to the federal flood insurance program and highlights an amendment he proposed, which the House approved by voice vote. A video of Loebsack’s speech to the House introducing that amendment is also after the jump. He has worked extensively on flood-related issues in Congress since the historic 2008 floods devastated population centers in his district.

Boswell’s press release highlighted an amendment he submitted, which was intended to help flood victims in three additional ways. That amendment failed on a 181 to 244 vote just before final passage of the bill. Notably, Latham and King were two of only three House Republicans to vote for Boswell’s amendment. Both will run for re-election in 2012 in districts affected by this summer’s Missouri River flooding.

Federal flood insurance has had bipartisan support in the past, but King’s votes yesterday suggest a change of heart. In July 2010, he was the only Iowan to vote against a similar House bill to extend the National Flood Insurance Program. At that time, King didn’t publicize his opposition, and I didn’t see any statement about yesterday’s House vote on his official website.

Presumably King changed his position because the Missouri River has devastated parts of western Iowa this summer (for details, check the Iowa Homeland Security website). In fact, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack signed an agricultural disaster designation last week for 14 counties in IA-05. King did announce that aid in a press release I’ve posted after the jump. It lists the affected counties and explains the kinds of federal assistance available to farm operators. King is proud of his vote against federal aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina, but when a natural disaster affects his own constituents, “big government” looks a lot more appealing.

In other Congressional news, Iowa’s House delegation split on party lines yesterday over a bill “aimed at repealing a slew of light bulb efficiency standards.” Latham and King joined most Republicans supporting this bill; Braley, Loebsack and Boswell voted no. Although 233 representatives voted for the bill and only 193 against it, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act failed to pass because it was brought to the floor “under a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority,” Andrew Restuccia reported.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Yesterday’s employment report was so awful (1 on a scale of 1 to 10) that a double-dip recession seems more likely than ever. At the Naked Capitalism blog, Edward Harrison reposted a piece from November 2009 on why Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers would be President Barack Obama’s Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. It’s worth a read. At the Bonddad blog, New Deal Democrat went over lots of weekly indicators and found more evidence of an economic “stall” than a contraction (so far).

I’m still surprised by some of the bills that didn’t get through the Iowa legislature during this year’s extra-long session. I learned this week that Iowa wasn’t the only state where pro-nuclear legislation faltered. The nuclear industry failed to persuade lawmakers in five other state legislatures to advance favored bills. After the jump I’ve posted a press release from Nuclear Bailout, a project of Physicians for Social Responsibility. The Iowa chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility lobbied hard against the bill written exclusively for the benefit of MidAmerican Energy.

In case you missed it, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Minority Leader Paul McKinley reflected on the 2011 session during the July 1 edition of Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program. Click the link to read the transcript or watch the video. Both of them expect some progress on property tax reform next year, though they may get a crack at that sooner if Governor Terry Branstad calls a special legislative session later this year.

I’ll post Bleeding Heartland’s final news roundup on what passed and didn’t pass during the 2011 session after Branstad signs or vetoes the bills that reached his desk during the last week of June.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE: Best slip of the tongue I’ve heard this year: while phone-banking for Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, State Senator Brad Zaun says he’s calling on behalf of “Congressman Boswell.” Democrat Leonard Boswell beat Zaun during the 2010 Congressional race in Iowa’s third district.

The Iowa House and Senate finally passed a budget and got out of town yesterday with only about eight hours remaining before the end of the fiscal year.

Every legislative session has its own dynamic, and I’ve been thinking about what surprised me most about this year’s maneuvering in the capitol.  

Two days after rejecting a similar measure, the Senate voted today to repeal a key ethanol tax credit as of July 1:

[Democratic Senator Dianne] Feinstein’s amendment to an economic development bill would quickly end the credit of 45 cents for each gallon of ethanol that fuel blenders mix into gasoline. The credit led to $5.4 billion inforegone revenue last year, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The amendment also ends the 54-cent per gallon import tariff that protects the domestic ethanol industry.

Thursday’s vote was a turnaround from Tuesday, when just 40 senators voted for [Republican Senator Tom] Coburn’s identical amendment, well shy of the 60 needed to advance it.

But the politics of Tuesday’s battle were clouded by Democratic anger at Coburn’s surprise procedural move last week that set up the vote. Democratic leaders had whipped against the amendment heading into Tuesday’s vote, but two aides said they did not do so ahead of the vote Thursday.

Both Iowans in the Senate voted against the Feinstein amendment, which passed 73 to 27 (roll call). Tom Harkin was one of 13 Democrats to vote no, and Chuck Grassley was one of 14 Republicans to vote no. Most of the opposition came from significant corn-producing states.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack called today’s Senate vote “ill advised” and warned that jobs would be lost. His full statement is after the jump. I will update this post with reaction from Harkin and Grassley if it becomes available. Their comments on Tuesday’s ethanol vote are here.

UPDATE: Philip Brasher writes for the Des Moines Register,

The vote was largely symbolic in that the House is expected to reject the provision because tax measures are supposed to originate in the House, not in the Senate. But the sweeping defeat was a powerful indication of how the industry’s once legendary political clout on Capitol Hill has all but disappeared because of  the federal deficit and concerns about the impact of the biofuel on food prices and the environment. The subsidy and tariff are due to expire at the end of the year and the industry is trying to continue some kind of subsidy after that  to go with the annual usage mandates that require refiners  to add ethanol to gasoline. The mandate rises each year until 2015 before leveling off at 15 billion gallons. […]

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said that the rising cost of food is a sleeper issue around the country and that the vote to kill the ethanol subsidy was a “vote to lower food prices and to lower the national debt.” […]

The ethanol industry did achieve one victory today when the Senate rejected, 59-41,  a proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to block the Obama administration from subsidizing the installation of ethanol pumps and storage tanks. However, the House approved a similar measure 283-128 earlier in the day as part of an appropriations bill for the Agriculture Department. That Senate vote’s important, however, because it shows the industry has support there for shifting at least some of the  federal aid it’s now getting into infrastructure subsidies, according to energy policy analyst Kevin Book.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin both voted to preserve a key ethanol tax credit today, as an effort to end that credit six months early fell way short of the 60 votes needed in the U.S. Senate. Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had submitted an amendment to repeal the 45-cent-per-gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit for ethanol blenders as of July 1. The credit is scheduled to expire at the end of 2011. Coburn’s amendment “also would have eliminated a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol,” saving the federal government approximately $2.7 billion total. Only 40 senators (34 Republicans and six who caucus with Democrats) voted for a cloture motion on Coburn’s amendment. Grassley and Harkin were among the 59 senators (13 Republicans and 46 who caucus with Democrats) who voted against cloture; click here for the roll call.

Today’s vote might have been much closer had Coburn not used unusual Senate procedures to force the legislation to the floor. Democratic Senate leaders whipped the vote against Coburn’s amendment, bringing around some Democrats who oppose ethanol subsidies. Democrat Dianne Feinstein, a co-sponsor of the Coburn amendment, nonetheless voted no on today’s cloture motion and said publicly, “If it weren’t for the process, we would have 60 votes.” Feinstein had urged Coburn “to withdraw his amendment and wait until next week” for a Senate vote.

Most of the Republicans who voted against the Coburn amendment represent large corn-producing states. A major anti-tax group’s opposition to the measure may have peeled off a few GOP votes as well. Grover Norquist’s group Americans for Tax Reform argued that eliminating any tax credit without simultaneously adding new tax cuts amounts to a tax increase.

Ethanol supporters also reduced support for Coburn’s amendment by introducing a rival proposal yesterday. Harkin and Grassley are both co-sponsoring the new bipartisan Senate legislation:

While Coburn’s language would completely eliminate the subsidy, the pro-ethanol proposal would cut off the subsidy on July 1, and replace it with a variable subsidy that fluctuates with the price of oil. […]

Under this proposal, ethanol blenders would get no subsidy at all when oil prices are above $90 a barrel. If oil falls to between $80 and $90 a barrel, they would get a six cents per gallon subsidy. Another six cents would be added for each $10 drop in the price of oil, and a maximum subsidy of 30 cents a gallon could be received when oil falls to $50 a barrel or less (a summary of the bill is here).

That’s still less than the current 45 cents a gallon subsidy that ethanol blenders receive currently, regardless of the price of oil.

Proponents of the bill say ending the current system on July 1 and moving to a variable subsidy would save $2.5 billion. In a nod to Coburn and his supporters, the bill would use $1 billion of that for deficit reduction.

The rest would be used for the variable subsidy, but also for the development of ethanol infrastructure and other incentives. For example, the bill would expand tax credits to ethanol blender pumps, and extend through 2014 the small producer ethanol credit.

After the jump I’ve posted Grassley’s floor statement against the Coburn amendment and his comments released after today’s vote. I will update this post if I see official comment from Harkin.

UPDATE: Added Harkin’s statement praising the Senate for rejecting “this misguided amendment.” The Iowa Environmental Council reminds us that the government’s pro-ethanol policy has unintended consequences for water quality.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? I’ve been thinking about politically active college students who make the news for reasons other than receiving lewd photos from elected officials.

On June 8, a group of students from the University of Northern Iowa, Iowa State and the University of Iowa testified before the Iowa Senate Education Appropriations Subcommittee. The students came to Des Moines to speak against spending cuts for education. The subcommittee’s ranking Republican, State Senator Shawn Hamerlinck, made the hearing newsworthy by telling the group,

“I do not like it when students actually come here and lobby me for funds.  That’s just my opinion. I want to wish you guys the best.  I want you to go home and graduate.  But this political theater, leave the circus to us OK?  Go home and enjoy yourselves.  I want to thank you for joining us and though I have to concede, your time speaking before us is kind of a tad intense.   It’s probably a pretty new experience.  You probably prepared for it for days and you sat there in front of us trying to make sure your remarks were just right, and that’s a good thing.  But actually spending your time worrying about what we’re doing up here, I don’t want you to do that.  Go back home.  Thanks guys.”

We wouldn’t want any civic involvement on our college campuses, would we? Hamerlinck didn’t get the memo: you’re supposed to at least pretend to encourage young people to get involved in the political process. But he stood by his remarks, adding in a statement:

“It saddens me to see bright young Iowa students being misled about our state’s financial situation. Their view of Iowa’s budget is inaccurate and it is my hope that our Regents institutions are educating them on the facts rather than political propaganda.”

I guess Hamerlinck missed the news this week about state revenues coming in strong. It’s incredible that Republicans continue to portray Iowa’s fiscal condition as dire.

Anyway, Senate Democrats spread news of the “go back home” mini-speech through blogs, Facebook, YouTube and e-mail. After the jump I’ve posted a fundraising e-mail blast featuring Hamerlinck’s comments, which I received on June 9. Hamerlinck is considered a rising GOP star, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him run for Congress someday in Iowa’s second district, if he holds his Senate seat. The new Iowa map put Hamerlinck in Senate district 46 (Muscatine and Scott counties), which has a slight Democratic voter registration advantage.

Yesterday I checked out the websites of the College and Young Democrats of Iowa and the Iowa Federation of College Republicans. The front page of the Democratic site features some GOP legislative proposals (cut taxes and spending for higher education and preschool), news from the presidential race and other odds and ends. The front page of the Republican site is full of videos and blog posts about the infamous “F*** OFF” e-mail that a University of Iowa professor sent University of Iowa student Natalie Ginty in April. (Bleeding Heartland discussed that overblown scandal here.) Ginty, who chairs the Iowa college Republican organization, appeared on many national media shows at that time to discuss alleged liberal intolerance on campus.

A group of students from the University of Iowa attended a Board of Regents meeting on June 8 to advocate for phasing out coal combustion at the three state universities. As part of a nationwide Sierra Club campaign, the students delivered signed letters from Iowans and information about the adverse impact of coal.

Rock the Vote released a new analysis this week of how state voting systems serve young Americans. Iowa placed second with a score well above the national average. You can download the full scorecard here (pdf). Iowa gained points in several categories (same-day voter registration, absentee voting, overseas and military voting) thanks to the leadership of former Secretary of State Michael Mauro. We would have lost two points if current Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s voter ID proposal had been enacted.

This is an open thread. Comments on all topics are welcome.

Seven Iowa businessmen are flying to New Jersey today to dine with the man they hope will improve a comically bad Republican presidential field. I understand the idea behind recruiting Governor Chris Christie, but I don’t get why the power-brokers are calling so much attention their efforts.

More thoughts on the courting of Christie are after the jump, along with a bonus tip on what not to say if you want outsiders to take the Iowa caucuses seriously.

What’s on your mind this holiday weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Several energy-related stories caught my eye this week. New analysis suggests the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant is worse than initially thought, because “containment chambers of damaged reactors […] were likely breached.” In terms of radioactive material released into the ocean, Fukushima could become “even larger than Chernobyl.”

Earlier this month, the Japan Times reported, “High radiation readings taken in the No. 1 reactor building the night of March 11 suggest it was the quake rather than the loss of cooling that critically damaged the Fukushima No. 1 power plant […].”

As part of its response to the nuclear crisis, the Japanese government may require “all new buildings and houses to come fitted with solar panels by 2030.” Solar power has the potential to reduce demand for electricity during peak hours.

In local news, Ben Foster, a former campaign staffer for presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, pleaded guilty this week to public intoxiation during an embarrassing incident this spring. Authorities dropped a trespassing charge against Foster, who tried to get into the wrong house in the middle of the night. He’s lucky he didn’t get charged with driving drunk en route to this misadventure.

Sarah Palin will be the focus of a two-hour-long film, which its director will premiere in Iowa “late next month before expanding the release to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.” No word yet on which Iowa theater will show the movie. Meanwhile, a former top aide to Palin during her time as governor of Alaska just published a “scathing tell-all” book.

Senator Chuck Grassley’s twitter technique caught the eye of Steven Nelson at the Daily Caller. I disagree with Grassley twitter detractors like Sam Biddle. It’s refreshing to see a politician speak in his own voice, without running it by communications staff. This is still my all-time favorite Grassley tweet.

A bill to expand offshore drilling for oil failed to advance in the U.S. Senate yesterday. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley was among 42 Republicans who voted to proceed with considering the Offshore Production and Safety Act of 2011 (roll call). Five Republicans joined every Democrat present, including Tom Harkin, in voting against the motion, which needed 60 votes to pass.

This bill was written as the Republican way to address high gasoline prices, in contrast with Democratic efforts to repeal oil company tax breaks. Although oil market experts agree that more drilling in the outer shelf won’t affect prices at the pump, I am surprised that no Senate Democrats backed yesterday’s motion to proceed. When the House of Representatives approved a different offshore drilling bill two weeks ago, a large chunk of the Democratic caucus (including Iowa’s Leonard Boswell) voted with Republicans.

In other Senate news, Grassley hasn’t announced how he will vote on House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s budget: “[Grassley] said the burden is on Senate Democrats to explain why they haven’t introduced their own alternative budget.” I would be shocked if Grassley voted against Ryan’s plan. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn’t whipping his colleagues to vote for the legislation, probably because Democrats plan to make proposed Medicare reforms the centerpiece of the 2012 election campaign. But Grassley doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected.

A Republican-led filibuster blocked Senate consideration today of a bill that would end “tax breaks for the five largest oil companies: Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron.” Click here for more detail on tax breaks that would be eliminated. The 52 to 48 vote in favor of proceeding with the “Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act” failed because 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster. The roll call shows that Iowa’s Chuck Grassley voted against the motion to proceed, as did all but two Senate Republicans. Tom Harkin voted for considering the bill, as did all but three Democrats.

I’m all for ending oil company subsidies, but this bill was about optics rather than good energy policy. Andrew Restuccia wrote in The Hill,

Democrats’ pledge to continue pushing the bill signals that they view the effort as a winning political issue amid $4-a-gallon gas, soaring oil company profits and growing concern about the deficit. […]

Democrats say the bill would save $21 billion over the course of 10 years, savings that can be used to reduce the deficit at a time of increased belt-tightening.

Those talking points would be more convincing if party leaders had genuinely tried to end oil subsidies when Democrats controlled the U.S. House and had close to 60 votes in the Senate. It also makes no sense to focus this bill on the biggest oil companies, rather than the sector as a whole. Democrats apparently wrote the bill that way because of those companies’ large profits in the first quarter of this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told journalists today that he will press for ending oil companies’ tax breaks as part of legislation on raising the debt ceiling. The U.S. hit its current debt ceiling yesterday and won’t be able to pay all its bills if Congress does not act to raise the ceiling by August 2. I believe President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are playing a losing game by making budget negotiations part of a deal on raising the debt ceiling. When it was time to raise the government’s borrowing limit in 1995, President Bill Clinton wisely refused to let Republicans use the occasion to “backdoor their budget proposals.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added a statement Grassley released on May 17, calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to approve the proposed Keystone XL Canadian pipeline project. Grassley depicts that project as a way for the Obama administration to help reduce the cost of gasoline. But an analysis commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy earlier this year suggested that building this pipeline might cause oil and therefore gasoline prices to rise in the Midwest. Environmental groups have raised many objections to the Keystone XL project as well.

SECOND UPDATE: I’ve also added below excerpts from a report by the Congressional Research Service on “the extent to which proposed tax changes on the oil industry are likely to affect domestic gasoline prices.” The report briefly explains the five tax breaks that would be repealed under the bill senators filibustered.

Last week, Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) brought up the need to end oil subsidies repeatedly during an Iowa Public Television appearance. This week, Boswell and other House Democrats requested “a full House Agriculture Committee hearing and investigation into the relationship between rising oil prices and Wall Street speculators.” So I was surprised to see Boswell vote for an offshore drilling bill the House approved on May 5.

Details on yesterday’s votes and Boswell’s recent statements on oil policy are after the jump.

After more than five hours of debate, the Iowa House on April 26 approved a bill to let MidAmerican Energy charge consumers for costs associated with a nuclear reactor it may or may not build in the coming decade. House File 561 passed 68 to 30. All Republicans present except two voted yes, joined by 12 House Democrats: Deborah Berry (district 22), Chris Hall (district 2), Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (district 67), Dan Muhlbauer (district 51), Pat Murphy (district 28), Rick Olson (district 68), Brian Quirk (district 15), Mark Smith (district 43), Phyllis Thede (district 81), Andrew Wenthe (district 18), John Wittneben (district 7) and Mary Wolfe (district 26). The remaining 29 House Democrats voted against the bill. Two Republicans voted no: Guy Vander Linden (district 75) and Kim Pearson (district 42).

Details on the House debate and efforts to amend the bill are after the jump, along with some speculation about its prospects in the Senate and thoughts about the coalitions lobbying for and against it.  

About three-quarters of Iowa voters are against raising electricity rates now to cover the cost of building a new nuclear reactor in the future, according to a poll released today. Survey USA polled 600 Iowa registered voters between April 19 and April 21. The environmental non-profit group Friends of the Earth commissioned the survey, which also found that a large majority of respondents would rather invest in renewable energy than nuclear power. Nearly 90 percent said it would be unfair to let MidAmerican Energy keep money raised for nuclear plant construction even if the utility cancels the project.

Survey USA posted full cross-tabs here. After the jump I’ve posted topline results for each of the poll questions and background on Senate File 390, which the upper chamber will vote on this week.

Sometime this week the Iowa Senate will consider Senate File 390, the nuclear energy rip-off bill Bleeding Heartland discussed here and here. MidAmerican Energy, which would benefit from the bill, has given generously to Iowa legislators from both parties and to political action committees. Constituents need to urge senators to reject this bill, which would hurt consumers, or at least table it. MidAmerican is in only the first year of a three-year feasibility study on nuclear power in Iowa. The Senate switchboard number is (515) 281-3371, or you can e-mail your senator. The Sierra Club Iowa chapter created an easy e-mail form here and posted a four-page pdf with more background information: “MidAmerican Energy Company’s Misguided Pursuit of Nuclear Power: removing barriers, providing incentives, and skirting the existing regulatory process.”

The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation is hiring a Land Projects Associate to “provide support for 40-50 active land protection projects.” Click the link for the job description and skill requirements. Applications are due May 2. The 125-acre Bernau Prairie in Kossuth County is one recent example of a completed INHF land protection project.  

The Women, Food and Agriculture Network is accepting nominations for the second annual “Sustainable Farming Mom of the Year” award. Click here to view the 2010 finalists and winner. Nominations are due by 5 pm central time on Friday, May 6.

Trees Forever is seeking Iowans age 25 or younger to serve on its Youth Advisory Council. Applicants may be in high school, college or out of school. The Trees Forever site has more information on the council’s role.

Details on lots of events coming up this week are after the jump. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of another public event that should be mentioned here.

Federal income tax returns are due this Friday, April 15 make that next Monday, April 18. This week the IRS released a list of 12 common tax scams.

If House Republicans get their way, taxes on the wealthiest Americans will fall further in the coming years, while government programs benefiting lower-income groups will be slashed. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s blueprint is like a caricature of Republican Reverse Robin-Hood-ism. And it wouldn’t reduce the deficit by nearly as much as Ryan claims.

The Pew Charitable Trusts recently published a report on Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race? (pdf). Not the United States, unfortunately. We have slipped to third place globally, behind China and Germany. But the American Wind Energy Association’s annual report shows that within the U.S., Iowa ranks first for percentage of a state’s electricity generated from wind power (about 15 percent). (Texas still has nearly three times as much installed wind capacity as Iowa.) Think how much more clean energy we could be producing if we’d adopted an ambitious renewable energy standard at the state or federal level during the past decade, or if Iowa’s utility companies had embraced renewable energy production a decade or two ago. MidAmerican is adding turbines to several of its existing Iowa wind farms, but for years the company resisted wind power and lobbied against legislation aimed at ramping up wind energy production.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: Sidney Lumet died on Saturday. I didn’t know he never won an Oscar for best director, despite making so many good movies: “12 Angry Men,” “Serpico,” “Network,” “Dog Day Afternoon,” and “The Verdict.”

SECOND UPDATE: Nice tribute to Sidney Lumet by Dennis Hartley, with a few extra comments from Digby.

Iowa legislators from both parties seem ready to approve the redistricting plan offered by the Legislative Services Agency on Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, whose Council Bluffs district barely changed, encouraged colleagues  to take a “cold, hard look” at the map, since the second offering “may not be as good.” Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley’s weekly e-mail blast spoke favorably about the redistricting process. Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, who was thrown into House district 8 with two other Republican representatives, said, “The next map might be something less desirable.” The Associated Press reported that “one of the potential rivals is retiring and the other laying plans to run for the senate.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy described the map as a “a wash, with good and bad on both sides.”

Two factors are pushing lawmakers to accept the plan. First,

[Democratic legislative staffer Ron] Parker noted that 27 House members and 14 senators are paired under the proposed map. He says that’s about half the number tossed together the last two times the Legislature approved districts.

In 1991, 50 House members and 20 senators were paired and those numbers were 39 and 25 when lawmakers drew new lines in 2001.  

Parker said Friday that many Republicans and Democrats assume there could be even more pairings if lawmakers reject the initial proposed map.  

Second, Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 pointed out Thursday that the extremely low population variance between the Congressional districts leaves both parties “in the dark for the second map” and without credible ways to assert that the plan violates Iowa Code:

The LSA has taken away the option of playing the odds. There are maps with smaller pop dev, but with questionable compactness. The LSA can choose to go with a higher pop dev based on this. How do you play it? Do they go down or up? And which pattern is most likely to be chosen?

The difference between this and 2001 is that the first map last time had multiple credible options with lower pop devs. Based on pattern analysis, you could go and plead what you considered important based on arguments fitted to the Iowa Code.

If yesterday had been like 2001, the first map would have had a mean deviation of 155 persons. Instead they went low, real low. […]

If the LSA had put out a first map with a mean pop dev comparable to 2001 (after adjusting for larger districts), you would have had the opportunity to argue about what represents IA better: regionalized vs balanced, for example. By offering up a map right on the edge, that has largely been rendered moot.

I’m assuming rational actors are involved. You always have to ask the question, what are the odds of my situation improving? If you can’t answer that (and it is very difficult here), bird in the hand applies.

Assuming this plan becomes law, some incumbents will have hard choices to make. John Deeth collected news here about legislators making arrangements to avoid elections against each other. My current State Senator Pat Ward is ready to move to a different part of the Des Moines suburbs to run in the new Senate district 22 instead of against Democratic Senator Matt McCoy in the new district 21. She may have competition in the Republican primary, because former WHO talk radio personality Steve Deace lives in what would be district 22 and sounds interested. Shortly after leaving WHO this year, Deace indicated that he would consider running for the Iowa Senate.

In other Iowa news, today is the second anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling, which struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Gronstal blocked a vote on a constitutional amendment to overturn that ruling in the state Senate this year and will do so next year too. If Republicans gain control of the upper chamber in the 2012 elections, they would need to pass a marriage amendment in the legislature in 2013, hold both chambers in 2014, and pass the amendment again in 2015 in order to get the measure on a statewide ballot in November 2016.

The most depressing news I’ve seen this weekend relates to the ongoing disaster in Japan. The death toll from last month’s earthquake and tsunami could exceed 16,000.  Authorities don’t have a solid plan for disposing of radioactive water used to cool reactors and spent fuel pools at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear facility. Now some of the radioactive water is leaking into the ocean, and the early attempts to stop the leaking have failed.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Legislation aimed at encouraging the expansion of nuclear power in Iowa is “a bad idea that gets worse by the minute,” according to a new report by Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic analysis at the Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility commissioned the report, and Cooper summarized its conclusions at a Des Moines press conference today. He analyzed the nuclear industry as a whole and lessons learned from states that have adopted legislation similar to Iowa’s House File 561 and Senate File 390.

Cooper’s report focuses on the immense costs that this legislation would impose on customers of MidAmerican Energy, even if no new nuclear facility is ever built. The average MidAmerican customer may see utility bills go up $50 per month before any nuclear reactor comes online. MidAmerican President Bill Fehrman told Iowa lawmakers yesterday that nuclear power is less expensive than pursuing other methods of generating more electricity, such as solar power and natural gas. Perhaps he was unaware of recent comments by Exelon CEO John Rowe, who runs the largest nuclear plant operator in the U.S. Rowe is convinced that

“At the present time in the United States, new nuclear power reactors are not economical anyway with low load growth and very cheap natural gas. Natural gas generation is now the economic way of choice for low-carbon electricity and that will be true for at least a decade,” he said.

Cooper’s report demonstrates that nuclear power is not competitive with any other major method of producing electricity in terms of cost or efficiency. Massive up-front costs are one reason why nuclear projects in other parts of the U.S. have gone nowhere despite federal loan guarantees (see also here). Building nuclear power plants will only become more expensive in light of the ongoing disaster at Japan’s Fukushima facility.

Nuclear power projects also create relatively “few jobs per dollar invested,” “drain resources from household budgets,” “raise the cost of doing business” and primarily benefit foreign equipment vendors. Because the licensing and construction process for nuclear power plants is so slow, Cooper writes, “choosing nuclear reactors over efficiency and renewables not only produces many fewer local jobs in the aggregate, but takes much longer to get those jobs.”

For decades, activists opposed to nuclear power have focused on health and security concerns, such as the lack of appropriate long-term storage for nuclear waste, or the potential for an accident or terrorist attack to release large amounts of radiation. Cooper’s report shows that even if one sets aside all health and environmental concerns, nuclear power is a raw deal for consumers. MidAmerican ratepayers are unlikely ever to break even on this deal. The American Association for Retired Persons has been trying to get legislators to view the proposed bills from this perspective as well.

Governor Terry Branstad’s mind appears to be made up: he supports anything MidAmerican wants to help it build a nuclear power plant, because “we really can’t do it all with renewable.” I reject Branstad’s premise that efficiency measures and renewable energy projects can’t meet Iowa’s baseload electricity needs, but even if that were true, new natural gas-powered plants would be a far better use of resources than nuclear.

House File 561 has already cleared the Iowa House Commerce Committee and probably will pass the House easily. Senate File 390 is still being considered in subcommittee, and nine Democratic senators have urged their colleagues to shelve the proposal. (Cooper notes that other states that were considering similar legislation have put it on hold following the crisis in Japan.) Senate Commerce Committee Chair Swati Dandekar has scheduled a subcommittee meeting on this bill Monday, March 28 from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm in room 116 at the state capitol. Opponents of this bill should contact their representatives and senators, and members of the Senate Commerce Committee in particular.

After the jump I’ve posted today’s release from Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility and several longer excerpts from Cooper’s report on advanced cost recovery for nuclear reactors.

UPDATE: MidAmerican disputes Cooper’s estimates on how much the average ratepayer’s utility bill would go up. I don’t put much stock in estimates from a company whose president claims nuclear power is less expensive than natural gas.

SECOND UPDATE: Paul Deaton of Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility discusses MidAmerican’s shifting cost estimates and argues, “no single document lays out all of the impacts of HF 561 and SF 390 to consumers and that’s the point. The Iowa legislature needs to slow down, get the facts and then make a decision about nuclear power.”

The days are getting warmer and longer, early wildflowers are starting to come up, and two of my favorite spring events in Iowa are happening the next two weekends. The Planned Parenthood spring book sale starts this Thursday and continues through Monday at the State Fairgrounds (4H building). This semi-annual sale supports the education and community outreach programs of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, covering most of Iowa and part of Nebraska. Come Thursday night or Friday for the best selection, Sunday or Monday for the lowest prices.

The sixth annual Natural Living Expo will be held April 2 and 3 at the Polk County Convention Complex in Des Moines. This free event showcases more than 100 natural and/or environmentally friendly Iowa businesses and community organizations. I’ll be helping staff the tables for a couple of non-profits, but I always look forward to browsing during my break times.

Like many in the Bleeding Heartland community, I’m excited to see the new map of Iowa political boundaries, which the Legislative Services Agency will release on March 31. The LSA will hold public meetings around the state on April 4 to discuss the proposed map.

Details on those events and much more are after the jump. As always, please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of an event that should be added to this calendar.

Frantic efforts to control the situation at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant have not had much success during the past week. The areas of greatest concern appear to be the reactor in unit 3 and the spent fuel pool on the roof of unit 4.

President Barack Obama indicated yesterday that the U.S. and its allies may embark on a new military campaign in Libya, if Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi does not comply with demands for a cease-fire with rebels. On Thursday the United Nations Security Council authorized military action against Qaddafi. Like other commentators, I don’t feel reassured by Obama’s promise that the U.S. won’t deploy ground troops in Libya. The president’s reasoning for intervening there (but not elsewhere to avert atrocities) is not convincing.

The Des Moines Register has published front-page stories three days in a row on an Ankeny couple who exploited a loophole in mortgage law to get a nice house for free. Lee Rood’s reporting suggests the couple misrepresented their assets to obtain the mortgage and were in a position to know about the loophole before they closed on their house (without the wife signing the documents). I don’t condone obtaining a house by fraudulent means, if that’s what has occurred in this case. That said, foreclosure fraud by lenders appears to be far more prevalent than the scheme this Ankeny couple may have implemented. Most of the time the mainstream media ignores stories about innocent homeowners jerked around by banks. I hope the Register will follow up with a number of front-page stories about that side of the foreclosure story.

Iowa State University economist Neil Harl argued that Republican tax cut proposals won’t spark economic growth. Speaking on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program,

“The question is what is in the best interest of this state in terms of long-term economic growth,” Harl said. “What attracts companies to come to Iowa? I don’t think it’s potholes in the streets. I don’t think it’s a third-rate school system. I don’t think it’s a situation of starved universities.” […]

Harl said he opposes the Republican plans because they would inevitably cut into state revenue needed to support the services he believes are the real attraction for businesses. One of Iowa’s main assets is a high quality of life, he said.

“I think it’s a state that’s viewed as forward looking and offers a great environment for a company to move into,” he. “This is being sold on the grounds that it will attract more companies here, but I really doubt that.”

As part of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, Borders will close its West Des Moines bookstore by the end of May. For now, Borders plans to keep its stores in Ames, Dubuque and Davenport open. Even though I support locally-owned businesses like Beaverdale Books, Borders is one chain I will be sorry to see go.

I’ll close this gloomy post on an upbeat note: less than one week remains before Planned Parenthood’s giant semi-annual book sale at the State Fairgrounds.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: And on March 19, the U.S. launched air strikes in Libya. Happy Iraq War anniversary! This is not going to end well.  

Nine Iowa Senate Democrats have signed an open letter asking their colleagues to shelve a pro-nuclear power bill this session and to create a legislative commission “to thoroughly investigate all of the issues including the need for a nuclear power plant, the costs and impact on utility rates, financing and liability issues, safety and waste disposal issues, and renewable energy alternatives.” The senators who signed were Daryl Beall (district 25), Dennis Black (district 21), Joe Bolkcom (district 39), Dick Dearden (district 34), Robert Dvorsky (district 15), Gene Fraise (district 46), Jack Hatch (district 33), Rob Hogg (district 19) and Pam Jochum (district 14). The full text of their letter is after the jump. Excerpt:

Specifically, we have the following concerns:

* There is very little known about how much a new nuclear power plant would cost or how it would

impact utility rates, especially for seniors, working families, and Iowa businesses.

* The proposed technology – small modular reactors – is unproven and has not been approved by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

* There are significant safety and financial liability concerns, especially after the nuclear disaster in Japan. United States Senator Joseph Lieberman has called for “putting the brakes on” the construction of new nuclear power plants “until we can absorb what has happened in Japan.”

* There are potential issues with the creation of a permanent government bureaucracy to permit, monitor, and regulate any new nuclear power plants.

* There are unresolved siting issues about where the plant or plants would be located and how the property would be acquired for the construction of the plants.

MidAmerican Energy is only in the first of what was represented to be a three-year study on the feasibility of constructing a new nuclear power plant in Iowa. When that bill was passed, it was contemplated that Iowa would take at least three years to make any decision about new nuclear power plants. There is no rush.

Speaking to the Des Moines Register yesterday, Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen predicted the bill will pass this year. Iowa’s only current nuclear power plant is in Paulsen’s district. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal supports the bill.

MidAmerican Energy President William Fehrman is expected to attend an Iowa Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing on the bill later today. Fehrman has said the bill would help MidAmerican attract investors for a nuclear construction project. Critics point out that the legislation would lead to higher utility bills for hundreds of thousands of Iowans and would tilt the field so far in favor of expanding nuclear power that less costly energy efficiency and renewable energy projects might not be pursued.

On the other hand, even before this week’s crisis at the Fukushima facility in Japan, financing was not coming together for proposed nuclear power plant projects in the United States. So one could argue that even if this bill becomes law, MidAmerican probably won’t attract the investor support needed to build nuclear plants here. In that case, why let the company charge its Iowa customers more now to pay for anticipated future construction costs?

Meanwhile, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ranked the 104 nuclear power plants across the country in terms of earthquake risk. Iowa’s Duane Arnold nuclear reactor is 26th on that list. Yesterday several U.S. Senate Democrats urged the head of the NRC to conduct a thorough review of all nuclear reactors in this country, especially those in earthquake-prone areas.

In Germany, political leaders have decided to temporarily shut down seven of the country’s oldest nuclear reactors in order to conduct a safety review. The prime minister of Spain has also called for a review of all that country’s nuclear power plants. A nuclear energy expert whose name I didn’t catch pointed out yesterday on CNN that baseload demand for electricity is relatively low in the spring, so it wouldn’t cause problems on the grid to shut down U.S. nuclear power plants for a month or two during a safety review.

UPDATE: Fehrman told the Iowa Senate subcommittee that “MidAmerican Energy customers would see their power bills rise 10 percent over a decade to pay for the investor-owned utility’s share of a proposed Iowa nuclear plant.” He confirmed that the plant would be completed no sooner than 2020, and that Iowa ratepayers would not get their money back, even if the construction never moved forward.

Sen. Swati Dandekar of Marion said Iowans are concerned about paying for a project that may cost more than the utility thinks, given the nation’s record on cost overruns at nuclear plants.

“There is no doubt there is a history of cost overruns in this industry,” Fehrman said. “We’ve asked for more oversight of this project, and that’s in the bill.”

MidAmerican is pushing legislation that would set some of the rate-making principles to be applied to the plant, in effect telling investors how the utility would recover its expenses.

Also on Thursday, the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club and the American Association of Retired Persons came out against the bill.  From an AARP statement:

“AARP believes it is unfair to consumers and bad policy for the Iowa General Assembly to enact legislation that would allow utility companies to charge consumers in advance for costs of a new plant before it is in service, and require consumers to continue to have to pay even if the plant development is canceled, or goes over budget [….] AARP is concerned about this legislation, not because of the question of nuclear power, but because we oppose raising rates for consumers already struggling to afford their utility bills for a plant yet to be built, where we don’t know the actual cost to build, and may or may not even be built in Iowa.”

Still the self-styled taxpayer watchdog groups are missing in action on this bill.  

Several Iowa elected officials commented on expanding nuclear energy production Monday in light of the deteriorating situation at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant. Two Iowa Republicans and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal indicated that they don’t want the cascade of events at Fukushima to derail efforts to build new nuclear power plants in Iowa. However, Democratic State Senator Joe Bolkcom called for a “pause” to more closely scrutinize the impact of a nuclear energy bill that has been on a fast track in the Iowa House and Senate.

Details and context are below, along with Representative Steve King’s comments about federal policy on nuclear power.

Iowa’s potential to be the “Saudi Arabia of wind” is widely acknowledged, but the state’s capacity to harness solar power for producing electricity or thermal heating is a better-kept secret. A five-year program to install 300 megawatts of solar power could create nearly 5,000 jobs and add more than $332 million in value to Iowa’s economy, according to a new report commissioned by the Iowa Policy Project, the Iowa Environmental Council, Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Vote Solar Initiative.

After the jump I’ve posted the summary of the new report. Click here to download the full report (18-page pdf).

Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson (known to be cautious about calculating economic impacts) did the analysis for the report.

In his analysis, ISU’s Swenson estimated during the five years of installing 300 MW of solar the average annual impact would be:

• $174 million value added to the economy

• $302 million increased industrial output

• $99 million increased labor income.

Those numbers include sizable indirect effects – spinoff economic effects caused by the initial investment.

“Growth in the solar industry means direct jobs for more than just rooftop installers but also for electricians, builders, contractors, engineers, technicians, financiers, lawyers, marketers and salespeople,” the report stated.

Swenson’s estimate does not include new manufacturing jobs in the solar industry that might be created if Iowa adopted incentives to produce more solar power.

State Senator Joe Bolkcom has introduced a bill to spur more solar installation in Iowa:

Other states have jump-started the growth of solar panel manufacturers by providing tax credits to businesses and homeowners who buy from manufacturers in their states, Bolkcom said.

His proposal in Senate File 99 is not that specific, but it would provide up to $10 million in state-sponsored rebates to home-owners and businesses to help defray the cost of installing solar energy panels. The grants would cover 30 percent of the cost of installation, up to a maximum of $15,000 for farms and businesses and up to $3,000 for residences.

Later this month, the Iowa Policy Project’s David Osterberg is planning to take some state legislators on a tour of solar sites in Waterloo, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids and Iowa City. I hope to see bipartisan support for expanding solar power generation here.

So far, the main energy policy moving through the Iowa legislature during the 2011 session relates to nuclear power. In 2010, lawmakers approved a bill to allow MidAmerican Energy “to pass along up to $5 million per year in study expenses to customers for three years” as it studies potential locations for a new nuclear power plant. Now MidAmerican and utility industry groups are pushing “Construction Work in Progress” legislation that “would allow Iowa public utilities to charge ratepayers higher rates now to cover potential future costs of a yet to be constructed nuclear reactor, even if such a reactor is never built.” The Iowa House Commerce Committee unanimously approved one of the bills this week, and a companion bill has support in the Iowa Senate. Paul Deaton explains here and here why these bills are a bad idea. I recommend clicking through to read both posts, but here’s an excerpt:

The State of Georgia may build the first new nuclear plant in 30 years and adopted a CWIP [Construction Work in Progress] . Iowa legislators should study the impact the Georgia CWIP has on ratepayers. Other CWIPs were passed in South Carolina and Florida and they should also be studied. People familiar with the Georgia CWIP say Iowa’s proposed legislation shifts more risk to customers than does Georgia. There are other things to consider regarding CWIPs before the legislature passes one.

It boils down to this. If MidAmerican Energy builds a nuclear power generating station, for each billion dollars in costs, on average, $1,597 will be passed along to each of MidAmerican’s 626,223 Iowa retail customers. Are Iowa households ready for this? Are Iowa households ready to foot the bill knowing that a nuclear power generating station may never be built?

Nuclear power is expensive compared to other methods for generating electricity. It is “not viable” without huge government subsidies and “shifts financial risks to taxpayers.”

Iowa could expand solar power without passing along millions of dollars in costs to utility company customers. Hundreds of megawatts of solar power generating capacity could be brought online in Iowa over a few years, whereas a new nuclear plant would not be completed until 2020. Moreover, a nuclear plant would probably employ several hundred people in one locality. (Iowa’s only existing nuclear power plant employs roughly 500 people in the Palo area.) Ramping up Iowa’s solar capacity could create jobs for thousands of people spread out all over the state, wherever buildings are retrofitted to accommodate solar power.

Any comments about energy policy are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Today’s Des Moines Register contains an outstanding guest piece by Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. Click through to read the whole thing. I’ve posted some excerpts below.

A public hearing on the collective bargaining bill under consideration in the Iowa House is likely to be one of the main political events of the week, but there’s much more going on around the state as well. Details are after the jump.

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail to let me know of public events that should be included on this calendar.

Governor Terry Branstad announced some important personnel decisions in the past few days, naming former State Representative Libby Jacobs to chair the Iowa Utilities Board and three new members of the Board of Regents, including Bruce Rastetter.

Follow me after the jump for more on those and other Branstad administration appointments.

UPDATE: On March 1 President Barack Obama named Branstad to co-chair the Council of Governors, “established by the National Defense Authorization Act in 2008 to strengthen further partnership between the Federal and State governments as it pertains to national security.” Branstad will serve a two-year term as co-chair.

SECOND UPDATE: Branstad announced more than 200 appointments to state boards and commissions on March 2. Bleeding Heartland covered the four appointees to the Environmental Protection Commission here; all have ties to large agribusiness.

Another name that caught my eye was Eric Goranson, a lobbyist and parochial schools advocate whom Branstad named to the State Board of Education. He has been a leading critic of the Iowa Core Curriculum (see here and here). The Under the Golden Dome Blog argues that Goranson’s appointment may violate Iowa code, which states, “A voting member [of the Board of Education] shall not be engaged in professional education for a major portion of the member’s time nor shall the member derive a major portion of income from any business or activity connected with education.” Several of Goranson’s lobbying clients represent religious private schools or Christian home-schooling parents.

THIRD UPDATE: I forgot to mention Branstad’s two appointees to the State Judicial Nominating Commission: Helen St. Clair of Melrose and William Gustoff of Des Moines. I have been unable to find any information about Helen St. Clair, but a Maurice St. Clair of Melrose was among Branstad’s top 20 individual donors, contributing more than $45,000 to the gubernatorial campaign. I assume he is related to Helen St. Clair and will update this post if I confirm that. William Gustoff is a founding partner of the Whitaker Hagenow law firm, which includes Republican former U.S. attorney Matt Whitaker and State Representative Chris Hagenow. Branstad’s legal counsel Brenna Findley also worked at Whitaker Hagenow last year.

The Iowa House approved a major “deappropriations” bill, House File 45, on January 19 by a party-line vote of 60 to 40. Republican leaders fast-tracked what they call the Taxpayers First Act, which passed the House Appropriations Committee on the third day of the 2011 session. The bill would cut dozens of programs while increasing spending in a few areas. In addition, $327.4 million from this year’s surplus revenue would go into a new “Tax Relief Fund,” instead of being used to help close the projected budget gap for fiscal year 2012. This bill summary (pdf) lists the budget cuts and supplemental appropriations in House File 45. Click here for the full bill text.

Although the majority of speakers at a January 18 public hearing opposed the bill, and organizations lobbying against the bill outnumber those that have signed on in support, the House Republicans passed the bill with few significant changes. Democrats offered many amendments as floor debate went late into the evening on January 19, trying to save funds for the statewide voluntary preschool program, passenger rail, smoking cessation programs, and sustainable communities, among other things. Representatives rejected almost all those amendments on party-line votes. This page shows what amendments were filed, and the House Journal for January 19 contains the roll call votes.

House File 45 now moves to the Iowa Senate, which has a 26-24 Democratic majority. Democratic senators are likely to back increased expenditures for mental health services and indigent defense while opposing many of the spending cuts. After the jump I take a closer look at some of the most controversial provisions in House File 45.

Tuesday is shaping up to be the big day in Iowa politics this week, with a special election to fill a state Senate seat and a public hearing on the first bill to clear a House committee during the 2011 session.

Details on those and other events are after the jump. Activists and politicians, send me your public schedule so I can add the information to these calendars.

This week is a big one in Iowa politics, with the state legislature’s 2011 session starting Monday and Terry Branstad’s inauguration for a fifth term as governor on Friday. Several non-profits are organizing members and supporters to lobby legislators as well. Event details are after the jump.

One of my new year’s resolutions is to post event calendars regularly at Bleeding Heartland. Activists and politicians can help by sending your event notices to me: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. Please post a comment if you know of something I’ve left out.

Best wishes for the new year to everyone in the Bleeding Heartland community. What’s on your mind this first weekend of 2011?

Improving personal health is a common new year’s resolution. I’ll be trying to eat less sugar and exercise more, partly to lose a few pounds and partly to reduce stress. Research suggests that exercising before breakfast is especially helpful, and you don’t have to do intense, long workouts every day to benefit.

Radio Iowa suggested a few ways people can prevent strokes, “the third leading cause of death in Iowa, killing more than 1,600 Iowans last year alone.” Here’s another idea for preventing strokes: reduce coal combustion. Physicians for Social Responsibility has found that 92 percent of Iowans “live within 30 miles of a coal plant.” Particulate matter and other pollutants generated by coal combustion have been proven to cause strokes, as well as heart disease and cancer, the two other leading causes of death in Iowa. Using renewable energy or natural gas to replace some of our coal-fired plants could measurably improve the health of Iowans.

According to State Climatologist Harry Hillaker, 44.66 inches of precipitation made 2010 the second-wettest year out of 138 years for which records are available. Here’s hoping for less rain in 2011, because Iowa isn’t implementing land-use practices that might allow the ground to absorb more rain. Governor-elect Terry Branstad has never been big on flood prevention and still has no plan for flood mitigation. The new Iowa Legislature is no more likely to enact wise floodplain management policies than the last one.

Those trying to reduce their carbon footprints in 2011 can find good ideas here, here and here. Staff charged with making institutions more energy efficient can get inspiration from Luther College in Decorah, one of only eight colleges nationwide “to earn an ‘A’ on The College Sustainability Report Card released Oct. 27 by the Sustainable Endowments Institute.”

Luther received an “A” in seven of the eight graded areas including: administration, climate change and energy, food and recycling, green building, student involvement, transportation, and investment priorities. The college received a “B” in endowment transparency. […]

Luther was among the first colleges in the country to sign the Presidents Climate Commitment, which encouraged institutions to reduce their carbon footprint, operate more efficiently, and make sustainability part of every student’s learning experience. […]

Luther has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent since 2003 and is committed to a 50 percent reduction by 2012. Reducing greenhouse emissions is one of several goals in the college’s newest strategic plan, a section of which is dedicated to environmental sustainability.

Click here for the full report on how Luther achieved these outstanding results. The College Sustainability Report Card gave “B” grades to Grinnell College and Iowa State University, while the University of Iowa got a “C-“. Note to Luther staff: if you want more recognition next year, have someone return the Sierra Club’s “Cool Schools” survey.

This is an open thread.

Last year Bleeding Heartland discussed some promising changes in Dubuque, thanks to the vision of community leaders who launched the SustainableDubuque initiative in 2006. Now called the “Dubuque 2.0” sustainability initiative, the program has helped bring the city a long list of recognitions and awards.

Government and public entities: The U.S. Conference of Mayors named Dubuque the country’s “Most Livable Small City” for 2008. The Economic Development Administration (an agency within the federal Commerce Department) gave the an award for “excellence in historic preservation-led strategies” in 2009. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation and Department of Housing and Urban Development selected Dubuque for sustainability pilot programs, also in 2009. The Iowa League of Cities named Dubuque an All-Star Community this year.

Business groups and business-oriented media: Dubuque landed on Sperling’s Best Places top ten “Most Affordable Places to Live and Work” in 2009; was third best in the country for job growth, according to Careerbuilder.com in 2010; and was the seventh best city under 200,000 population in “Economic Growth Potential,” according to Business Facilities magazine in 2010. Dubuque also won an Excellence in Economic Development award this year from the International Economic Development Council, while Forbes.com named it both the “Best Small City to Raise a Family” and “Best Smaller Metro for Projected Job Growth” nationwide.

Non-profit organizations: Dubuque came in third place at the International Awards for Livable Communities in 2010 in the category of cities with populations between 20,000 and 75,000. The city won the 1000 Friends of Iowa 2010 Best Development Award in the leadership category for its recently adopted Unified Development Code, which “promotes best practices in sustainable development and will serve as a model for other cities in Iowa.” (Side note: Dubuque also contains more private Best Development Award winning-projects than any other Iowa city. Most recently, the “beauty and authenticity” of the Hotel Julien historic rehabilitation earned it the 1000 Friends of Iowa 2010 Best Development Award in the renovated and commercial/civic category.)

Too many Iowa politicians portray eco-friendly policies as bad for business or economic growth. Dubuque is proving that sustainability makes a community more attractive to potential job-creators:

According to Mike Blouin, president of the Greater Dubuque Development Corporation, the cachet that comes with operating a business in a sustainable region is becoming increasingly important.

“A growing segment of companies — manufacturers and service providers — want to be a part of this trend,” he said. “They want to be a part of communities that are into sustainability, and they believe it will be easier to attract the kind of workforce they want there. Or companies may manufacture items used in these sustainable communities. Whatever it might be, they want sustainability to be a part of their message.”

He added, “You can be pro-economic development and be sustainable. They’re not mutually exclusive. A smarter city is not the initial thing companies look at, because they still have to make money. The community has to make sense overall, but if it does, sustainability could very well be a deal-maker. If there are a half-dozen cities in front of a company, it may look at smarter sustainability and see that it fits the company’s philosophy. Final decisions are made by those kinds of factors.”

In 2009, the IBM corporation renovated the historic Roshek building in partnership with the city of Dubuque and selected the city for sustainability pilot programs. After the jump I’ve posted more details on some projects implemented this year. These benefit the city by finding ways to reduce costs and use of resources, and benefit IBM by promoting technologies it hopes to sell to other cities.