When Fox News’ Chris Wallace told former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty he was about to play an Environmental Defense Action Fund radio ad during last Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, Pawlenty quipped “Do we have to?” After stoically listening to his own his own voice proclaim, “Cap greenhouse gas pollution, now,” Pawlenty turned to the camera and said: “I’ve said I was wrong. It was a mistake, and I’m sorry.”
If Pawlenty’s energy policy heresy were limited to just his support for cap and trade, a simple “sorry” may have been enough to put the issue to bed. Unfortunately for Pawlenty, his energy record in Minnesota is a bit longer than that.
Pawlenty told Minnesotans in his March 9, 2006, State of the State address: “The world demand for fossil fuels is exploding, but the supply is flat. That’s a big problem, which needs to be addressed. Let’s face it. Washington has been slow to lead on this issue. But we can’t afford to wait for them. Let’s lead the way and set a strategic goal of ’25 by 25′ — so that 25 percent of all types of our energy will come from renewable sources by 2025.”
Pawlenty then managed to turn that idea into the Next Generation Energy Act, which he signed into law on Feb. 22, 2007. The core of the bill is a mandate requiring all energy companies to provide at least 25 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2025.
The policy is actually not all that novel. Twenty-eight other states have similar policies. They are called Renewable Energy Standards. The problem for Pawlenty is that in many ways, an RES is worse than cap and trade. The Heritage Foundation explains:
“It stands to reason that an RES would raise electricity prices. After all, if electricity created by wind and other renewables were cost competitive, consumers would use more of it without a federal law to force consumption. … The cost increase for electricity can be viewed as a particularly damaging energy tax, because a renewable mandate, unlike the case of a normal tax, provides no revenue to at least partially offset the higher cost.”
And just how damaging would an RES, like the one Pawlenty passed, be on the American economy? Heritage analyzed an RES that was actually more lenient than the one Pawlenty signed into law (energy companies would only have to produce 22.5 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2025). But the results are still stunning.
According to Heritage, a national RES would raise household electricity prices by 36 percent, cut gross domestic product by $5.2 trillion, and reduce employment by more than 1 million jobs.
RES has not yet become the epithet that “cap and trade” is in conservative circles, but by the end of 2012 it will be. After cap and trade collapsed in the Senate, President Obama began pushing a national RES in its place.
Many thought the lame-duck 111th Congress would pass it in December 2010, and it figures to be the centerpiece of Obama’s energy policy for his re-election campaign. Whoever the Republican candidate ends up being, conservatives are going to want someone who can draw strong contrasts with the president on the issue. Can an energy apologetic Pawlenty be that candidate?
Asked point-blank if he has “flipped” on his 2007 bill, Pawlenty told Wallace earlier this year: “I didn’t. I signed a bill in Minnesota on dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, only to the extent of taking steps on renewable energy.”
That sounds like a no.
Conn Carroll is a senior editorial writer for The Washington Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
