The first letter below was sent from Governor Nixon in response to David Epps’s original letter voicing concerns about Missouri’s Energy Plans and the better option of GSHP. The second letter below is David Epps’s response-to-the-response.
December 10, 2015
Mr. David Epps
406 E. Cape Rock
Cape Girardeau, MO 63701-3202
Dear Mr. Epps:
This email is in response to your correspondence to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon. Thank you for contacting our office. Your email has been reviewed and shared with appropriate staff.
The Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED) is the state agency to best address your matter. We have forwarded your correspondence to the DED Director’s Office. A response has been left up to their discretion.
Again, thank you for your correspondence. Please let us know if we may be of assistance in the future.
Constituent Services Liaison
Office of Missouri Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon
201 West Capitol Avenue, Room 216
P.O. Box 720
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0720
T. (573) 751-3222
F. (573) 751-1495
David Epp’s response to Governor Nixon’s letter:
RE: Your response to my Letter regarding your Comprehensive State Energy Plan.
You said: “A response has been left up to their [sic DED] discretion.”
You sir are failing to live up to your own words “balance the need for low-cost, reliable energy with our duty to be responsible stewards of the environment”!
You Sir, are an irresponsible steward of the environment in that you have left it up to those that committed the egregious error to correct their error at their discretion. It is your job to provide oversight to prevent DED to continue to commit unrestrained manipulation of the facts and blatant bias!
I have sent the letters to all the Missouri Rural Electric Cooperatives and associations, and to a good number of the your Energy steering committee members, including the University of Missouri at Rolla and GSHP associations/Installers and Missouri Chambers of Commerce and commented on every news paper article reporting on your plan that I could find.
Consult with any expert and you will find that geothermal energy and GSHP’s is the least cost energy and has the least effect on the environment (that includes wind mills and solar electric panels) to obtain 70% of the energy consumed in Missouri homes.
David Epps, BSEE
It seems that the only methods the governments can fathom for reducing energy usage are solar panels, windmills, and biofuels… …all ripe for crony-capitalist corruption. Hopefully, the next governor will promote energy consumption methods that actually work.
From David Epps…
Your Comprehensive State Energy Plan took a terribly wrong approach!
For home and business owners/renters It is not about sources and demands of electrical energy as the plan is written it is about sources and demands of heat energy
Energy use in the US homes is all about BTUs (heat energy). 70% of the energy consumption in home is derived from sources of and measured in units of BTUs (heat energy) not KWh’s (electrical energy). Your furnace, hot water heater, and air conditioner are sized based upon the amount of BTUs required.
I demand a rewrite of your Comprehensive State Energy Plan basing your analysis on the sources and demands of BTUs. This will give the true picture of the challenges and solutions facing Missourians high cost of energy. You directed the Missouri Department of Energy to prepare a plan to “balance the need for low-cost, reliable energy with our duty to be responsible stewards of the environment”. The current plan does not satisfy your requirements.
Upon a rethink of the plan, you will find that Missouri has countless BTUs of geothermal energy below our feet, all of which can be harvested by ground source heat pumps (GSHP).
$100’s of millions have been spent over the last 6 years on solar electricity and wind mills and their electrical generation has barely scratched the surface of the demand while the generation of boundless heat energy in the earth has been ignored. It is movement of heat energy (BTUs) using electricity and natural gas that cost so much and is in so much demand by Missourians. Moving Geothermal energy, which is free and inexhaustible, costs significantly less.
Only a pitiful 0.25 trillion BTUs were generated by all solar electric panels in Missouri thus far. While, if in just 2014, the $187 million invested on solar installations in Missouri were invested in GSHP’s, 1.44 trillion BTUs of heat energy would have been generated and consumed in Missouri homes for heating and cooling and hot water.
Your recommendations in paragraph 3.1 Strengthening Missouri’s Renewable Energy Standard are mostly poor as they require more regulations, but specifically:
By your focus on electrical energy and ignoring heat energy, your Department of Energy is a dismal failure (they don’t know energy), and your plan does not guide Missourians to the correct solutions to reduce their utility bills.
Below is an indictment of US House Republicans by a ‘Platform Republican’ like me for the games played when voting for the Boehner / Pelosi / MConnell / Obama budget deal. As you read the letter, remember these votes by the Republican contingent for Missouri. How did they vote when it was stoppable (when they should have fought for us)? How did they voted when it was unstoppable (and could be used to pretend that they fought back against Obama / boehner)?
|Rep. Sam B. Graves [R-MO]||Aye||Nay|
|Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R-MO]||Aye||Aye|
|Rep. Billy Long [R-MO]||Aye||Nay|
|Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO]||Aye||Aye|
|Rep. Jason T. Smith [R-MO]||Aye||Nay|
|Rep. Ann Wagner [R-MO]||Aye||Nay|
I’ll give Hartzler and Luetkemeyer credit, they supported Obama / Boehner all the way.
Here is Ed’s e-mail…
One week ago, I traveled to Washington, DC for meetings that were scheduled a few months ago. During the day I spent there, I along with some Eagle Forum state leaders met with a dozen members of the House and one Senator.
To a person, these members of the United States Congress complained about the Boehner-Obama secret budget deal that had been released just a day or two earlier.
“It just came out and no one really knows what’s in it,” they all said in one way or another. And, “Republican leadership wants it passed, but how can we vote on this massive deal if we haven’t read it??”
If this sounds to you just like Nancy Pelosi who told us that the Congress “ha(s) to pass the (Obamacare) bill so that you can find out what is in it,” you’re right. It was appalling to hear this from members of Congress … and infuriating to realize that John Boehner was asking Republicans to vote for a budget bill they did not yet understand AND to give Obama unlimited authority to raise the debt. (By the way, this week, the Obama administration admitted that it raised the debt by nearly $300 billion after Obama signed the Boehner-Obama budget. The insanity continues.)
After lunch last Wednesday as I sat in more meetings with members, I suddenly realized what was happening: the United States Congress – the House in this case – was preparing to execute one of their classic lies to the American people: the old bait-and-switch vote. Here’s how it worked: just after 3pm EST, there was a vote on the floor of the House with all of the Republicans in the House except 29 voting to advance the “Rule” for the Boehner-Obama secret budget deal. By passing this “Rule,” Republicans who had not read the bill or even likely understood its details, were putting Boehner, Pelosi and Obama in charge of our future. To be clear: If the Republicans had voted against this “Rule,” there would have been no vote on the budget deal.
What happened next is the best recent example of how Americans have been betrayed. At just after 5pm, the House voted on the Boehner-Obama secret budget deal. 138 Republican members of the House changed their vote from just a few hours ago and voted against the Boehner-Obama secret budget deal.
Let me be clear: the reason these Republicans voted FOR the Boehner-Obama secret budget BEFORE voting against it was so they could come home to you the American people and tell you that they voted against a very bad bill. But they didn’t vote against Boehner-Obama budget until after they voted for it.
It is always a surprise when men and women of good will are dishonest. We conservatives believe the truth matters and that men and women of good will are abide in the truth. To be candid, I am not sure whether the lies we are being told are malicious or if the Republicans are in the throes of “Stockholm Syndrome” and believe that what they are doing is somehow justified. But I am not sure it matters: America is on the brink and our Congress is lying to us.
I flew home to St. Louis last Wednesday evening and my stomach sank, not just from a bumpy flight, but because I knew something was dramatically wrong in our nation.
All the best.
President, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum
Ed joined the McGraw Millhaven to discuss the issue. Listen here.
To see the vote details, try the links below
1st vote of House to move Boehner-Obama Budget Deal (3:33pm, Wed. Oct. 28th) Note that only 29 Republicans voted to stop it. You can find how your member voted here.
2nd vote of the House to move Boehner-Obama Budget Deal (5:21pm, Wed. Oct. 28th) Now, 267 Republicans voted to stop it but it’s too late! You can find how your member voted here.
And, this spending problem does not just exist in Washington DC. At all levels of Republican-led government, more spending, more laws, more government.
Bottom line, Conservatives and GOP clearly have two different definitions for ‘smaller government’. GOP believes that ‘smaller government’ is government that adds thousands of employees, more laws, and Trillion$ in spending and debt… …albeit at a slower pace than the Democrats. Conservatives believe that ‘smaller government’ is defined by fewer government employees, fewer laws, lower spending than the prior year, and repayment of debt.
This budget fight seems to be another example of “Surrender… …Then Play Fight”
But, as so astutely detailed by Bill Hennessy, the GOPe has left it’s base.
From Ike Skelton…
I’m writing you today to invite you to a particularly exciting conservative leadership training course I am hosting on Nov. 21st, 2015, at Mariners Pier 31 in Camdenton, Missouri.
Like you, I have been involved in the liberty/Tea Party/conservative/grassroots WHATEVER you want to call it, movement, for several years. Probably like most of you, I have been frustrated with a lack of unity and a sense of spinning our wheels. And candidly, there are many that are sympathetic and talk a good game, but don’t seem to do much.
There have been a few attempts at putting together some “coalition”, “organization” or generally some central group that puts forth an agenda…I am NOT doing that.
But, I am trying to gather a group of leaders, trained in some of the same tactics, willing to get together and prioritize and coordinate efforts to be more effective activists.
The Foundation for Applied Conservative Leadership(FACL) has what I believe to be a well thought out, tried and tested method for effective grassroots activism. They call it “confrontational politics”.
FACL training will teach you some basics of politics; bust some myths and provides useful tools we can use to help determine how to bring the fight to government. We will not discuss policy, legislation or which office holder is better than another. This is all about becoming more effective grassroots leaders.
I encourage you to go to: Foundation for Applied Conservative Leadership – Camdenton MO Political Leadership School
Scroll to bottom of page for the registration button. Lite snacks and Lunch will be provided. Times and location info is on this page.
If you need hotel accommodations, I have contacted a couple places for some reduced rates. Contact me and let me know.
If you have ANY other questions, please do not hesitate to call!!
Looking forward to seeing you there!!
FROM FRIEDA’S DESK….
We all have heard about the need for Voter ID at the polling places. I have worked elections since 2010 and I appreciate the benefit of having proper government issued picture identification at the polling place. I will communicate more information about this topic in the coming weeks/months.
In the meantime, I am writing to let you know of an important opportunity to help protect our elections from voter fraud and to ask for your help. As many of you are aware, Missouri does not currently require a photo ID for voters on election day. In 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court declared Missouri’s voter ID law unconstitutional and our state legislature has failed to amend the Missouri Constitution for the last nine years.
This lack of proper identification of voters puts the integrity of our elections at risk. Examples of voter impersonation abound. Consider the case of Sharee Sizemore. In 2012, when she went to vote in Jackson County, she found that someone had already voted her ballot, most likely by using a discarded piece of mail. While Ms. Sizemore was able to cast a provisional ballot, it is unclear whether that ballot counted. A photo voter ID requirement would make it more difficult to perpetuate this type of fraud and would give authorities a photo of the impersonator.
In our society, there is little that does not require photo identification – from opening a bank account to entering a federal building. As such, it is understandable that the vast majority of voters support such a common sense approach to securing our elections. This editorial contains interesting statistics on voter ID. Click here.
In response to this need, Jay Ashcroft recently filed an initiative petition to amend the Missouri Constitution to allow for a photo voter ID requirement in Missouri. The goal is to collect enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot in the 2016 election.
Please visit the website http://www.ProtectTheVoteMO.com to read the proposed ballot language and answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the petition.
A successful initiative petition requires a minimum number of signatures be gathered in six of Missouri’s eight Congressional districts. The signature requirements have been broken down by county to determine how many are needed from each county. In most counties, if we can get 20-30 people to collect signatures from their friends, family and neighbors, the goal will be met.
In the coming days, Jay Ashcroft or someone from the “Protect the Vote” committee will be contacting you to ask for your help collecting signatures in your county or even serving as a county chairperson.
Allow me to encourage you to help with this worthwhile project and get photo voter ID on the ballot in 2016.
Thank you, in advance, for your help. Working together, we can make sure Missouri remains a great place to live!
Missouri Precinct Project
You failed to discuss in Chapter 2: Energy Supply, the inexhaustible energy in the ground but rather pandered to the photo voltaic and wind energy industries. If the 2.5M households in Missouri had 2 ton Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP) Missouri would harvest 60 billion BTU’s of energy per hour or about 20% of the current Missouri electrical consumption.
GSHP compressor are made at one of St. Louis’ largest employers. Wind turbines and solar panels are mostly imported. No economic development there!
The Smart grid and peaking generators would not be required upon installation of GSHP systems state wide. The Smart grid has been a big waste of money! Peaking generators are also a waste of money. With implementation of GSHP’s the winter to summer electrical usage is reduced and balanced. Peak usage is the problem of grid management. Chop off the peaks and the grid overload goes away! All that wasted money could have been used to install all the ground loops.
The “Missouri Energy Efficiency and Investment Act” as implemented is basically theft. A rate-payer is required to pay but cannot afford to benefit due to the high cost of the solar panels.
And further, The AmerenUE rebate for solar panels a $2/watt versus $2000 for a GSHP is grossly stupid. Given a typical solar 7000 watt system, the rebate is $14,000 and only delivers energy when the sun shines whereas a typical 1 Ton GSHP will deliver twice the equivalent BTU’s of energy 24/7/365.
The plan is incomplete and misleading and does more harm than help to Missouri! It ignores the boundless energy just below our feet.
Click here to let your House and Senate Members know that you support
Right Freedom To Work.
Via Carl Bearden:
During the discussion of House Bill 116 (Right to Work (RTW)) both as it was being passed during session and leading up to the veto override on September 16th there has been a great deal of misleading and downright false statements made about RTW.
Missouri’s economic performance would improve with RTW Law!
United for Missouri has put together a True or False evaluation of the most often repeated claims and statements about RTW.
True or False – RTW will lower wage:
The answer is FALSE – Increased demand for workers raise worker wages; the percentage of real growth private-sector employee compensation grew 15.1% in Right to Work states from 2003 to 2013 as compared to just 8.2% in forced-union states. A Missouri specific economic study estimates that real per capita income (every man, woman and child in Missouri) would be $1,867 per year more today if RTW had been enacted 30 years ago. That’s over $5,600 more in the pockets of a Missouri family of three. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Confronting Missouri’s Growth Deficit
True or False – Workers make less in RTW states.
The answer is FALSE – Higher costs of living takes more income and leaves families with less; In 2013, when disposable personal income is adjusted, per capita for cost of living, workers actually made about $2,000.00 more per year in RTW states, as compared to forced-union states. MO Economics Research and Information center, BEA
True or False – RTW allows non-union members to freeload from union representation without paying the cost.
The answer is FALSE – Unions voluntarily represent non-members; The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the National Labor Relations Act allows unions to negotiate contracts covering only dues-paying members. As Justice Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Dry Lion Goods (1962), “‘Members only’ contracts have long been recognized.” Unions represent non-members only when they act as “exclusive bargaining representatives,” which requires non-members to accept the union’s representation (forced union). In that case, the law requires unions to represent non-members fairly. They cannot negotiate high wages for their supporters and the minimum wage for non-members. Unions can avoid representing non-members by disclaiming exclusive representative status. Retail Clerks v. Dry Lion Goods (1962)
True or False – RTW interferes with a business owner’s right to contract or hire union workers.
The answer is FALSE – Employers can still require the same level of skills and training as they do today; HB116 does not prohibit any employer from hiring union workers or require the hiring or firing anyone not qualified to do the job the employer requires to be done. An employer can still negotiate a union contract. The only prohibition in HB116 is that the negotiated contract cannot require employees belong to the union in the contract. HB116
True or False – HB116 will criminalize business owners for inadvertent actions.
The answer is FALSE – HB116 has language intended to ensure compliance identical or similar to most of the other RTW states; these provisions are common features of labor laws and right-to-work laws passed in other states (as well as other types of statutes). Contrary to what others may claim, “damages” in this bill are not open-ended and would not create a spate of lawsuits. Though other states have similar provisions, there have not been dramatic increases in criminal prosecutions or civil lawsuits in those states. HB116 language is a Class C Misdemeanor, the very lowest order of criminal violation known to the law. It’s unlikely that a business person cannot be guilty of violating the provisions of HB116 without knowingly doing so. Letter from Rep Jay Barnes, RsMO’s, other state’s statutes
True or False – RTW will take our state backward.
The answer is FALSE – RTW moves a state forward by creating more jobs; Total private-sector, non-farm employment grew on average from 2003 to 2013 in RTW states by 16.2% and just 9.3% in forced-union states. Department of Commerce, BEA
True or False – RTW states are poor and have more people on welfare.
The answer is FALSE – More jobs equals more opportunity; In 2014, Right to Work states averaged 5 residents per 1,000 on welfare (TANF), while forced-union states had 12.5 residents per 1,000 on welfare. US Administration for Children and Families, Census Bureau
True or False – RTW states have a higher rate of occupational deaths.
The answer is FALSE to half-truth – workplace accidents have more to do with type of work than union vs RTW; RTW does not mean a state will have dangerous workplaces: the RTW states of Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina have lower rates of fatal occupational injuries than the national average. And allowing forced unionism does not guarantee safe workplaces; of the four states with the highest rate of fatal occupational injuries, only one, Wyoming, has a right-to-work law. The other three most dangerous states, Montana, Alaska, and West Virginia, do not have right-to-work. Department of Labor (DOL), BLS
The facts are clear:
There is no economic reason to oppose RTW just myths and personal feelings. Voting “NO” on veto override of HB116 is a vote in favor of the status quo of economic stagnation and loss for our state and working Missourians.
RTW will move Missouri’s economy forward making us more competitive and will create more opportunity for and put more money in the pockets of every Missourian!
Details of the study showing every man, woman and child would have $1,867 more per year each equaling over $5,600 more per family of three are available here:
Via Carl Bearden, Executive Director United for Missouri, (888) 332-3811
Click here to let your House and Senate Members know that you support
Right Freedom To Work
Unlike most, I don’t subscribe to the modern notion of church / state separation and am fully informed that it is not a law or a matter of Constitutional principle. It’s a note from Thomas Jefferson to someone else.
However, here we are and Kim Davis is in jail for one simple reason: the governments of and within the United States have stepped over the wall of separation between church and state especially in the area of marriage.
One thing we know is that Lance and Larry, in 1787, didn’t go with a Justice of the Peace to the sugar white sands of the beaches of Destin, FL and define marriage. Marriage was a religious institution and was described in The Bible long before the creation of the United States; it certainly predates the notion of separation of church / state; and it was created without the assistance of and likely prior to the creation of any form government let alone the United States government with its 1st Amendment.
At some point in the short history of the United States (and certainly after the Civil War), state governments stepped onto the wall of separation and began getting involved in the religious institution of marriage in the appropriate area of protecting the rights to property – especially that of women.
Eventually, the state decided it would fully step over the wall of separation, declare itself a religious institution, and start performing government marriages (GMs) outside of the church’s involvement.
Now, it’s decided that it has the right to define and redefine marriage.
All of this (except for the protection of private property and offspring) is the government – not the church – crossing the line between church and state.
Kim Davis has taken a stand on that line, and with a little logic from our elected representatives, we can rightly put the governments of this nation back on the correct side of the church / state line. Let’s start from the point that Kim Davis should have made her stand…
In Kentucky, ALL Marriage Laws have been declared null and void:
Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution declares, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Section 29 of the Kentucky State Constitution declares “THE legislative power shall be vested in a House of Representatives and a Senate, which, together, shall be styled the ‘General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.’” [Emphasis Added]
This, of course, means that no other branch of the Federal or State government, including SCOTUS, can make or change laws. ALL powers for making or changing laws has been granted to Congress and the Kentucky Legislature. Again, SCOTUS cannot make or change laws. They can declare laws unconstitutional and have done so for laws excluding homosexuals from marriage.
Therefore, any law that has defined marriage as only between a man and a woman has been declared null and void. SCOTUS can’t change the law to say something else; Article 1, Section 1 and KY Section 29 says they do not have the powers to do that.
Here is the Kentucky law defining marriage:
402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
SCOTUS has declared this law null and void. Therefore, since the law defining marriage is null and void, all activities, such as distributing licenses for marriage (something now undefined in Kentucky) are null and void. How can you distribute licenses for something that is undefined?
Again, the activity of distributing ANY marriage license in Kentucky is illegal until the Legislature convenes to create a law that rightly defines marriage and the Governor signs such a law.
This is where Kim Davis must make her stand…
Remove marriage from government!
The words ‘marry’, ‘marrying’, ‘marriage’, et al should have never been allowed to enter the sphere of centralized governance and must be removed. Government, in its bigoted ineptitude, having originally defined marriage (implicitly and explicitly) as between a man and a woman, has now defined marriage as including coupled homosexual marriages disregarding and excluding other types of marriages. So naturally, the fight looms regarding multi-partner relationships or any other type of relationship that wants to be recognized by the government.
Government has no business in the area of civil relationships other than to protect the private property of those involved, ensure that government benefits and entitlements are properly distributed before and after death, and ensure terminations of such relationships are orderly and fair (especially to offspring). Other than that, government is not a party to the relationship. Therefore, it has no course to define or redefine the words used to describe that relationship.
To that end, the words ‘marry’, ‘marrying’, ‘marriage’, et al must be removed from all federal, state, and local constitutions, laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, and policies and immediately replaced with words such as Civil Relationship Unit(s) – or CRU, or cru.
Thus, if any number of consenting, capable adults want to be a cru, so be it. If two men or two women want to be a cru, they go to their county clerk, ask for a contract, sign it, and they are a crued. If three men and one women want to be a cru, here’s the forms. If five adult women and Warren Jepps want to be a cru, so be it. If seventy-two virgins want to cru-up w/ Mohammad Ali, so be it. It’s contract on how to deal with property; it’s a contract to live within a certain system of laws.
Then, if any of those people can find a church or other organization that wants to hold a ceremony in honor of their Civil Relationship Unit and whatever name that may be called within that group (marriage / harriage / garriage / barriage), so be it. And, if any church or other organization doesn’t want to engage in such a ceremony, so be it.
The problem is not that a religious person is in government; the problem is that government has long crossed the line of separation into religion. And, it’s time to get it out.
Kim Davis has the opportunity with her lawyer, Mat Staver, to push government back over the line, keep her job, and become a hero of the religious community. Help her friends and family help her pursue this course.