Oregon Strategist

Reinventing the Oregon Dream

Floating Solar: Smoothing the Energy Cycle

by

Exciting new floating solar installations around the world, a ray of sunshine in the cloudy Pacific Northwest, and reservoir woes in Southern Oregon.

Yes—this is a wide range of topics. One of the most fascinating and challenging aspects of understanding the floating solar market is the technology’s unique positioning at the nexus of energy, water, and land management.

It means that all sorts of factors can drive floating solar adoption, whether that’s a mine or quarry being decommissioned, new restrictions on installing ground-mounted solar on farmland, rollout of new community solar rules in a territory, or even the pursuit of more knowledge about…floating solar.

South Africa

It’s official—commercial floating solar has arrived on the African continent.

South African renewable energy developer New Southern Energy recently completed a 60 kW floating solar system at the Marlenique Estate, a fruit farm and wedding venue near Franschhoek in South Africa. The floats came from Ciel & Terre, a leading global provider of floating solar hardware, and the system complements a much larger 534 kW ground-mounted system on land adjacent to the farm’s irrigation reservoir.

The project is a near-perfect case study for floating solar. Owner Carl van der Merwe originally looked into solar power due to frustrations with unreliable power supply from Eskom, one of Africa’s largest utilities. The farm plans to install a battery system in a second project phase to build a true microgrid, providing them with 100% energy independence. A stable power supply was crucial to the successful operation of the farm’s cold storage, irrigation, and wedding venue facilities.

Outside of securing a stable power supply, Marlenique Estate checked practically every box for potential floating solar benefits, confirming research conducted years prior in the region. They reduced evaporation on their reservoir while South Africa is still reeling from last year’s drought. They achieved higher photovoltaic panel productivity due to the cooling effect of the water. They slowed their growing operational expenses. They even created a space for fish to congregate.

Albania

Norwegian floating solar developer Ocean Sun recently sold a 2 MW floating solar system to Norwegian utility giant Statkraft for installation at the Banja reservoir in Albania, with help from a feed-in tariff authorized by the Albanian government.

The project boasts several of the typical benefits of floating solar systems—ease of installation, scalability, increased panel efficiency, reduced evaporation, algal bloom mitigation—but it’s a new type of floating solar in its own right.

While most floating solar arrays are mounted on hard high-quality plastic floats, connected together to form a semi-rigid unit, Ocean Sun’s technology installs dual-glass modules on a durable, thin, flexible membrane. This is Ocean Sun’s first sale, so the project will amount to somewhat of a pilot, but the added benefits are compelling.

According to Ocean Sun, direct panel contact with the water can boost efficiency by up to 15%, where more traditional floating solar arrays tend to claim 10% or less. The thin polymer membrane minimizes materials on the system, helping to lower cost and reduce the burden of plastic waste 20-30 years from now. Finally, the membrane structure is claimed to flex with ocean swells, making the system more durable, and their models show the system withstanding hurricane-force winds of 170 mph.

Floating solar is still an emerging technology, representing about 1% of installed solar capacity worldwide, and healthy competition among hardware manufacturers can only benefit offtakers.

Thailand

The state-run Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) just upped the ante in a serious way, committing to build a series of floating solar projects across its reservoirs totaling 2.7 GW in capacity. The project is nearly three times larger than total installed floating solar capacity today, globally. The largest project is slated to be a 325 MW array on the 100 square mile reservoir held up by the Sirikit Dam in Uttaradit Province, more than twice the size of the already-gargantuan, current-world’s-largest 150 MW array in Anhui Province, China.

The first project looks to be a 45 MW array at the Sirinhorn Dam, which will notably be comprised of proprietary floating solar hardware developed by Siam Cement Group, one of Southeast Asia’s leading manufacturers of construction materials. The project shows that despite the rapid success of global hardware leaders like Ciel & Terre and Sungrow, floating solar is still anybody’s market.

If the project goes as planned, it will bring Thailand’s energy portfolio from today’s 12% renewable to 37% renewable by 2036.

It Works

Technology moves quickly, and solar power is becoming increasingly viable even in cloudy regions like the Pacific Northwest.

Washington State just announced its first lease of public lands for a solar farm of any size, and they’ve eschewed pilot projects in favor of a full-blown utility-scale project. The farm, led by renewable energy titan Avangrid, will be good for 150 MW in Klickitat County.

It’s a major vote of confidence in the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of today’s photovoltaic technology, and spells opportunity for the region. Klickitat County isn’t as cloudy as coastal areas in the PNW, but it’s still cloudy about half the year, and is already served by ample hydropower and wind power resources. These factors have typically turned solar developers toward more favorable regions. Now, proximity to existing transmission infrastructure, and the proliferation of energy-intensive data centers in the area, helped the project pencil. It’s a new day for solar in the Northwest.

Where Does Floating Solar Come In?

Despite a host of renewable energy incentives sunsetting in the state in 2017, two major forces are converging that—with the viability demonstrated by Avangrid’s project in Washington—make Oregon a promising place to explore floating solar development.

The first was the passage of SB 1547, Oregon’s aggressive move to ditch coal-fired power plants, with its commencement of planning to roll out a statewide community solar program. The program will allow residents within the same utility territory to subscribe to local solar projects that don’t sit on their property, which overcomes a large barrier for residents with limited yard space and lots of tree cover. There are still key questions outstanding in the rules, most importantly the PUC’s determination of the Resource Value of Solar (RVOS) and the associated bill credit for community solar subscribers, but if the numbers land where we hope they will, the program will unleash rapid deployment of 160 MW of solar power across the state.

The other major development is a growing opposition to repurposing heritage vineyards and farmland for ground-mounted solar installations. Already Clackamas, Jackson, Marion, and Yamhill counties have taken decisive action to hinder ground-mounted solar development in their jurisdictions, helped by land use advocacy groups like 1000 Friends of Oregon. Most recently, there appear to be severe limitations to ground-mounted solar on farmland on a statewide basis coming down the pipe.

It’s hard to blame them, as repurposing large swaths of land can have plenty of negative environmental consequences, not to mention economic impacts to neighboring rural residents who aren’t cashing in on these solar projects, but we still hate to see different factions of environmentalism at odds with one another. It’s also a shame to see any hindrance to renewable energy development for any reason, given the UN IPCC’s horrifying recent report on climate change, and the proximity of Oregonian farmlands to power transmission lines.

This is where floating solar can offer a solution. Oregon has ample surface water in its rural areas, close to both potential offtakers and transmission lines, helping ease the costs of any floating solar installations. With a strong community solar program in place, pond owners could deploy systems of <3 MW, roughly enough to power 600 homes each, offering cost savings to people who really need it, and helping the Beaver State transition away from coal power once and for all.

Pumped Hydro in Oregon and Washington

In other parts of the region, tensions are brewing around six separate pumped hydroelectric storage projects in various stages of feasibility analysis and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval. Pumped hydroelectric storage, or “pumped hydro,” is an innovative approach to solving the “duck curve” problem with renewable energy. The duck curve is a phenomenon wherein solar energy is at maximum production during midday, then drops sharply upon sundown, forcing other power sources to rapidly ramp up to meet demand. Managing against the duck curve is often expensive and challenging for power providers. You can read more in this factsheet from the California Independent System Operation Corporation.

Pumped hydro offers an elegant solution to the problem. Pumped hydro systems involve two reservoirs—one at a significantly higher altitude than the other—connected by a pipe containing one or more reversible pump-turbine/motor-generator assemblies. The system pumps water into the uphill reservoir during low demand periods when energy prices are lower, then allows the water to flow back downhill during peak demand periods when energy is most expensive, playing a form of energy arbitrage. They address the duck curve problem by rapidly ramping up energy production at a significant scale as the sun sets, replacing the power that solar panels provided during the day. The Energy Storage Association offers further reading, including alternate configurations of pumped hydro systems.

Pumped hydro technology is crucially important to American energy infrastructure, with projects built from the 1960s through the 1980s representing over 90% of energy storage capacity in the United States. Their purpose was to boost the profitability of nuclear power plants, that—like solar power—cannot easily adjust production to shifting demand (nuclear plants are most efficient when they run at a steady rate, so unlike solar, the plants use pumped hydro to bank power overnight instead of during the middle of the day). We stopped building pumped hydro systems as our focus on nuclear power development waned a few decades ago, but the rise of solar and wind power has fueled renewed interest in the technology.

Developing massive infrastructure like pumped hydro, however, poses significant challenges. Navigating regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions can take a decade or more, as experienced by the developers of six pumped hydro projects pending in the Pacific Northwest. Perhaps the largest challenge is managing negative impact to local stakeholders, who care less that pumped hydro is a well-established and cost-effective way to store energy, and care more about having their land and water impacted by massive construction projects nearby.

Rye Development, a firm that is front-and-center about “low impact” pumped hydro projects and their commitment to environment and local community interests, is developing one such project in Southern Oregon. At 393.3 MW, the project is an utter behemoth, with capacity to meet the demand of 290,000 to 390,000 homes when the water is flowing downhill. It’s not nearly the largest of the six projects proposed in the Pacific Northwest either, and will likely only represent about 5% of projected energy storage needs in Oregon and Washington by 2035. As critically necessary as these types of projects are, this one has been deeply polarizing to the local community.

On the one hand, the project is likely to bring revenue and jobs to Klamath County, which operates at a $2 million annual deficit and is in sore need of the support. On the other hand, constructing two brand-new 60-acre reservoirs and many miles of transmission lines is deeply disruptive to homeowners and tribal lands in the area. Homeowners will see their bucolic views (and associated tourism revenue) impacted, potentially deal with irritating noise, see bird populations impacted, see a massive draw on local groundwater, and have to reroute crops and irrigation lines to adjust. They’re also worried about wildfires, which is understandable given the unimaginable recent fires that clobbered Malibu and Santa Rosa in California, wiped the town of Paradise, CA off the map, and desecrated the Columbia River Gorge, one of Oregon’s most beloved recreational gems.

Burying the power lines would address many of these issues, but it would drive up the cost of transmission by about 1500%. It’s also not going to happen. The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission awarded a 50-year license for the project earlier this month, meaning that homeowners who don’t agree to settlement terms will be forced to endure the eminent domain process.

Sustainable development, done right, seeks to make use of existing resources wherever possible. The relative benefits of floating solar power depend heavily on this principle (i.e. not repurposing valuable land). We would be happy to see new pumped hydro projects sited at existing reservoirs, which already have many of the hardest questions answered—abundant water, uphill, connected to the grid via existing high-voltage transmission lines. Constructing a lower-elevation reservoir to complete the picture would be far less impactful than the project underway in Klamath County. The approach would help locals feel much better about their contribution to our collective interests as residents of this planet, and would likely make for a much easier permitting process.

So what does all of this have to do with floating solar? Beyond the obvious benefits of siting solar panels on the massive quantity of surface area found in our reservoirs, there is a powerful synergy between floating solar and pumped hydroelectric. The Lapeenranta University of Technology in Finland published a study last year (free download) analyzing the impact that floating solar could have on pumped hydro systems, which represent 141 GW of pumped hydro capacity globally. That’s good for about a hundred million homes’ worth of power.

The numbers are staggering. Covering 25% of the surface of those pumped hydro reservoirs is likely to result in a 5.22x increase in their power production capacity, which is huge—pumped hydro systems are efficient storage systems but still experience losses, and floating solar would turn them from net energy consumers into net energy producers. Here in the United States, which boasts a relatively small 2.58 GW of pumped hydro capacity, covering 25% of the 312 square miles’ worth of associated surface water would produce 13.4 GW of floating solar production (enough to power the entirety of New York City’s five boroughs) and prevent 183,000 acre-feet of evaporation annually (enough water to serve a third of the City of Los Angeles), which in turn provides more water for traditional hydropower and storage capacity. Taken globally, the impact would be more than 50 times larger.

That’s just for pumped hydro storage reservoirs, and doesn’t even consider other types of man-made reservoirs, of which our country boasts nearly 25,000. The implications are clear—every pumped hydro system should install floating solar power.

Groups are already starting to put this exciting theory into practice. Leading global floating solar developer and hardware manufacturer Ciel et Terre partnered with Portugal-based global energy developer EDP to build a 220 kW floating solar pilot project on Portugal’s Alto Rabagão Dam. The pilot went live in 2016. The floating solar panels represent less than 1% of the dam’s nameplate capacity, but importantly, it demonstrated that these systems can work in practice, even when facing a constant water level variation of nearly 100 feet. Thanks to the massive potential for the synergy between floating solar and pumped hydro, the success of this pilot is likely to catalyze many more projects in Portugal and beyond. It’s not a moment too soon.

Originally Published: https://splash.solar/floating-solar-news-spring-2019/

FERC Denies Jordan Cove, For Now.

by

Jordan CoveOn a scale of 1 to 10 for the complexity and divisiveness of issues, Jordan Cove is off the charts. The project, a proposed pipeline between Malin in Klamath County eastern Oregon and Coos Bay on the coast, would pump liquefied natural gas (LNG) to be exported at the International Port of Coos Bay. The pipeline would be a continuation of the Ruby pipeline that stretches from Malin out to Opal, Wyoming which currently serves the natural gas needs of California, Nevada and the Pacific Northwest.

On March 11, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) denied Pacific Connector’s and Jordan Cove’s proposal for the pipeline extension. One could reasonably infer that such a decision was a disappointment to those who stood to benefit from construction contracts and other employment associated with its building and operation. Private landowners who faced eminent domain and environmental activists stood in opposition.Coos.bay.gas_map

To make matters more complicated, the Coquille, Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw tribes had taken a firm position against the pipeline, despite their standing for monetary gain in the form of increased business at their Coos Bay casinos. The tribes reported confusion with government agency oversight and the need to take into consideration the cultural integrity of the lands as well as native soils and burial grounds.

Did the public interest of having a natural gas export terminal and pipeline outweigh the adverse impacts on local landowners and the community? FERC apparently did not think so and Jordan Cove LNG backers will seek a rehearing on the issue. In the meantime, environmental opponents have an opportunity to reinforce their positions as the project was rejected principally because Jordan Cove LNG backers did not substantiate demand for the product abroad – the environmental claims were dismissed as moot.

Initially, proponents of LNG pipelines in Oregon supported LNG imports to increase demand and drive down prices. However, since the United States has proved to be a producer, these proponents have flipped to pursue exporting the product.

Many factors are at play as to whether a pipeline will be built between Malin and Coos Bay. A different federal administration tied to different billionaire interests may seek to reverse the policies disfavoring the building of such pipelines to export gas and oil. Nevertheless, Oregonians have a moment to think, for themselves, about what an export terminal would mean to them and to the future of their state.

Is this a project worth the jobs, investment and manufacturing opportunities that could arise, or is natural gas a doomed product whose potential will dry up? Is eminent domain and individual liberty of the utmost concern in this matter? Or perhaps our looking at Oregon’s environmental future is most crucial. Whatever, the question, every Oregonian has an opportunity to engage, weigh in, and be heard.

Prison Reform and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

by

prison-370112_960_720Our jails are a reflection of our national character and who we are as a society. There is much to be critical about when it comes to the United States holding more than twenty (20) percent of the world’s incarcerated population – manifested out of President Richard Nixon’s war on drugs in 1971.

Mandatory minimum sentences and strict drug laws have swelled our prison population, stripping our judiciary of any flexibility and discretion in doling out prison terms for non-violent offenders of the law. Context is everything in distributing justice in a balanced, fair, and neutral manner. Mandatory minimum sentences throw context out the window and leave our legal system rigid, inflexible and limp.

Currently, American citizens spend roughly $80 billion per year housing their prison population. This is approximately $260 per person per year. Ten (10) percent of this figure is paid to private prisons. Private prisons have an incentive to fill beds. Mandatory minimum sentences insulate their funding. While ten (10) percent may seem a small amount, the private prison industry wields tremendous influence in lobbying the government, even in the area of immigration reform.

Our legal system should be allowed a malleable approach to the law and its offenders. In overhauling our drug laws and lifting the bureaucratic mandatory minimum sentencing, we free up valuable resources for job training, education, and instilling in our culture a value of hard work and the fulfillment of dreams. We need not the continual drain on our human capital as we allow it to rot behind the bars of our prisons, sucking down our tax dollars and tarnishing these people with criminal histories that will prohibit future employment and positive growth. No. Our nation requires labor, ingenuity, principle and dedication to surface our debt and propel our global advantage in this century of American pride.

ODA’s Beetles Take a Bite Out of Portland

by

Galerucella BeetleThe Oregon Department of Agriculture’s (ODA) latest efforts to quell an invasive species has led to a massive beetle infestation in the Sellwood and Westmoreland neighborhood of Portland. The ODA first introduced the Galerucella beetle to Oregon in 1992 and released them into the Oaks Bottom wetland ten years ago to control the growth of Purple Loosestrife.

Residents of Sellwood and Westmoreland are now experiencing a drastic infestation of the beetle in their yards. The beetle has reportedly expanded its eating habits to residents’ crepe myrtle, roses, and tomatoes.

Instead of offering an apology to residents, the ODA decided to issue a press release blaming the infestation on a “perfect storm” of factors including hotter and drier weather conditions and favorable water conditions that have led to surge in the beetle’s population. Furthermore, the ODA, in the release, redirects the public attention to the dire need for this method of “biocontrol”, claiming the Purple Loosestrife, a wetland plant with a purple flower enjoyed by bees and butterflies alike and utilized against diarrhea and dysentery for its medicinal properties, is overly abundant and that the plant would cause $28 million in economic damage if it were to spread throughout Oregon.

Tinkering with the environment has long been a pastime of state and federal regulators. They have attempted to get the proper levels of all the ingredients so that it can cement in permanency its function as an environmental arbiter. And citizens are beginning to pay attention. Environmental organizations such as Friends of the Animals are speaking out against the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (USDFW) killing of the barred owl to help promote the Spotted Owl’s habitat. The Center for Biological Diversity recently issued a press release against similar actions the USDFW was taking in the slaughter of Cormorants in the Columbia River Basin in an effort to encourage salmon and steelhead.

Few could argue that government has, at times, played an important role in reducing the human footprint. But like Mr. McGoo, state and federal regulators can also be, at times, the source of enormous disaster as we saw with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) toxic spill into the Animus River this past week that release lead, arsenic and cadmium into the flowing waters. The United States Department of Energy (USDOE) is in charge of the cleanup at the government-created Hanford Nuclear Reservation, wastes of which still gravely threatens Oregon and Washington.

A footprint is still a footprint. Environmental tinkering has an impact on all our lives. Our efforts to reduce this footprint might be a difficult pill to swallow for government and many organizations that base their efforts on reduction of invasive species for biodiversity. But reducing our footprint is simply a way of saying, we are not greater than nature but are a part of it and we accept its principles in the balance of our ecosystems, recognizing that our own tinkering can often be disruptive.

We should be focusing on how to reduce our footprint as a method for promoting environmental diversity rather than to reduce by method of death squad, the population of any over abundant plant or animal. Indeed, we would certainly not employ such methods in handling those immigrating to our state and towns, despite how many would view them as “invasive.”

For now, the ODA is literally in Portland residents’ backyards. There is no sure determination that the infestation is going to dissipate and not return next year when weather conditions could possibly be just as favorable to the little bugs.

Chemical Forestry: A Clear Cut Challenge

by

Oregon Clear CutWhether you subscribe to Chemtrail Conspiracy or not, no one can deny the absolute veracity in the private logging industry’s chemical stains on our countryside. The largest offender, quite possibly, is Weyerhaeuser (a foreign – not from Oregon – corporation).

The industry cites regulations requiring the replanting of douglas fir following a company’s clearcutting as the primary reason for the widespread application of herbicides such as 2,4-D, Velossa, and Atrazine. The industry is required to harvest new trees so that after six years they are in a “free to grow” state unencumbered by weeds and brush. The herbicides kill everything but the trees. Their aerial application is simply cheaper than hand weeding.

Meanwhile, folks are getting sick.  Many are testing positive for Atrazine. And yet this practice was banned twenty years ago from public forest lands. The practice survives on private logging lands.

There is certainly an argument to be made for one’s right to exercise control over one’s property, but when that control begins to negatively impact the surrounding community and its common resources such as water, air and animals, the public has always had a right to intervene (i.e. the United States has a long history of “nuisance” law). Protection of the commons is of increasing concern as the effects of resource shortages become more real. And individuals have an increasing responsibility to protect themselves, their health, and their property from the irresponsible actions of adjacent property owners.

The state and federal government are, in part, to blame for adopting policies that, while perhaps well-intentioned, do not address the source of the problem. Instead of overlooking an ecosystem, political parties and leaders attach themselves to a single species and gauge an ecosystem’s health based upon the health of this species. As a result, the state and federal government imposes itself as an arbiter between the species, deciding to eliminate any threats to their “special” species.

With regard to the logging industry’s herbicide application on forestland, the source of the problem, if we follow the trail backwards, leads us to the practice of clear-cutting, which spurned the regulations requiring “free to grow” forest replanting, which, in turn, spurned the industry’s cheap solution.

Responsible stewardship is the answer. For those in the industry looking to improve their bottom line, people have demonstrated that they are willing to pay for products that are made with a greater eye towards responsible stewardship. A “not from clear-cut” brand would certainly raise an opportunity for a would-be purchaser of wood products.

On the government’s side, responsible stewardship arises when the effects of regulation on private industry are analyzed and changes are made to address the source. Being in a logging state, legislative leaders from Oregon, particularly those paid by the logging industry, would have a difficult time challenging the status quo for logging practices that may be harmful to the general public. Yet this kind of bold inquiry is precisely what we need to make our state more healthy, safe and prosperous.

Ebola versus Islamic State

by

Ebola_1The possibility of facing an epidemic of over a million people infected with the Ebola virus by January 2015 is startling, yet the current crisis has failed to harness the degree of attention the public should be paying to the outbreak.

While the Islamic State has been a formidable competitor for headlines across the world, Ebola poses a far greater immediate threat than IS. Our current political reactions, however, have not reflected this fact.

The beheadings of Richard Foley and Steven Sotloff have captured American attention and were graphic enough to then lead to a bi-partisan resolution to commence ongoing military intervention. Yet the use of force against a group that has demonstrated minimal, if any, violent reach outside of its limited geographic region is cause for questioning, especially when the U.S. just recently wrapped up a decade-long conflict in Iraq and is now attempting to do the same with its conflict in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, plenty of local actors have a vested interest in seeing IS’s demise. U.S. involvement should be focused on more immediate and credible threats to the U.S. population.

Ebola has already killed 3000 people in West Africa and Wednesday marked the first case of the virus diagnosed on U.S. soil. . The virus has an incubation period of 2 to 21 days. That means that someone with the virus may not know he or she has it until he or she has infected multiple others.

West Africa has certainly shown us the regional difficulties of managing a disease of this magnitude. Beliefs the disease does not exist, lack of education and sanitation, and lack of medical resources including lack of health care workers all contribute to the high rate of infection and mortality. As of September 23, 211 health care workers had died from the disease. Perhaps the greatest issue is the number of dead that continues to rise. The bodies are highly contagious and require teams to come in for their extraction. People are dying faster than the bodies can be handled.

So far, the outbreak in West Africa has principally affected Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Guinea. However, an unrelated outbreak is now confirmed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where 42 people have died. A diagnosis here on U.S. soil is a great concern.

Our administration recently announced contributing $780 million to fight the spread of the disease. Yet the U.S. has already spent this amount in its fight against IS. There are reasons to suggest a re-prioritization of priorities is in order.

 

A Case for the Open Primary

by

demopublicanThe Democratic Party has a healthy lead as the majority party in Oregon. Their base, much like the Republican base, unwittingly votes the party line and, as a result, we in Oregon are left being represented by an unrepresentative majority.

Only one elected federal official from Oregon is a non-Democrat. Yet, Oregon is composed of 39% Democratic, 32% Republican and 29% Independent, unaffiliated and alternative party voters. This leaves many Oregonians wondering how to achieve more balanced representation. Open primaries may just be the answer.

For many in the minority, building a coalition based upon the broadest array of viewpoints that do not fundamentally conflict with one another is seen as the only way to broaden the state’s representation. It is also an enormous undertaking. This type of approach will not typically endear religious radicals or rabid environmentalists. However, the approach will treat representation as less about the party line and more about a holistic and substantive treatment of the issues.

An open primary system would enhance representation in Oregon by identifying candidates who most fully represent Oregonian points of view – not Oregon Republican or Oregon Democratic points of view. And is not this what we all desire – having our politicians striving to represent Oregon in the fullest sense?

The idea that parties will become irrelevant may be a pipe dream, but an open primary system is the first step towards eroding party identification as the basis for representation. It will involve the 29 percent of Oregonians who do not identify with one of the two major parties in the primary process, so that the rest of us will not be left with those politicians the parties have “presented” us with in the general election. Open primaries will incentivize us all to think about how our vote will shape our political future, as the range of candidates we see listed on our ballots will prompt greater inquiry.

Certainly, money will still play an inflated role in name recognition, as it has for centuries. But values will play a role of greater importance, as conscientious Oregon-affiliated voters mark their support for candidates they believe stand for Oregonian principles.

For Democrats who feel their leaders are reaching a point of entrenchment and mismanagement, from $300 million spent on CoverOregon to $200 million on a proposed and yet-to-be-built bridge, open primaries offer an opportunity to infuse our political system with a more frugal vision based on good stewardship. For Republicans who seem to embody antiquated social perspectives and, time and again, lose in the general election, open primaries offer an opportunity at increased representation – even if their candidates are not as “complete” a package as they would like.

But perhaps the greatest win an open primary system would bring home is overcoming the conventional form of politics that offer conflict-based representation. Finding leadership that seeks to resolve our differences by marrying seemingly disparate viewpoints is essential for a renewed and rejuvenated Oregon and United States.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of monarchical case, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

George Washington’s Farewell Address.

 

Communist Republicans

by

Red ElephantIn Oregon, the Secretary of State allows people to change their party affiliation or unaffiliation. If you change your affiliation to Republican you can vote in the Primary in May. Then change back right after. It’s an easy guerilla in a hot minute.

Register to vote.

Change your party.

We are so disheartened, so discouraged, and so disenfranchised that we do not vote in the Primary. And what we are left with is what the PACs and the Corporate elite push through to the General.

Republicans have forced us out of their dialogue. The Democrats are entrenched. And they are both so focused on what divides them that they have failed to see the unified voice of a generation rising up to put these children into place.

We encourage sharing.

The Bureau of Land Mismanagement

by

Sage GrouseDuring the 1870s, the federal government adopted policies encouraging the killing of the North American buffalo in order to deplete the food source of the Native Americans, a tactic used to expand the government’s authority across the West.
Today, in a continued effort to promote and secure its relevance, the federal government, in breach of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, has authorized the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife to spend $3.5 million massacring 3600 barred owls in Oregon under the auspices of spotted owl protection – an animal listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The news of this federal action and the government’s “above the law” response to control natural fluctuations does not come as a surprise to many of us Oregonians who everyday perform the balancing act of providing for our families, sustaining our businesses and ranches, and acting as stewards for sustainable future use of our land. Over the years and centuries, federal responses to local issues have resulted in wasteful spending, irresponsible action, and the decimation of people and animals alike. Yet a concentrated majority in this state has decided that Washington D.C. is best suited to handling our business, ranching and local environmental affairs.
Oregon’s counties and communities face a new federal intervention: an effort to protect the sage grouse. An environmental impact statement is currently being pushed through federal court to determine whether the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) should cordon off hundreds of thousands of acres of land usually reserved for ranching activities.
There is clear consensus among the experts and the BLM that sage grouse numbers are not a problem in Oregon. The disappearance of the bird has predominantly occurred in Idaho and Utah. Many ranchers in Oregon are aware of the bird’s habitat and steer their herds clear of areas where their dwelling is probable.
Yet the federal government has advertised that it is the most effective source for balancing interests – that somehow the sage grouse’s viability must be protected at the federal level from cattle-ranching activities (which actually have a positive impact on sage grouse habitat as well through soil regeneration that aids habitat growth, much like the buffalo herds’ contribution to the fertility of the Great Plains).
Eastern Oregon, prior to the pioneers, was a large swathe of grassland. With the covered wagons clung the sage seeds that spread their roots across the land. Our ever-changing ecosystem has seen the rise and fall of species across the span of earth’s history. Yet our government is attempting to play God and legislate control over a single element to an incomprehensible equation – a futile and wasteful task that does more harm than good, as we saw from the carcasses of buffalo, and see from the slaughter of an owl.

A Quiet Diplomacy: Syria, Iran and the future of U.S. foreign policy

by

Iran Nuclear DealWith a deal struck to lighten sanctions on Iran in exchange for access to and observation of the Iranian nuclear program, and a political resistance to entering another foreign entanglement in Syria, it appears the United States has entered into a new era on foreign policy.

The truth is, that when it comes to the Middle East, relationships are tenuous and the ground ever-shifting. Such a dynamic is a natural cause for hesitancy to involve oneself in the region’s disputes. Syria represents an extraordinarily complex patchwork of alliances and feuds. Hezbollah, the predominant militant group in Lebanon, supports Syrian President Bashar al Assad and the government. Al Qaida has taken up arms in resistance to Syria’s regime.

And yet our hands-off approach with Syria has proved advantageous from the standpoint that we have not entangled ourselves in a drag-out conflict where sides are blurred and resources are squandered. In fact, the fighting between opposition forces and the Syrian government has resulted in steps towards the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons. The tragedy of 100,000 dead and the creation of nearly three million refugees was very nearly one that would have been shouldered by the U.S.

With uncertainty as to Egypt’s future, pressure on the Iran issue from the hawks in Israel, and an ongoing siphon of U.S. resources just to the east in Afghanistan, there is no question why the U.S. is playing its cards with caution.

And as far as the U.S. is concerned with Iran, frankly, the Iranian nuclear interim agreement represents the absolute best case scenario for the U.S. under current circumstances. A war with Iran would result in tragic levels of debt at the least, and a massive humanitarian tragedy at the most. Iran has emphatically stated it will never stop enriching uranium so, short of war and with no agreement, Iran would find a way to obtain a nuclear weapon. The U.S. has bargained for a higher vantage point in its relationship with Iran. While the deal might seem like a short-term failure given that Iran appears to have given up relatively little in exchange for $7 billion in sanctions relief, the truth is that the U.S. stands to gain a long-term position as one of the foreign overseers of Iran’s domestic nuclear program. If anything goes wrong in the interim, the United States along with its allies can impose even harsher sanctions (or even go to war if one wants to take it that far).

Israeli’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has not stifled any disagreement with the plan labeling the move as an “historic mistake.” And Israel’s concerns are valid. An Iran with nuclear military capabilities poses a threat to Israel’s security. But a war with Iran, over a program Iran agrees will be overseen by international observers for domestic production, would be premature to say the least – especially since the U.S. would be footing the cost.

All of this begs the question: What now is our nation’s role in the Middle East and in international affairs more broadly? While we are reducing our military presence in Europe we are only expanding its presence in the Asia-Pacific region. How are we to take into account the nearly one trillion dollars scheduled in Defense cuts over the next decade?

The answer may lie in the kind of wait-and-see diplomacy demonstrated by our exercise of restraint in Syria and the Iranian nuclear interim agreement. Certainly it makes sense when looking at the bill.