A Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper
Rising electricity costs are becoming a prickly issue in politics. Higher rates and costs were a major issue in recent state and local elections nationwide. Data centers and cryptocurrency are driving demand against limited supply and driving up costs for homes and existing businesses.
Data centers have found Iowa attractive for its relatively cheap power, water and land costs. A bitcoin mining operation has sited Alta for a data center, which won support from the planning and zoning commission last week. Alta Municipal Utilities reports that it negotiated a contract with Savage Power of Coon Rapids to build a bitcoin processing operation that will protect rates from spiking. Further, AMU reportedly could earn an additional $20,000 a month from the consumption.
That’s the advantage of a municipal utility that can attempt to protect certain rate-payers. The Iowa Utilities Board is supposed to regulate rates for private power companies like MidAmerican Energy. Neither can hold back the tide of rapidly increasing demand for electricity. We need to generate more electricity to keep costs in line. That means more solar arrays and more wind turbines, with attendant storage capacity. Otherwise everyone’s rates are bound to rise no matter what the Alta contract says.
Nuclear and coal-fired power cannot compete in the long term with renewable energy for efficient generation. We need new battery storage technology to accompany it, which is where a municipal utility holds an advantage for community development. Alta should plan for it using the profits from the bitcoin mining. Efficient storage technology is presenting itself, and Alta should prepare for it.
Electric demand is bound to increase regardless of whether cryptocurrency is a thing or not. Artificial intelligence is here. Iowa has a relative advantage, in that it draws a majority of its electric power from wind. Let’s not blow it.
With open races for governor and US Senate, Iowans have a rare opportunity to send a signal next November about what they value, and to turn around several decades of decline and disinvestment in rural communities. When asked directly, voters expect clean air and water — no enterprise in our lifetime here had more public support than lake restoration. They expect excellent public schools where children are safe. They expect their children to have a shot at vocational education. They expect access to high-quality health care that they can afford. They want lower property taxes. They remember stronger communities with local ownership.
Would that you could build a political campaign around that.
Republicans have spent the past several decades trying to starve the beast by gradually eliminating the income tax. The result has been a leaner, less hospitable Iowa that welcomes more hogs but closes rural schools. Chasing smokestacks has little to show for it, up and down the Mississippi River where former manufacturing haunts lay silent. Property taxes are going up. So is college tuition and debt. Young people in those river towns question whether the education is worth it when there is nothing to do that requires a brain.
We have tried tax cutting until you have a billion-dollar state deficit. It doesn’t work. Minnesota and Illinois with their high taxes and woke ways are leaving us in the dust.
What if we had healthy whole rural communities with thriving schools? What if we had lakes without fecal coliform bacteria warnings at the beach? What if we used Medicaid to buy down health care costs for everybody? What if we could afford nursing homes in small towns?
If you have clean air, young people might not flee. If you can drink the water safely, that might be something to sell. If you have medical technology in Storm Lake, you don’t have to drive to Sioux City and the money stays at home. If the state funded universities, graduates could afford to stay here and build enterprises that can pay living wages so people can afford to buy a home.
The crazy thing is that we used to have all these things: clean water, diverse agriculture, local manufacturing, prosperous rural communities and distributed health care. We gave it up for cheaper wages, polluted water and lower taxes for people living South of Grand in Des Moines. For those of you in the trailer court, be grateful for the roof over your head. That is the new Iowa attitude.
We could get Iowa back by voting for it. We need politicians with the courage to give voters a real choice and a real shot at a better life. We knew how to do it before greed dumbed us down. Somebody who could acknowledge that would earn a following.
We have treated Rep. Randy Feenstra of Hull as the presumptive Republican nominee for governor in 2026. The GOP field includes several other candidates but Feenstra is the best-known with the most money and tacit support from the political brokers. Remember, Feenstra unseated Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, no small feat.
Candidates showed up at Ida Grove but Feenstra didn’t bother. They attacked him as if he is the front-runner.
The field is in some state of flux. Michael Bousselot of Ankeny recently backed out in favor of pursuing a state senate seat. Those in the race include Rep. Eddie Andrews, Johnston, Zach Lahn of Belle Plaine, former director of the Iowa Department of Administrative Services Adam Steen and former state Rep. Brad Sherman of Des Moines. They might complain about Feenstra up there, but you know which way Sioux County is trending.
Likewise, we presume that State Auditor Rob Sand will be the Democratic nominee. He is the only statewide elected Democrat, and he has about $10 million to spend. Julie Stauch of Des Moines is running against him for the nomination.
Primary elections are not until June. Anything can happen. At this point, the race is shaping up between Feenstra and Sand.
President Trump is losing support among Latino voters who swung to him in the last election, according to a Pew Research Center survey released on Nov. 24. Pew found that 70% of Hispanics surveyed disapprove of Trump’s performance, and 68% say Latinos are worse off today than they were a year ago. Sixty-five percent object to his immigration policies.
In Trump’s 2016 campaign, 28% of Latinos voted for him. In 2024, Trump enjoyed 48% Latino support. In Storm Lake, turnout among Latinos was tamped down in 2024 by inflation and a lack of enthusiasm for Democrats.
The chaos and cruelty are driving Latino voters away from Trump. They believe that tariffs have fostered higher costs. Half of Latinos say they have a hard time affording food, medical care or rent.
Fifty-two percent report fear that they or someone close to them will be deported. That’s up from 42% in March. Note that 83% of Latino adults are here legally, so many legal residents harbor a rational fear of being deported. Many voters mistakenly believed that Trump would only go after criminal aliens. His sweeps of major cities demonstrated otherwise.
Republicans can’t win national elections without attracting a decent share of Latino voters. Cruelty is not the way to win them over. Latinos also understand that deporting hard-working immigrants increases everyone’s costs. They supported a secure border and less inflation but got way more than they bargained for.
If Democrats tried, they could win the Latino vote in Iowa. Good thing for Republicans in tough races that nobody asks them, as if they don’t matter.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here