July 30, 2014
Host: Ted Simons
Arizona ArtBeat: Process and Page
Category: The Arts
- See a new exhibit at the Phoenix Art Museum that offers a look at how famous photographers take their images and turn them into a book.
| Keywords: the arts
Ted Simons: And tonight's edition of "Arizona Artbeat" looks as an exhibit that shows how famous photographers turn their images into books. Shawna Fischer and Juan Magana show us how the process goes to the page.
Shawna Fischer: Photographs capture a moment in time. Sometimes a look at our history and sometimes a glimpse into our future. Phoenix Art Museum curator, Rebecca Senf, explains that through photograph books artists are able to expand their reach to a much larger audience, and also control how we see their art.
Rebecca Senf: I think a lot of people assume when an artist produces a book of their work, they give over the pictures to someone and that other person produces the final book. But actually photographers are very involved in the process of producing their book, and many photographers see it as an extension of their career.
Shawna Fischer: In the exhibit, the process and the page, we can see how famous photographers, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, and W. Eugene Smith among others immersed themselves in creating their books. She says it was much more than choosing the photographs themselves.
Rebecca Senf: The first step is defining the book, what is the book going to be about. The second is securing the publisher, who are are you going to work with to produce the book. The third step is making aesthetic decisions, how will the pictures appear in the book. The fourth step is actually producing the physical book and going on press. The fifth stipulates marketing and selling the book and getting it out to your audience.
Shawna Fischer: Ansel Adams was known for his breathtaking and detailed nature photographs.
Rebecca Senf: When he realized many more would see the books than the prints, it caused him to give more attention to how he produced the books, as well. He was very invested not just in the design and content and what the book said, but the way the book was made, and that the quality of reproductions reflected the high quality of his artistic production.
Shawna Fischer: In fact, Adams was the first photographer to create books of his work. To get his first book published in 1930, he created the prototype for kick-starter, the crowd funding website. People paid $35 in advance for the copy and the money helped Adams pay for printing costs. She says one of her favorite parts of the books is looking at the maquettes. The photographer can play around with images to get the book to be exactly what they want.
Rebecca Senf: In the cases you'll see artists working on these things. And what I'm most proud of are examples where you see multiple maquettes and watch as the artist refines thinking about the books and makes adjustments to those book maquettes and dummies and the changes as it evolved.
Ted Simons: The book sets up traditional museum experiences. Alongside the books are the photograph prints to see the photographer's visions come alive.
Rebecca Senf: It was great fun to go through the vaults and look at the materials and find thousands objects that would help our audience understand the ways in which the artists had participated and the investment they had in producing a finished product that really reflected their ideas and their career.
Ted Simons: The Process and the Page will be at the Phoenix Art Museum until August 17th. For more information check out the website, phxart.org. Thursday on Arizona Horizon another debate. This one features Republican primary candidates for Arizona Congressional District 9. That is it for now, I'm Ted Simons. Thank you so much for joining us, you have a great evening.
Arizona’s Future: Job Creation
- Arizona State University economist Dennis Hoffman of the W.P. Carey School of Business will discuss the future of job creation in our state and country.
- Dennis Hoffman - Economist, W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University
| Keywords: business
Ted Simons: In tonight's addition of "Arizona's Future" we look at jobs and the changing nature of employment in a word that's seeing machines and computers increasingly replace human labor. Dennis Hoffman is an ASU economist with the W.P. Carey School of Business. This is fascinating, the future of jobs -- we could be redefining what a job is.
Dennis Hoffman: Absolutely, Ted. You know, you can read these -- look into the future books and robotics and the age of the machine and all this kind of stuff and it sounds a bit science fiction oriented. But I think this really resonates with a lot of folks right now, folks that have experienced job loss due to automation and have not been able to say when this race with the machine that these people talk about.
Ted Simons: Do you want to race with the machine or run alongside the machine?
Dennis Hoffman: I think you want to race with the machine, alongside the machine as you've said it, not with the thought that you can beat the computer. Not with the thought that you can take advantage of automation or prevent it from happening or technological process or somehow hold this back or impede it. I think we need to embrace it. I think those that do choose to embrace it -- and you can do so in many ways. We're talking about S.T.E.M. degrees obviously, but also people that can articulate products that machines can produce, that can market services that these machines can create. And that, you need to complement this automated process. And those would be the winners. Those that turn their backs on this, that say, well, the economy just didn't provide for me, that's going to be a tough row.
Ted Simons: Is there a worry, though, a concern that technology could be out-pacing the training that we're all scrambling to get?
Dennis Hoffman: Well, absolutely. I think -- I think it's tough to train, you know, keep pace with training that keeps pace with automation. My mind goes back to a statistics professor I had in college. He said I will teach you classical applications that will last you a lifetime, but I will not teach you what happens when you punch the F4 key on a computer. What happens today will be different than what happens tomorrow. And of course we need applications, we need to understand applications. But we don't need to be wedded to current technologies. We need to be adaptive and be able to keep pace with this ever-advancing technological process.
Ted Simons: What does that mean in terms of jobs, part-time jobs becoming more prevalent, do you think?
Dennis Hoffman: It means that individuals that continually monitor their skillset -- and I don't want that to be -- that doesn't always mean that you can always fix the latest computer. That means you always understand what computers can deliver. And you could be in marketing, in sales, in distribution, you could be in supply chain, you need to understand how goods and services will be transacted as a result of this new machine age. And skills in the past that were rewarded -- say, physical skills and strength and brawn -- they are going to be replaced. I think the rewarded skills are people that are conscientious, people that can communicate. Actually it cuts across genders. These authors write that women may have the distinct advantage going forward, because they are more conscientious. They are able to interact with people at dimensions that outstrip men's ability in many cases.
Ted Simons: From a public policy standpoint, how do you keep from having a society of a bunch of stubborn dudes who are not keeping you want and who are not employed. You know what happens when folks think the disparate of income -- sounds like a recipe for even more inequality of income. What's going happen in the future?
Dennis Hoffman: That's a potential, that's absolutely a risk. The market signals will be clear to those individuals. They will have to embrace some of this. There always will be room for HVAC technicians, people that need a modicum of technical skills but are willing to kind of roll up the sleeves and do some work. So there will be jobs there. But the jobs that will be rewarded by the market are those jobs that embrace technology. So that's what these authors talk about, the big divide. If you're content with manual labor, with not embracing what a machine can do, your lot is going to be low income in a pretty tough job.
Ted Simons: In general, does that mean that we look at prosperity in a different way? Again, I go back to this part-time nature. Machines make things more efficient. If I'm working eight or hours a day, and the machine is doing what I'm doing in three or four, what am I doing the rest of the day?
Dennis Hoffman: We're going to have more leisure time, we're going to have goods. Some of the points made in this literature suggest that we don't even measure GDP correctly because it's very price-based. If things are given away for free on the internet -- there are huge amounts of information free on the internet. I bought a car today. I did all of my research on the internet and learned a lot and it was very helpful in the negotiation. I got all that information for free.
Ted Simons: My goodness. Okay, again, public policy, Arizona lawmakers, decision makers what, do they see when they look into the future and see a bunch of digital as dots and dashes. What do they see as far as policy is concerned?
Dennis Hoffman: There's still role for government. Some of the folks are watching and say Hoffman, he's on Horizon, he was always on the role of government. In this case the role for government is to provide for education, for opportunities for people to learn these skills, and again, S.T.E.M. is one set of skills. It's not just S.T.E.M., it's ability to communicate, it's ability to think analytically. Align yourself with the abilities that these machines have, and think about how you can market products and services more efficiently and in a more lucrative fashion. Infrastructure is a government play, tax reform would be a government play. Immigration reform, we've talked about this ad nauseum but it is huge. Immigration form would help unleash this labor force.
Ted Simons: About 30 seconds left.
Ted Simons: Is Arizona forward to this future?
Dennis Hoffman: Oh, we hope so, Ted, we absolutely hope so. There are some in Arizona waiting for the old Arizona to come back. Let's just wait this thing out and we'll become this growth magnet, this people magnet and construction will take over again. I think as every month goes by people are really starting to question that. So investing in education, you know, and more investments in higher education, vocational skills, they are needed, they will be rewarded.
Ted Simons: Absolutely fascinating stuff, brave New World out there. Thanks for joining us.
Dennis Hoffman: Great to be here, Ted.
EPA Rules on Power Plant Emissions
- The Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule to control emissions from the Navajo Generating Station to improve air quality around the Grand Canyon and other national parks. Many of the recommendations came from a Technical Working Group composed of stakeholders and owner/operators of the power plant. Three representatives of organizations that were part of the working group will discuss the news rules. David Modeer, General Manager of the Central Arizona Project, Kelly Barr, senior director of environmental management and the deputy legal counsel for the Salt River Project and Stephen Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, will discuss the new rules.
- David Modeer - General Manager, Central Arizona Project
- Kelly Barr - Senior Director, Environmental Management and Deputy Legal Counsel for the Salt River Project
- Stephen Etsitty - Executive Director, Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency
| Keywords: environment
Ted Simons: Good evening, and welcome to Arizona Horizon, I'm Ted Simons. The Environmental Protection Agency earlier this week issued final rules to help reduce emissions from the Navajo Generating Station. The goal is to curb air pollution at the Grand Canyon and other national Parks. Yesterday we heard from a conservationist opposed to the new rules; today we hear from representatives of a technical working group that provided many of the rules the EPA adopted. Joining us is David Modeer, General Manager of the Central Arizona Project, Kelly Barr, Senior Director of Environmental Management and the Deputy Legal Counsel for Salt River Project, and Stephen Etsitty, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency. It’s good to have all, Stephen especially you driving down from the reservation. Good to have you here. Let's start – David let’s start with you. What exactly did the EPA decide?
David Modeer: Well I think the EPA decided that the work of the technical working group that you cited did better than what their proposal would have been, if it had been implemented. And the technical working group was a group composed of a variety of interests from tribes to CAP to the Department of the Interior, the owners, and environmental groups. And it was very successful. I think the key -- my opinion of the key to the success of those negotiations were the respect everybody had for each other in the room.
Ted Simons: And Again, that group the working group is called Twig, is that the acronym for it yeah? Talk about the process, five years of discussions, how much compromise, how much horse-trading was going on there?
Kelly Bar: Well, truly it wasn’t five years of the Twig process thankfully. I'm not sure we would have gotten across that finish line. But we met for about five months and all together in a room, several times a week in some cases, to try to arrive at a compromise solution. And as David mentioned, we had members from the Environmental Defense Fund, Western resource advocates, The Department of the Interior, the Navajo Nation, CAP, and SRP as well as the Gila River Indian community. Um so really a very diverse set of interests. Got together, tried to reason with one another, tried to find a compromise that everyone could live with. And what it did was it paves the way to close one of the units in at the end of 2019, and then gives us some additional time to install STRS on the two remaining units.
Ted Simons: And again, I know the talks themselves went on for about five years or so, obviously the five months of Twig. Did those previous talks grease the skids a little bit or did you kind of have to start from Ground Zero?
Kelly Bar: It did, it was actually really helpful. There were a number of – there was a larger stakeholder process where everybody kind of got to come forward and share their perspectives. And then when we got kind of a general sense of where the various perspectives lined up we then were able to identify folks who would represent that broad group.
Ted Simons: As far as the Navajo Nation, the perspective of the nation here regarding the generating station, jobs, pollution, the whole nine yards, what did you bring to the table?
Stephen Etsitty: Well in 2003 I came on board to serve the Navajo nation in this capacity that I have. And immediately we were already enmeshed with the BART determination for Four Corners Power Plant to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. And that just rolled right into the BART determination for NGS, we knew that that was coming next. But emission reductions are important for the Navajo Nation. We want to see these facilities perform to the best of their abilities. My job as the environmental director is to make sure that we're protecting our public health and making sure that our resources are going to be there for our people in the future. And that includes air sheds and view sheds. We do also have our own budding tourism industry so we have an interest in these similar things that you find in the regional haze rule. So the perspective we bring is trying to force people to understand that we have resources we want to use, coal. And we have these responsibilities to take care of our lands and our people, that are very similar to the goals everybody else has in the Four Corners region. And we have programs and we have processes to do that.
Ted Simons: And the importance now of the Navajo Generating Station to the Central Arizona Project, very quickly, it pumps the water uphill, doesn't it?
David Modeer: Yes, we do. We pump it uphill 3,000 feet and about 330 miles. So power is essential, without power there’s no water coming in from the Colorado. So having success at this and assuring the continued operation of Navajo Generating Station provides certainty for the continuity of delivery of our water and at the lowest possible price.
Ted Simons: We'll likely see water rates go up though, correct?
David Modeer: We’re going to see upward pressure on water rates from many areas in all of it, the scarcity of water as well as energy costs going up, so yes, it'll have an impact, but it certainly would have a much greater impact if we weren't successful with this process.
Ted Simons: Stephen mentioned BART, the part requirements. In general, it's five years, you got a retrofit in five years if the EPA said -- And obviously the Twig group was formed specifically to say that ain't going to cut it. Why doesn't it cut it? Because environment -- some conservationists, and we talked to one last night, saying it's five years, it's the rule, make it happen.
Kelly Barr: Right. And there are a number of issues that the power plant is facing in terms of extending the lease, going through a NEPA process which will take several years, and so we knew we couldn't install the pollution control equipment by the 2018 deadline. And EPA actually recognized that and gave us an alternative that would give us a little more time, it just wasn't sufficient time. So this proposal allows us to as I mentioned close the unit it at the end of the 2019, and then gives us till the end of 2030 to install the pollution control equipment, which allows us to resolve a number of issues that need to be resolved at the plant.
Ted Simons: Closing unit or reducing the power generated one or the other.
Kelly Barr: That’s right.
Ted Simons: But still, it doesn’t necessarily say pollution, it’s just reducing the power, correct?
Kelly Barr: No, if you reduce the power, you also reduce the pollution right, so we would either curtail requirements or add some pollution control.
Ted Simons: Okay, so pollution controls -- Because the conservationists, and they’re talking about folks there in Northern Arizona saying, actually all this does is say until 2029, the generating station can go full guns and maybe even more so, until the rules hit. Is that valid?
Stephen Etsitty: Well from the perspective that we bring to the table, and the reason we’re – I think one of the primary reasons for the way the rule was written is because this is one of the few power plants that are actually sited on an Indian reservation. All the other facilities that are subject to BART are not on an Indian reservation. And in that regard there are other responsibilities that the federal government has in dealing with decision making that will impact an Indian tribe. In this case it impacts the Navajo Nation and a Hopi tribe. And in that regard, EPA has some tools that they haven't used very much over these past several years, coming out of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments there was a tribal authority rule that was promulgated, which provides flexibility in certain instances gives EPA a little bit more discretion and flexibility as to how to implement Clean Air Act programs when it comes to facilities on Indian lands.
Ted Simons: As far as this working group was concerned, what -- did you feel the EPA was showing a little more discretion here? What seemed to be the – Because again, critics are saying this is just kicking the can down the line. The EPA is kind of saying well hold on a minute, maybe we can work something out. Were you surprised by that?
David Modeer: I think that the initial response of the EPA changed over those five years you mentioned as they became more knowledgeable about the impacts to water deliveries, to water settling tribes, to the Navajo and the Hopi. That this wasn't just a very simplified worship plan operating out in the middle of Texas or something like that. So their attitude began to change and said, well let's see what we can do to still reduce pollution, which is what the BART process is about, and at the same time address the concerns that everyone in this process that were members of the Twig expressed. And so I congratulate the EPA for recognizing that this was different and it needed a different approach.
Ted Simons: Agree?
Kelly Barr: Absolutely agree, and I think one thing that kind of gets lost sometimes is that this proposal is better than BART, so we will have more emission reductions associated with our proposal than what EPA proposed.
Ted Simons: And that is part of the deal isn’t it? That they will take an alternative as long as it's better than our alternative, which is BART.
Kelly Barr: Absolutely.
Stephen Etsitty: And other people, many of them overlook the fact that the regional haze rule has a goal to attain all of these reductions by the year 2016. So the plant is going to close potentially in 2044, we've got time to work on these things and to load everything up as Kelly was talking about. There are certain things that are happening right now in this time frame for the next six years that are very, very sensitive. We, the Navajo Nation have decided to extend the lease that currently is in place, it was a 50-year lease that ends in 2019. We've decided we want to extend it for another 25 years which will take it out through the year 2044. So during that transition period, these rules the EPA is promulgating have some very serious implications. To have the flexibility to work through this real sensitive time frame is important.
Ted Simons: When do these rules go into effect?
David Modeer: I think I'll turn that over to Kelly. I'm not sure exactly when the end period is that they become final-final.
Kelly Barr: Well they’ll be published in the federal register and then they become effective immediately after that. That's when the legal challenges may start.
Ted Simons: Okay, I was going to say, because it sounds like there might be some legal challenges that would not be surprised?
Kelly Barr: We hope not, but because we are as everyone has said we really, really proud of this process. We think it's a model for resolving complicated environmental issues, and we're really very, very grateful to the people who sat around the table and then supported the product after we were done.
Ted Simons: Stephen last question for you, you made the longest drive down here, so you get the last question. Critics are concerned, they’re concerned about the health of those on the Navajo Nation, that they’re concerned about visibility to a lesser extent, I think probably even than the health factor. What are you telling your people, what are you saying?
Stephen Etsitty: I told people this week that put in the context of the last 20-30 years, we've had -- we're on a trend for emission reductions. SRP reduced emissions in the 90’s on the heels of the Grand Canyon visibility transport commission. We saw reductions in the early 2000’s at Four Corners Power Plant. We’re going to continue to see reductions because the Four Corners Power Plant is going to be taking three units off line. They did in December of this year. So we have almost one full year now of emission reductions at Four Corners power plant. There's another coal fired power plant just off the reservation called San Juan generating station. They’re going to be taking two more units offline. And then when you consider that the Mohave generating station that used to use coal from the Navajo Nation no longer exists, it was decommissioned starting in 2005, those two units are gone. So when you compile the entire amount emissions reductions on an annual basis, we have much cleaner air as a result of the power plants having less emissions. Now it's my job to find out where the problems still reside that are causing my people to continue to have respiratory illnesses or other things that are attributed to air quality concerns.
Ted Simons: All right. Thank you all for joining us, we appreciate it.
Kelly Bar: Thank you.
Ted Simons: Great Discussion.