No new coal plants in 2009; reason to celebrate!

(Photo of defunct Seaholm power plant in Austin, Texas, being turned into civic center, from Flickr and photographer Craig Allen.)

The year 2009 was a “coal-free” year. No new coal-fired power plants started construction in the U.S. Thanks go to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign and other environmentalists who have gone to court and protested new plants every step of the way.

Last year 26 U.S. new coal plants were defeated or abandoned, following on the heels of 2 dozen stopped in 2007 and 2008.

In addition to hard work by enviro groups, the cause was helped by the economic slump (which reduced need), a lower price for natural gas (a cleaner alternative), uncertainty about pending climate legislation (to put a price on carbon) and EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as increased interest in clean, renewable sources like wind and solar.

Coal provides power for nearly half the electricity in the U.S., though in the past year its share declined from 49% to 45%.

Grassroots antipathy against coal has grown, not only because it emits the most global warming gases (twice as much as natural gas), but also because of its mining procedures (mountain top removal is becoming more common) and disposal problems (toxic coal ash), as well as health concerns about sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide.

A recent Washington Post poll showed about two-thirds of the public support federal regulations to reduce power plant emissions.

In 2001, 150 new plants were on the drawing board. But since then, 111 have been stopped or dropped. Today, there are 90 proposals. Some companies are saying they are looking at other sources of power. Duke Energy, for example, may steer clear of coal after it completes plants underway in Indiana and North Carolina. And Progress Energy is closing several coal-powered plants in N.C.

Coal use in general is down about 10% over the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration, which forecasts it will bounce back 4% in 2010.

One new plant was given a permit in Michigan the last week of the year, though it still needs certification of necessity. In exchange, the company, Consumers Energy, will close three old plants – with the stipulation it can keep two of them running if the need is there when the plant is finished in about 7 years. The new plant will cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury 80-90%, the company maintains. Environmental groups will continue to fight the plant.

EIA sees U.S. electricity demand increasing 26% by 2030, and says coal’s share will remain about the same – at 45.7%. On the other hand, the Electric Power Research Institute forecasts coal’s share in 2030 at 38%, with natural gas and alternative sources growing.

You can view the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign map and actions being taken in each state.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Reuters PlanetArk, Sierra Club, EIA,
Detroit Free Press.)

China & US: Who'll rule on clean tech, green jobs?

(Photo of solar panel plant worker in China from Flickr and Bert van Dijk)

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

That seems to be our strategy with China when it comes to the renewable energy race.

China is spending as much on clean energy as it is on its military. We’re, um, a little less generous. As the Senate dithers, bowing to the interests of Big Oil, Big Coal, and a backward-looking Chamber of Commerce, China is racing ahead toward dominance in the clean energy field.

We’re just not taking it nearly as seriously as they are. They’re ramping up their economy. Ours seems to be ramping down. We’re too tied to the old fossil fuels and don’t really believe that green jobs are the future.

We are spending about 12% of our stimulus money on renewable energy (which for us is amazing). They are spending 38% of theirs. Altogether they’re investing tens of billions of dollars in renewable energy and improving their grid. By 2013 green technology is projected to be 15% of their GDP.

China expects to expand its solar generation 20,000% (no, that’s not a mistake in zeros) by 2020. We project ours to increase just 33%.

Chinese solar manufactures are flooding the American market with cheap panels, driving some companies like GE and BP Solar, to close factories here and outsource. Applied Materials is opening a research facility over there. Of the 10 largest producers of solar panels, only one is American. Even Nellis Air Force Base is using Chinese panels.

We have been dominant in wind generation, with as many jobs in that as in coal mining. At one point, not long ago, we dominated turbine manufacturing. But now we have only one company in the world’s top five.

We’ll have to put a heck of a lot more into it, to catch and pass up China when it comes to the energy of the future.

Forming partnerships
At this point we’re settling for partnerships that can make use of China’s technology and capital. When we talk about sharing technology, it’s no longer us helping them. And they have plenty of money to invest.

On President Obama’s trip to China, a partnership between the two countries was announced – to boost renewable energy, share technology on modernizing the grid, develop codes and labels for energy efficient buildings and electronic consumer products, come up with standards on electric cars, and set up a joint clean energy research facility. We will also help China with shale gas technology.

By itself, this sounds like a vague announcement of cooperation that may not go anywhere. But several other recent announcements make it real.

*China’s A-Power Energy Generation Systems is partnering with U.S. Renewable Energy, a private equity firm, to set up a wind turbine factory in the U.S. for windfarms in North and South America. The technology will come from China, the turbine parts from the U.S. An estimated 1,000 American jobs will be created.

*A subsidiary of Chinese A-Power has joined with partners in Texas to build a 600-megawatt windfarm, funded mainly by Chinese banks, though they applied for U.S. stimulus funds. The request is controversial and may not go anywhere because the turbines are made in China, providing about 2,400 jobs there, but less than 400 here.

*Chinese solar panel maker SunTech is building a North American headquarters and factory in Arkansas, chosen over Texas because of a 10% tax incentive. Initially there will be 75 jobs, eventually as many as 250.

*Duke Energy has a deal with two Chinese companies for cash, equipment and technology for two projects: one solar power development in the U.S., the other better technology for carbon capture and storage at coal-fired electric plants.

I think we can expect more such deals. China, of course, is not only about clean energy. They’re still building at least one coal plant a week. But their rapidly growing need for energy and concerns about pollution are driving an interest in renewable energy we just can’t match. Or won’t match. So we may be ceding the energy future to them like we did the car business to Japan. And for the same reasons. Protecting dirty fossil fuels and resistance to change.

(Sources: Greenwire, CNN, Huffington Post, ClimateWire)

Can natural gas from shale save climate bill?

(Photo of natural gas rig in Louisiana from Flickr and photographer Daniel Foster)

Some Senators see incentives for natural gas from shale as a way to win more support for a climate change bill in their chamber. Leading the way to add those incentives are Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennett, the latter a swing vote himself.

New discoveries of shale gas (not to be confused with dirty shale oil) reserves, plus the technology to drill for it, have made shale gas a cleaner replacement for coal to make electricity, as well as a potential backup for wind and solar. Natural gas has about half the carbon emissions of coal. And wind and solar will need a backup, at least at the start, because of their dependence on the weather. Natural gas generators can be fired up quickly to serve that purpose.

New discoveries have increased natural gas reserves in the past couple of years, from 1,300 trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 1,800 tcf in 2008, mostly in shale, according to a report by the Potential Gas Committee.

The political potential
Lo and behold, many of the gas reserves in shale are in the homes states of uncommitted Democratic senators: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – as well as Republican George Voinovich of Ohio.

When the House version – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – narrowly passed, the majority of reps from Ark. Ohio, La. and Penn. voted against it (as well as Texas. Okla. and Ky.) and the W. Va. delegation was evenly split.

Natural gas vs. coal
Incentives for natural gas would pit the gas industry against the coal business. Natural gas would benefit from the proposed cap on emissions because it will lead to a quicker changeover from coal. And the gas industry favors fewer offsets, which would allow coal-fired utilities to stall in making changes by contributing to forests and other projects.

The coal business, not surprisingly, is worried about losing out to natural gas under climate legislation and opposes incentives that could speed that transition. The American Mining Association is running ads pointing to the volatility of natural gas prices and warning of spiking electricity costs. They’re not going to give up without a fight, so it remains to be seen which is strongest in vying for these senators’ loyalty.

But natural gas from shale, though not clean enough in the long run, just might help us over two humps – the transition to totally renewable, clean energy and the passage of a climate bill by both houses of Congress this year.

(Source: E&E Daily)

Follow us at Twitter.

Who will sell clean energy to the rest of the world?

(Photo of photo cell production in Urumqi, China, from Flickr and Bert van Dijk

Clean energy is a major economic engine of the future, Barack Obama says. “The only question is: Which country will create these jobs and these industries? And I want that answer to be the United States of America.”

He really wants to curb global warming, but since a lot of people aren’t concerned about that, he’s making a big deal about “jobs” and “economy.” Right?

Only partially. It is a big deal and we're being dealt out. Asia is looking to take the lead in green tech, just as it did in automobiles. And we’d better watch out. As the oil and coal interests try to put the skids on change here, Asian countries are getting ready to clean our clock again. In 2008 China was the largest producer of photovoltaic (solar) cells and virtually all of them were sold abroad. With the global economic slump, main customers Spain, Germany and Japan have cut back orders, so now China is re-gearing to use the product itself – at least for now, until exports pick up again.

In the face of recession, some of Asia’s biggest economies are beginning to pour large amounts of stimulus money into solar, wind and other alternative energy sources. They know it’s where the future growth is.

China, India, South Korea and Taiwan are planning to spend hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, on renewable energy, partly for themselves and partly to export abroad.

In China, $30 billion is targeted for clean energy, including wind, solar and hydropower. The goal for solar power in that country is to grow to 20 gigawatts by 2020 (equal to 20 nuclear power plants), from less than 2 gigs now.

In South Korea, the government plans to invest 2% of its GDP in clean energy industries like solar batteries, hybrid cars and LED lights over the next 5 years.

And neighboring Australia is spending $1.35 billion on solar projects, $270 million on home solar systems and $100 million for next-generation solar technologies.

Are we really going to stick with oil and coal? How 20th century is that?

(Sources: Greenwire, Climate Wire, Renewableenergyworld.com)

Stimulus money boosts clean energy, efficiency

(Photo of wind turbine installation in Indiana from Flicker and photographer indywriter/Rob Annis)

You may be wondering how (and when) the $787 billion stimulus bill will help renewable energy? It was supposed to be part of the mix, remember – green jobs? Well, four programs were announced by the Department of Energy in the past two weeks, possibly in reaction to complaints the stimulus isn’t coming fast enough to stimulate.

Clean energy grants
Grants totaling $3 billion will soon be available to clean energy companies, with applications being taken starting Aug. 1. The money will cover 30% of the cost of any approved project and will be paid upfront.

These grants will be available for a wide variety of technologies, including wind, solar, hydro, landfill gas, biomass, fuel cells, geothermal heat pumps, and combined heat and power. They should help pay for about 5,000 projects, according to the DOE.

Private investment in renewable energy has sagged recently, reflecting overall economic and credit problems. The stimulus will provide a short-term boost, though officials say cap-and-trade is needed to spur long-term demand for clean energy.

State projects
DOE also gave $141 million to several states last week for energy-efficiency and clean-energy projects. This is just a portion of $3.1B allocated for the states. Hawaii got $10.4 million for energy efficiency in buildings while Texas received $87.5 million for efficiency in public facilities. Others states getting money were Maine, Nebraska and New Mexico. So far half of the money allocated to the states for such projects has been released.

States also got $448 million for weatherization projects. This should affect some 125,000 homes in 13 states, according to DOE. Households with incomes up to 200% of the poverty level are eligible and should be able to save an average of 32% on heating bills once the work is done.

Appliance rebates
Finally, $300 million was announced this week for rebates for Energy Star appliances. States will administer the program and determine both the appliances covered and the level of rebates, as well as a recycling plan for the old appliances. Kind of a “cash for clunkers” in the kitchen. Initial applications must be filed by the states by Aug. 15.

A total of $174.9 billion of the $787 billion in stimulus money had been made available by July 4, and $60.4 billion had been paid out, according to recovery.gov. As of that date DOE had made $7.15B available and paid out $243,000 for clean energy and efficiency.

(Sources: Climatewire, E&E News PM)

Wind, solar and geothermal tax credits extended, but fossil fuels get incentives too

(Photo of wind farm in Texas from Flickr and photographer fieldsbh)

Washington Report: In case you missed it, the $700 billion bailout bill included renewable energy tax credit extensions, which just a week earlier had seem DOA for this session of Congress because the Senate and House couldn’t agree. It was the Senate version (the least desirable one) that was attached to the bailout. So we got good news and bad news: the good being that renewable energy companies can continue to grow – the bad being that coal, oil shale and tar sands got a break too. The $17 billion package of extensions included:
• 1 year of production tax credits for wind (the industry is already lobbying for longer-term extension of credits)
• 2 years of production tax credits for geothermal, biomass and other alternative sources.
• 8 years of investment tax credits of 30% for solar energy for homes and commercial properties and removal of the $2,000 cap (so an installation costing $30,000 would be reduced to $20,000).
• Biodiesel credits for the U.S. that put an end to Europeans shipping their product here to get the credit and then back again.
• New credits for plug-in electric hybrid vehicles of $2,500 to $7,500. The new Chevy Volt would qualify at the top level.
• New credits for wave and tidal energy projects.
• New employer tax credits to reimburse up to $20/month to those who use bicycles as their main commuter transportation
• New credits for refineries that process oil shale and tar sands.
• New credits for coal-fired plants that capture and store carbon dioxide, including pumping it into depleted oil fields to extract the remaining oil.
• Inclusion of coal-to-liquid fuel as an alternative fuel.
(Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily)

GE, Google partner for ‘smart’ electricity grid

(Photo of electric grid from Flickr and photographer Mark , Sardella)

News Update: If you google “Google GE smart grid” you will find stories about a new agreement between Google and GE to develop a more advanced electricity grid. But I’ll save you the trouble and summarize here. Recognizing the grid hasn’t changed much since Thomas Edison built the first power plant, the two behemoths are combining their brain power and finances to develop an expanded grid that can support plug-in cars and renewable energy sources – and even help consumers who want to generate power and sell it to the grid. The CEOs of both companies agreed last week to lobby for a “21st century” grid that lets utilities and end users manage electricity more efficiently. An initial goal is to accommodate power from renewable sources that may be removed from the existing grid. The two partners also will develop enhanced geothermal systems, which can serve as a steady backup for intermittent sources like wind and solar. And they said they may look at co-financing wind or solar development in the future. (Source: Greenwire)

Would new green economy and renewable energy really deliver more good jobs for U.S.?

(Photo of solar panel installers from Flickr and photographer utt73/John Utter)

Weekly Angst: You hear a lot about how clean energy will bring us more jobs. But will it really do more than just replace the jobs lost as fossil fuels are phased out?

Yes, says a new report, just out from the Center for American Progress and Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

A $100 billion investment in clean energy and efficiency would result in 2 million new jobs in 2 years, whereas a similar investment in old (fossil fuel) energy will only create about 542,000 jobs, says the report. That’s a 3-to-1 difference.

Why is that? Well, green energy and efficiency are more labor intensive and less reliant on machinery and supplies, according to the report, “Green Recovery.”

The new jobs would be created in the following categories:

Retrofitting buildings: All publicly owned buildings, including schools and libraries, would be retrofitted for energy efficiency and Congress would encourage people and businesses to do likewise, using existing programs and tax credits. Any investment would be returned in 3-5 years through smaller utility bills. Jobs created would include electricians, heat and air conditioning installers, carpenters, roofers, insulation workers, truck drivers and building inspectors.

Mass transit and freight rail: While serious expansion of light rail service would take longer than two years, jobs could be created quickly by expanding service on existing bus and subway lines by subsidizing fares. Jobs would include civil engineers, track layers, electricians, welders, metal fabricators, engine assemblers, bus drivers and locomotive engineers.

Smart grid: Investment in energy grid efficiency and expansion would produce jobs over time, and pilot programs could be ramped up with more money in federal matching grants. Jobs would include computer software engineers, electrical engineers, machinists, construction laborers, operating engineers and line installers and repairers.

Renewable energy: If Congress extends investment and production tax credits for alternative energy like wind, solar and next-generation biofuels, those industries will boom here and produce thousands of jobs, including environmental engineers, steel workers, machinists, electrical equipment assemblers, truck drivers, production managers, electrical engineers, installers, chemical engineers, chemists, agricultural workers, purchasing managers and inspectors.

A stimulus to the economy
The report points out that this would be a type of stimulus package, to jump-start a flagging economy, but one that keeps on giving, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cutting energy bills.

The last economic stimulus package cost $168 billion and once people spent their checks it was over. This would cost less and produce lasting effects.

The plan is endorsed by the Sierra Club, United Steel Workers and Natural Resources Defense Council. It is similar to Barack Obama’s $150 billion 10-year plan for sustainable energy and green jobs.

Other countries, especially in Europe and Asia are pumping up their green economies and supplying most of the solar panels and wind turbines the world demands. So we have an added incentive to stoke up our green economy. If we don’t, the jobs and economic advantage will go overseas.

Join a call to action
Sept. 27 will be a National Day of Action, co-sponsored by many organizations, to call attention to the need for Green Jobs. Hundreds of events will be held across the nation to send a message to Congress to tackle the climate problem and build a green economy with job-intensive solutions like weatherizing homes, installing solar power and engineering a better mass transit system. To find an event near you, go to Green Jobs Now.
(Sources: ClimateWire, Green Recovery report)

Offshore drilling battle could lead to government shutdown Oct. 1

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer seansie/Sean Hayford O'Leary)

Washington Report: Republicans and Democrats may be headed for a showdown in Congress that could shut down government, halting paychecks and benefits and causing layoffs. Unable to reach agreement on an energy bill, Dems may add the yearly extension of the offshore drilling moratorium to a short-term government funding bill that will be needed at the end of September, which 3 dozen GOP senators have vowed to “fight vigorously.” Offshore drilling is an issue Republicans think could work for them politically if Dems continue to oppose it. Both parties’ leaders have agreed to an Energy Summit when Congress returns Sept. 8, but details have yet to be worked out. Democrats’ answer to high gas prices is release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a requirement that oil companies drill on the 68 million acres they have under lease before bidding on new leases, and curbs on energy futures speculation. They also want repeal of oil tax breaks, a renewable energy standard of 15% by 2020 and extension of renewable tax credits. The Republicans’ fossil-fuel-heavy plan calls for repealing the offshore drilling moratorium on the east and west coasts, drilling in ANWR, oil shale extraction in the Rockies, increased incentives for nuclear energy, extension of credits for wind, solar and hydrogen, new tax breaks for coal-to-liquid, tax breaks for electric cars and speeding up permits for oil refineries. “The Gang of 10,” a bipartisan group of senators, came up with a compromise bill just before the August break, which might have a chance of breaking gridlock, so long as one side doesn’t see a political advantage in stalling. But it’s going to be hard to get agreement when the parties are so far apart, and the petroleum industry opposes it. Main provisions include:
• Drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico
• Drilling offshore from 4 Southeast states – Virginia, Georgia, North and South Carolina – if the states agree
• Repeal of billions in oil company tax breaks
• Extension of tax credits on renewable energy sources like wind and solar
• New loan guarantees for coal-to-liquid
• Speeding of permits for nuclear plants
• Billions for R&D for advanced biofuels and batteries
To read more see the Grist blog. (Souces: Greenwire, San Francisco Chronicle)

Senate may try again next week to extend renewable energy tax credits

(Photo of solar panels on Florida beach house from Flickr and photographer John Tracy)

Washington Report 2: Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is likely to try one more time next week to get renewable energy tax incentives extended beyond December. In an effort to win a few more GOP votes, he has added some sweeteners to the tax package (which contains more than renewable credits). Additions include money for the highway trust fund, disaster relief and mental health parity, and an alternative minimum tax fix. Extending the credits for wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and efficiency are not at issue. Rather there is disagreement about how to pay for them. Congress leaves soon for its August break and Dem leaders would like to see the credits extended before then, to provide stability for clean energy businesses. (Source: E&E Daily)

PM says 1,000 nuclear plants needed worldwide

(Photo of inside Dungeness nuclear power station from Flickr and photographer gravyphig/Graham Smith)

News Update 4: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants his country to play a major role in an effort to build 1,000 nuclear plants worldwide to end the global “addiction to oil.” He also anticipates a 7-fold increase in renewable sources, such as wind, solar and biomass. Nuclear must be part of the global warming solution, he said, and communities would get government funding to bury the waste . Green groups attacked the plan as “bribery.” Britain already has problems burying existing nuclear waste. (Source: The Independent)

Global warming debate in Senate set for next week

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Charles Pence.)

Weekly Angst: Prepare to turn on C-Span next week and watch the debate over the Senate global warming bill. It should be revealing.

Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) came up with a “substitute” bill (S. 3036) last week, which incorporates the one by Lieberman and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), but tries to meet some objections to garner more support. It includes, for example, a $955 billion fund (from now through 2050) to pay down the federal deficit, to make the bill budget neutral (if not carbon neutral). The debate is expected to start in the early evening June 2, with a cloture vote that even staunch opponents are likely to go along with – they want a debate too. Lieberman and Warner have signed off on Boxer’s substitute and John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) are co-sponsors.

It should be a zoo. This topic elicits strong feelings because global warming is an enormous issue that threatens the planet but also has implications for industry, as it calls for a seismic shift from fossil fuels to carbon-free (or at least low-carbon) energy. The bill sets up a cap-and-trade system, which puts an ever-lowering cap on greenhouse gas emissions and auctions or gives away credits that businesses can trade depending on whether they meet their emissions targets. If they don't, they must buy credits from those who do.

All kinds of amendments planned, from one by Lieberman and Warner to include more nuclear power, to one by Republicans to return revenue from the auction of carbon credits to the taxpayers as tax cuts. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) wants to tell the U.S. to engage in global climate negotiations for real, and a likely Republican amendment will ask for inclusion of offshore drilling for oil and gas. Dems have been alerted, too, about planned GOP amendments specifically designed to embarrass them and their likely presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

Environmental groups (2 dozen of them) released a statement late last week saying the bill still “needs to be strengthened to ensure it will meet the reductions science dictates” (at least 80% cut by 2050), which it does not. Boxer did not increase the target, which is 71% by 2050, but really only 66% because it does not include all greenhouse gas emissions. It's not clear to me if there’s been any change in the percent of credits auctioned off, which start as 26.5% in 2012, going up to 79% in 2031. Bur since there’s been no mention of it, I assume it hasn’t changed much. That percentage is deemed too low by most environmentalists, because it means more free credits to polluters and less money bolster renewable energy. Many want 100% auctioned.

Where the revenue will go
The Boxer version of the bill lists specific payoffs to different segments from the bill’s revenues, which will come from auction of credits:
• $911 billion for consumers for help with increased energy costs and energy efficiency projects. Most ($850B) would help with energy costs.
• $231B in assistance to steel, glass, aluminum, rubber and paper companies to make needed changes -- they're seen as the industries that will have the most trouble adjusting.
• $566B for states to deal with GHG cuts.
• $307B for electric utilities to revamp.
• $150B for renewable energy companies.
• $68B to the auto industry to retool for hybrids, plug-ins, electric and fuel-cell vehicles.
• $250B for adaptation to climate change, largely for coastal states.
• $288B for wildlife adaptation.
• $560B for a fund states can access if they switch over from their own emissions programs to the federal one.
(All these amounts are spread over 40 years)

Free credits for fossil fuels have shrunk in the new version but more credits will be given for capture and storage of carbon dioxide. But if I’m reading this right, there is WAY too little going to renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal. We need to be virtually switched over to them from fossil fuels by 2050. So why so stingy? Could it be that the lobbyists for these fledgling industries don't have the money to spread around that oil, gas and other mature industries have? You betcha.

It looks like nuclear energy will be one of the winners in this new version. The bill now provides $92 million in incentives, on top of what the nuclear power industry already gets from the government. And a successful Lieberman-Warner amendment would bring them even more. Nuclear, which now provides 8% of U.S. power, is a huge bone of contention with many environmentalists who don’t like the radiation involved and say "no nukes, no way." Even those who think some nuclear plants might be necessary to wean us off fossil fuels -- if safety and disposal problems can be solved -- would far rather see money go to really clean sources like wind, solar, geothermal and wave action.

Even if this bill should pass the Senate, it's unlikely the House will act before the end of the year. And this president would not sign a bill that would satisfy anyone who sees a need for urgent change. So the debate is probably just the first salvo in a battle that may be more successful with the next Congress and next president. But it still should be interesting to watch it unfold.
(Sources: Greenwire, ClimateWire, E&E News PM)

Take action: Send an e-mail to your senators.

House passes bill to extend renewable energy tax credits, despite White House veto threat

(Photo of solar panels from Flickr and photographer kqed quest.)

Washington Report: The House of Representatives voted 263-160 Wednesday to approve yet another bill extending tax incentives for renewable energy such as wind and solar. But the White House is threatening to veto the $59 billion tax package, not so much on the credit extensions as the means to pay for them. The vote was largely along party lines. Renewable energy industries are eager to see extension of the incentives, due to expire in December, in order to maintain momentum. A House bill that included extensions paid for by repeal of oil and gas breaks, passed late last year but stalled in the Senate. Then earlier this year the Senate attached renewable incentives to a housing bill, but without any means to pay for them. The House, whose leaders want all expenditures paid for, added revenue from tax changes for offshore and multinational businesses to this bill. And that is the part President Bush objects to most. The bill extends production credits for wind till the end of 2009 and for geothermal and biomass for 3 years, as well as investment credits for solar for 6 years. It includes a $4,000 credit for residential solar power and $3,000 or more for buying plug-in cars. House Dems and Republicans disagree about the bill’s chances in the Senate. Meanwhile, House Republicans unveiled their own energy agenda, which would increase incentives for domestic production of fossil fuels, alternative fuels and nuclear energy, in addition to renewables and efficiency. (Sources: Greenwire, E&E News PM)

One more try to extend renewable tax credits so wind, solar growth doesn't lose power

(Photo of wind turbines from Flickr and photographer Nick Atkins.)

Washington Report 2: A new effort to assure continuation of renewable energy tax credits got the green light yesterday from the House Ways and Means Committee. The proposal backs off on paying for the $16.9 billion in credits by rolling back breaks for oil and gas, instead paying for them with totally unrelated tax changes for offshore and multinational companies. The Senate had objected to a tax hit on Big Oil but the House wanted to pay as you go. So it seems this may satisfy both, which would salvage the incentives that keep renewable energy viable. The three times since 1999 that wind credits were allowed to expire, installations dropped 70%, according to the American Wind Energy Assn. The new bill extends wind production tax credits till the end of 2009, biomass and geothermal credits for 3 years, and the solar energy incentive 6 years, also doubling the solar credit cap to $4,000. The bill also provides incentives for cellulosic biofuel and renewable diesel, installation of E85 pumps, and buying plug-in cars, as well as allowing $1.4 billion for coal and gasification projects that store carbon. (Source: E&E Daily)

Plan would rob trains to fund highways

Congressional round-up: Two Senators have objected to a Bush Administration plan to “borrow” money from mass transit to fund a deficit in the Transportation Department’s highway fund. Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said they would not support the plan. The highway program has a shortfall of $3.2 billion, while mass transit is $4.4 billion in the black. One has to wonder why, when mass transit gets only 20% the money highways do, they aren’t spending that money on the transportation that can cut greenhouse gas emissions? Bush’s new budget seeks $42.7B for highways and just $8.4B for mass transit. (Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM) (Photo courtesy of Flickr and MarkyBon.)

Stimulus bill with clean-energy tax credits misses by 1 vote
A Senate vote to include energy tax-credit extensions in the economic stimulus package failed by 1 vote Wednesday night. Senators are trying to preserve the credits, which expire by year’s end, to maintain the momentum of clean-energy investment. All Democrats voted to consider the bill, as did Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Arlen Specter (Pa.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.). Pesidential candidate John McCain (R-Ariz.) did not show up. 5 GOP Senators who had signed a letter supporting extension of the tax credits voted to oppose the bill. They were John Sununu (N.H.), Wayne Allard (Colo.), Sam Brownback (Kan.), John Thune (S.D.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). This was the third time in 7 month Republican leadership blocked clean-energy tax incentives. The $5.7 billion package included:
* a 1-year extension of the production tax credit
* solar, fuel cell and microturbine investment credits
* high-efficiency appliance credits
* energy efficiency credits for new homes and home retrofits
* energy efficiency credits for commercial buildings.
Senate leadership will continue trying to extend the tax credits. This is a top priority for many Senators and for environmental groups. A tax bill including the credit extensions passed the House but failed in the Senate in December. (Sources: Sierra Club, E&E Daily, Grist)
For more on the tax credits, see a guest post on Grist by Josh Dorner of the Sierra Club.

Tar sands oil disaster for planet

A top Canadian official has asked the U.S. to go slow in plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. What’s THAT about?

It’s about the Alberta tar sands, and the desire to keep us buying their synthetic oil made by a filthy, messy process that:
• destroys thousands of miles of pristine forests and wetlands
• releases 3 times the carbon dioxide into the air as conventional oil
• digs up 2-4 tons of earth to produce each barrel of oil
• burns enough natural gas each day to heat a million homes
• takes 3 barrels of water from the shrinking Athabasca River for each barrel of oil
• generates 2 barrels of toxic waste for each barrel of oil, stored in holding lagoons so big they can be seen from space
• leaves the land spoiled instead of reclaiming it
• smells like rotten eggs.

Matthew Simmons, author of “Twilight in the Desert” calls the process “atrocious.” Al Gore says it’s “truly nuts.”

The tars sands are Canada’s fastest growing GHG emissions source and one reason it’s not meeting its Kyoto targets.

Show me the money
Why would anyone make such a mess to produce oil? Money, that’s why. Tar sands became economically viable in 2003. Investors are piling on ($52 billion with much more expected), and the Canadian government stands to make $51 billion in taxes by 2020, while Alberta province will get $44 billion. Not surprising they haven’t done an impact assessment.

And we’re the enabler because we’re buying almost all their exports, to the tune of $73 billion a year. Why? To reduce our reliance on Middle East oil. Canada is now our biggest supplier, at 16% of our total. They want to sell us much more, and together the countries plan to increase production 5-fold.

To make matters worse, refiners here at home are trying to expand to refine the stuff and build pipelines to bring it in. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have fought permits in several states, including Ill., Ind. (remember the row with Chicago over the Whiting plant?), Michigan, Ohio and Wis.

The basics
Tars sands, re-branded “oil sands” by the industry, is also found in Venezuela. About 20% is near the surface and mined in open pits by giant equipment. The remainder is far underground and recovered by injecting steam into the earth to melt the tar (or bitumen) so it’s thin enough to pump up. Then impurities are removed in an energy-intensive process. The Canadian government wants to replace the natural gas that powers the operation with 20 nuclear reactors.

Alberta is sitting on the second largest reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. It is producing 1.25 million barrels a day from its tar sands, an amount expected to triple by 2016. China, another likely market, has invested in two companies there.

But tars sands are not the only source of “unconventional” or synthetic oil. Oil shale and coal-to-liquid are other means to make a dirtier form of oil that produces more GHG and could tear up OUR landscape.

Why even mess with this stuff, when there are cleaner forms of energy like wind, solar, geothermal and cellulosic ethanol. We should be investing in those, as well as cutting waste and driving electric cars. But we’d better get busy. Because tar sands are clearly on a tear.

Note: "Highway to Hell" is a compelling account of work at the large Ft. McMurray tar sands in northern Alberta in OnEarth magazine online.
For more on tar sands, see Climate Progress

(Sources: Washington Post, OnEarth, PlanetArk, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, World Watch Institute, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Tar Sands Watch/Cleveland Plain Dealer and Oil Sands Truth)

(Photo of the Alberta tar sands courtesy of Flickr and photographer Gord McKenna)