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.)

Will Kerry-Graham pact weaken climate bill?

(Photo of Capitol lost in smoke from Flickr and Capitol Climate Action)

Is the Kerry-Graham alliance a “game changer” in the hunt for 60 votes to pass a climate bill, or does it mean a watered-down bill that will have little impact on climate change?

In case you missed it, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in a New York Times op-ed piece this week, touted cap-and-trade along with more nuclear power, offshore drilling and “low-carbon coal,” as if there is such a thing.

I know we may have to toss a bone to the fence-sitters to get anything passed, but do we have to give them the whole cow?

I’m conflicted about nuclear power in the climate change debate. The fact that I’ve lived with it uneventfully in Illinois for decades may have something to do with it. But mainly, it doesn’t emit CO2. So I see it as the lesser of evils, compared with fossil fuels.

I know there are fearsome environmental concerns. But so are there with coal (ash, air and water pollutants, mountain-top removal) and with off-shore drilling (spills endangering coasts and wildlife). And sequestered CO2 from coal, if it’s feasible, has the risk of bubbling up and killing people.

Natural gas isn’t half bad (literally – it produces 50% of the CO2 in coal) and so is preferable among the fossil fuels.

Future is solar and wind
But we must keep our eye on the future, which is wind and solar (and things not yet in play). We need to get there as quickly as possible.

Nuclear should not be classified as a “renewable energy” as some moderates Dems want, and included in a renewable electricity standard (RES). If the final bill tosses a bone to the oil patch and coal interests to get passed, it should be insignificant compared with curbs on GHG, efficiency and incentives for true renewable energy.

Why do we need more oil anyway, if demand in the industrialize world peaked 4 years ago, as a research report revealed this week? The oil companies want to sell it to developing countries where the need is growing. But that means the U.S. public won’t benefit, just the multinational oil firms. Besides, Boxer notes, oil companies have leases they aren’t even using.

And lest we forget, a 2006 law already expanded drilling off 4 gulf states.

Hearings to begin
Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment Committee, begins hearings Oct. 27 on the Kerry-Boxer bill (not to be confused with the more conservative Kerry-Graham non-bill). That bill can probably pass out of committee with no drilling provision because it is heavily Democrat. We need to let Sen. Kerry know we much prefer Kerry-Boxer. He seems to have abandoned it already.

One bone of contention will be the so-called “border tax” – a tariff on imported items made under less stringent environmental conditions. Several Midwest senators, led by Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), are intent on protecting the manufacturing base in their states, and jobs. That’s a bloc of about 10 votes, Brown says. He also wants help for manufacturers to retool, as the House bill has.

On the opposite side of the trade issue is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who says he won’t accept a bill with a border-tax.

This battle is far from over. It's just beginning.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire, E&E New PM)

Today is Blog Action Day for climate change.

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)

‘Gang of 10’ bill dead for now; tax credit extensions likely for renewable energy

(Photo of wind farm from Flickr and photographer lamusa/Jennifer)

Washington Report: The Gang of 10 bipartisan Senate energy package is over, at least until after the election. The 20 supporters apparently couldn’t reach agreement and pulled the bill Friday. Pressure to expand offshore drilling after a more generous Democrat bill passed the House, as well as a fast-tracked bipartisan bill to extend renewable energy tax credits contributed to the decision. The financial crisis also promised to bump an energy debate as a top priority. But it was unclear Friday whether the offshore drilling ban would be allowed to expire Sept. 30 or would be extended in a resolution to continue government spending till year’s end. Meanwhile the Finance Committee’s bill on tax credit extensions is likely to come up next week. That bill would, among other things:
• Extend production tax credits for wind 1 year.
• Extend investment tax credits for solar energy 8 years.
• Extend credits for energy efficient buildings for 1 year.
• Add credits for small residential wind turbines and geothermal pumps.
• Add credits for new advanced coal and coal gasification, and to industry for capture and storage of CO2
• Add consumer credits for plug-in vehicles
• Limit but not repeal tax breaks for oil companies.
A coalition of industry and environmentalists warned Thursday that failure to extend renewable tax credits could cost 100,000 jobs and billions in investments. (Sources: Greenwire, E&E PM, E&E Daily)

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)

Wind farms are looking to put down stakes offshore just like oil drillers are`

(Photo of offshore wind farm in Britain from Flickr and photographer phault/Phil Hollman)

News Update: Oil companies may have competition for the offshore continental shelf as a source of energy. Wind companies are looking offshore as well. The Interior Department is just now ending a comment period on a plan to lease large areas of offshore property to harvest wind, which is stronger in the ocean than it is on land. So far, the states have been leading the way and they met in Delaware this week to discuss their prospects and problems. The biggest threat right now is the failure of Congress to agree on extending the production tax credit wind companies depend on to keep their businesses competitive. Other obstacles are government red tape, an inadequate grid and citizen objections. The Catch-22 is if they build close to shore, in state water, people living along the shore object. If they go far out into federal water, they have to wend their way through a series of regulations that can take years. Delaware, seen as a leader in offshore wind here, has signed an agreement with Bluewater Wind to buy power from a farm to be placed 11 miles off its coast. But they are still awaiting federal approval. The most interest in offshore wind is in the Northeast, where there are large population centers near the coast. Rhode Island and New Jersey are among the states taking a serious look. And Massachusetts is still waiting to resolve the controversy over Cape Wind off Nantucket. (Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire)

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)

Renewable energy use here down 1% last year due to dought, carbon dioxide emissions grew

(Photo of hydroelectric waterfall from Flickr and photographer grendelkhan.)

News Update 1: Consumption of renewable energy in the U.S, slipped slightly in 2007 because lack of rain cut hydroelectric power 14%. Drought is predicted to be a continuing problem because of climate change. Other forms of renewable energy were up, according to a report from the Energy Information Administration. Wind rose 21% and biomass 7% (mostly because of ethanol). Overall renewables were down 1%, following several years of growth. Sources of energy in 2007 were:
• renewables 7%
• petroleum 40%
• natural gas 23%
• coal 22%
• nuclear 8%
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. grew 1.6%, according to the EIA, with all the growth attributed to residential and commercial buildings. Since 1990 C02 growth in the U.S. was nearly 20%. Nations that signed the Kyoto treaty (not us) were committed to cutting C02 5% from 1990 levels.
(Source: E&E News PM, Greenwire)

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.

Environmental leaders weigh in with their solutions to global warming

(Photo of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. from Flickr and photographer King dafy/Devin Ford.)

Weekly Angst: Last weekend we heard from several climate leaders that the impact of global warming will be even worse than predicted a year or two ago. Now, some words of wisdom on what we need to do to salvage the situation.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance:
The U.S. has the second largest geothermal resources in the world, plus enough wind in 3 states to meet all our electricity needs, as well as enough potential solar power in 19% of desert in the Southwest to meet nearly all our needs, even if everyone had a plug-in car. In order to bring about a renewable-energy revolution, the new president should immediately:
1) Initiate a cap-and-trade system to put pressure on carbon emissions and reward energy innovation.
2) Revamp the antiquated power grid so it can transmit renewable energy over long distances. Open it up by getting rid of state rules that restrict access and add “smart” features to deliver power where and when it is needed.
3) Spend $1 trillion over the next 15 years on infrastructure, paid for by government, utilities, investors and entrepreneurs.
4) Encourage much more efficient buildings and machines, through energy efficiency and tax credits.
(Source: Vanity Fair)

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and author of the new “Earth: The Sequel”:
The Congress must mandate a cap-and-trade system with a steadily declining limit on global warming pollution. Survival depends on a “wholesale reinvention of the way we make and use energy. We need a “second industrial revolution as sweeping as [the one] a century ago … We will need to harness energy from the sun, the waves, living organisms, and the heat embedded in the planet. We will need to reinvent automobiles, clean up emissions from the immense and rapidly growing coal infrastructure, use the energy we have far more efficiently and put an end to tropical deforestation. A cap on carbon will launch all these solutions into the mainstream.” Energy innovators abound but are up against industries that have subsidies, trade agreements and regulations in their favor, plus control distribution routes. Cap-and-trade would allow the market to decide who “really can deliver the goods.” (Source: “Earth: the Sequel.”)

Bill McKibben, author of “The End of Nature” (1989) and founder and organizer of Step It Up 2007, which has turned into 1sky.org, and now founder of a new global group, 350.org:
The key is to rally public opinion. “We need a movement … a political swell larger than the civil rights movement …. Without it we’re not going to best the fossil fuel companies and automakers and the rest of the vested interests that are keeping us from change.” Once there’s a price on carbon, money will flow quickly to efficiency and conservation. The savings will be huge. “There’s not enough money in the world to deal with global warming if it gets out of control.” (Sources: Greenwire, Salt Lake Tribune, Yes! Magazine.)

Guy Duancy, organizer, speaker and co-author of “Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change”:
Buildings, transportation and food/forests are each responsible for about a third of CO2 emissions. So, the solutions lie in those areas, as well as the electricity that powers homes and industry.
1) Buildings: The U.S. Conference of Mayors approved an initiative to have all new buildings and major renovations in the U.S. carbon neutral by 2030. Britain requires new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2016. In existing buildings, owners could cut energy use 20-50% with new windows, super-insulation, heat-recovery, and efficient boilers and appliances. We need tax credits and rules like San Francisco’s requiring owners to upgrade buildings before they are sold.
2) Transportation: A switch to electric cars and plug-in hybrids made of light-weight material, combined with high-speed trains, bus rapid transit, biking, walking and telecommuting could reduce fuel need to about 5%. Long-distance trucking emissions should be severely curtailed by using more goods locally and switching to hydrogen-enhanced hybrid biofueled trucks.
3) Food: Livestock accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gases. Methane from cows’ stomachs and nitrous oxide from their manure, and in fertilizer, are far more potent than CO2. The solution is to eat less meat and dairy and more locally grown and organic vegetarian fare.
4) Forests: Destruction of the world’s rainforests releases 17% of world carbon emissions. We need to protect forests in the Amazon, Indonesia and the Congo by buying them, putting them in trust for indigenous people, and paying for policing against illegal logging.
5) Electric power: The challenge is to make the transition to renewable energy in time. We need non-corrupted governments to cap oil wells, close coal mines, require efficiency in autos, buildings and appliances, and redirect investment to renewables.
(Source: Yes! Magazine, click on buildings, electricity, transportation, food and forests.)

Take action: If you haven't already done so, join the 1.2 million-plus who have signed up for Al Gore's We and read the list of solutions they propose.

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)

Is Big Oil turning back from wind and solar to focus on oil and gas despite carbon emissions?

(Photo of Shell station in Britain from Flickr and photographer Lee Jordan.)

News Update: Shell Oil pulled out of plans to build a large off-shore wind farm in the UK last week, sparking concern about the viability of the project, which could have powered a quarter of London’s homes. The company said it was selling its one-third share in 341-turbine London Array wind farm, casting doubts about the viability of the 1-gigawatt project. Another partner said it was weighing its options. The cost of the project had skyrocketed from $2 billion to about $5 billion, largely because of the high demand for wind turbines. Britian was counting on the project to help it meet its target of 20% renewable energy by 2020. Shell said it would continue to invest in onshore wind in the U.S., but a story in The Guardian questioned whether two oil giants, Shell and BP, were turning away from renewables to focus more on oil and gas, after ExxonMobil made the biggest profit this year while avoiding renewable investment. BP is cooling on solar, The Guardian said, and putting money into tar sands, after earlier refusing to do so because of the greenhouse gases emitted. Meanwhile, descendents of John D. Rockefeller, who started Standard Oil, forerunner of Exxon, pushed the company to begin investing in renewables, citing the dangers of climate change. Leading the charge was Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) (Sources: The Financial Times and The Guardian.)

House OKs renewable energy tax credits

(Photo of windfarm from Flickr and photographer Alessandro Ronchi)

Congressional Round-up: The House voted 236-182 Wednesday to approve renewable energy tax credit extensions, funding them by eliminating tax breaks for 5 big oil companies. This is the fourth time they approved such a bill in the past year. Now comes the hard part. A similar bill has failed to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. That is likely again, though one tactic under discussion is to try to get some of the package included in the final budget reconciliation bill. The extensions are needed because current ones expire at the end of 2008, and already investment in renewables is slowing down. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned that a failure to extend the credits could cost the country 116,000 jobs. The Senate could bring up the bill as soon as next week. The House bill (H.R. 5351) provides:
• A 3-year extension on investment credits for wind, geothermal and other renewables.
• An 8-year extension of incentives for commercial solar energy and 6 years for residential, doubling the top credit for homeowners to $4,000.
• Incentives for plug-in hybrids, energy efficiency and installation of pumps for fuel with 85% ethanol.
The GOP and White House object to rescinding $13.6 billion in tax cuts for integrated oil companies. They say it will thwart exploration and raise prices for consumers. Dems said with oil over $100 a barrel, the 5 companies affected are making record profits and will lose less than 2% of those profits in the next 10 years. Call your Senators to approve this bill at (202)224-3121. Also, check to see how your Rep voted. (Sources: Washington Post, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Sierra Club)

McCain nets zero on environment from Conservation Voters
Many see Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee for president, as pro-environment. The League of Conservation Voters disagrees. McCain scored the lowest possible grade, a zero, on LCV’s 2007 Scorecard. Democratic contenders Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) came in at 73, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at 67. McCain, who introduced global warming legislation back before it was popular, has twice failed to show up for a vote on renewable tax credit extensions, where his vote could have made the difference. LCV says it’s a pattern and he missed all critical environmental votes last year. His lifetime score is 24. To see how your elected representatives scored, check the LCV scorecard. (Sources: Sierra Club, LCV)

New renewable tax-credit bill in House

Congressional Round-up: The House last week introduced a bill to extend production tax credits, funded in part by the repeal of oil tax benefits. The credits are due to expire at the end of the year, causing uncertainty for renewable energy industries. This bill is very similar to the one passed last summer by the House, but stifled in the Senate by 1 vote. It’s questionable whether the bill could pass the Senate in its current form. It includes:
• Extension of credits for wind, biomass, geothermal, small hydroelectric, landfill gas and trash combustion facilities through 2011, with a cap of 35% of the cost after 2009,
• Extension of solar energy and fuel cell investment tax credits for eight years,
• An end to deduction eligibility for the 5 larges oil companies,
• A 6% cap on benefits for smaller oil companies,
• A new credit for plug-in hybrid cars,
• Extension of tax credits for domestically produced cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel,
• A request that the National Academy of Sciences analyze current science on the production of biofuels and the domestic impact of a dramatic increase.

Proposal would allow power plants near national parks
Rep. Henry Waxman, (D-Calif.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, has urged the EPA to reject a proposal that would make it easier to build power plants near national parks. Waxman told EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson the proposed change in the New Source Review rules would violate the Clean Air Act. He said EPA technical experts acknowledged the change would allow “significant degradation” of the air in parks and national wilderness areas. He gave Johnson until March 5 to say why he ignored the advice of his staff. (Source: E&E News PM)

e-mailbag: Bob R. of Chicago writes, “Despite his admitted support and even sponsorship of environmental legislation, [John] McCain has too many constraints related to his conservative perception of reality to lead the nation effectively against the onslaught of global warming.”