Climate bill dead in the water; Next up, attack on EPA rules

(Photo of U.S. Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer wallyg)

You can kiss a climate bill goodbye, for 2010 and likely for the foreseeable future.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has read the tea leaves and seen the time and the votes aren’t there. So instead he is offering a pitiful oil spill response and energy efficiency bill. He thinks he can get 60 votes for that, but others aren’t even sure.

Gone is a price on carbon. Gone is a renewable electricity standard (RES) of 15%, which was scorned by enviros as far too weak when it passed out of Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) energy committee a year ago. Now it looks pretty good.

Without a price on carbon and an RES, clean energy won’t have the impetus needed to make a dent in the fossil fuel monopoly.

Reid’s bill, to be unveiled Monday, is expected to include:
• A spill response eliminating or raising the $75M liability cap, probably to $10B, plus some rig safety rules.
• HomeStar energy-efficiency retrofitting.
• Natural gas truck incentives.
• Funds for land and water conservation.

Now it’s up to the EPA
The only silver lining in this disastrous thunder cloud is that the EPA can begin regulating large sources of emissions, and states can continue their own programs.

But a new study by the World Resource Institute says those would only cut greenhouse gases 14% by 2020, instead of the 17% expected in the Kerry-Lieberman bill and promised by Obama at the world meeting in Copenhagen.

Republicans, and some Democratic Senators, are hoping to handcuff the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act. If they succeed, emissions would be cut just 6-9%, the study says. And there’s no way – without additional measures – to come close to the 80% reduction needed by 2050.

Dem Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) has a bill, which Reid promised to bring up for a vote, which would delay EPA action for two years. (It’s not like we’re in any hurry here.) Six other Dems are co-sponsoring that bill. In case any of them are supposed to represent you, they are Dorgan and Conrad of N.D., McCaskill (Mo.) Webb (Va.), Johnson (S.C.) and Nelson (Neb.)

A companion bill in the House is likely to be blocked by Dem leadership. And there’s always an Obama veto. So in all likelihood the EPA will be able to proceed in January, requiring new plants to use the best available technology to cut GHG.

There’s a GOP energy bill too
Just in case you thought Reid’s bill is as low as we could go, Republicans will offer an energy bill of their own that focuses (of course) on offshore drilling, lifting the deepwater drilling moratorium for those that meet new inspection criteria, making 37.5% revenue sharing with states immediate rather than waiting till 2017, setting up a more industry-friendly liability program, and reorganizing the former Minerals Management Service.

Nothing here about energy efficiency or natural gas vehicles.

Who wins, who loses?
So, despite the catastrophic Gulf spill and the sweltering heat, which should remind us of what’s in store, Big Oil and Coal have handily won this round.

There are a lot of losers:

Too bad, House of Representatives, which passed a decent bill last summer, that will now die.

Too bad, Sens. Kerry and Lieberman, who spent much of the past year-and-a-half trying to gain support for a mild but comprehensive climate bill.

Too bad, corporations, that want some certainty about regulations in the future.

Too bad, environmental groups, for all the resources spent pleading our case.

Too bad, clean energy businesses that won’t get a level playing field.

And too bad, world, that is waiting for the United States to lead, or at least not to drag everyone else down.

Too bad, you and me and our children and grandchildren.

It’s really, really too bad.

(Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, The Hill)

Reid goes for 4-part energy/climate bill by August recess

We may actually get an energy and climate bill in the Senate this summer. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said floor debate will likely begin the week of July 26. And if the matter is not resolved, Senators are warned they may have to stay in Washington an extra week past the Aug. 6 adjournment date – something they don’t want to do.

Reid is expected to do his thing and cobble together a bill he thinks can get 60 votes.

He says it will have four parts:
• A Gulf spill response that will tighten regulations on offshore drilling.
• A clean energy/jobs section, quite likely in the form of a renewable electricity standard, with help for consumers
• A tax package
• A limit on pollution, including greenhouse gases, from utilities.

Whether the bill will, in the end, include a cap on GHG is still in question.

President Obama is sticking to his guns that the final bill needs a carbon cap, and many experts say without one if won’t do much to curb GHG emissions. Pundits have criticized him for being too quick to compromise in the past and perhaps he’s learned his lesson.

Working with Republican Snowe
At this point only one Republican, Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), supports the cap on carbon for utilities, and she is working with Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) on language to include limits on power plants starting in 2013. Power plants spew about one-third of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Kerry and Lieberman also have scaled back their climate bill to cap utilities only, while Bingaman’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee gets set to mark up a bunch of bills Thursday, that would increase production of electric plug-in cars and trucks, increase R&D for natural gas and bump up incentives for nuclear and solar. The panel has already approved an RES and offshore drilling reforms.

No other Republicans have jumped onboard and several moderate Democrats are wavering.

House action
Meanwhile, in the House – which you may recall passed a comprehensive climate bill last summer – the Natural Resources Committee is looking to vote today on Chairman Nick Rahall’s (D-W.Va.) bill overhauling offshore drilling rules, which includes:
*Reorganizing the agency in charge of leasing, enforcing and revenue collection (something the Administration is already doing).
*Requiring a good blowout prevention and response plan.
*Mandating monthly inspection of rigs.
*Repealing some parts of the 2005 Energy Policy Act that gave royalty waivers to drillers.
*Ending a policy of exemptions from environmental review.

(Sources: Politico, E&E Daily, Senatus, The Hill, PM, PlanetArk)

Reid to use spill to fashion new energy and climate bill

(Photo of Harry Reid from Flickr and talkradionews.)

The Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 should make it easier to pass climate legislation to get us off fossil fuels, now that we’ve seen the damage deepwater drilling can do. Right?

Not necessarily. Pundits have been saying the Kerry-Lieberman bill will lose the possibility of any GOP support if it backs away from more offshore drilling, and it will lose Dem support if it encourages it. The lines have hardened.

So how can Dem leadership improve its chances of passing a climate and clean energy bill before the November elections, when Republicans are sure to pick up more seats?

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has had an “aha moment.” He’s going to turn this into a Spill Bill, with emphasis on holding oil companies accountable and reducing their tax breaks. With public concern about the spill running high, detractors would have more trouble voting against such a bill, he reasons.

Last week Reid sent a memo to eight committee chairmen with a role in climate and energy, asking them to put forth ideas about how to make oil drilling safer, make the companies pay for damage they cause and reduce some of the tax breaks they gained over the past decade.

Reid wants to bring a bill to the floor in July. Whether it will be a combination of oil spill and Kerry-Lieberman or oil spill and energy-only (no cap, no trade, no carbon limit) is still to be determined.

President Obama voiced his support for a comprehensive bill of the Kerry-Lieberman variety last week, but he may have to settle for less.

Reid will meet with the relevant committee chairs next Thursday to talk about how to proceed.

However they shape it, a climate/clean energy bill is going to be hard to pass before November.

My guess is they’ll end up with a Spill Bill that also encourages clean energy (perhaps with a renewable electricity standard) and other incentives to produce and use clean energy – and probably nuclear power. That may be the only way to get 60 votes, and even that will be hard.

Big Oil still has many supporters. Witness calls from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) to drill off their coasts, because their economies depend on it.

Stay tuned.

(Sources: Mother Jones, Politico, E&E News PM, Climate Progress)

Why are Kerry, Lieberman unveiling climate bill Wednesday?

NOAA map of spill from Flickr and SkyTruth .)

The Gulf oil disaster has spilled over into the climate bill debate. So why are Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) going to release their climate and energy bill at a press conference next Wednesday? The environment for it seems pretty muddy.

Their third partner, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), has pulled out as a key sponsor.

Several coastal-state Democrats have said no way will they support a bill that expands offshore drilling.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats have hardened their position favoring offshore drilling, despite the spill. The GOP, Graham included, is saying chill ‘til we know more about the cause of the spill.

In short, Kerry and Lieberman have lost supporters rather than gain them, as a result of the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. And they didn’t have 60 votes to begin with.

So why launch this bill now? And how can they placate those on the left – like the two Senators from New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida – to bring them back into the fold? And what about Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who wants more protection for Mid-Atlantic states.

Changes to the bill
We know they are changing the section on offshore drilling. Originally they allowed states to veto drilling within 75 miles of their shores and offered revenue-sharing as an enticement to say yes.

Now, they’ll likely give adjacent states a veto too, and maybe move the boundary out. For sure they will strengthen safety requirements. Few are likely to argue with that.

If they’re smart they’ll exempt New Jersey and Florida, and maybe Maryland.

But will that do it?

Nothing to lose
They’re only unveiling their proposal, not putting it up for a vote. They’ve gotten as far as they can keeping it under wraps. Some fence-sitters have said they want to see what’s in it. Speculation is they’re hoping eventually to pick up a few Republican votes from New Englanders like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Mass. and Judd Gregg of N.H., or George LeMieux of Fla. if the public raises a ruckus.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will not bring the bill to the floor for a vote unless he has 60 votes.

Reid may be banking on public sentiment fueled by the Gulf disaster tipping a few votes in their favor. He really has nothing to lose and reportedly was putting pressure on the sponsors to get the bill out there for others to see.

Kerry’s hoping some will be swayed by a growing coalition of support from business, faith communities, national security and environmental groups. I wonder about the 3 big oil companies that were ready to support it, if the bill is made much stricter about offshore drilling.

Presumably BP won’t be at the press conference unveiling the bill. Neither will Graham – though in the end they may be able to get his vote, if they don’t entirely ax the offshore drilling part.

This won’t be the final bill. There will be discussions and wheeling and dealing and amendments once it’s out in the open.

The impact of The Spill
A lot may depend on what happens with the spill. If it can’t be stopped and tars the coasts of many states, if there are constant photos of birds and wildlife covered with oil and people who have lost their livelihood, some drilling advocates may be forced to come around. It is an election year, remember.

And if the leak can be is stopped soon (don’t hold your breath), then perhaps those on the left will decide drilling isn’t so bad after all and will take the best they can get.

Many agree the current energy situation is untenable – whether they believe in global warming or not. The spill reminds us of that every day.

And those who believe strongly in climate change may, in the end, be unwilling to give up on a bill that caps carbon emissions and advances clean energy, even if it does open the door to limited new drilling offshore.

It’s probably worth a try.

(Sources include Greenwire, E&E News PM, Agence-France Presse via grist.org, CNN, E2Wire)

If Sen. Inhofe is for it, I’m against it; plus what’s the latest with Graham and Reid on climate vs. immigration reform?

Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma, global warming denier, and his Republican colleague George Voinovich (Ohio) are touting a bill to slash 3 pollutants from power plants – if the climate bill fails, which they hope it does. Inhofe and Voinovich are the two ranking Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

On the face of it, who could be against cutting soot-producing sulfur dioxide 80%, smog-forming nitrogen dioxide 50% and mercury 90%. This 3-pollutant legislation was introduced last week by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Tom Carper (D-Dela.)

The problem is this bill does nothing about carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, and nothing for renewable energy. It allows coal to continue being the energy of choice for power plants. Fortunately, the measure is unlikely to get legs, because Chair Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) committee has a majority of Democrats.

Voinovich also has a proposal to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, not only under the Clean Air Act, but also under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act. He's covering all his bases.

On climate bill is Graham in or out?
So far he's out. After cancellation of a news conference to unveil their comprehensive climate bill, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) huddled Monday but made no statement when emerging and headed off in different directions, reporters on the scene noted, as if that indicated discord.

At issue – in case you’ve been in a bunker the past few days – is Graham’s refusal to play ball on the climate bill if immigration reform is on agenda this year too. (See Saturday's post below)

Over the weekend and Monday it looked like Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was going to push immigration reform first. Graham, who is also a player on immigration, said he didn’t want to be part of a political ploy to get Hispanic votes for Democrats in November (including beleaguered Sen. Reid.)

But Tuesday Reid seemed to be saying climate change would, in fact, come first. Graham, however, is still sitting this one out. He wants assurance immigration won’t come up at all this year. He's moving the goalposts, as Kate Sheppard said in Mother Jones .

As Kerry tries to keep up the good fight and Lieberman tries to make peace, the two are sending their bill to the EPA for the necessary analysis that could take 4-6 weeks, keeping the bill off the floor.

Meanwhile two of the more moderate Republicans, Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told E&E Daily Tuesday that they’d rather take up energy first, as did several other Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Immigration seems to be something the GOP has no taste for, at least not right now.

What if there’s no climate bill?
A couple of less comprehensive energy bills are waiting in the wings: the Collins-Cantwell CLEAR cap-and-dividend bill that would reduce emissions 20% by 2020. It has no support from labor, however, so its chances are not good.

There’s also the clean energy bill (S. 1462) that passed out of Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) Energy Committee many months ago, which includes a rather small renewable energy standard. At this point that has been merged with Kerry-Graham-Lieberman, but presumably it could stand on its own.
Not a very good bill, though.

And of course the fallback is to just go with EPA regulations for large-source power plants, as well as letting states continue passing their own bills and regional cap-and-trade plans. The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill’s most recent draft does not restrict the EPA and allows California and other states to regulate tailpipe emissions, something the House-passed Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) bill does not.

(Sources: Solveclimate.com, E&E Daily, govtrack, cantwellsenate.org, Mother Jones, Sierra Club)

Will immigration (Nevada) politics get in way of climate bill?

(Photo of immigration rally in Chicago from Flickr and ProgressIL)

Rising pressure from Latinos to pass immigration reform is clearly on Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) mind and those of others Senators running for re-election in states with a high Hispanic populations, such as Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who are at risk of losing to Republicans and badly need Latino votes.

U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) last week raised the prospect of Latinos staying home on Election Day next November if a vote on reform, promised by President Obama during the campaign, doesn’t come this year.

So there’s a real chance, as Latino leaders get increasingly vocal, that Democratic leadership may put immigration ahead of climate on the Senate floor, if it looks more likely to get bi-partisan support.

Meanwhile, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) continue to try to please all of the people all of the time (or at least 60). They are scheduled to introduce their comprehensive climate bill on Monday, but first have to figure out what to do about transportation. They had planned on a gas tax, but the president and others said that was a non-starter, so it’s off the table.

Moderates are suggesting it would be better to follow Sen. Byron Dorgan’s (D-N.D.) proposal to go ahead with the clean energy part now and put off trying to put a price on carbon. But climate bill advocates say no, that if they can’t link the more popular clean-energy incentives to a price on carbon to reduce emissions, the latter is never going to happen.

Meanwhile Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) have their own proposal out there for a cap-and-dividend plan that would return revenue to residents to help pay increased energy bills.

(Sources: Wall Street Journal, The Hill’s E2 Wire , The Washington Post, PlanetArk, E&E Daily)

Coal as energy source will grow, Arch exec testifies

(Photo of Arch Coal mine in West Virginia from Flickr and
Photograper Doc Searls )

Coal is the fuel of the future, three industry executives told a House committee this week, and the government needs to help clean it up.

“The world will continue to use coal, period,” Arch Coal CEO Steven Leer, told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Coal, which is cheap and plentiful, will grow rapidly as an energy source and the question is whether CO2 emissions will grow with it, Leer said.

Coal is irreplaceable both here and abroad, said execs from Arch, Peabody Energy and Rio Tinto, and they need federal support for carbon capture and sequestration.

Leer said CCS is needed “to stabilize CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere within the next 40 years.”

Because CCS will not be available for use on a commercial scale until the 2020s, Peabody CEO Greg Bryce said, government should wait until then to regulate carbon. The feds also have a responsibility to fund CCS and research, he said.

Bryce criticized the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House last summer, because it put a price on carbon. Rio Tinto exec Preston Chiara took a softer stance. He’s a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which supported the House bill.

The coal execs warned against a “rush to gas” as an alternative energy, questioning estimates about its availability and noting price volatility in the past. And they warned that tens of thousands of jobs could be lost if coal emissions are overly regulated or utilities switch to gas.

Meanwhile oil and gas exec T. Boone Pickens, who sees natural gas as a bridge to renewable wind energy, was testifying on behalf of gas before the House Ways and Means Committee. He said growth of cleaner technologies (gas has fewer emissions than coal) are needed to “protect American jobs” in the global competition to lead in the energies of the future. He apparently doesn’t agree with the three coal execs that coal is the fuel of the future.

See Grist blog's take on the Select Committee hearing.

(Sources: Greenwire story picked up by NYT , E&E Daily)

Are Europe and Asia beating the U.S. at attracting clean energy investment and new energy jobs?

(Photo of Europea wind turbine factory from Flickr and photographer Jody Dickerson)

Is the U.S. economy losing out to Europe and Asia in the competition for a green energy future?

On the heels of my post last week about China hording rare earth minerals needed for clean energy production, I noticed with some concern three news items over the past few days:

*BP is closing its solar-panel plant in Maryland and moving the business to China, India or another country where production is cheaper and demand is higher. BP is partnering with Tata in India and SunOasis in China. The closure is the final step in moving BP’s U.S. solar manufacturing business abroad. It will mean 320 jobs lost, though 100 jobs will remain here in research and sales, the company says.

*GE said it is investing $453 million in European offshore wind through 2020, most of it in England and Germany. Norway and Sweden will also get a piece of the pie. The company hopes to mass produce its 4MW offshore turbine by 2012. Because Europe is moving ahead on both land and offshore wind, the biggest growth is seen there and suppliers are available. Billions have been spent on onshore wind in Europe over the past decade, with both Spain and Denmark now getting half their electricity from wind.

*Siemens, the international German-based conglomerate, with investments around the world, has targeted England for a $120 million factory for offshore wind turbines. England was chosen over Germany and Denmark because of government incentives in the form of a $90M competition. England is now 5th in renewable energy, tied with Spain.

Do I see a trend here?

(Source: Reuters, Washington Post, PlanetArk, Greenwire)

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 101

(Photo of coal power plant in Germany from Flickr and photographer davipt/Bruno Rodrigues

Nearly 200 countries head to Copenhagen this weekend, in an effort to forge a “political” climate agreement – to be followed in 6-12 months by a “binding” agreement. It is far from certain what the outcome of this Dec. 7-18 United Nations Climate Change Conference will be.

The UN’s chief climate executive Yvo de Boer hopes to see:
• Deeper emissions targets from industrialized countries.
• Reductions or actions pledged by developing countries.
• A “prompt start” fund for clean energy, adaptation and deforestation reductions – with rich countries pledging $10 billion a year over the next 3 years.
• A decision about the structure of a legally binding agreement to follow next year.

Individual pledges
Some industrialized countries have individually stated targets for emission cuts by 2020.
• Norway was the most ambitious, offering to cut 40% (from 1990 levels).
• The EU pledged 20% (from 1990), going up to 30% if others did the same.
• Japan pledged 25% (from 1990).
• Australia said 15% (from 2000).
• The U.S. said 17% (from 2005). (We are already down 8.5% because of the economic slowdown.)
• Canada followed the U.S. lead, though its parliament wanted a 25% cut (from 1990).
• Russia pledged 25% (from 1990), though it’s already down about 34% based on economic problems, so could increase its emissions under this pledge.

The overall pledged reduction from industrialized nations for 2020 is somewhere in the range 11-15%, far below the 25%-40% developing countries expect from the “rich countries.”

Developing countries
Some developing nations also have announced goals, often measured against BAU (business as usual) projections. They all want to grow economically, but will cut “intensity” or amount of emissions per economic unit.
• China pledged 40-45% reduction in intensity.
• Brazil said 36-39%, and an 80% cut in deforestation.
• South Korea pledged 30% below forecasts (from 2005 levels).
• Indonesia said 26% from BAU.

About 70 heads of state have said they will attend, including Obama, who will be there Dec. 9 on his way to Oslo for the Nobel ceremony; president Hi Jintao of China; Prime Minister Gordon Brown of UK; and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia.

Terminology
Some issues and acronyms you should know about if you plan to follow this conference, knows as Cop15:

MRV = monitor, record and verify. Obama pushed this concept as a necessary component of any agreement. Some developing countries are wary of it, without any funding to help them keep track of their emissions.

BASIC = The four biggest polluting developing countries: Brazil, South Africa, India and China. Under the Kyoto treaty they didn’t have to set targets. Now they threaten to walk out if rich countries demand too much of them.

REDD = Reduced emissions from deforestation. This is a big issue for rainforest countries that want credit for not cutting down trees and financial help to replace farming and livestock that are replacing the forests.

Trust – This is not an acronym but a serious problem between the have and have-not countries.

All this plays out against the backdrop of recent reports that climate change is happening more rapidly than anticipated – fulfilling the worst-case scenario in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

Stay tuned. This is important stuff. We’re all in it together.

(Sources: Sierra Club, BBC, Reuters, ClimateWire, NRDC, climateprogress.org)

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)

Clean energy is on upswing in U.S., but we need much more to avert climate change

(Photo from Flickr and state of Washington DNR.)

Thanks to state mandates, stimulus money and a slumping economy, the use of dirty coal to produce electricity has dropped slightly in the past year to 46.1% and clean renewables gained traction to 11.1%.

The Energy Information Administration predicts wind will be the source of 5% of electricity in 2020 and all renewable energy will make up 14%.

Coal use fell since last year, while the nation used slightly more natural gas, a bit less oil, and more biomass. (High gasoline prices may have been a factor for oil.) Investment helped wind power grow, while nuclear plants had less downtime, according to a study from the Lawrence Livermore Lab. Hydroelectric grew the most, according to businessgreen.com.

States rights
While Congress struggles to get a meaningful renewable electricity standard (RES), many states – including in July coal state West Virginia – have passed mandates for use of some clean energy in generating electricity. Once again the states are leading in the fight against climate change while the feds lag behind. (This happened with cars, remember?)

Economic slowdown
Total electricity generation is down 5%, year over year, thanks in part to the slowing economy. Industrial production sagged 12.5% in that period, according to the Federal Reserve.

Stimulus funds
Clean energy is expected to benefit from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) money. A revised forecast from EIA shows wind at more than twice the earlier-predicted level in 2012 because of stimulus – 201 billion kilowatt hours instead of 86B, compared with 53B in 2008. Geothermal will benefit as well, growing 16% more by 2013 than if there was no stimulus. Energy efficiency will also improve, with a weatherization program. But let’s not get too excited. The impact on CO2 emissions by 2013 will be slight – down just 1.3% from earlier predictions, because of the stimulus.

We still have a long, long way to go on clean energy. A stronger Senate climate bill would certainly help – one that phases out dirty coal plants while promoting more clean energy, which by-the-way could fill all our energy needs if the infrastructure was updated and the special interests could be silenced. I know: not going to happen.

But we can try. Everyone should contact his or her senators and ask them to work to phase out dirty coal and do more to promote clean energy.

(Sources: E&E Daily, climateprogress.org, Energy Information Administration, greenbusiness.com

Follow earthlingangst now on 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)

Will China become a Green Dragon when it comes to clean energy to fight climate change?

(Photo of wind power in China from Flickr and photographer drs2biz/David Schroeter)


Weekly Angst: All eyes are on China this week. That’s because of the Olympics, but there’s a far more important reason to China-watch. As the world’s fastest-growing economy it has great power for good or evil – when it comes to global warming.

China has passed up the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, releasing 24% of the world’s total, and it’s building an average of one coal-fired power plant a week. That’s scary.

At the same time, it’s leading the world in hydropower, is a major producer of photovoltaic solar panels, and will likely soon lead in making wind turbines.

Its autos are required to have 40% greater fuel economy than ours and it has mandated 15% renewable energy by 2020 – something our own Congress failed to pass.

A report released Aug. 1 by The Climate Group, an independent nonprofit, pulls together information about “China’s Clean Revolution”:
* It leads the world in total installed capacity of renewable energy.
* It is second to Japan in solar photovoltaic production.
* It is likely to be the largest exporter of wind turbines by 2009.
* It has 60% of the world market in solar water heaters.
* It’s the third largest ethanol producer.
* It leads the world in hydroelectric power and is 5th in wind power.
* It spent $12 billion on clean energy last year, second only to Germany, which spent $14 billion (they have similar-sized economies) and more than the United States. For shame.

In 2005, China enacted fuel-economy standards for autos and new-building efficiency design codes that would cut energy use in half. In 2006, in passed a Renewable Energy Law, mandating the purchase of wind, solar and biomass for power plants, and a tax of up to 20% on SUVs.

Seizing green economic advantage
“China’s beginning to unleash a low-carbon dragon,” said Steve Howard, CEO of The Climate Group, which advises government and businesses on how to combat climate change, and co-author of the report.

Clean-energy demand has given the Chinese economy an opportunity and they are forging ahead of us. Tens of thousands of companies are making everything from solar panels to electric bicycles to energy-efficient appliances to wind turbines. The 6 largest solar companies have a market value of $15 billion.

One city, Rizhao, has set out to become a carbon-neutral showcase and is half-way there, according to a recent story on ClimateWire. Highrise buildings will collect solar power during the 260 days of sunshine in the oceanside city, which plans to close down cement, paper and steel businesses that use coal. Rizhao shares this goal with a small number of other cities: Arendal, Norway; Vancouver, Canada; and Vaxjo, Sweden.

Coal still main energy source
All is not blue skies though. Fossil fuels provide most of the power, and if trends continue, 70% of China’s new electric power by 2030 will come from coal, the Climate Group report said. So by that year China will be adding an estimated 4 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, more than the European Union’s total now.

But China realizes it can’t sustain the kind of dirty industrial development the West had and must look for a better, cleaner way. Motivation comes from the enormous air-pollution problem and shortage of natural resources in a country trying to lift its population (one-fifth of the world) out of poverty.

China depends heavily on imports, and the high cost of fuel has made renewable energy far more attractive, The Climate Group’s China director, Changhua Wu, told the BBC.

“In China we are concerned about the speed of growth of emissions. It’s really scary,” Wu said. The government wants to stabilize emissions by 2020, mainly through efficiency, renewable energy and electric cars, she said, but more policy incentives are needed.

As a growing world power, and leading emitter of greenhouse gases, China will be one of the most important countries in seeking an international solution to climate change. But China has taken the position that the developing world, which was responsible for the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases until recently, must show its sincerity and ability to cut its own GHG before expecting new economies to do likewise.

“If they are not able to do it with the technology available to them, then is it reasonable to expect China and India to do it?” asked Wu.
(Sources: The Climate Group, BBC News, ClimateWire, Reuters)

LCV adds Stevens to ‘Dirty Dozen’ list to defeat

(Photo of Sen. Ted Stevens (left) after committee hearing from Flickr and U.S. Army photographer Staff Sgt. Jim Greenhill)

Washington Report 3: The League of Conservation Voters has added indicted Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to its list of targets for defeat in the coming election. Stevens has an LCV lifetime voting record of 14% on bills to protect the environment and has consistently voted for billions in breaks for oil companies, LCV said. Others on the list:
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has the worst voting record on the environment among Dems running for re-election.
• Rep. Stevan Pearce (R-N.M.), a congressman running for an open senate seat against Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.). Pearce’s lifetime percentage on the environment is 1%, compared with Udall’s 96%.
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), minority leader of the Senate who has been a roadblock to clean energy and global warming legislation.
• Former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-Colo.), who left the House to work for an oil company and is now challenging Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) for an open senate seat.
• Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), former chair of the Environment Committee, who has said global warming is a “hoax.”
• Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), one of the biggest opponents to progress on global warming and clean energy.
The final 5 in the dozen are yet to be named . LCV helped oust two of its targets in 2006, former Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and former House Natural Resources Chair Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) (Sources: Greenwire, LCV)

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)

Nuclear wins, renewables lose in DOE's R&D budget

(Photo of nuclear power plant on Lake Erie from Flickr and photographer mandj98/James Phelps)

News Update 2: Nuclear energy is the big winner in the Department of Energy’s fiscal 2009 budget for research and development, and renewable energy and efficiency are the losers. Funds for research, development and deployment in the nuclear sector are up 46%, while RD&D money for renewable energy and efficiency is down 50%, said a report released last week by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Also cut, by 15%, was much-needed improvement to the electricity transmission and distribution system. The weatherization program was eliminated. The budget doesn’t reflect the technologies needed for a low-carbon energy supply, said the report, which urged a drastic increase in spending for new technologies, efficiency and energy storage. The budget “is a far cry from the Manhattan Project for clean energy technology some have proposed,” the report said. The breakdown in the new budget:
*Nuclear fusion 15%
*Nuclear fission 21%
*Fossil fuels 23%
*Renewable energy 17%
*Efficiency 16%
*Hydroelectric 5%
*Electricity transmission 3%
(Sources: E&E News PM, Kennedy School of Government Belfer Center Report)

Cost of doing nothing about global warming: up to $3.6 trillion a year for losses in the U.S.

(Photo of damage from Hurricane Katrina from Flickr and and photographer SAsqrd/Steve.)

Weekly Angst: Every time I hear that it will cost too much to fight climate change and will “wreck the economy,” I say to myself (or sometimes out loud), “But what will it cost if we DON'T do anything?” So I was happy to see that Tufts University has just released a report on the cost of doing nothing, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The study determined that continuing business-as-usual in terms of greenhouse gases could end up costing the U.S. economy as much as $3.6 trillion a year by the end of the century.

They also estimated that the cost of four major climate change impacts – coastal hurricanes, real-estate damage from rising seas, increased energy costs to meet hot temperatures, and water scarcity – would rise over time and could cost $1.9 trillion annually by 2100. The breakdown for that year:
• Hurricane damages $422 billion
• Real estate losses: $360 billion
• Increased energy costs: $141 billion
• Water costs: $950 billion

Other hard-hit sectors include tourism and agriculture.

“The longer we wait, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s Climate Center.

The report predicted an average temperature increase of 13 degrees Fahrenheit in most of the U.S. in the next century and 18 degrees in Alaska, which is warming faster. Seas were predicted to rise 23 inches by 2050 and 45 inches by 2100, engulfing coastlines.

If global warming continues unchecked, the analysis found, New York City will have the climate of Las Vegas, and San Francisco will feel like New Orleans.

“Climate change is on a collision course with the U.S. economy,” warned Frank Ackerman, lead author of the study. The researchers used a new British model for figuring overall costs. They looked at economic losses, non-economic damages and the increased risk of catastrophe.

Climate disasters
And speaking of the increased risk of catastrophe, an op-ed piece in the New York Times Saturday by Charles M. Blow pointed out that we’re already experiencing more costly extreme weather disasters.

There have been four times as many weather disasters worldwide in the past 30 years as in the preceding 75, he said, citing the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. The U.S. has suffered most of them.

Of the 30 costliest hurricanes in the U.S. history, 10 have occurred since 2000, according to the National Hurricane Center. The worst year, of course, was 2005 (Katrina et al), with an estimated $39 billion loss.

Report’s recommendations
But getting back to the Tufts/NRDC report – it concludes with three overriding recommendations for action:
1. Enact comprehensive mandatory limits on global warming pollution to stimulate investment and guarantee that we meet emission targets.
2. Overcome barriers to investment in energy efficiency.
3. Accelerate development and deployment of emerging clean energy technologies.

Do it and do it now. Then we can avoid most of these costs (not all, though, because GHG in the atmosphere now will be there for many years.) And, of course, it’s not just financial cost. Think about the human cost of all these disasters. It’s mind-boggling.

Download the report.

(Sources: NRDC, Greenwire, New York Times)

Inslee, Markey and Waxman set 'principles' for global warming legislation in House

(Photo of Rep. Jay Inslee (D- Wash.) from Flickr, uploaded by Jay Inslee.)

Washington Report 1: Three key Congressmen are collecting their colleagues’ signatures on a set of principles they say must be part of any climate change legislation. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) aren’t leaving it up to chance or to the Energy Committee, headed by Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) to set the course for legislation in the House. At least that’s my take. They also may be serving a warning to the Senate that parts of its global warming bill are not acceptable. The overriding principles they cite are pretty bland: 1) Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming, 2) Transition America to a clean energy economy, 3) Recognize and minimize any economic impacts, and 4) Aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming. The specifics, however, mark out a much stronger territory:
• Set strong science-based targets for near- and long-term emissions;
• Auction emissions allowances rather than giving them free to polluters;
• Invest auction revenues in clean-energy technologies;
• Return some auction revenues to consumers, workers and communities to offset any economic impacts;
• Preserve state authority;
• Protect against trade disadvantages to U.S. industry; and
• Dedicate a portion of auction revenues to address harm from already unavoidable global warming.
Take action: Call, visit or write to urge your representative to sign on to this letter of principles. We don't want -- and the planet can't tolerate -- anything weaker.

Polar bears vs. Bush: the lawsuit

News update: Alaska natives and environmental groups filed suit last week to block the Interior Dept.’s Feb. 6 sale of oil and gas leases in 30 million acres of the Chukchi Sea, home to 10% of the world’s remaining polar bears. The bears are already threatened by the rapidly melting Arctic ice they use as a base for finding food. Several weeks ago the administration announced the delay of a decision about endangered-species status for the bears until after the oil lease sale. Then administration officials told a House hearing that oil exploration would not threaten the bears. This despite an earlier environmental impact study by scientists in their own department that said there’s a 33-51% chance of a major oil spill. “Polar bears do not do well with oil,” according Steven Armstrup of the U.S. Geological Survey. “Most likely it would be fatal.” (Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM, AP) (Photo courtesy of Flickr and photographer mape_s.)

Poll: 62% see warming as threat, but few take action
A poll of 11,000 Americans revealed that 62% of adults and 79% of children see global warming as a very serious problem. (23% of the adults were unsure.) And 57% of the adults and 74% of the kids said warming is a threat to all life on the planet. (27% of the adults were unsure, an option the kids apparently didn’t have.) Many support recycling, driving fuel-efficient cars and using less energy at home, but few are doing much about it. Democrats were 3 times as likely to see global warming as a danger, but only a little more likely to take action. The survey was conducted by George Mason University. Lead author Edward Maibach said there is growing fear about the topic but not enough information on what people can do. (Source: USA Today)

FutureGen out, smaller coal projects in – but when?
That didn’t last long. The feds pulled the plug last week on a $1.8 billion carbon-sequestration project, after Mattoon, Ill. was announced as the site in December. The huge demonstration project, planned since 2003, was to test whether carbon can be successfully captured and stored underground (forever) so that coal can be burned without emitting greenhouse gases. But what originally was to cost $1 billion grew to almost double that amount over the past 5 years.
The government says it will instead provide (less) money to create a much smaller pilot project and help new or existing coal plants add capture and sequestration. (Sources: PlanetArk, E&E PM)

UN says global warming could cost up to $20 trillion
Putting the world on a clean-energy trajectory and helping poor countries adapt to global warming could cost the world $15 trillion to $20 trillion over the next 20-25 years, a new UN report says. Now, the energy sector spends about $300 billion a year on new plants and other investment. (I’m struggling with the math here – too many zeroes.) The report is in preparation for a 2-day UN debate in mid-February on climate policy and adaptation. (Source: AP)

Etc.: Whole Foods trashes plastic bags … U.S. wind power up 45% in 2007 … Florida starts Green Lodging certification … Japan eyes network of offshore wind farms … high gas prices spur Americans to buy fuel-efficient cars … global carbon trade up 80% last year … ancient plants and moss exposed after 1,600 years in Arctic melt.