Fossil Fuel Subsidies More Than Double Those for Renewables

Although we already posted information about this study last month, it is worth posting again just to show the diagram to the left. We think this information is so important we wantto make sure you didn't miss it.

We encourage you to read this report and to share it with others.





October 23, 2009
Washington, D.C., United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

The largest U.S subsidies to fossil fuels are attributed to tax breaks that aid foreign oil production, according to research from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). The study, which reviewed fossil fuel and energy subsidies for Fiscal Years 2002-2008, revealed that the lion's share of energy subsidies supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases.

The research demonstrates that the federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Fossil fuels benefited from approximately US $72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion.
More than half the subsidies for renewables—$16.8 billion—are attributable to corn-based ethanol. Of the fossil fuel subsidies, $70.2 billion went to traditional sources—such as coal and oil—and $2.3 billion went to carbon capture and storage.

“The combination of subsidies—or ‘perverse incentives’— to develop fossil fuel energy sources, and a lack of sufficient incentives to develop renewable energy and promote energy efficiency, distorts energy policy in ways that have helped cause, and continue to exacerbate, our climate change problem,” said John Pendergrass, ELI senior attorney. “With climate change and energy legislation pending on Capitol Hill, our research suggests that more attention needs to be given to the existing perverse incentives for ‘dirty’ fuels in the U.S. Tax Code.”

The subsidies examined fall into two categories: foregone revenues, mostly in the form of tax breaks and direct spending, in the form of expenditures on research and development and other programs.

ELI researchers applied the conventional definitions of fossil fuels and renewable energy. Fossil fuels include petroleum and its byproducts, natural gas, and coal products, while renewable fuels include wind, solar, biofuels and biomass, hydropower, and geothermal energy production.

For more information on the research from ELI, click here.

ISES Calls for Feed-in Tariffs Worldwide

This information was sent to the Indiana Renewable Energy Society by Paul Gipe.

October 16, 2009

The International Solar Energy Society (ISES) has called for the use of feed-in tariffs worldwide at its world congress in Johannesburg, South Africa. This is the strongest endorsement yet from ISES of the policy that has sparked renewable energy development in Europe.

The resolution also calls for the world to reach 100 percent renewable energy by mid-century.

ISES also singled out the host country, South Africa, as an example for praise. South Africa has embarked on developing a full system of feed-in tariffs to help solve the country's electricity shortages and to send a signal to the nations meeting in Copenhagen that the developing world is willing to do its part.

The move by ISES, one of the world's oldest renewable energy organizations, follows recent announcements by China, India, Taiwan, and Japan that they will all soon introduce feed-in tariffs.

Below is the ISES resolution in full. REFIT is the acronym for Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff. The Green Energy Act refers to the law passed by the Ontario provincial parliament in 2009 that, among many provisions, empowered the Minister of Energy to implement a comprehensive system of feed-in tariffs.


ISES Solar World Congress 2009
Johannesburg, South Africa, 11-14 October 2009
Resolution

The ISES Solar World Congress 2009 hosted by the Sustainable Energy Society of Southern Africa in Johannesburg, South Africa, attended by participants from all over the world resolves as follows:

The global target of 100 % renewable energies is both attainable and necessary by the middle of the current century. This is motivated on grounds of ecological, economic and social sustainability.

The unacceptable backlog in energy supply in the third world countries can only be covered cost effectively and in time by the use of renewable energies. Especially the industrialised countries have to increase their efforts in transitioning to renewable energies.

The world's governments are called upon to implement without further delay policies that have been proven internationally to be the most effective and efficient in the rapid transition to a renewable energy world, giving priority to renewable energy and refraining from any kind of caps that may slow down renewable energy deployment.

As a guiding principle, local and rural communities and people should be actively involved and benefit directly from renewable energies. Governments should especially encourage and support community power projects and distributed generation as well as investment in renewable energy manufacturing facilities in order to foster the local creation of jobs.

The Congress applauds the first steps taken by the South African Government in introducing the renewable energy feed-in tariff. The Congress requests government to urgently address concerns expressed by the public and by potential investors about aspects of REFIT policy. These include transparency, certainty, removal of contradictions between legislation and regulations governing the REFIT and providing a roadmap with clear commitments and timelines to its implementation.

The introduction of a Green Energy Act is strongly recommended as crucial to providing an overarching and comprehensive framework for renewable energy uptake so that in the near future the necessary steps will be taken to attract local as well as international investors.

The Congress strongly recommends the world's governments to establish an obligation to use renewable energy for water heating as well as space heating and cooling in residential, industrial, commercial and public sector buildings.

On the international level, the introduction of a global feed-in tariff system is recommended as a primary instrument to foster international technology transfer and finance scaling up of renewables, especially in the third world. Such a global feed-in tariff has the unique potential of overcoming the blockage in the current climate change negotiations.

For offgrid and non-electrical systems, further intelligent financing mechanisms such as large-scaled microcredit and soft loan programmes should be applied. All aspects of capacity building for renewable energy, including resource assessment, have to be given priority in education as well as in research and development. This is ineluctable in order to create awareness and knowledge of the true and full potential and vast variety of renewable energies as well as the true threats of fossil and nuclear energies.

The Congress welcomes and endorses the strong support and the cooperation of all the renewable energy technologies through the International Renewable Energy Alliance.

The Congress is delighted by the recent establishment of the International Renewable Energy Agency Irena and urges all renewable energy proponents worldwide as well as the world's governments to give full support to the establishment process in order to make sure that IRENA can realise its leadership role on our way to a renewable energy world.

Johannesburg, 14 October 2009

About the International Solar Energy Society

ISES has been serving the needs of the renewable energy community since its founding in 1954. A UN-accredited NGO present in more than 50 countries, the Society supports its members in the advancement of renewable energy technology, implementation and education all over the world. Goals of the Society include:

Towards a Sustainable World:
Encouraging the use of Renewable Energy everywhere, through appropriate technology, scientific excellence, social responsibility, and global communication.

Realising a Global Community:
Bringing together industries, individuals and institutions in support of Renewable Energy technologies - through communication, co-operation, support and exchange.

Supporting Development:
Applying practical projects, technology transfer, education, training and support to the issue of global energy development.

Supporting the Science of Solar Energy:
Stimulating and encouraging both fundamental and applied research in solar energy.

Contributing to Growth:
Ensuring individual and community growth through support of private enterprise and empowerment in the area of Renewable Energy.

Information and Communication:
Rapid access to information through tailor-made communication and exchange platforms utilising modern technology.

ISES is a multi-faceted, global membership organisation. With its long history and extensive technical and scientific expertise provided by its members, the Society is a modern, future-oriented non-governmental organisation (NGO). Clearly defined goals, extensive communication networks and practical, real-world projects are the hallmarks of ISES.

U.S. climate bill spurs low-carbon jobs debate

The final day of hearings before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will continue today at 9:30. Visit the website for a link to a live webcast as well as links to archived webcasts from the first two days of hearings and copies of the presenters prepared remarks.


Reuters, Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:28pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN28322783

* Google: Climate bill creates millions of new energy jobs

* Democrats from coal states concerned about employment

* Sen Boxer says bill gives oil co's enough carbon permits (Adds comments from PSEG utility)

By Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON, Oct 28 (Reuters) - Leaders at companies that develop low-carbon energy told a Senate panel that climate legislation would create millions of new jobs, but lawmakers from fossil-fuel dependent states said the bill would hit employment in the traditional energy economy.

Climate change presents a global crisis, but "can also provide an economic opportunity of vast proportions," Dan Reicher, director of climate change initiatives at Google (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Besides creating new jobs in solar, wind and geothermal power, he said national regulation of greenhouse gases could help push investments to develop an efficient and robust power grid that would combine with information from the Internet.

That would create new jobs in new technologies across a range of companies, he said. The Web could send information from the "smart grid" to help consumers save money on power bills during peak demand periods and help them determine the cheapest time to charge electric cars that would cut emissions and oil imports.

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer introduced new details on the climate bill last week on how permits would be distributed across industries. The bill aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 under 2005 levels, a slightly tougher goal than outlined by the bill narrowly passed by the House of Representatives.

It is uncertain, however, whether Boxer and fellow bill writer Senator John Kerry have the 60 votes needed to pass the bill. Several of their fellow Democrats have reservations about the bill, despite new enticements for coal-state senators, including more to stimulate technology for the fossil fuel and provide other industry breaks.

An aide to West Virginia Democratic Senator John Rockefeller said the tougher emissions goal is unrealistic and harmful as there is not enough time to deploy the carbon capture and storage and energy efficiency technologies.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who represents Montana, another coal state, also voiced opposition on Tuesday to the 20 percent target.

A third Democratic senator, Robert Byrd, also of West Virginia, has not yet staked out a position on the revised Senate bill. Byrd praised Boxer's additions in the bill that put more focus on clean coal technology. But he warned, "I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries, or our resource-based economy in West Virginia.

Those opinions come on top of opposition from Republican senators from manufacturing states.

Still, Peter Bremm, a vice president for Infinia Corp, told the panel climate legislation could create solar industry manufacturing jobs to replace jobs lost in the auto industry. The solar power company's supply chain consists of Midwestern auto supply companies retooled to work on renewable energy.

And Ralph Izzo, chief executive of power utility Public Service Enterprise Group Inc (PEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), which has nuclear, coal and natural gas-burning plants, told reporters after testifying that the bill would create jobs.

"A price on carbon forces you to do things differently ... and that creates opportunity," he said.

But Bill Klesse, the chief executive of oil refiner Valero Energy Corp (VLO.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), told the panel the bill would cut jobs in his industry because it would force companies to buy billions of dollars worth of carbon credits. He said the costs would hurt refiners who have already lost jobs as the recession cuts fuel demand.

Boxer disputed the claim about permits, as the plants would be given about two percent of the overall carbon pollution allocations in the early years of a cap and trade plan outlined in the bill.

Google's Reicher said revolutionizing the energy economy would take more than simply capping greenhouse gases. Measures to increase research and development funding for low carbon technologies and to set energy efficiency standards would also be needed to generate new jobs. (Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

This reprinted article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

SEIA Resch Declares "Solar Bill of Rights"

Friends,

I’m in LA for Solar Power 2009 – sponsored by SEIA in Washington, DC.

SEIA president Rhone Resch gave a plea for the solar industry to “go big, or go home!” The following “Solar Bill of Rights” was presented, and the crowd loved it! There was much excitement throughout the day as people talked about Rhone’s message in the halls, trade show booths, and at lunch gatherings.

I’m copying many of my friends in DC on this message……please take a minute to read the following “Solar Bill of Rights”…..it is well thought out, and it seems to be widely accepted as the most common ground for my industry. I personally agree with the points as well.

Bill Keith, President, SunRise Solar, http://www.sunrisesolar.net/

THE SOLAR BILL OF RIGHTS

To secure a policy environment that allows solar energy to compete and empowers consumers to choose, Rhone Resch declared today, October 27, 2009, in the City of Anaheim, California, a Solar Bill of Rights:

We declare these rights not on behalf of our companies, but on behalf of our customers and our country. We seek no more than the freedom to compete on equal terms and no more than the liberty for consumers to choose the energy source they think best.

1. Americans have the right to put solar on their homes or businesses. Restrictive covenants, onerous connection rules, and excessive permitting and inspections fees prevent many American homes and businesses from going solar.

2. Americans have the right to connect their solar energy system to the grid with uniform national standards. This should be as simple as connecting a telephone or appliance. No matter where they live, consumers should expect a single standard for connecting their system to the electric grid.

3. Americans have the right to Net Meter and be compensated at the very least with full retail electricity rates. When customers generate excess solar power utilities should pay them consumer at least the retail value of that power.

4. The solar industry has the right to a fair competitive environment. The highly profitable fossil fuel industries have received tens of billions of dollars for decades. The solar energy expects a fair playing field, especially since the American public overwhelmingly supports the development and use of solar.

5. The solar industry has the right to equal access to public lands. America has the best solar resources in the world, yet solar companies have zero access to public lands compared to the 45 million acres used by oil and natural gas companies.

6. The solar industry has the right to interconnect and build new transmission lines. When America updates its electric grid, it must connect the vast solar resources in the Southwest to population centers across the nation.

7. Americans have the right to buy solar electricity from their utility. Consumers have no choice to buy clean, reliable solar energy from their utilities instead of the dirty fossil fuels of the past.

8. Americans have the right, and should expect, the highest ethical treatment from the solar industry. Consumers should expect the solar energy industry to minimize its environmental impact, provide systems that work better than advertised, and communicate incentives clearly and accurately.

Resch is president & CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. He made this statement before a gathering of thousands of industry professionals at the Solar Power International conference.

This message brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association (InREA). Bill Keith is a Founding member of InREA.

Senate Climate Bill Revives Complaints of Coal-Dependent States

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works begins three days of full committee hearings on S. 1733 the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act this morning at 9:30 am. Sen. Boxer issued a press release outling the line-up for the first hearing. A link to a live webcast of the hearing will be available from the committee website.

Reprinted from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aJeInYe72Uvw#

By Daniel Whitten and Jim Efstathiou Jr.

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Climate change legislation proposed in the U.S. Senate has revived a fight over the cost of combating global warming between coal-dependent states and those that get energy from cleaner sources.

In a draft of a letter to the climate legislation’s sponsors, Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, said the House and Senate bills put coal at a disadvantage and that he wants to revise how free pollution permits would be distributed.

Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who is chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on Oct. 23 proposed a climate bill that requires emissions cuts of 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050. Limits passed in the House are similar, except the 2020 reduction target is 17 percent.

Both bills would establish carbon dioxide emission limits, and require major polluters to buy pollution credits after the government initially gives many away to ease the cost during the transition. Utilities that don’t use coal would get more of the credits they need for free than coal-burning plants, according to Harkin.

The coal industry’s complaint with how permits are given away will complicate efforts to pass legislation aimed at reducing global warming. Oil refiners have joined the coal industry in opposing the legislation, and nuclear-energy producers say the measures should have more incentives to build new plants.

The distribution of permits is important and “can help build a constituency for support of the proposal,” Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

Boxer’s committee will begin three days of hearings on the 923-page bill today and may vote on it next month.

Manufacturers, Refiners

In the Senate bill, utilities would get 35.5 percent of all allowances for free, manufacturers up to 15 percent and refiners 2.25 percent, the same as the House breakdown.

The allocation formula for utilities uses a plan agreed to by members of the Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry’s Washington trade association, which bases free permits half on historical emissions and half on the amount of electricity sold.

Harkin is concerned that the formula “will unfairly and disproportionately raise electricity costs in certain regions of the country,” his spokesman Grant Gustafson said in an e-mail. The problem can be resolved by distributing free permits based on historical emissions, he said.

Harkin “plans to work with his colleagues in the Senate to address this issue as they move forward with the climate change bill,” Gustafson said. Coal-fired plants produce more than 80 percent of Iowa’s electricity, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Draft Letter

Harkin detailed his concerns in a draft letter to Boxer, Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who cosponsored the bill, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. The letter hasn’t yet been sent, Gustafson said.

“Utilities that are more coal dependant will need to purchase even more allowances than they would have if all allowances were allocated based on emissions, and those higher costs will be passed on to customers,” Harkin wrote.

Paul Rosengren, a spokesman for Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., said that his company supports the so called 50-50 agreement hammered out by EEI.

“No one is helping our customers to offset the extra costs,” said Rosengren. New Jersey and New England have invested substantially in providing cleaner energy sources, and as a result power costs are already 40 percent more expensive than in some states that are heavy coal users, he said.

Loan Guarantees

The nuclear industry is seeking up to $100 billion more in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants, on top of the $18.5 billion allocated, more favorable tax treatment for nuclear power production and a faster permitting process for new plants.

“Nuclear has a very high profile and it will be necessary for there to be some agreement on nuclear provisions for climate legislation to progress in the Senate,” said Alex Flint, the chief lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The Senate bill “promises more pain to consumers but also imposes much greater burdens on some parties than others,” American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said in an e- mailed statement.

Democratic senators from industrial states that depend on coal-fired plants for a majority of their electricity have opposed the similar measure the House passed in June.

Democratic senators such as Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas have raised doubts about passing climate legislation this year.

Senate Democrats

Evan Bayh, of Indiana, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, are among a group of Senate Democrats who have objected to the House cap-and-trade provisions endorsed by Boxer.

“This bill is very much a work in progress, and there are many more pieces to the congressional process before we will have a final and complete package,” said Erin Streeter, a spokeswoman for the National Association of Manufacturers, which represents many members in coal-heavy industrial states.

To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Whitten in Washington at dwhitten2@bloomberg.net ; Jim Efstathiou Jr. in New York at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: October 27, 2009 00:01 EDT

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association (InREA). The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of InREA.

German Coalition Agrees on Extending Nuclear Energy Until Replaced by Renewable Energy Sources

German Coalition Agrees on Nuclear Energy, Handelsblatt Says

By Oliver Suess

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and the Free Democratic Party agreed to extend the use of nuclear energy, Handelsblatt reported.

The lifespan of German nuclear power plants will be extended until they can be “reliably replaced” by renewable energy sources, the newspaper said, citing a draft of the coalition agreement it obtained.

To contact the reporter on this story: Oliver Suess in Munich at osuess@bloomberg.net

Excerpt from www.Handelsblatt.com automatically translated from German to English with Google Toolbar:
...
The black-yellow coalition, moreover, laid down their energy policy course. The operators of nuclear power plants have to adjust accordingly to tough negotiations with the future government. In its coalition agreement to approve the CDU, CSU and FDP only a role of nuclear power as a transitional technology. Industry representatives complained that the plant operators were "certainly not among the winners of the coalition negotiations." On the other hand, welcomed the Renewable Energy Sector, the coalition agreements.

In the energy chapter of the coalition agreement states that nuclear energy is a bridge technology that would use it, "until they could reliably be replaced by renewable energies." "We are prepared to extend the maturities German nuclear power plants in compliance with the strict German and international safety standards." As late as Tuesday evening, this wording had been: "We shall extend the maturities. The three party leaders, however, sat by the slowdown. Both Chancellor Angela Merkel and FDP leader Guido Westerwelle emphasized, according to participants at the final talks on the energy chapter, there are no blank checks for longer maturities.

The tips of the CDU, CSU and FDP, given the energy chapter of the coalition agreement as early as Wednesday evening, her blessing. Other chapters are still controversial. At the weekend, the coalition will present the complete contract.

According to the Union and FDP coalition agreement "in a meeting as soon as possible agreement to be reached with the operators' schemes for runtime extensions. Union leaders stressed that the arrangements would "set for steam power plant. Before it terrified the industry already. The four nuclear power plant operators feared - Eon, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall - that it could be just for one or the other plant: "This is a tough struggle for each reactor." However, the starting positions of the firms are different. While the reactor for RWE Biblis, for EnBW with Neckarwestheim and Vattenfall Brunsbüttel time is pressing, can be left Eon. The group is involved only as a co-Brunsbüttel, otherwise the company's facilities have comparatively rich residual amounts of electricity. RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall have their kiln, however saved only with difficulty in the new legislature, the residual amounts of electricity, which allocates the Atomic Energy Act, the facilities are almost empty.

Union leaders emphasize that the energy part of the coalition agreement is in no way be construed as decided by management of the nuclear phase-to red-green. Indeed, it is a real paradigm shift towards renewables. "We want to go the way into the regenerative period and expand its technology leadership in renewable energy," says the coalition agreement. Similarly positive assessment of the industry the contract. "We see a number of very clear and very positive terms, which was a good basis for our work," it when Federal Association for Renewable Energies. Even with the formulations to promote Photolvoltaik can live the industry

On this issue there had been intense discussions during the negotiations. In particular, FDP politicians had criticized the photovoltaic funding was excessive. The Treaty is now stated that they would resolve in a dialogue with solar industry and consumer advocates, "with which adjustments in the short term over-funding in the photovoltaic can be avoided." Even consumer watchdogs have criticized the promotion of photovoltaics, which is passed on to electricity customers, as too high.

A dialogue between politics and solar industry would make sense, "said Andreas Hänel, CEO of Phoenix Solar, the Handelsblatt. He warned to cut subsidies as part of the policy demanded by 30 percent. This would damage the industry as the price decrease in solar modules, not one leave transferable to the feed-in tariffs. Pricing for the modules have recently fallen rapidly.

Specific attention paid to the future coalition partners the energy companies. In the energy chapter, the Federal Ministry instructed to consider "what measures to maintain the competitiveness of electricity-intensive industries" are required. In addition, states that the coalition is set to ensure that energy companies remain the exception to continue the auctioning of emission rights. The companies evaluated these statements carefully. Investment decisions could not pronounce on this basis, it said.

New ASES Report Estimating the Jobs Impact of Tackling Climate Change

The American Solar Energy Society is rolling out a new report 10/30/09. It shows that tackling climate change can be a major net job creator for the U.S. economy.

According to the report, aggressive deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency can net up to 4.5 million new U.S. jobs by 2030 and provide the greenhouse gas emission reductions necessary to tackle climate change.

With Congress debating energy policy in Washington D.C., this is the type of information that can really make a difference.

Renewable energy and energy efficient technologies could displace approximately 1.2 billion tons of carbon emissions annually by 2030 - the amount scientists believe is necessary to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change.

The report is called, Estimating the Jobs Impact of Tackling Climate Change, and was produced by ASES and top economists at Management Information Services, Inc. based in Washington, D.C.

The report can be found at: www.ases.org/climatejobs

Here's one of the best parts. According to the analysis, renewable energy and energy efficiency deployment costs would be revenue neutral or better!

That's because the costs to implement the technologies are offset by savings from lower energy bills, making total net costs near zero.

As Brad Collins, ASES' Executive Director described it, "The twin challenges of climate change and economic stagnation can be solved by the same action-broad, aggressive, sustained deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The solution for one is the solution for the other."

This jobs report offers the most detailed analysis yet on the potential role of the new energy economy in tackling climate change.

It builds on the powerful findings of ASES' groundbreaking 2007 report Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.: Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions From Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030 edited by Chuck Kutscher.

Check out the report: www.ases.org/climatejobs

This jobs report offers the most detailed analysis yet on the potential role of the new energy economy in tackling climate change.

Report findings show that:

•Aggressive deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency can net 4.5
million new jobs by 2030. These jobs are not limited to certain regions or sectors – they are widely dispersed throughout the U.S. in virtually all industries and occupations.
•Hot jobs spurred by this new economic growth span a diverse range of skills and experience and include: electricians, plumbers, carpenters, administrative assistants, machinists, cashiers,
management analysts, civil engineers, and sheet metal workers.
•Renewable energy and energy efficient technologies could displace approximately 1.2 billion tons of carbon emissions annually by 2030 – the amount scientists believe is necessary to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change.
•Approximately 57% of carbon emissions reductions would be from energy efficiency and 43% would be from renewable energy.
•Energy efficiency measures can allow U.S. carbon emissions to remain about level through 2030, while renewable technologies can provide large reductions in carbon emissions below current levels
•Industries showing the largest job gains include: construction, farming, professional services, public sector, retail, truck transportation, fabricated metals and electrical equipment.
•The construction industry directly benefits from almost all the growing renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors as well as from improvements in overall economic growth due to energy savings. Farming directly benefits from biomass and biofuel technology growth.
•Many of these jobs can not be easily outsourced due to the on-site nature required by these roles.
•The greatest numbers of renewable energy jobs are generated by solar photovoltaics, biofuels, biomass, and concentrating solar power sectors.

The report suggests that policy can play a significant role in both generating jobs and mitigating carbon emissions.

The Indiana Renewable Energy Association is the official state chapter of the American Solar Energy Society. For more information visit www.indianarenew.org.

T. Boone Pickens to Speak at University of Notre Dame Mon., Oct. 26th

Editor's note: I received this message from Team Pickens and thought I would pass it on. Pickens recently appeared at Indiana University in Bloomington on September 18.

If you missed the Indiana University speaking appearance, it is still available on-line at http://broadcast.iu.edu/lectures/pickens_09/index.html

Boone will be appearing at the University of Notre Dame for a Town Hall meeting on Monday, October 26 at 5:00 pm. He will be giving an update on the Pickens Plan and taking questions from the audience.

Following are the event details:


Town Hall Meeting with T. Boone Pickens
Sponsored by the Mendoza College of Business and the Office of the Provost

Monday, October 26, 2009
5:00 pm

University of Notre Dame DeBartolo Performing Arts Center
100 Performing Arts Center
Notre Dame, IN 46556


The event is free but this is a ticketed event that is open to the campus and local communities. Tickets will be distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis beginning at 3 pm on Monday, October 26 at the performing arts center.

If you are unable to attend in person, we’ll be covering the event on our blog, Daily Pickens. You can also follow us on Twitter @pickensplan and Facebook.com/PickensPlan for updates.

-- Team Pickens

For more information about renewable energy in Indiana, visit www.indianarenew.org.

Sullivan Takes Issue with Hershman on position Lugar & Bayh should take on pending federal climate change legislation

Editor's note: State Rep. Mary Ann Sullivan (D-Indianapolis) responded to State Sen. Brandt Hershman's Letter to the Editor urging that Hoosiers contact Sens. Lugar and Bayh to oppose climate change or cap and trade legislation pending before the U.S. Congress. We urge everyone to educate themselves on this important issue and communicate your views to Sens. Lugar and Bayh.

For our health, jobs, we must pass climate legislation

Indianapolis Star, October 22, 2009
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910220378

While I agree with my colleague, state Sen. Brandt Hershman, that hearing from constituents is important (Letters, Oct. 4), I take issue with his comments regarding how U.S. Sens. Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh should vote on economy-boosting climate legislation.

The Senate clearly has an opportunity not just to cut carbon emissions that endanger our health and the health of our children and grandchildren, but also to grow jobs in Indiana.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of implementing the elements of a federal climate bill would add up to the equivalent of a postage stamp a day per family, with low-income families realizing a $40 benefit by 2020. By 2030, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates an average saving of nearly $4,000 per U.S. household through the energy efficiency provisions alone.

Legislation that creates jobs, saves consumers money and reduces our dependence on foreign oil makes sense for Indiana and the country. I join millions of my fellow Americans in encouraging Lugar and Bayh to vote for this crucial bill, and help put Hoosiers back to work.

State Rep. Mary Ann Sullivan

House District 97

Indianapolis

--------------------------------------

Cap-and-trade disadvantages outweigh any potential good

Indianapolis Star, October 4, 2009
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910040328

As an elected official, I know the power of contact by constituents. Therefore, I encourage you to join me in writing, calling or e-mailing U.S. Sens. Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh and urging them to vote against the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation now pending in the U.S. Senate.

This is dangerous legislation that will harm the U.S. economy far more than it will help the world's ecological condition.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, some estimates show the cost of living for a typical Hoosier household could rise by as much as $1,600 per year if this proposal becomes law. Others say this is a conservative inflationary figure and Indiana residents might pay substantially more.

One study conducted by the National Manufacturers Association revealed this legislation could cost Indiana nearly 60,000 jobs over the next two decades. Other estimates assert as many as 3 million American jobs could be lost by 2030.

And for what noble purpose? Ecologically, some say the impact will be minimal, at best, if the U.S. is the only participant. Two of our biggest global economic partners, China and India, have no plans to enact cap-and-trade legislation of their own. Their factories will keep on humming, putting pollutants in the air, money in their own bank accounts and, likely, more Americans out of work.

Cap-and-trade could be called a job killer and a massive new tax on energy. Congress should wait until there is an international agreement on carbon dioxide emissions that includes other industrial powers like India and China before committing to painful and perhaps futile reductions at home.

Brandt Hershman

Indiana State Senator, Senate District 7

For more information visit http://www.indianarenew.org.

CLIMATE: On road to 60, Senate swells with fence sitters

NOTE: Both U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) and U.S. Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) are listed as "fence sitters" on the proposed comprehensive climate and energy legislation. See paragraphs below in red.

E&E Daily - 10/20/09

by Darren Samuelsohn, E&E senior reporter

The fence is getting a bit more crowded.

Despite two significant moves over the last month -- a bill introduction and the emergence of a possible bipartisan partnership -- the number of senators unwilling to commit to voting for comprehensive climate and energy legislation continues to grow.

According to E&E's latest analysis, 24 senators now belong in the "fence sitter" category that leaves them up for grabs headed into the winter push for 60 votes that sponsors will need to overcome an expected Republican filibuster.

Here's the good news for climate advocates: E&E now finds that at least 67 senators are in play on the issue, enough not only to pass the climate bill but also to ratify an international treaty should sponsors actually run the boards and not lose a single member.

For starters, the bill's lead sponsors, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), can safely rely on 31 "yes" votes as they work on building their coalition. That list includes Ben Cardin of Maryland, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Tom Udall of New Mexico. All appeared at a Capitol Hill campaign-style rally last month during the public unveiling of the legislation, S. 1733.

Another 12 senators fall into the "probably yes" camp, from Michael Bennet of Colorado to Al Franken of Minnesota and Mark Warner of Virginia. Bennet and Warner are not slam dunks given the fossil fuel interests in their home states, while Franken dropped off the "yes" list when he signed a letter with nine other Democrats in August that raised concerns about President Obama's stance against trade sanctions on carbon-intensive goods from developing countries that do not have strong enough climate policies (E&ENews PM, Aug. 6).

As for the fence sitters, the list continues to swell from both directions as key senators hedge their bets.

For example, Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) no longer reside in the "probably yes" camp given their recent statements on allocations and oversight of the carbon markets, respectively. Baucus may drive the hardest bargain as chairman of the Finance Committee, where he is sure to negotiate on behalf of coal-state Democrats who think the House-passed bill unfairly favors electric utilities that service the East and West coasts.

Two senators have recently been upgraded to the fence from the "probably no" camp are Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Byrd has long questioned action to curb emissions but has taken a lead role on carbon sequestration language that Kerry and Boxer are trying to wrap into their proposal. Voinovich has a reputation for bipartisan consensus building, and recent signals supporting the nuclear power industry are raising hopes in some sectors that the retiring senator should still be considered in play.

"If you engage in a very proactive way to get a bill done, he will negotiate and compromise," said a former Senate Republican aide.

E&E's analysis is based on interviews with senators, plus dozens of Democratic and Republican sources, industry and environmental groups.

Counting Republicans

GOP interest is significant for the climate bill's overall prospects given that Democrats are unlikely to carry all 60 of their own votes on the floor.

In all, E&E now lists eight Republicans as "fence sitters" on the climate bill, with the two from Maine -- Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe -- holding firm as "probably yes" votes given their past efforts on the issue. Collins and Snowe are likely to compensate for the loss of Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the only Democrats listed among 11 "probably no" votes given their many comments questioning the environmental agenda of the Obama administration and Senate leaders.

Elsewhere, sponsors got their biggest boost when Kerry went public with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on a partnership that they had been quietly working on since the summer. The senators pledged in an Oct. 11 New York Times op-ed that they would try to find compromise on several key areas, including nuclear power, offshore drilling and a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid high environmental standards.

"I can see a way to get to 60 votes, and so can he, if we pull the right folks to the table and do this in the right way," Kerry said last week. "And that's what we're going to do."

Climate advocates are urging Kerry and Graham to turn their broad principles into legislation.

"It's still right now just a possibility," said Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "We need to operationalize that."

Graham's support also may be key for other Republicans.

Jason Grumet, a former Obama presidential campaign adviser and the president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, counts as many as 10 Republicans who have been engaged in past climate debates "who are certainly poised to come back if the Graham beachhead becomes more secured."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) stands out as one leading GOP candidate to get behind a climate bill. The two-term senator co-sponsored climate legislation last year with Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) in part because of provisions designed to protect against high energy prices, as well as financial aid to Alaska for adaptation to rising seas and melting permafrost.

So far this year, Murkowski has questioned Democrats' desires to push for a vote on the climate bill before a major U.N. climate conference this December in Copenhagen. At the same time, she said Sunday on C-SPAN that Graham's emergence opens the door further to a number of supply-side provisions she supports, including efforts to expand nuclear power, natural gas and oil production.

"Count me as one of those who will keep my mind open as we move forward in looking at all aspects of this," Murkowski said.

Other fence-sitting Republicans include Sen. Richard Lugar, the six-term senator who has tamped down his optimism this year in part because of unemployment in Indiana that continues to hover near double digits. Lugar said last month in an interview he remains engaged but does not like the approach taken earlier this year with H.R. 2454, the House-passed climate bill.

"I don't know that we've pulled back," Lugar said. "It's just the formulation from the House I find objectionable on many grounds. Without jumping up and down any further, I think more constructive ways of fighting climate change can be found and I'll be working to find it."

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) also remains in play, with nuclear power and fiscal issues atop his list of demands. Asked last week about how the Kerry-Graham partnership could influence his vote, Gregg replied, "If nuclear comes under that and has proper incentives, that could be a major step forward."

The party's 2008 presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), poses a big challenge for climate bill advocates (E&E Daily, July 16). While McCain appears to be making headway in his demand for greater incentives for nuclear power, he is in direct conflict with manufacturing state Democrats and Graham, one of his close allies in last year's White House campaign, over the border tax issue.

"I know that I'd never agree to tariffs on the borders for countries that don't comply with our requirements," McCain said last week.

Other big questions revolve around Florida's new GOP senator, George LeMieux. Gov. Charlie Crist (R) appointed LeMieux, his former chief of staff, to be a caretaker to the Senate seat he hopes to win in the 2010 elections.

But Crist must succeed in a Republican primary slated for next August that so far has forced him to distance himself from past progressive views on the climate issue. Already, Crist's opponent, Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, has garnered the endorsement of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), an outspoken opponent of global warming legislation. LeMieux's vote will be seen as a critical test for Crist among the state's Republican base (Greenwire, Aug. 17).

Fence-sitting Democrats

The fence also includes moderate Democrats from all corners of the country, some more actively engaged in the climate debate than others.

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, for example, is crafting language to help manufacturers (E&E Daily, Oct. 14). Michigan's Debbie Stabenow hopes to release long-awaited agriculture ideas. And Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania will be forced to take a stand as early as next month when Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee holds a markup on its bill.

Other influential Democratic fence sitters include Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who said last week that he expects to push at least four issues once the bill nears the floor.

Levin said he will be seeking a national greenhouse gas emission standard and repeal of state-specific standards. Like Franken, he said a border tax adjustment needs to be part of the bill. And Levin said he wants a "fail-safe provision in case the technologies don't advance as quickly as some people think they will."

"And you've got to fairly proportion the burden," Levin added.

Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also remains on the fence. The two-term senator said last week that she wants to get a better grip on the effect that a climate bill would have on farmers and in the cost of food to consumers.

"I don't disagree with the objective, and I hope we'll stay focused on the objective, which is to lower our greenhouse gases and emissions and our carbon output," Lincoln said.

Lincoln in past years has cosponsored efforts to address the cost fluctuations in climate legislation. Environmental groups are banking on her and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) as key votes that get them to across the 60-vote threshold.

But an industry source tracking the climate debate doubts that Lincoln can sign off on climate legislation as she heads into a heated re-election battle next November. "No amount of National Wildlife Federation polling is going to help her in the delta," the source said. "She has an issue."

Election-year politics also may influence several other Democrats. Specter faces a primary challenge from his left in Rep. Joe Sestak, a campaign that has put an even larger spotlight on his vote (E&E Daily, Oct. 6).

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) faces the same unemployment concerns as Lugar but with the added pressure of a 2010 re-election campaign. So far, Bayh has not drawn a significant challenger and political analyst Charlie Cook ranked the race earlier this month as "solid D" for the incumbent. But political observers still see Bayh as vulnerable to home-state concerns.

Other Democrats on the fence include a number of senators representing either coal-consuming or coal-producing states, including Claire McCaskill of Missouri, North Dakota Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Jim Webb of Virginia. Conrad and Dorgan may be among the most difficult fence sitters to win over. Both have insisted for months that Senate leaders should start with energy-only legislation and save the big climate change measure for later.

Debating floor strategy

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has so far left open the door on a possible floor debate before the end of the year on the climate bill, but time is running short for the five committees still charged with filling in key details (E&E Daily, Oct. 16).

Committee leaders do not have any deadlines, leaving many to speculate the bill will most likely wait until early 2010 to see any floor action despite Boxer's plans for markup in November. Boxer has said she is waiting for U.S. EPA analysis of her legislation, something agency spokeswoman Betsaida Alcantara said should be finished by Friday.

Environmentalists have not stopped pushing for action. While several green groups have warned of the international consequences if the Senate rejected climate legislation before the Copenhagen negotiations, advocates still want to see a floor vote that forces senators to take a stand one way or another.

"People have to understand this vote is going to happen sooner rather than later," said David Goldston, director of government operations at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, predicts that Democrats will max out around 35 "yes" votes.

"They're going to try to fence off people," said Inhofe, one of 22 Republican senators E&E lists as a sure "no" on the climate bill. "We understand that. And they'll be counting votes as they do it. But I think it's a moving target."

For any group that signs up for the bill, Inhofe said he thinks they are just as likely to back out. "For example," Inhofe said, "when they tried to fence off the wheat growers, they bought into it for a short period of time, and then they said, 'Wait a minute, this is going to be just as hard on us and somebody else.'"

Dan Weiss, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, has a much bigger target in mind as Democratic leaders gear up for the floor. He said Reid and company should try to have a big enough cushion that they do not need to give in to every demand of every fence-sitting senator.

"Senate leaders obviously want to have more than 60 votes in play," Weiss said.

Bit by bit, advocates for the climate bill expect a winning combination to come together. Asked for the recipe, Goldston said he does not think one compromise will do it. Instead, he said he is watching for coalitions to form on individual issues, with several degrees of overlap.

"There's not one simple way where you get person X and you automatically get everyone else," Goldston said. "The work still has to be done member by member."

Climate bill supporters also say that the senators just need to be reminded that they've been debating many of these unresolved issues -- on everything from cost containment to emission allocations, greenhouse gas targets, offsets, technological availability and international competition -- dating back to the George W. Bush administration.

"The good news is the path to 60 is not particularly mysterious," Grumet said. "The issues have been quite well defined for the last year or so."

And that means that some of the key compromises already reached in the House may just need to be renegotiated, with some state-specific tweaks here and there.

"Everything's been said," Weiss added. "But not everybody's said it."

http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2009/10/20/1/

Fossil Fuels’ Hidden Cost Is in Billions, Study Says

by Matthew L. Wald, New York Times, 10/19/09

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20fossil.html

WASHINGTON — Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported in a study issued Monday.

The damages are caused almost equally by coal and oil, according to the study, which was ordered by Congress. The study set out to measure the costs not incorporated into the price of a kilowatt-hour or a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel.

The estimates by the academy do not include damages from global warming, which has been linked to the gases produced by burning fossil fuels. The authors said the extent of such damage, and the timing, were too uncertain to estimate.

Nor did the study measure damage from burning oil for trains, ships and planes. And it did not include the environmental damage from coal mining or the pollution of rivers with chemicals that were filtered from coal plant smokestacks to keep the air clean.

“The largest portion of this is excess mortality — increased human deaths as a result of criteria air pollutants emitted by power plants and vehicles,” said Jared L. Cohon, president of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, who led the study committee.

Nearly 20,000 people die prematurely each year from such causes, according to the study’s authors, who valued each life at $6 million based on the dollar in 2000. Those pollutants include small soot particles, which cause lung damage; nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog; and sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain.

The study lends support to arguments that society should pay extra for energy from sources like the wind and the sun, because their indirect costs are extremely small. But it also found that renewable motor fuel, in the form of ethanol from corn, was slightly worse than gasoline in its environmental impact.

Coal burning was the biggest single source of such external costs . The damages averaged 3.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 0.16 cents for gas. But the variation among coal plants was enormous.

The worst plants, generally the oldest and burning coal with the highest sulfur content, were 3.6 times worse than the average, with a cost of nearly 12 cents per kilowatt-hour (which is more than the average retail price of that amount of electricity).

The best plants carried a cost of less than a quarter of a penny. Natural gas plants also showed a large variation, but both the best and the worst costs were far smaller than for coal.

Such variation suggests that existing technology could be applied to make the electric system a lot cleaner, experts said. One of the study’s authors, Maureen L. Cropper, an economist at the University of Maryland, said the findings should be used not to raise the price of electricity based on an average of indirect costs but to measure the cost of cleanup on a plant-by-plant basis.

The study did not measure damage from pollution-control devices. “If you’re taking the output of a scrubber and dumping it in the Monongahela River, that’s not in our study, Professor Cropper said.

The study found that operating nuclear plants did not impose significant environmental costs, although uranium mining and processing did. But 95 percent of uranium mining takes place in other countries, the study said. Canada and Australia together account for 44 percent of world production.

The committee did not put a dollar value on the risk of a nuclear accident that would produce environmental damage. It also noted the uncertainty of the cost of long-term disposal of high-level wastes.

The committee said environmental damage from gasoline and diesel fuel cost 1.2 cents to 1.7 cents per mile. A co-author of the study, Daniel S. Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute, said that would come to 23 cents to 38 cents per gallon. Still, Mr. Greenbaum said, “we were hesitant to make that a central part of our findings,” because pollution also results from manufacturing cars.

The study did not calculate the military cost of protecting fuel imports.

As for wind energy, the study said it killed birds but not enough to seriously affect populations. A possible exception was raptors, birds of prey that ordinarily eat species whose numbers are being reduced by spinning turbine blades.

The study was not kind to ethanol. A mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent unleaded gasoline, or E85, showed slightly higher damages to environment and health than ordinary gasoline, because of the energy required to raise the corn and make ethanol from it.

Electric vehicles and vehicles using synthetic diesel fuel, also ranked poorly. The electric vehicles might do better if emissions of heat-trapping gases had been factored in, because they have lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile than gasoline-powered cars. But the cars running on artificial diesel would look slightly worse in that analysis, the study said.

Solar Alliance Takes Positive Position on Feed-in Tariffs

...from Paul Gipe

October 20, 2009

The Solar Alliance, the US industry trade association for solar PV manufacturers and project developers, has recently posted a position paper supportive of feed-in tariffs (FITs) to their web site.

While the industry is portraying the move as a natural evolution of its position, outside observers see it as a major policy development in the US. Previously, board members were split on whether to take a position on feed-in tariffs. Some key industry players openly opposed supportive statements on the policy used so successfully in Europe to install thousands of megawatts of solar PV as well as other renewable energy technologies.

The Solar Alliance is one of several organizations promoting solar PV in the US. The Solar Energy Industries Association, which represents the broader solar industry, has yet to take a formal position on feed-in tariffs. The American Solar Energy Society, representing the professional and academic community, also has not taken a position.

The Canadian Solar Industries Association has previously endorsed the use of feed-in tariffs. (See CanSIA Calls for Dramatic Growth of Solar PV in Ontario Through Higher Tariffs.) CanSIA specifically has called for a system of feed-in tariffs to be used in Ontario to supply 10 percent of the province's electricity (~16 TWh per year) by 2025.

The Solar Alliance's position paper begins with a simple statement: "FITs are often misunderstood but can be useful policy tools".

The document goes on to reiterate the Alliance's continued support for net metering and traditional tax subsidies to reassure readers that their position on feed-in tariffs should, in no way, detract from existing programs. The policy paper says the generator should be given a choice of which program to use where feed-in tariffs and other policies are available simultaneously.

The Alliance then lays out the characteristics necessary for successful feed-in tariff policies. This is as succinct a statement of feed-in tariff best practice as found anywhere. For example, the Alliance states that contracts should be for 20 years, though they acknowledge that some states may offer shorter terms, and that tariffs should be differentiated by technology and project size. The recommendations also include provisions for developing green field sites and not just those by "site owners" or existing utility customers.

However, the position paper limits the Alliance's support for feed-in tariffs to projects only up to 20 MW. There are a number of solar PV projects larger than 20 MW currently operating in Europe and there are many wind and concentrating solar power projects greater than 20 MW as well that have been installed with feed-in tariffs.

The position paper also doesn't specifically mention that feed-in tariff best practice requires tariff setting based on the cost of generation plus a reasonable profit. The Alliance only says that the tariffs should recognize the value of Renewable Energy Credits separately from energy.

The Alliance's paper represents the first clear statement by the association that feed-in tariffs would be an acceptable policy in the US.

Download
Solar Alliance Policy Recommendation: Feed-In-Tariffs

A little heresy on transmission

Posted 3:25 PM on 19 Oct 2009
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-19-a-little-heresy-on-transmission/

by John Farrell

The last thing renewable energy needs right now are new transmission lines.

This statement is heresy in the green community, but there’s a danger that the increasing focus of green energy advocates on a new nationwide transmission superhighway may undermine the pursuit of near-term renewable energy goals.

People are excited by renewable energy. It’s clean. It’s limitless. It’s local. It’s the one kind of energy source that anyone can harness. Public polls show substantial majorities of Americans in every state favoring more renewable energy.

And states have an abundance of renewable energy assets. A new report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance—Energy Self-Reliant States—shows that every state has the potential to meet its renewable energy goal or mandate and that 3 in 5 states could get all of their electricity from in-state renewable resources. Almost every state could get at least 20 percent of its electricity from rooftop solar photovoltaics (PV) alone.

These renewable assets can be tapped for significant local benefits. A single wind turbine, for example, creates $1 million in economic activity, according to the American Wind Energy Association. And that’s just a generic, utility size turbine. Locally owned wind projects can create twice the jobs and 3 to 4 times the economic impact of absentee owned projects.

The benefits from locally harnessed renewable energy create a feedback loop, building even greater public support for clean energy.

People are not so excited about new high-voltage transmission lines.

Transmission legislation moving through Congress would preempt longstanding state regulatory authority over transmission line approval and siting. The goal is to speed the construction of a $100 to 200 billion interstate transmission superhighway, bringing solar power from the Southwest and wind from the Great Plains to the coasts.

Why is this problematic? Let’s ignore for a moment that most people wouldn’t care to live by a 150 foot tower running through a 200 foot swath of denuded landscape. Or to have their land seized for this purpose by eminent domain.

Many states oppose the new transmission superhighway for two reasons. One, it’s expensive. Two, it undermines efforts to reap the economic rewards of renewable energy self-reliance.

In a New York Times Op Ed, the Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Ian Bowles, wrote:

Lawmakers should resist calls to add an extensive and costly new transmission
system that would carry electricity from remote areas like Texas, the Great
Plains, and Eastern Canada to places with high energy demands like Boston,
Chicago, and New York ... Renewable energy resources are found all across the
country; they don’t need to be harnessed from just one place.

In May 2009, the governors of 10 East Coast states wrote to senior members of Congress to protest. Requiring their residents and businesses to pay billions of dollars for new transmission lines that would import electricity from the upper Midwest and Southwest into their region “could jeopardize our states’ efforts to develop wind resources ... “ They added, “it is well accepted that local generation is more responsive and effective in solving reliability issues than long distance energy inputs.”

Nine of the 10 Eastern states whose governors signed the May 2009 letter could get over 80 percent of their electricity from in-state renewable resources, according to Energy Self-Reliant States. And local energy also means fewer legal battles over the siting of unsightly transmission towers, a fact that politicians in that region are unlikely to have overlooked.

It’s not just state energy self-reliance and economic benefits hanging in the balance. A recent study released by Duke University’s Climate Change Policy Partnership throws cold water on the renewable energy transmission passion. It found that the proposed interstate transmission links from regions with low-cost electricity (e.g. the Great Plains) to regions with high-cost electricity (e.g. the East Coast) could enable coal power as easily as renewables, with poor results for carbon emission reductions and other environmental goals.

The evidence undermines the conventional wisdom about high-voltage, long-distance transmission and should raise red flags among advocates. To the people in affected states, a new transmission superhighway is costly, anathema to local energy generation, and a potential enabler of coal-fired power. It creates winners (in the sunny Southwest) and losers (in the “import states” on the East Coast).

A victory for interstate transmission may be at the expense of broader public support for renewable energy.

Renewable energy does not have to be harnessed in a few, select areas and shipped across country. And public support for clean energy may hinge on the opposite.

The ubiquity of renewable energy means that the transition to a clean energy economy can also be a transition to a new, local energy future, where the economic and environmental benefits of powering the economy are everywhere the sun shines.

John Farrell is an Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ISLR) senior researcher specializing in energy policy developments that best expand the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. He has written extensively on the economies of scale of renewable energy, the benefits of decentralized energy generation, and the policies and rules that support locally owned and distributed generation of renewable energy.

He authored one of the leading summaries of feed-in tariffs for the U.S. electricity policy market titled, Feed-in Tariffs in America: Driving the Economy with Renewable Energy Policy that Works.

Speakers criticize Indiana energy laws

By Lana Kunz

Sunday, October 18, 2009

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/oct/18/speakerscriticizeindiana-energy-laws/

If net metering — an idea that allows buildings that use alternative energy sources to sell their extra power back to utilities — were a test, Indiana barely would pass, according to one report.

Indiana earned a D grade on net metering, according to the "Freeing the Grid 2008" report by the Network for New Energy Sources.

A crowd of about 30 people was educated about alternative energy Saturday at the first South West Indiana Solar Tour at the Ohio Township Public Library in Newburgh.

Several of the speakers promoted various alternative sources of energy, but the main focus was educating the public on net metering and Indiana's limited participation requirements for power companies.

"Net metering is this idea that you can spin your meter backward when you're not using energy," said Eric Cotton , a partner at East Central Indiana Wind and Solar.

Net metering allows buildings with alternative energy sources to sell the excess power to the power company.

"We're trying to make people aware that Indiana is behind the times," said Brad Morton, president of Morton Solar and Wind LLC, which sponsored the event.

"Freeing the Grid 2008" also reports that Indiana is the only state to exclude commercial and industrial customers from net metering.

Currently Indiana's regulations only require power companies to buy energy from residential and K-12 schools, even though some facilities "sometimes go above and beyond" what is required, Cotton said.

Vectren Energy also net meters municipal buildings, such as the Ohio Township Public Library, which has solar panels on its roof.

"The law has not caught up with the technology," Morton said.

Some that attended the event do not rely on the power grid at all.

"We built a house where electricity isn't available, hopefully as urban sprawl continues we can eventually connect to the grid," said Doug Gresham, who lives north of Boonville, Ind., off the power grid.

State limits

Current state law limits not only the type of consumer that can sell back energy, but how much they can sell, the size of the system generating the alternative energy, the types of energy utilities are required to buy, pays only a wholesale rate back to the consumer and does not require all power companies to net meter.

"We're trying to focus on getting these laws changed," Morton said. "Most of this stuff is not new, it's just new to Indiana."

The event included a self-guided tour of buildings that use alter-native energy applications.

East Side resident Mark Ambrose said he attended the event, "Just to get an education, I'm very interested in the solar side of this equation."

After purchasing a hybrid vehicle, Ambrose is "slowly embracing the need to lower the need for petroleum" and considering making the next step in adjustments to his home.

Geothermal, solar and wind power were the main alternative energy sources discussed.

"Geothermal is a way to extract energy from the earth and use it as usable energy in your home," President of HF Refrigeration Andy Harbison said in his speech on the geothermal heating and cooling units his company installs.

Harbison said his customers have seen 40 percent to 60 percent off utilities each month with their initial investment paid back in five to seven years.

Morton showed a map compiled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that showed Southwestern Indiana receives more solar intensity than the rest of the state. "Southwest Indiana should take the lead due to its solar resources," Morton said.

Brad Morton with Morton Solar & Wind LLC and Eric Cotton with East Central Indiana Wind & Solar are both Founding Members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association and both serve on the Board of Directors.

Sponsors of the meeting included Evansville-based Sustainable Communities Coalition, the Izaak Walton League of America--Evansville Chapter and the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Energy Self-Reliant States

Energy Self-Reliant States: Second and Expanded Edition Published October 2009
Author: John Farrell
Available Now

How self-sufficient in energy generation could states be if they relied only on their own renewable resources? In November 2008, ILSR began to address this question in Energy Self-Reliant States. That report included a limited set of resources – on-shore wind and rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) – and also examined the potential for biomass-derived transportation fuels.

This updated edition of Energy Self-Reliant States narrows the focus to electricity, but includes virtually all renewable resources (on shore and off shore wind, micro hydro, combined heat and power, geothermal, rooftop PV). We also discuss the potential gains from improving energy efficiency and estimate the per kWh costs for each state to become energy independent.

The data in this report suggest that every state could generate a significant percentage of its electricity with homegrown renewable energy. At least three-fifths of the fifty states could meet all their internal electricity needs from renewable energy generated inside their borders. Every state with a renewable energy mandate can meet it with in-state renewable fuels. And, as the report discusses, even these estimates may be conservative.

Renewable energy is found everywhere and in most cases can be economically harnessed everywhere. Federal policy should encourage all states, communities, individual households and businesses to maximize their internal use of this ubiquitous resource. Such a policy would reinforce the clear desire for states and cities to combine a low carbon energy strategy with an aggressive energy-based economic development strategy.

Regrettably, current federal energy policy largely focuses on harnessing the renewable energy in a handful of states, constructing a $100-200 billion extra high voltage national transmission network and transporting that energy a thousand or more miles to customers in other regions.

The rationale for this focus on new extra high voltage transmission lines is that while renewable energy is widely distributed, the availability of these resources and the cost of harnessing them vary widely.

That is true. Nevada has significantly more annual solar energy than Oregon. North Dakota has higher speed and more reliable wind than Indiana. This means that Nevada can generate solar electricity cheaper than Oregon and North Dakota can generate wind electricity cheaper than Indiana.

However, when transmission costs are taken into account, the net cost variations among states are quite modest. And when we factor in the overall social, environmental and economic benefits to the 50 states from homegrown energy generation, self-reliance is almost always cheaper than import-dependence.

New: See co-author John Farrell interview about this report on Etopia News.

Download
Energy Self-Reliant States 2ed

John Farrell spoke in Indianapolis to the Regulatory Flexibility Committee on September 29, 2009, at the State House on Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts or Feed-in Tariffs.

Schwarzenegger signs 2 renewable energy bills, vetoes others

California will require utilities to pay consumers for generating more solar and wind power than they use and will boost the payoff for certain solar facilities. The laws take effect Jan 1.

By Tiffany Hsu, latimes.com

October 13, 2009

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has approved two major initiatives that will require utilities to pay consumers for generating extra power and will boost the payoff for certain solar facilities.

Homes, businesses and schools that have solar panels or wind turbines previously had no financial incentive to use less electricity than they generated. But AB 920, written by Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), will encourage efficiency, supporters say.

SB 32, by state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino), requires utilities to purchase solar electricity from facilities that produce up to three megawatts and could increase installations on unused spaces such as warehouse roofs. The old limit was 1.5 megawatts.

The two bills will go into effect Jan. 1. Schwarzenegger signed them late Sunday, the last day to act on bills from this year's legislative session.

Under AB 920, the state Public Utilities Commission will set a rate for utilities to compensate customers whose solar or wind systems produce more power than they use in a year. Under California's current law, customers are not paid for any surplus electricity they feed back into the grid.

The state requires that when a consumer installs a solar power system, it be the right size to produce only enough power necessary for on-site use. Rebates from the California Solar Initiative, overseen by the utilities commission, discourage anything larger. So customers who later reduce their energy consumption often end up underutilizing their solar panels.

"The current system instills a perverse incentive for people to waste their solar electricity just so they don't give it away for free to the utilities," said Bernadette Del Chiaro, a clean energy advocate with Environment California, which sponsored the bill.

The new law could boost sales of photovoltaics, especially in regions with sunny summers. Homes that use less power than they did when their solar panels were installed -- such as those that add energy-efficient appliances, insulation or weatherproofing -- and those with children who have moved out can also benefit.

"This bill applies to individual homeowners as well as small businesses, farms, wineries, schools and even affordable housing developments," Huffman said in a statement.

Customers can either receive a check for the extra energy or have credit rolled forward on their electricity bills. Experts, however, said they should expect little profit.

SB 32, meanwhile, could spark more interest in commercial rooftop systems. The law expands an existing program to include municipal utilities, which now must purchase solar power at a set rate until they reach their portion of a statewide 750-megawatt cap. The limit was previously set at 500 megawatts.

The utilities commission will set the rate, which will be higher than market price after incorporating environmental compliance costs and other benefits, said Sue Kateley, executive director of the California Solar Energy Industries Assn., which sponsored the bill.

Between the sweeping solar installations in the desert and the small-scale ones on homes, she said, there had been a category of properties that had plenty of space but didn't use enough power to justify setting up huge solar panels.

But now, owners of large storage units and similar low-energy facilities will be able to install solar power systems and sell the extra electricity back to the utilities, a program known as a feed-in tariff.

The program took cues from countries such as Germany -- where, some in the industry have complained, a similar tariff format stimulated the market so much that prices of solar energy shot too high. Other critics are worried that the tariff could be too low to interest investors.

"We didn't want to replicate the German model, which was a social movement to create an industry," Kateley said. "In California, we already had an industry, but we wanted to fill a market gap. And within the community, it's really exciting because this law will create local jobs."

In a note to the state Senate on Sunday, Schwarzenegger encouraged the utilities commission to continue investigating an expanded tariff for small to medium-size producers of renewable energy.

"In order to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and a Renewable Portfolio Standard of 33% by 2020, we will need to use all the tools available under our existing programs," he said.

But Schwarzenegger vetoed a slate of bills -- including SB 14 and AB 64 -- that would have required the state to rely on renewable resources for at least one-third of its electricity. He has issued an executive order to meet the 33% goal using a different plan and supports efforts to create 1 million solar roofs by 2018.

Assemblyman Paul Krekorian (D-Los Angeles), chairman of a renewable energy committee, called the vetoes a dangerous setback. The bills, Krekorian said, would have created "green" jobs and steadied price volatility while cutting market manipulation from solar hubs outside of California. He said the vetoes would sour developers to the California market, leading them elsewhere.

"If we don't get started now," he said, "our opportunities to complete projects are going to be missed."

tiffany.hsu@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

California FIT & Net Metering Bills Signed

October 13, 2009

California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last week signed two solar bills designed to give added incentive to businesses and homeowners to invest in a solar system and help the state achieve its aggressive renewable energy goals.

AB 920 and SB 32 were both signed on the last possible day the Governor could act on bills passed on the final days of the 2009 legislative session.

The first bill, AB 920, was authored by Assembly member Jared Huffman (D-Marin) and requires utility companies to write a check to their customers for surplus solar electricity generated on an annual basis. Previously, under the state’s net metering law, utility companies were allowed to receive surplus solar electricity from their customers for free.

The bill also requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to set a rate at which utility companies shall compensate solar customers whenever a solar system generates more electricity than a home or business uses in a given year.

The second bill, SB 32, was authored by Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino) and establishes a new feed-in-tariff program for the state. A feed-in-tariff policy requires utility companies to purchase solar electricity at a set rate over a twenty-year period.

AB 920 and SB 32 were both signed on the last possible day the Governor could act on bills passed on the final days of the 2009 legislative session.

New German government won't slash solar power rates: source

http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE59A1HE20091011

Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:58am EDT

By Erik Kirschbaum

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's conservatives and their Free Democrat allies will reform the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) but cuts for solar power rates will be modest to prevent harming the fast-growing industry, a coalition source said on Sunday.

"We're not going to take an axe to the EEG and we obviously won't agree to any changes that would damage such an important sector," a source told Reuters. "Any cut in feed-in tariffs will be modest -- not anywhere near as high (as) some are suggesting."

The FDP and the CDU business wing want reforms to the Renewable Energy Act (EEG). They have talked of cutting state-mandated feed-in tariffs, which utilities pay for CO2-free energy, by some 30 percent.

That has hit share prices of German companies such as Q-Cells, Solarworld, and Conergy.

The coalition source said any cut agreed would be far less than that -- most likely in a range somewhere around 15 percent.

The FDP and their allies have demanded steeper cuts to the scheme that requires power consumers to subsidize green energy through higher electricity bills. The EEG adds about 3 percent to monthly power bills, or 9 billion euros per year.

But CDU leaders in states with photovoltaic industries -- Saxony, Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt, Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg -- have blocked steeper cuts in past reforms. The source said those states were again aligned against any radical cuts.

"Germany is a world leader in photovoltaic and you can't go out and destroy that industry," the coalition source said. "We're not going to allow anyone to run roughshod. There's scope for a correction and we'll agree to explore a modest reduction."

The photovoltaic industry in Germany has continued growing strongly despite the economic crisis of the last year, he added.

"It's not only big companies but many smaller installation and electric companies that depend on the solar industry," he said. "It's essential that lawmakers remain a reliable partner."

He said he was sure key CDU leaders "could not agree" to any demand for a 30-percent cut as some have called for. He declined to specify what would be acceptable but hinted a reduction in the feed-in tariff of about 15 percent could win broader backing.

Utilities are now obligated to pay 43 cents per kilowatt for 20 years for photovoltaic for systems installed in 2009. That rate has been falling by roughly 8 percent per year and is scheduled to drop by 9 percent in 2010 to 39 cents per kilowatt.

Returns on investment have nevertheless soared in recent years as costs for photovoltaic systems declined at a much steeper rate. There are 280,000 jobs in Germany's renewable energy sector, including 80,000 in photovoltaic.

The photovoltaic industry has boomed since the EEG was created in 2000. More than half the world's photovoltaic energy is produced in Germany.

(Reporting by Erik Kirschbaum; editing by Simon Jessop)

Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)

By JOHN KERRY and LINDSEY GRAHAM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html

Washington

CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress
passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly
approaching zero. The divisions in our country on how to deal
with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new
standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global
warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to
Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant
about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.

However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States
cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We
are also convinced that we have found both a framework for
climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a
clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect
current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national
security and reduce pollution.

Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus
that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate
change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not
months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.

It’s true that we come from different parts of the country
and represent different constituencies and that we supported
different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have
different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that
the best way to make America stronger is to work together to
address an urgent crisis facing the world.

This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine
bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put
forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among
Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with
stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new
beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and
legislation that is already before Congress.

First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our
economy and national security. That is why we are advocating
aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that
cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major
emitters through a market-based system that will provide both
flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance
without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs
overseas.

Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind
and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our
single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear
power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if
we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to
jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the
construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit
system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing
utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do
more to encourage serious investment in research and development
to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.

Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get
serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too
long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts
and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity
generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we
will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental
goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States
should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this
reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for
companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration
technology.

In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on
additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration —
work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last
Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an
environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and
interests of our coastal states.

Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas.
China and India are among the many countries investing heavily
in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs.
There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to
countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this
reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in
countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with
our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates
strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough
environmental protections.

Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses
— and ultimately consumers — from increases in
energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a
floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This
will also safeguard important industries while they make the
investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize
there will be short-term transition costs associated with any
climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also
believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous.

Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our
dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency
strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the
military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to
sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our
security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability
and poverty that could put our nation at risk.

Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not
pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration
will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new
regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and
they certainly will not include the job protections and
investment incentives we are proposing.

The message to those who have stalled for years is clear:
killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat
of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the
legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to
Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and
investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that
comes with Congressional action.

We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put
America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators
to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist
that the rest of the world join us in producing a new
international agreement on global warming. That way, we will
pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean
environment and an energy-independent nation.

John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey
Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.