Green Counsel

Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard Needs Support

Just got this important information from the Appalachian Mountain Club regarding the federal renewable portfolio standard that needs support in the House of Representatives:

Renewable energy standards are among the most important components of climate change legislation, ensuring that an increasing percentage of our energy demand comes from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro power. The U.S. House of Representatives is currently considering an amendment to the proposed energy bill that would require that 20% of U.S. electricity demand come from renewable energy sources. The Udall-Platts Amendment, HR 969, will come up for a vote next Tuesday, July 31. A similar amendment was already struck down in the Senate, meaning that the passage of the Udall-Platt Amendment is the only way to keep the issue of renewable electricity standards alive in this energy bill.

The effort to pass the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) amendment got a boost this week when 19 Democrats, lead by Rep. John Hall of New York and Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, sent a letter (PDF) to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging her to include a renewables standard in this summer’s bill. To see the signers, go here (PDF).

You can help by calling or emailing your U.S. Representative and asking him or her to support HR 969. If your member is one of the folks who sent the support letter to Speaker Pelosi, please call and thank them for their leadership in the fight against climate change. To find out the phone number of your Representative, go to www.lcv.org and enter your zip code. You can also send an e-mail to your Representative by going to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ RES Campaign Individual Action page and clicking the link to e-mail your member of Congress. Some points you might want to make on the phone or in your e-mail include:

* HR 969 creates a growing market for clean, renewable energy that increases gradually to 20% by 2020.
* It is a solution to global warming that creates good-paying jobs and increases farm income.
* It’s a way to save consumers money on their utility bills by increasing the competition from renewable energy sources and reducing the demand for natural gas.
* A national renewable standard is needed because, while 21 states and the District of Columbia have renewable standards, a national standard is needed to harness the price stability, energy security, economic development, and environmental benefits of renewable energy for the entire country.
* Renewable standards give utilities options. Through a nationwide trading system of renewable energy credits (RECs), energy producers can purchase renewable energy credits from the lowest-cost producer anywhere in the country.

* To see further points, go to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ RES campaign talking points document.

It is crucial that the United States respond to the reality of climate change as soon as possible. The sooner we start making changes to the way we consume energy, the lesser the impact of climate change will be on our lives and our planet. Please call your Representative today and tell him or her how important it is for you, your family, and the Appalachian region that we start making substantive energy changes!

US Solar Tax Credit Needs Help

The Securing America’s Energy Independence Act (SAEI)(H.R. 550, S. 590) currently has 54 cosponsors in the House and 13 in the Senate. To see the current list of cosponsors, go here. But for the bill to become law, it needs help! To help, copy and paste the text below into an email to your colleagues, family and friends.

Re: Ask Congress to Support Solar Energy!

Dear colleagues and friends,

With clean energy becoming a central issue for the Congress and our country, we have the biggest opportunity yet to jumpstart solar – but we need your help to make it happen. The newly introduced "Securing America's Energy Independence Act" is the largest, most important solar energy legislation ever introduced in this country.

The bi-partisan legislation (introduced in the House as HR. 550 and the Senate as S. 590) would make America's energy future a lot brighter by making solar energy more affordable across the country. In many states, solar would be cheaper than buying electricity from the grid.

Specifically, the bill extends the 30% federal solar investment tax credit (currently set to expire at the end of 2008) for another 8 years, modifies the photovoltaics incentive to $1500 per half-kW of capacity and removes the $2000 residential cap.

Solar energy has the potential to provide much of the electricity our country needs. Temporary financial incentives are necessary to build economies of scale—and extending the tax credits over a longer period gives the solar industry the market certainty necessary to make long-term investments.

Use the link below to email your elected representatives, tell them how important building a clean, renewable energy future is to you, and ask them to co-sponsor the "Securing America's Energy Independence Act.”

Please forward this email on to family, friends and colleagues who support solar energy development in the United States.

http://seia.org/cosponsors.php

Thank you.

U.S. Taxpayers Owe Billions for Delays in Nuclear Dump

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the US taxpayers will owe $7 billion in damages for delays in opening the nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain (seen above) if the repository opens in 2017 -- the earliest date now possible -- and any further delays will raise the price $500 million per year.

Although it's not entirely clear from the story, apparently we (thanks to the federal government) have assumed financial obligations for permanent storage of nuclear waste, which turns into a tremendous taxpayer subsidy to the nuclear industry.

Why, when and how were these obligations assumed and how long do they last? The article says "the money would reimburse current and former nuclear plant operators who signed contracts under which the federal government agreed to begin accepting their wastes in 1998."

Why can't the feds terminate those obligations for waste created in the future, and place the financial burden where it belongs, on the industry creating the waste?

Photo Credit: www.whitehouse.gov

Risk of Feds Reining in States on Global Warming

For years, while people around the country (indeed, the world) have called for strong federal action on climate change, states including California and NJ have taken the lead and implemented a wide variety of laws and programs.

Ironically, as Congress finally begins debating what to do about global warming, there's a risk now that federal action could undermine some of these local actions, and a number of state and local officials went to Washington this week to help assure this wont happen.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nichols, NJ Governor John Corzine and others told a Senate Committee that the feds could help most by providing money for research and implementing broad guidelines for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nichols also said Congress should pass a plan "that calls for a hard and declining cap on emissions and allows for carbon trading among entities."

Local officials warned, however, that Congress should not pass legislation that would undercut aggressive state and local programs. This could happen because when Congress acts in a particular area, that law sometimes preempts any similar or conflicting state law. If Congress sets lower standards than exist in a state, for example, the federal standards might govern.

After years of largely ignoring the issue, Congress has been moving aggressively to draft global warming legislation, and Thursday's hearing was designed to examine local programs that might contribute to federal legislation. Twenty-nine states have already passed legislation limiting greenhouse gases, and 409 mayors have signed a climate-protection agreement. On Monday, the governors of Washington, California, Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico announced a regional agreement on climate change.

For more info see: "Nickels warns U.S. Senate to not rein in cities fighting global warming".

An Inconvenient Tax

It's basic economics that the price of goods and services should reflect (or “internalize”) all the societal costs of those goods and services. Yet the price of many products -- including electricity, gasoline and other fossil fuels -- frequently does not include all costs, particularly those related to global warming. This is not suprising given that most of us had no idea that there was any external “cost” to greenhouse gas emissions until the late 80's.

One proposal often floated to “internalize” the costs of greenhouse gases is a carbon tax, but because of American’s great aversion to taxes, the proposal is usually discarded even before it is considered. Now comes the Carbon Tax Center -- a much needed forum for discussion about carbon taxes.

In addition to providing reports and information about a carbon tax, the Center will “provide intellectual and practical support, as well as a sense of community, to help carbon tax proponents . . . across the political spectrum coalesce into an irresistible civic force."

The Center is founded by Dan Rosenblum and Charles Komanoff, who bring a combined six decades of experience in economics, law, public policy and social change. It includes a blog, a monthly newsletter (titled "An Inconvenient Tax"), and compares a carbon tax with cap-and-trade solutions. They also provide an excellent slideshow concerning the carbon tax:

Justice Talking: Global Warming

The NPR show Justice Talking had an excellent show last month on "Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming."
Issues discussed include cap and trade policies and legislation, Massachusetts v. EPA (does Clean Air Act regulate carbon, and must EPA regulate carbon?); and a discussion about whether the United States must take a leading role in order for the world to take effective action on global warming. The show is an accessible primer on the both the environmental and legal challenges of global warming.

The show can be heard by stream or MP3 download, and a transcript is available.

Military: $75 Billion; Energy: $4 Billion

Excellent front page article in the NY Times today about the daunting tasks ahead, especially for research and development, in tackling global warming.

Among the startling facts: annual government spending for research and development peaked during the 1970's oil crises and has since fallen from $7.7 billion to approximately $3 billion (in 2006 dollars). Annual military research and development spending is more than $75 billion (a 260% increase).

Experts believe that a broad range of strategies are needed including existing ones such as solar, wind, CO2 capture and energy efficiency. Many also believe that a sustained push is needed to find "energy technologies that don't have a name yet" designed by future scientists still in diapers.

John Hall, Environmentalist, For Congress

John Hall --- of Orleans, "Dance with Me," and "Still the One" fame -- was just endorsed by the Sierra Club -- and has an excellent chance of beating incumbent Sue Kelly in the 19th Congressional District in New York, and helping the Democrats take back Congress. John has been a long time supporter of the environment and clean energy, and is the kind of representative the entire country needs if we are going to meet the energy and environmental challenges we face.

John needs money and support from people all around the country, and the best way to start is to visit his website. I highly recommend viewing his appearance on the Colbert Report last night here. John is very strong, Colbert is hilarious, and the segment includes several effective and funny stabs against the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, which is located within the 19th Congressional District.

Here's John's plan to solve our energy issues that includes a long term Apollo-like program based upon research and development, energy efficiency and renewables:

"Solving the Energy Crisis [FROM JOHNHALL.COM WEBSITE]

One of the most glaring failures of Congress and the Bush administration is in the lack of a coherent, forward looking energy policy. Instead of developing alternatives that put the United Stated in the position of marketing new technologies to the rest of the world, this oil-based cadre of government officials has given tax breaks and incentives to oil, coal and nuclear companies at a time when they are already making record profits.

I propose the following:

An Apollo-program or Marshall Plan equivalent commitment to conservation and alternative energy: solar, wind, hydroelectric, bio-diesel, geothermal, and old-fashioned efficiency.

Raise CAFE standards. If Toyota and Honda can produce a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon, don't tell me Detroit can't. Government must mandate what CEO's refuse to do in the public interest; high standards and incentives will move consumers and companies, especially if government at all levels favors efficiency in their fleet vehicle purchases.

Low-head hydroelectric sites, which number in the thousands in the Northeast alone, should be immediately utilized by installing turbines and indemnifying localities or private owners. Studies ranging from NSERDA in the 70's to the Idaho National Laboratory in 1998 show that untapped hydro sites in New York could make a significant dent in New York City's power demand. (>1200 megawatts - INL 1998) Massachusetts, according to a recent report, has more than four thousand low-head sites.

Bio-diesel runs Willie Nelson's bus and the Clearwater Festival's generators, yet it doesn't have the support from our tax dollars that fossil fuels have. Why? Let's pay American farmers to grow our fuel rather than funneling that money to Middle East oil potentates who fund terrorist organizations.
Ask everybody to be part of the effort. In order to maintain our independence from foreign suppliers and creditors, we should all be willing to conserve as much as possible. Grocery stores and convenience stores should put doors or at least plastic sheeting on cold food cases; subdivision rules banning clotheslines should be lifted; weather-stripping, insulation and storm windows should be provided by government for all older houses and apartment buildings where the owner can't afford them. Unnecessary lighting should be turned off, and the president and Congress should set an example for the rest of us. A kilowatt or barrel saved is the same as one earned.

A crash program to develop solar, and related technologies including hydrogen, should be our new national priority. As kilowatts are replaced by these new systems, our most polluting plants should be taken off line. We should also shut down and decommission our nuclear plants, starting with Indian Point and others that are sited in heavily populated areas where evacuation would be impossible.

The insurance underwriting and subsidies that have been granted for half a century to the nuclear industry should be canceled, and instead be extended to safe, sustainable, alternative energy projects. If we can put a man on the moon, if we can connect the whole planet via the Internet, surely we can kick our addiction to oil, coal and nuclear, energy sources that threaten our health and security."

Bush's "Go to China" Moment on the Environment?

There's been buzz recently that the Bush Administration might be planning a turnaround on climate change issues which, after years of denial, has been compared to Nixon's trip China after years of communist bashing.

Well maybe Bush should do more than metaphorically "go to China" and actually follow some of China's recent action on the environment. China recently announced the following major steps:

1) China now mandates energy efficiency standards in urban construction and requires construction contractors to use energy efficient building materials and adopt energy saving technology in heating, air conditioning, ventilation and lighting systems in public buildings. Full Story.

2) China expects to cut water consumption 30 percent by 2010, as part of efforts to propel a sustainable development, by increasing the efficiency of agricultural irrigation, and cutting industrial water consumption. Full Story.

3) China plans to invest 1.4 trillion yuan (US$175 billion) in environmental protection between 2006 and 2010 - more than 1.5 percent of the national GDP. Full Story.

Also, even though China has for many years has been seen as a threat to the environment, green business opportunites are now growing. Full Story.

Regarding Bush's conversion, some of stories floating state that Bush plans a goal of stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the global atmosphere at 450 parts per million by the year 2106. Yes, you read right, in one hundred years (phew, I feel better now). And let us not forget Bush's prior statement on the subject. :-)

Gas Prices, the Election and the Future of the World

A USA Today/Gallup poll last week found that 42 percent of the roughly 1,000 adults surveyed across the United States believed President George W. Bush’s administration had “deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections.” The White House, or course, denied it.

But given the strong ties of the Republicans generally, and this Administration in particular, with the oil industry, the industry has every reason to help the Republicans hold onto Congress, and polls make clear that Bush's popularity has always been tied to the price of gasoline. It doesn't take a "conspiracy" with the White House, or even overt collusion among the oil companies, to achieve the desired effect.

The power of the industry is staggering, and the Bush/Cheney/Energy Alliance is one of the greatest barriers to sustainability that we face.