Governors of Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona and New Mexico Will Work Together to Set Caps on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
[From the Oregonian:]
Oregon will join four other Western states in setting limits on greenhouse gases produced by everything from the car you drive to the power plant that supplies your electricity.
In taking the action Monday, Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona and New Mexico build momentum for a national strategy to control carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. States are increasingly pressing forward on their own amid inaction by the Bush administration and Congress.
Capping emissions from fossil-fuel burning power plants could also push energy companies toward wind and other renewable energy.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski helped broker the five-state deal and signed onto it Monday with the governors of the other states.
[Image: The five western states joining the global warming compact represent about 11% of total United States emissions of global warming pollutants. The five states will set goals and create a strategy to reduce emissions within 18 months.]
The compact "sends a message to Congress and the White House that if they fail to enact policies at the national level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do our nation's part to combat global warming, that states will do it on their own," Kulongoski said.
The governors said the West is especially vulnerable, as global warming leads to more severe droughts and wildfires; and earlier snowmelt, leaving less water in the heat of summer.
Each of the states in the western strategy was already acting on its own to address global warming. All the governors who signed the agreement are Democrats, except Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.
The strategy has potential to grow to include other states and British Columbia, which has invited West Coast states to join its efforts, said David Van't Hof, an adviser to Kulongoski. He said a primary goal of the strategy is to motivate the federal government to act, and to protect the interests of Western states if it does.
"Rather than wait for them to act, we're trying to influence where it's heading," Van't Hof said.
East Coast pact
The western effort is the second broad regional move to address global warming. Nine Eastern states have already joined to limit emissions from power plants only and create a cap-and-trade system for the plants to buy and sell credits they get for reducing emissions.
The Western states strategy is general and does not specify how the states will control greenhouse gases. But they will target all the major sources: vehicle exhaust and industrial sources as well, according to the governors and their aides.
To start out, the states will set goals for slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and then cutting them back. Then, within 18 months, they will establish a strategy for reducing the emissions.
One option is a cap-and-trade system that limits carbon dioxide released as electricity is generated. It would require utilities that sell electricity in Oregon, for instance, to control the resulting carbon dioxide. If they cannot control it, they might instead buy credits from those that do.
Utilities could also fund programs to offset their emissions by planting trees to soak up the gases, for example.
Emissions limits would probably also extend to vehicles in some form, since they produce about a third of carbon dioxide released nationwide. Oregon has already adopted stricter tailpipe standards that reduce vehicle pollution and emissions.
Limiting power plant emissions will probably push electricity prices up a few percent or more as power companies pay for the controls. But a draft strategy developed in Oregon would channel more money into making homes and businesses more energy efficient, so they would burn less power overall and their bills might decline.
"You're either behind the curve or you're ahead of it, and this puts Oregon ahead of it," said Jason Eisdorfer, an attorney with Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon. "Oregon is not going to solve global warming itself, but these five states together can make a significant contribution."
Depending on the approach, the Legislature would probably have to approve greenhouse gas controls. California has already instituted tough limits on carbon dioxide and is talking with the United Kingdom about combining forces in a joint strategy.
The Western states that joined the strategy Monday together emit about 11 percent of all carbon dioxide nationwide. Experts said that by itself shows that the effort must expand if it's going to have much hope of heading off global warming.
"Even the U.S., by itself, isn't going to deal with this problem," said Mark Trexler, president of Trexler Climate + Energy Solutions, a Portland consultant who helps companies prepare for global warming regulations.
Utilities' hope
Power company officials said Monday they hope the Western states' strategy paves the way for a national system to control greenhouse gases. They said they would prefer a nationwide program to a complicated web of state and regional strategies.
"It would be nice to have something consistent," said Bekki Witt, a spokeswoman for PacifiCorp, which operates and buys power from 14 coal and natural gas plants.
The more states are involved, the broader the opportunities will be to buy and sell emissions credits in a way that keeps power prices down, said Dave Robertson, government affairs director at Portland General Electric. PGE is lobbying for national legislation, he said.
Many leading utility companies are now doing the same.
By driving up the price of fossil-fuel based power plants, the strategy could shift more efforts toward the development of renewable energy from the sun, wind and waves.
"It is also a huge economic development opportunity, particularly for those states who are most aggressive in leading the charge toward a clean energy future," Kulongoski said.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
News From My Backyard: Five Western States Team Up to Battle Global Warming
Saturday, February 24, 2007
News From My Backyard: Agreement Reached to Develop Wave Power Park in Oregon
Ocean Power Technologies and Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative to Partner on Reedsport Wave Park
[From Renewable Energy Access.com:]
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc (OPT) and Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative (PNGC Power) have signed an agreement to work cooperatively on the development of the Reedsport OPT Wave Park in Douglas County, Oregon [see previous post].
OPT expects to install its ocean-tested PowerBuoy systems -- initially generating a total of 2 megawatts (MW) -- approximately 2.5 miles off the coast at a depth of 50 meters. OPT has been issued a preliminary permit by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for up to 50 MW of capacity at the site, and plans to develop, own and operate the initial 2 MW wave power park.
In addition to supporting OPT in the permitting process and power transmission for the project, PNGC Power will work cooperatively with OPT to pursue a power purchase agreement (PPA), under which PNGC Power would purchase the electrical energy output of the 2 MW wave power park from OPT. PNGC Power plans to provide a significant portion of the funds required to fabricate and install the first PowerBuoy at the Reedsport site.
Further, PNGC Power will provide its expertise regarding grid interconnection and its experience in meeting the standards of the Bonneville Power Administration, which operates much of the region's power system.
Dr. George W. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of OPT, said: "We are pleased that PNGC Power has pledged their support for this project and to be working cooperatively with them. PNGC Power has demonstrated the vision and leadership to harness our Earth's most powerful and consistent natural resource -- the ocean."
[Photo credit: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc.]
Friday, February 23, 2007
Doubling Colorado's Renewable Energy Standard Could Add $1.9B to State's Economy
[From Wind Energy Weekly/AWEA:]
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter (D) joined clean energy advocates to announce a new report showing that if the state doubled its renewable energy by 20%, it would add $1.9 billion to the gross domestic production in the state.
“More clean, homegrown energy means more jobs and higher wages paid for Coloradans,” said Ritter. “Increasing our use of renewable energy would bring over 4,000 high-paying, high-skilled jobs and over $570 million in wages paid to our state.”
The economic boon would come from increased manufacturing, installation, and operation of renewable electricity production, according to the report, which is entitled “Energy for Colorado’s Economy.” Produced by Environment Colorado, 
the report compares economic and environmental benefits of three alternative polices on electricity production, including “business-as-usual” with fossil fuel production, Amendment 37 which set a 10% renewable energy standard, and the 20% goal currently being considered by the Colorado state legislature.
The Environment Colorado report found job creation was 4.3 times higher, wages paid was 2.2 times higher, and an increase in gross domestic product was 1.9 times higher for a 20% renewable energy standard than under Amendment 37.
“We have only just begun to tap the potential of a New Energy Economy,” said Ritter. “Continued investment in clean energy helps our state ensure economic prosperity.”
The report shows that a 20% renewable energy goal would also result in significant reductions of soot, smog, and mercury pollution. Also, since wind and most solar resources use a negligible amount of water compared to fossil fuel sources, Colorado could save over 18 billion gallons of water by 2020, according to the report.
“Increasing our use of wind and solar power will help continue to unlock the economic potential of rural Colorado,” said Lee Swenson, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. “ Colorado farmers benefit most from homegrown power and earn anywhere from $4,000 to $7,000 for each wind [turbine] on their farms. Increasing the opportunities for community-based energy generation, on farms and ranches, will provide even greater economic benefits and returns to the rural economy.”
Craig Cox, executive director of Interwest Energy Alliance, noted that renewable energy policies help build the manufacturing sector. “A robust local renewable energy market is one of the number one things [wind power and other renewable] manufacturers will need before deciding to set up shop,” said Cox. “By doubling Colorado’s renewable energy standard to 20% by 2020, we become a competitive state for new manufacturing facilities.”
The report is available at www.environmentcolorado.org.
In 2004, Colordao became the first state in the country to enact a Renewable Energy Standard by popular referendum. Amendment 37 requires Colorado's larger utilities to get 10% of their energy from clean, homegrown, renewable energy sources by 2015. It now appears that Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest utility, is on track to blow through the 10% target several years ahead of schedule, and the Colorado State Legislature is considering expanding the RES to 20% by 2020.
Minnesota Renewable Energy Standard Signed Into Law
New Aggressive Standard Sits Well With Xcel, Minnesota's Largest Utility
[From Wind Energy Weekly/AWEA:]
Culminating two weeks of rapidly unfolding events, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R, picuted left), on February 22 signed into law a renewable energy requirement for 25% of the electricity produced by the state’s utilities to come from renewables by 2025.
Earlier in the week, the state House of Representatives passed the bill in a decisive 123-10 vote that had strong bipartisan support. The legislation also received overwhelming support in the state Senate, passing by a 61-4 margin earlier this month (see Wind Energy Weekly #1227). Depending on load growth and assuming that the entire “Renewable Electricity Standard” (RES) is reached through the deployment of wind power, it is expected that the state will need between 5,500 MW and 6,300 MW in new wind projects.
“This Renewable [Electricity] Standard blows open the door to a new electricity industry that will bring thousands of jobs and pump billions of dollars into Minnesota’s economy,” said Michael Noble, executive director of Fresh Energy, a Wind Energy Works! coalition member and non-profit organization that works to lead a transition to a clean energy system. “It makes economic and environmental sense to create 25% of our electricity . . . and aggressively look at the options available to create global warming solutions in our state.”
The law specifies incremental benchmarks for utilities, with Xcel Energy’s RES ultimately reaching as high as 30%: 15% by 2010, 18% by 2012, 25% by 2016, and 30% by 2020. All other utilities, meanwhile, have a requirement of 7% by 2010, 12% by 2012, 17% by 2016, 20% by 2020, and 25% by 2025.
Xcel Energy, one of the entities that worked with the bill’s authors during its development, said that overall, the RES is a good piece of legislation. “We think it strikes a good balance between pursuing an aggressive wind standard and protecting our ratepayers,” Rick Evans, the director of government affairs for Xcel Energy in Minnesota, told Wind Energy Weekly.
Explaining how stakeholders had “a lot of discussions [with state officials] about “what could go wrong,” Evans said his company specifically liked the fact that any challenges in meeting the RES were to be taken to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which he called “the right place to go” to address such issues. The legislation allows for the possibility of the targets to be delayed, but only if the PUC determines that it would be in the public interest to do so; further, the bill includes language to ensure that various roadblocks would not indefinitely delay or prove fatal to implementation of the RES for any utility. For example, transmission constraints and delivery issues would be one legitimate reason for utilities not hitting RES targets; however, in that event, utilities would be required to move forward in the regulatory and construction process for the needed new transmission.
While highlighting the importance of what he called “ratepayer safeguards,” Evans made clear that, “We think we can accomplish this [RES].”
I guess adding the flexibility of being able to ask the Public Utility Commission to delay targets if they become too challenging to meet secured Xcel Energy's support for the Renewable Energy Standard. I'm a bit concerned about the level of flexibility this adds to the standard (policies have to have some teeth to them to ensure compliance), but having the state's largest utility on board throughout the process must have been instrumental in securing the kind of overwhelming support recieved by the MN RES. This policy practically flew through both the House and the Senate!
MN now jumps to the front of the pack of clean energy states, with perhaps the most aggressive ramp up rate for new renewables of any Renewable Energy Standard policy.
With any luck, Oregon will be snapping at their heals by the end of the year, although passing our RES is shaping up to be a bit more of a fight than the MN RES. Oregon's Governor Kulongoski has proposed a 25% by 2025 Renewable Energy Standard which will be right behind Minnesota's new policy in terms of the rate at which it requires Oregon's utility's to add new renewable energy sources to their mix.
I'm working hard at the Renewable Northwest Project to pass Oregon's RES. For more information on the Oregon RES, head to www.poweringoregonsfuture.org...
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Minnesota House Passes Renewable Energy Standard - Governor Pledges to Sign Bill
123 to 10 Votes Shows Overwhelming Support for a Clean Energy Future
[From the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune:]
The Minnesota Legislature adopted the strongest renewable-energy standards in the nation Monday night when the House overwhelmingly approved the legislation.
The bill, which passed 123-10, mandates more production of such things as wind, hydrogen and solar power and sets in motion a timetable to increase the state's use of renewable energy for the next 18 years.
Identical legislation already has passed the Senate. The bill, which went through a delicate political navigation that included the utilities, environmental groups and business, now heads to Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has pledged to sign it.
As of 2006, 23 states have established similar targets, but the Minnesota legislation would leapfrog the state to the front of renewable-energy generation nationwide.
Besides hoped-for environmental benefits, backers hail the measure as a way of producing home-grown energy, rather than being forced to rely on the vagaries of foreign fossil fuels.
Production and operation of such things as wind turbines could bring jobs to rural areas of the state long in need of steady work.
"Right now, Minnesota imports more electricity than any other state. We need to keep more of our money at home," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Aaron Peterson, DFL-Appleton.
It has been estimated that, when implemented, the use of renewable energy under the bill will save consumers and businesses as much as $500 million a year.
The measure requires the state's energy companies, except Xcel Energy, to provide 25 percent of their power through renewable sources by 2025. Xcel, which represents about half the state's electricity, would generate 30 percent renewable energy by 2020.
The proposal would require adding about 5,000 megawatts of renewable generating capacity to Minnesota's electricity grid, about eight times more than the state currently generates from renewable sources.
Most of the additional renewable energy probably would come from an estimated 3,000 new giant wind turbines that would dot farm country, but it could also come from other sources such as biomass.
Concerns raised about costs
During the House debate, critics registered concerns about the potential costs of implementing the mandates, suggesting that ratepayers might be forced to bear an undue burden for implementation.
One amendment, from Paul Kohls, R-Victoria, would have allowed an exemption from the mandates if those rules would cause rates to increase by 10 percent or more.
"We all support renewable energy, absolutely," Kohls said. "But let's make sure we're doing it in a way that our constituents -- yours and mine -- can afford."
That amendment failed.
"We don't want politicians setting the rates," said one opponent of the amendment, Rep. Dennis Ozment, R-Rosemount.
Another amendment sought to allow the state to consider construction of new nuclear power plants. Minnesota is the only state that prohibits such construction.
"If we are to achieve energy independence in the U.S., all states need to keep nuclear energy as an option," said the amendment's author, Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers. It also failed.
Three states -- California, Texas and Iowa -- produce more wind-generated electricity than Minnesota, which added 145 megawatts of wind power in 2006, enough to light 43,500 homes.
Xcel, the nation's leading utility in using wind power, purchased about 1,000 megawatts of turbine-generated electricity last year and hopes to increase that to 2,300 megawatts this year. The utility recently announced plans to build a $210 million wind farm in Minnesota that will generate 100 megawatts of electricity by 2009.
The bill gives the state's Public Utilities Commission some leeway in determining whether to delay or modify implementation of the rules. The commission can consider such things as the potential impact on customer fees, issues of reliability, siting delays and transmission restraints.
The bill also allows utilities that exceed their required amounts of renewable energy to sell credits to other utilities.
I don't know what it is about Minnesota's political situation, but I am very impressed by how quickly this Renewable Energy Standard flew through the state legislature and the degree of support it recieved. The companion bill passed the Senate with a 64-1 vote after only a couple of days of debate and made it out of both committees with a unanimous vote in the Senate and only one nay in the House, if I'm not mistaken.
Those are the kind of results I can only dream about as I work on passing Oregon's proposed 25% by 2025 Renewable Energy Standard. We're looking at a much longer fight in the legislature, and although I am optimistic it will pass eventually, it will probably not be by anything like the kind of margin of victory for Minnesota's RES.
I'm not sure exactly how the math works out, but Minnesota is now claiming the most aggressive RES in the nation. With Xcel making up about half of the state's load and having to meet the more aggressive target and deadlines (30% by 2020 instead of 25% by 2025 for the rest of the state's utilities), I would imagine that that claim is justified.
Bravo Minnesota!
[A hat tip to Jenny Bedell-Stiles]
Monday, February 19, 2007
Airtricity Invests $1.5 B to Transmit 4,200 MW of Wind Energy in Texas
[From RenewableEnergyAccess.com:]
A consortia backed by Airtricity has committed to the construction of a 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission 'loop' in the Texas Panhandle Plains region: The $1.5 billion 'Panhandle Loop' will be a 800-mile 'looped' transmission project bringing 4,200 megawatt (MW) of wind energy to more than one million homes.
The proposal for the three interconnected transmission lines extending from three separate loops on the grid has been filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and, once approved, all parties are committed to moving it forward with a goal of project completion as early as late 2010.
The consortia behind the Panhandle Loop include Airtricity, Inc.; Babcock & Brown Renewable Holdings Inc; Celanese, Ltd.; Occidental Energy Ventures Corp.; and Sharyland Utilities, L.P.
"The Panhandle Loop project is like constructing a power station greater than the entire generation for Ireland and building it by 2010," said Airtricity's Chief Executive, Eddie O'Connor.
Airtricity, an integrated utility that generates and supplies green electricity, currently supplies renewable electricity to more than 35,000 commercial customers in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is actively developing wind farms onshore and offshore throughout Europe (Ireland, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands), the U.S. and Canada, and has wind farms operating across Ireland and in Scotland at Ardrossan.
I don't know where they are getting their capital, but Airtricity has big visions and big plans, and if this project is any indication, it looks like they might actually be able to pull it off. More power to them!
Get Steamed: Congress Should Restore Geothermal R&D Funding
[An editorial from the Salt Lake Tribune:]
They don't require the damming of free-flowing rivers. They don't emit greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. They don't produce nuclear waste, create the potential for a disastrous accident or pose a terrorist threat.
Geothermal power plants, by tapping the underground heat of the Earth and converting it to electricity, provide one of the cleanest, safest sources of renewable energy. And Utah is a prime location for geothermal energy development.
We're sitting on a gold mine, folks, a gold mine of hot water, steam, magma and super-heated bedrock. Some day, if we're willing to make the investment in research and development to allow it to be tapped in a profitable manner, geothermal energy could contribute mightily to our nation's energy supply.
And while the Bush administration acknowledged that fact by extending production tax credits for geothermal power plants through 2008, it is attempting to eliminate geothermal research funding for the second year in a row. The budget cut equates to $25 million, just a drop in the $2.9 trillion budget bucket for fiscal 2008. Last year, Congress had the sense to restore the funding, and we're hoping for a repeat performance.
The administration has its reasons, none of them valid. Craig Stevens, chief spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy, says geothermal energy production is a "mature technology," and the power industry
Advertisement should be able to take it from here.
Yet geothermal power plants provide just a fraction, less than 1 percent, of the nation's electricity. That doesn't sound like a mature industry to us. Plants, wells and pipelines are expensive to build. It can cost $110 million for a 50-megawatt plant to serve 50,000 people. And they're expensive to operate. Corrosive water can foul turbines, reservoirs must be managed, sludge must be disposed of.
More research is needed to make the process profitable, and the DOE's Geothermal Technologies Program has a lot of toes in the water. Federal researchers have been working hard to help solve the industry's problems, from plant operations to site exploration. Karl Galwell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association, said the research dollars will pay dividends.
We agree. Researchers are sure to hit some gushers. If Congress fails to restore the research funding, we should all be steamed.
Geothermal power plants provide one of the cleanest, safest sources of renewable energy on Earth.
Well said
Tesla Motors to Build Assembly Plant in New Mexico - Will Produce WhiteStar All-Electric Sports Sedan
New Mexico Governor Investigating Fleet Purchase of 100 WhiteStar Sedans
[From Green Car Congress:]
Tesla Motors [makers of the Tesla Roadster all-electric sports car (pictured left)] will build its new automobile assembly facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Construction on the 150,000 square foot plant will begin in April 2007, at the latest.
The New Mexico plant will be the company’s first assembly facility in the United States, and will produce the WhiteStar, an upcoming four-door, five-passenger all-electric sports sedan.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has directed the state’s General Services Division, and other appropriate agencies, to investigate the purchase of 100 WhiteStar vehicles for the state fleet over a two year period as a demonstration of the state’s commitment to clean energy.
Governor Richardson has also invited Tesla Motors Chairman Elon Musk and Tesla Motors CEO Martin Eberhard to work with the state to develop a package of legislation for the 2008 session to encourage and incentivize the purchase of clean energy vehicles, including hybrid and electric vehicles."This is a major step toward making New Mexico a center for 'green' manufacturing. In my role as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I will continue crafting policies at the federal level to ensure that the electric cars like those made by Tesla&madsh;and other companies specializing in cutting-edge renewable energy technologies—will eventually be commonplace. I commend Gov. Richardson, Secretary Homans, Gary Tonjes, Clark Krause and Mayor Chavez for working hard to recruit Tesla to our state."
—US Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Several states, including Arizona and California, were in talks with Tesla Motors over locating the WhiteStar assembly plant.
The first cars will roll off the assembly line in the fall of 2009, and Tesla Motors will produce at least 10,000 cars each year. The vehicles will cost $50,000 for the standard model or $65,000 for a premium model with greater performance and range. Tesla Motors begins production of its first vehicle, a zero-emission two seat Roadster, at a facility in England owned by Lotus Cars later this year.
Tesla Corporate Headquarters will continue to be located in San Carlos, California. Tesla recently announced the opening of an R&D facility in Rochester Hills, Mich., north of Detroit, where it expects to grow to a staff of 60 focused on design and engineering for the WhiteStar.
Tesla Motors will receive several incentives from the state, including the high wage job tax credit, the manufacturer’s investment tax credit and assistance from the Job Training Incentive Program.
In addition, Governor Richardson has committed $3.5 million in capital outlay from the 2007 legislative session, and another $3.5 million in capital outlay from the 2008 legislative session. These funds will go to Bernalillo County and be used for building and infrastructure investment related to the facility.
The state’s Economic Development Department worked closely with the Albuquerque Economic Development Department and the New Mexico Economic Development Partnership to close the deal with Tesla Motors. The city of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County have agreed to assist with development of infrastructure to the site. First Community Bank has agreed to participate as a local lender. SunCal, which recently acquired approximately 57,000 acres on Albuquerque’s west side, pledged at no cost up to 75 acres of land abutting the initial site if the company undertakes a major expansion in the future.
Who says the electric car is dead?! While Detroit delays on releasing even a plug-in hybrid, citing insufficient battery technology, start-ups like Tesla Motors, Pheonix Motorcars and ZAP march towards the commercial release of electric-vehicles. While pricey, this new generation of EVs will hopefully prove that the electric vehicle, and it's cousin the plug-in hybrid are the viable, clean, and efficient future for transportation.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Governors of Illinois and New Jersey Call for Greenhouse Gas Reductions - 1990 Levels by 2020
The governors of both Illinois and New Jersey called for statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets yesterday. New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich both issued new goals aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases within their states back to 1990 levels by 2020.
Governor Corzine also called for further reductions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey to 80% below 2006 levels by 2050. Governor Blagojevich issued a similar goal, calling for emissions levels 60% below 1990 levels by 2050 [I assume that in real terms, these targets are very close.]
"Today we have taken steps to preserve our planet for our children and grandchildren by adopting aggressive goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions," Governor Corzine said. "In the absence of leadership on the federal level the burden has now fallen upon state executives and legislatures to lead the way on this issue and I’m proud that New Jersey is helping to blaze that trail."
To reach the governor's goal, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will work with the Board of Public Utilities (BPU), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and other stakeholders to evaluate methods to meet and exceed the 2020 target reductions, according to a press release. The DEP Commissioner will make specific recommendations to meet the targets while taking into account the economic benefits and costs of implementing these recommendations. This evaluation will be done in conjunction with the state’s Energy Master Plan, which will incorporate the new greenhouse gas reduction goal.
The order calls on the DEP to develop a 1990 greenhouse gas emission inventory as well as a system for monitoring current greenhouse gas levels so that progress toward goals can be accurately tracked. DEP will report progress towards the target reductions no less than every two years and if necessary will recommend additional actions to reach the targets.
To further reduce emissions, the order calls for the Director of Energy Savings to develop targets and implementation strategies for reducing energy use by state facilities and vehicles fleets.
The administration will call on other states to join in its efforts and will work closely with the Legislature to pass legislation to support and strengthen the targets set out in the Executive Order. Senator Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex) and Assemblywoman Linda Stender (D-Union) are currently working on a bill to accomplish that goal.
As a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cooperative effort of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states working to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the Corzine Administration will set up a cap and trade program to help limit carbon dioxide pollution from electric power plants.
Under this system power plants that exceed a predetermined level of carbon dioxide emissions will be required to pay a fee for each ton of carbon emitted over the limit. Governor Corzine will work with the Legislature to dedicate up to 100% of these funds to promote energy efficiency, renewable energy as well as other projects that benefit electric users. Senator Bob Smith (D-Middlesex) and Assemblyman John F. McKeon (D-Essex) are currently working on legislation to accomplish this goal.
In Illinois, similar efforts are underway to implement Governor Blagojevich's goal. 
“The impact of global warming in Illinois and around the globe could be devastating, and we can’t wait for the federal government to act because scientists worldwide have warned that we must address climate change within the next decade to avoid serious and irreversible consequences,” said Gov. Blagojevich. “The international community recognizes that rising temperatures, melting glaciers, and unusual weather patterns are warning signs telling us that climate change is a reality. Now, despite inaction by President Bush, we must deal with it. By committing ourselves to action in Illinois, we can help minimize the effects of climate change and ensure our children and grandchildren inherit a healthy world full of opportunity."
According to a press release, the Illinois governor has charged his Climate Change Advisory Group with recommending strategies to meet these GHG reduction goals. The advisory group will meet over a six-month period to identify measures to cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gases.
“Illinois is stepping up to advance needed policy solutions to our global warming problems while the federal government has lagged behind,” said Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “The Governor's Climate Change Advisory Group can help Illinois move to the forefront in developing more clean energy, cleaner cars and more energy efficient buildings that will help reduce global warming pollution. That provides benefits for our environment, our economy and future generations.”
The Illinois Climate Change Advisory Group will be chaired by Doug Scott, Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Vice Chairs include Michael Carrigan, Secretary/Treasurer, Illinois AFL-CIO; Art Gibson, Senior Vice President, Baxter Healthcare; and Howard Learner, Executive Director, Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest. The World Resources Institute will facilitate the Advisory Group meetings and provide technical assistance.
Other members of the Advisory Group include: ADM, Ameren, BP America Inc., Caterpillar, Inc., Center for Energy and Economic Development, Citizen Action of Illinois, Citizens Utility Board, City of Chicago, Deere & Company, Dynegy, Environment Illinois, Faith in Place, Ford Motor Company, League of Women Voters of Illinois, Midwest Generation, Midwest Wind Energy, NICOR, Natural Resources Defense Council, Phoenix Architects, Inc., Regional Transportation Authority, Scates Farm, Sieben Energy Associates, Sierra Club - Illinois Chapter, State Farm Insurance, United Transportation Union, University of Illinois – Chicago, University of Illinois - Urbana/Champaign, Village of Schaumburg, and Waste Management, Inc.
In 2006, the California Assembly passed, and the Governor signed into law, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which is also intended to bring statewide emissions of greenhouse gases back down to 1990 levels by 2020—an estimated cut of 25%.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
CitizenRE - Solar Snakeoil Salesmen?
Some of you may have noticed a bit of buzz kicking up around a new player in the solar power industry, Citizenre. It's hard not to kick up some serious buzz when you're making claims like Citizenre is...
The new solar energy company claims it will soon open the world's largest solar photovolataic manufacturing plant - a 500 MW facility located in the Northeastern United States - will launch the world's largest vertically-integrated solar manufacturing, marketing and installation company and begin to install 100,000 solar PV systems in the United States annually (that number incidentally being larger than the total number of installations completed in the United State to date and about the same as the number of installations that Germany's highly-tuned, efficient solar infrastructure installed in 2006). 
Oh, and they're going to do all this while offering residential solar systems for just $20,000, or about half the current market rate, enough to provide you with clean, solar power at the same rate you are currently paying for electricity, the company claims.
Citizenre is taking sign-ups now, and a lot of folks are getting caught up in the big promises. After all, who wouldn't want to generate their own solar power instead of paying their utility without paying any more than they do right now?!
Well, you know what they say about things that seem too good to be true, and Citizenre's hyped-up promises surely fit the bill.
RenewableEnergyAccess.com just posted a RenewableEnergyInsider opinion piece by Jeff Wolfe, CEO and co-founder of groSolar, one the nation's largest solar energy distribution and installation firms. He's been following the Citizenre debate, has interviewed their Chief Technical Officer, and makes some very good points about the company's claims.
While he's certainly part of the 'establishment industry' that would presumably be threatened if Citizenre's can deliver on their claims, his points are valid: to be as punny as possible, Citizenre is promising us the sun, and they haven't given us any indication that they can make good.
On to the article...
Citizenre: A House of Cards?
by Jeffery D. Wolfe, P.E., groSolar, CEO & Co-Founder
(groSolar's Jeff Wolfe has been tracking the Citizenre debate; the opinions expressed in this article are his own.)
There has been a buzz in the air lately. It's the sound of U.S.-based Citizenre, a new multi-level marketing machine targeting solar power. Their plan? Build "the world's largest" solar cell and module manufacturing plant with the stated intention to install 100,000 residential systems annually. Their pitch? You can have solar electric power for the same price that you currently pay for electricity. Sign up now and they will do the installation in September as long as your state offers net metering.
Does this mean that solar electricity has finally hit the mainstream? Is solar now affordable for all and at a scale that will make a difference in the U.S. and worldwide? Not so fast.
After several weeks of reviewing this new company's claims, discussing the manufacturing build out plan and its network marketing approach with others in the solar energy industry, plus reading online commentaries from a variety of sources and actually talking with representatives of the company, I have pieced together enough information to express my opinion that Citizenre is not going to be able to stand up to their promises.
There has been no financial announcement for a deal of significant proportion, which would be the enabling factor to meet the product or installation capacity required. This company is building is a "house of cards" and attracting a lot of customers who want a deal that's too good to be true.
So, you ask, what's the problem if Citizenre is not real or if they fail, and the public just gives early buyers a told-you-so, buyer beware shrug of the shoulders? The answer is we all lose.
As soon as someone signs up for a Citizenre solar system, they are removed from the pool of potential customers for other reputable solar dealers in the U.S. Already, photovoltaic (PV) dealers are telling me that they are losing business because potential customers are signing up with Citizenre -- people are waiting until the reported 500 megawatt "largest fully-integrated PV manufacturing plant in the world" comes online this fall.
But it will be September -- the deadline for the build out of the manufacturing facility and beginning installations will have come and gone -- before reality sets in for these customers when they do not receive their solar system on time as promised. Plans seem poised to fall apart, and at that point we'll have four results:
What follows is an exploration of Citizenre's claims based upon extensive communication from others in the industry, Internet postings and a telephone conversation with Rob Wills, Citizenre's Chief Technical Officer. Wills volunteered to join an industry list serve (RE-Markets@Topica.com) and answer questions regarding the company. From all sources, I have consolidated the results in each "Summary Opinion" below.
This summary represents my opinion of the viability and status of Citizenre today:
Questions & Issues: Citizenre is indicating publicly that they have raised $650 million, and are constructing the world's largest PV manufacturing facility (PR Web, January 23, 2007, "Is the Sun Finally Rising on Solar Power? An Interview with Rob Styler, President of Powur of Citizenre. This would be the single largest investment in solar power ever, yet we've heard not one detail -- not who, when, or where..
Summary Opinion: What I found is that construction has not even started on the proposed manufacturing facility -- again the largest in the world. A ground breaking date is not set, nor a location. They will not break ground until they have closed on their major financing. They have not closed on their financing although they indicate it is lined up and they simply need to clear a few hurdles. Citizenre stated that they could have a plant on line in 12 months. In my opinion, that puts their available manufactured product supply out by at least 18 months.
Questions & Issues: The PV manufacturers worldwide are experiencing a shortage of polysilicon. Industrial-strength PV giants have been forced to their knees, and signed up in advance for long term multi-million dollar contracts for silicon. New-comer Citizenre apparently plans on making silicon appear on command, at pricing they dictate. There has been no announced contract like every other major silicon deal. Like "where's the beef", I ask "where's the silicon"?
Summary Opinion: Rob Wills indicated that Citizenre has a source for silicon at "significantly below $60/kg". My opinion is that when an established international PV companies like SCHOTT Solar cannot obtain sufficient silicon, there is no way for an unproven startup to obtain silicon, and certainly not at below market prices. Without public details, there is no way to justify this position.
Questions & Issues: Citizenre claims they will install 100,000 systems. At $20,000 each (about half the cost of an average system today) that's $2 billion of installations per year. That's equivalent to 450 installations every business day -- a great goal. But 100,000 installations is more than the total number of installations completed in the U.S. to date. From zero to 100,000 is not an easy ramp up. Before millions of dollars in customer contracts are sold, we should know much more about the company's plan and its team to manage this steep trajectory of growth and speed.
Summary Opinion: It turns out that the entire marketing effort to-date has been a "pilot program", according to Wills. He says they are now thinking 25,000 systems, yet the many Citizenre web sites and their representative "downline distributors" are still telling others 100,000. The marketing in the public domain is going to be revamped to "correct some issues" according to Mr. Wills, yet the question remains as to who is in control of the messaging to vulnerable consumers.
Questions & Issues: Citizenre states it will be able to reduce material costs sharply because they have "vertical integration" and will "be able to produce the final product at half the cost of our competitors", according to Rob Styler in the interview quoted above. Unfortunately, the price of solar power is not purely a function of volume production. Glass, aluminum extrusions, Tedlar (R) and lead wires are all commodity products, but all comprise a significant piece of the cost that Citizenre can not affect. To think that a startup is going to beat world leaders like Sharp, Kyocera and Suntech (that are currently producing at scale) is naive. What technology is Citizenre planning on using? With more knowledge, we can then understand the probable costs of the technology for comparison purposes.
Summary Opinion: I received no answer to the questions and issues above.
Questions & Issues: Rob Styler, in the above cited interview, states that installation will take "about half a day". I've done installation work. I don't care what kind of fancy technology the modules have, they still need to get fastened down to a roof, and 200 to 500 square feet of panels are needed. Then a wire needs to be run to the electric panel, through an outside disconnect. On most jobs, after half a day the ladders are set up, and the conduit to the ground is run. Installations taking a day (in areas with one story homes and low slope roofs) are possible. Does Citizenre have some secret to speeding up installations beyond their AC PV module currently in design as stated? Have any installations been done by Citizenre that have approached this time schedule?
Summary Opinion: Mr. Wills said he believes Citizenre can get to this reduced installation time. He speaks of automation and standardization to achieve this, but has presented nothing concrete on how to achieve this goal. So, Citizenre has no secret to lowering the cost of installation, they just believe they are smarter than the entire rest of the industry that has been installing on-grid non-battery systems. Even in Germany, which is so often touted as a model of efficient and quick installation, systems installs do not approach the half day goal.
Questions & Issues: In one of the emails, Mr.Wills asked: "Is it better to try for a quantum leap that results in PV power costing less than retail electricity? Or should we sit back doing business as usual, letting the government tell us they are supporting solar. Please give us a chance to move this ahead and to succeed. There is plenty or work for all of us. Solar Energy is abundant."
Summary Opinion: I'd love for solar to become ubiquitous, and it will. However, it takes more than clever marketing and unsubstantiated claims to do this. It takes the following items that it seems to me Citizenre is missing:
In its current incarnation, it is my opinion that Citizenre represents a significant threat to the solar industry. Exaggerated claims, inability to deliver product, sales to areas where they do not intend to install soon. These issues can taint the entire solar industry. Worse, misled customers will delay or not buy products from reputable dealers, putting these sound businesses at risk.
This is not the reaction from people who are scared of change. This is the response from committed individuals and businesses who want the solar industry to succeed. To see Citizenre endanger that vision by over-promising and under-delivering reminds me of a teetering house of cards.
Jeffery Wolfe is the CEO of groSolar, a national solar integration firm focused on designing, distributing and installing high quality energy systems. Jeff is a recognized leader in the solar industry and has led the design and installation of some of the largest solar projects in the U.S. He serves on the board of the Solar Electric Industry Association (SEIA) and chairs the PV division. While a partner at the engineering firm Bard, Rao & Athanas, he designed over four million sq. feet of construction and nine MW of power generation. He is a certified professional engineer and has a BSME degree from Cornell University.
Stay tuned for a special report on Citizenre in this Thursday's episode of Inside Renewable Energy [which I will cover], featuring an interview with company CEO David Gregg.
Detroit Goes on a Green Offensive With Plug-in Hybrids
[From Wired:]
Detroit is going on a green offensive with electric plug-in models that can run emissions-free for up to 40 miles -- at about a quarter the cost of gas -- on batteries that draw their juice directly from the grid.
GM's Chevrolet Volt and Ford's HySeries Drive, unveiled as concept prototypes for the first time last month, leapfrog current hybrid designs and could put pressure on Toyota's popular Prius by offering consumers better value [see Green Car Congress write ups here (GM) and here (Ford) for more details on the cars and drivetrains].
Although these cars are not scheduled for production until the end of the decade or later, many experts now believe plug-ins offer the best tradeoffs combination yet in terms of energy efficiency, emissions and practicality.
"Once plug-in hybrids appear, I don't know why 'mere' hybrids would be appealing," said Philip Reed, the Fuel Economy Guide editor for Edmunds. "Plug-in hybrids do everything that hybrids can do but at a lower cost to consumers."
Detroit's troubles run far deeper than next year's or even next decade's models: GM and Ford are struggling with massive pension liabilities and deep-seated labor problems at a time when Japanese rivals are making deep inroads with fuel-efficient models, including hybrids.
[Image: Powertrain of the Chevy Volt E-Flex Concept. The 400 pound Lithium Ion battery pack runs along the spine. The electric motor is mounted in the front near the electric generator that takes over when the batteries are depleted. (Click to enlarge)]
Ford last month announced a record annual loss of $12.7 billion for 2006, the result of painful restructurings that likely haven't ended. Toyota, by contrast, is coming on strong. With record net income of $3.5 billion during its most recent quarter, it is poised to overtake GM as the world's No.1 automaker, in part thanks to prescient bets on fuel-efficient technologies such as the hybrid drive that powers the Prius.
GM and Ford, by contrast, which currently sell hybrid SUVs and trucks, have seen their reputations with consumers take a beating over short-sighted strategies, culminating in GM's portrayal in the movie Who Killed the Electric Car. In a survey by Harris Interactive of consumers rating the 60 most well-respected U.S. companies, GM ranked 57th, while Ford was 55th.
Reed said plug-in hybrids would enable the companies to surpass hybrids by offering more environmentally friendly vehicles. But he added public relations may be the most practical benefit, at least in the immediate future. "The announcement of the plug-in hybrids seems designed to offset that negative publicity. However, the question is whether they really will reach the marketplace."
Plug-in hybrids will be cheaper to own than today's hybrids because they can run on battery power for up to 40 miles before needing to be recharged. The cost of propelling a vehicle using electricity is a fraction of that of gasoline, according to data from the Electric Power Research Institute.
Although the price of electricity and gasoline vary widely by state, EPRI says on average electric power is the equivalent of 75 cents a gallon gasoline, or between one-third and one-quarter of the cost of gas. Plug-in hybrid owners who drive 40 miles a day or more would save at least $900 a year, according to Beth Lowry, GM's vice president of environment and energy. Plug-in hybrid vehicles are expected to cost marginally more than today's hybrid vehicles, but relying primarily on electric power would pay back their extra cost much faster.
Plug-in hybrids are appealing to environmentally conscious people because they do not spew greenhouse gases when utilizing battery power. While the coal and natural gas power plants that would provide the bulk of the electricity would increase their emissions, the net effect would be a significant pollution reduction. Running on battery power reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 23 percent and volatile organic compounds by 92 percent, according to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, or PNNL.
[Image: The Ford HySeries drive. That's the fuel cell on top and the Li ion battery back below. I assume the central portion houses the electric motor. (Click to Enlarge).]
"Once (plug-in hybrids) are out, they will make many other cars obsolete, including today's hybrids," said Andy Frank, a professor of mechanical and aeronautical engineering at the University of California at Davis. Frank, who has been developing hybrid vehicles for more than 30 years, has been granted nine patents for plug-in vehicles and sees them as the inevitable successor to the Prius. Frank built plug-in hybrids that weigh about the same as today's hybrids while offering superior fuel economy.
Plug-in hybrids would also be attractive because they substantially reduce U.S. oil imports, an objective touted by President Bush and many national security experts. Plug-in hybrids would save hundreds of gallons of petroleum per vehicle each year, according to PNL. If 84 percent of the light-duty vehicle fleet were plug-in hybrids (the theoretical maximum that the electric grid could support), the United States could eliminate 61 percent of foreign oil imports, according to the PNL report.
Plug-in hybrids would likely find an instant market with municipal fleets across the country. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has endorsed the technology, and many cities have joined with utilities in the Plug-In Partners (.pdf) consortium to promote their adoption.
Honda and Toyota are also considering production plug-in hybrids, while DaimlerChrysler is testing 20 plug-in Dodge Sprinter vans to learn more about the technology's commercial potential.
Hybrid cars, despite taking years to pay back their premium through fuel savings (if at all), have sold well for Honda and Toyota, which plans to increase hybrid vehicle production by 40 percent in 2007. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 instituted a federal tax credit that can refund consumers most of the additional cost of buying a hybrid.
In 2007, GM will introduce its first two hybrid sedans, the Saturn Aura Green Line and Chevrolet Malibu, eight years after the first hybrid sedans were sold in the United States. GM is aggressively pursuing plug-in hybrids "because of the tremendous potential to significantly increase fuel economy," according to spokesman Brian Corbett. He said GM is developing plug-in hybrids now so "when the advanced batteries are ready for production, our plug-in vehicles should be ready, too -- which means we'll be ahead of the curve."
Lowery said there will still be a place for hybrids and the market will support both types of vehicles. She said plug-in hybrids are appropriate for urban residents with shorter commutes, while larger hybrids serve people who take longer trips and "who want a certain class of vehicle but with added fuel economy."
However, the current limitations of battery technology could stall the commercialization of plug-in hybrids. Manufacturers of plug-in hybrid vehicles, including GM and Ford, are pinning their hopes on lithium-ion battery technology to provide the 20-plus miles of vehicle range without a significant increase in weight and cost.
Dave Alexander, a senior analyst at ABI Research, believes battery technology will not advance enough in the next two or three years to suit commercially viable plug-in hybrids. "The first plug-in hybrid vehicles will have more limited range than we have been led to believe," Alexander said. Cost could also be a factor as Alexander estimates that lithium-ion batteries for a plug-in hybrid currently cost about $10,000.
[This article in the MIT Technology Review is much more optimistic than that, arguing that battery technology is sufficient to get a working prototype on the road by the end of the year. Given GM's existing contracts with Cobasys/A123 and Johnson Controls/Saft for Li ion battery packs, as well as the progress being made by ZAP, Pheonix Motorcars, Tesla Motors and others outside of Detroit to commercialize Li ion-powered full EVs, I find GM's skepticism about battery technology a bit pessimistic as well.]
They're growing by several hundred thousand units each year, but hybrid vehicles made up only about 1.6 percent of the U.S. market in 2006, according to Alexander. He said because of the battery challenges "we won't see a big impact on hybrid sales" when plug-ins first go on sale.
Nick Cappa, a spokesman for DaimlerChrysler, is also skeptical, saying plug-in vehicles would require "a significant leap in battery technology." He said his company has not committed to commercializing the technology because of the concerns about battery weight and reliability.
Interest in plug-in hybrids could also be limited to people with garages or other ready access to charge their vehicles through electric outlets. Consumers recharge the vehicle's batteries -- preferably during off-peak hours -- by plugging the vehicle into a standard 110-volt outlet. After the batteries are depleted, another energy source such as petroleum, alternative fuel or a hydrogen fuel cell takes over propulsion.
Plug-in hybrids "may not be for you if you live in an apartment or condo," said Sherry Boschert, the author of Plug-In Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America. Outlets must be added to parking garages to provide public charging stations, and a metering system to charge vehicle owners would have to be developed by power companies, according to Boschert.
Power companies in states like California, where demand occasionally outstrips grid capacity, would have to find ways to discourage or prevent cars from being recharged during peak demand periods. Until the infrastructure is created "it is going to be a bumpy ride" for plug-in hybrids, Boschert said.
Plug-in hybrids will probably cause confusion in the market as the distinction between electric and hybrid vehicles will be obliterated, Alexander said. "You can't rigidly segment the market" so vehicles will be competing with one another, he said.
Auto manufacturers are adding to the confusion as well, Alexander said. General Motors describes the Chevrolet Volt as an electric vehicle, even though it uses a gasoline generator to recharge the batteries. Most companies agree on the term "plug-in hybrid" to indicate a vehicle with multiple power sources that runs part time on externally rechargeable batteries.
Plug-in hybrids would also likely temper, but not eliminate, interest in electric vehicles, according to Edmund's Reed. Tesla Motors has a waiting list for its $100,000 electric car, and some consumers would want to buy vehicles that avoid using fossil fuels altogether, Reed said. However, he added, "Plug-in hybrids have clearly broken from the pack" in becoming the front-running technology as cleaner and less consuming vehicles.
[More pictures of the Volt at Wired here.]
There'll be more on the promise of plug-in series hybrids soon. I promise....
Sunday, February 11, 2007
National Renewable Energy Standard Bill Introduced in House - 20% by 2020
[From RenewableEnergyAccess.com:]
New legislation that would require many U.S. utilities to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources by 2020 was introduced yesterday by Congressman Tom Udall of New Mexico.
House bill 969 proposes to "amend title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal renewable energy portfolio standard for certain retail electric utilities and for other purposes."
The bill defines a renewable energy resource as solar (including solar water heating), wind, ocean, tidal, geothermal energy, biomass, landfill gas or incremental hydropower.
"A renewable portfolio standard should be passed this Congress," said Alan Nogee, Union of Concerned Scientist Clean Energy Program Director. "The bill gives the American people what they asked for in the election -- a smart, cost-effective strategy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and get America on a track toward energy independence. And because power plants are a primary source of heat-trapping emissions, this bill can be an important part of solving global warming."
With Washington State's passage this fall of an RPS ballot initiative, 21 states and the District of Columbia now have renewable portfolio standards. Since 2004, eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted standards, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
In August 2005, Texas more than doubled its standard, creating the second-largest new renewable energy market in the country, behind only California. Seven other states (Arizona, California, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and New Jersey) have also increased or accelerated their standards.
"The states have already shown us that renewable standards can be successful," said Nogee. "The federal government should step in with its own standard so the entire country can enjoy the benefits of renewable energy. The nation's security and the health of our planet are too important to leave to the states."
A 2004 Union of Concerned Scientist analysis of a similar bill calculates the multiple benefits from a national portfolio standard: By 2020, a 20 percent RPS would create 355,000 jobs -- nearly twice as many as electricity from fossil fuels would generate; competition from renewable energy generators would lower electricity and natural gas prices, saving consumers more than $49 billion on their energy bills; and farmers, ranchers and rural landowners would earn more than $16 billion in new income.
H.R. 969 is being co-sponsored by representatives Todd Platts (R-PA), Mark Udall (D-CO), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Chris Shays (R-CT), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Jerry McNerney (D-CA).
I need to look more into the details of this bill, but as long as this national Renewable Energy Standard does not preempt the 21 state-level RES policies already in place, this would be an excellent policy. As long as states have the freedom to set higher standards than the federal standard, enacting a national RES will be great step towards a clean energy future.
RES policies ensure we utilize our clean, homegrown renewable energy resources, drives economic development (particularly in rural America), helps stabilize rising energy rates, reins in global warming pollution and creates a cleaner, healthier energy supply - all great reasons to support Renewable Energy Standard policies!
If you are interested in telling your representatives to support this bill, head to the Union of Concerned Scientists' website here.
Resources:
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Minnesota Senate Passes Renewable Energy Standard - 25% by 2025
[From Wind Energy Weekly/AWEA:]
By a 61-4 margin, Minnesota’s state Senate passed a renewable energy requirement for 25% of the electricity produced by utilities to come from renewables by 2025. With the bill having cleared the Senate, the House’s Energy Finance and Policy Division Committee is scheduled to debate similar legislation next week.
The “Renewable Energy Standard” (RES), as it is called in the state, would result in 5,000-6,000 MW in renewable energy being developed. The legislation specifies incremental benchmarks for utilities, with Xcel Energy’s RES ultimately reaching as high as 30%: 15% by 2010, 18% by 2012, 25% by 2016, and 30% by 2020. All other utilities, meanwhile, would have a requirement of 7% by 2010, 12% by 2012, 17% by 2016, 20% by 2020, and 25% by 2025.
The legislation allows for the possibility of the targets to be delayed, but only if the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission determines that it would be in the public interest to do so; further, the bill includes language to ensure that various roadblocks would not indefinitely delay or prove fatal to implementation of the RES for any utility. For example, transmission constraints and delivery issues would be one legitimate reason for utilities not hitting RES targets; however, in that event, utilities would be required to move forward in the regulatory and construction process for the needed new transmission.
“The Renewable Energy Standard sends a clear signal that Minnesota is open for business,” Wind on the Wires Director Beth Soholt told Wind Energy Weekly. “5,000-6,000 MW of new renewable energy will be required to meet the strong standard. In turn we will see the creation of thousands of job, billions of dollars invested in the state, and enormous benefits to the environment.”
[Update - Feb 13: According to Energista.org, the Minnesota RES bill passed the appropriate House committee on Monday with only one 'nay' vote. The House committee chose to adopt the Senate language and the bill withstood four efforts to ammend it. That means that the House version, which will likely see a floor vote very soon, will closely match the Senate version, meaning the conference committee process should be pretty smooth. This RES bill is flying through the Minnesota State Legislature!]
Now THAT's what I'm talking about! 64-4! If only we could see that kind of nearly unanimous support for our RES efforts in Oregon...
I've been following the development of the Minnesota RES as it plays out in the Minnesota Senate and House over at the excellent blog, Energista.org. Check out the long series of updates on the Minnesota RES over at Energista for more and stay tuned over there for continued updates as the RES progresses through the Minnesota House.
Utility Group Calls for National Climate Policy; Pelosi Urges Action this Session
Edison Electric Institute Calls for Carbon Prices Signals
[From Wind Energy Weekly/AWEA:]
Changing course on an issue key to their members, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) unanimously voted to approve a set of new climate change principles that back economy-wide national policies including price signals for carbon.
The principles generally call for a national policy that would provide certainty within the business environment. EEI President Tom Kuhn said that any federal action or legislation needed to have three components: ensuring the development and cost-effective deployment of a full suite of “climate-friendly” technologies, minimizing economic disruption to customers and avoiding harm to the competitiveness of U.S. industry, and ensuring an economy-wide approach to carbon reductions.
“No matter what path America chooses to address greenhouse gases, success will require an aggressive and sustained commitment by the industry and policymakers to the development and deployment of a full suite of technology options,” said Kuhn. Such options, EEI said, include renewable energy, demand-side management, energy efficiency, nuclear capacity, new coal technologies and carbon capture and storage, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
EEI’s principles generally call for strong action that does not bring major harm to the economy. The document references wind specifically, stating that federal policy should address regulatory or economic barriers to wind’s (and other energy sources’) further deployment. The principles support federal policy that “employs market mechanisms to secure cost-effective greenhouse gas reductions and provides a reasonable transition and an effective economic safety valve.” The principles also call for a long-term price for carbon “that is moderate” and does not harm the economic competitiveness of U.S. industry and fosters the development of zero-emission technologies. Another element of note is that companies’ previous action to limit greenhouse gas emissions should be recognized, the principles state.
“I applaud EEI taking this very meaningful step,” said AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. “This will make a vast difference on moving the debate forward. As the U.S. moves at long last toward action on global warming, stakeholders need to understand that wind is a vastly deployable zero-carbon energy source that is available today, and our nation’s policy for climate change should recognize and take advantage of this. That means ensuring that wind generators are directly allocated CO2 emission allowances on an output basis under a cap-and-trade program. Anything short of that does not recognize the full value of wind’s contribution to solving the problem.”
EEI’s release of its principles follows the announcement by the Electric Power Supply Association, a trade group of electricity suppliers representing about one-third of U.S. power generation, calling for “comprehensive, mandatory” federal greenhouse gas legislation.
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pointed to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report’s statement that global greenhouse gas emissions must be cut in half by mid-century to avoid major environmental impacts. Speaking before the House Committee on Science and Technology, Pelosi echoed the report’s conclusion that prompt action is needed to avoid those impacts. “We cannot achieve the transformation we need, both in the United States and throughout the international community, without mandatory action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution,” she said.
Pelosi said that she hoped to have global warming legislation clear the appropriate House committees by July 4.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
ZAP and Lotus to Build High-Performance In-Wheel Electric Vehicle
[From Green Car Congress:]
ZAP and Lotus Engineering are beginning the first phase of an engineering project to use the British consultancy’s APX ("Aluminum Performance Crossover" - pictured to right) as a basis for designing a production-ready electric all-wheel drive crossover high performance vehicle for ZAP—the ZAP-X—in the US market.
A combination of the lightweight aluminum vehicle architecture, a new efficient drive and advanced battery management systems is intended to enable a range of up to 350 miles between charges, with a rapid 10-minute recharging time. An auxiliary power unit is planned to support longer distance journeys.
The APX’s supercharged gasoline 3.0-liter V6 engine will be replaced by in-hub electric motors, delivering 644 horsepower in all-wheel drive mode, theoretically capable of powering the ZAP-X to a potential top speed of 155 mph. A new strong, lightweight and highly efficient structure based on the Lotus technology is planned to give the car a very attractive power-to-weight ratio.
The APX showcases Lotus Engineering’s Versatile Vehicle Architecture technology, combining lightweight aluminum vehicle architecture with exceptionally strong and stiff structural rigidity, as well as lower manufacturing investment requirements.
According to Lotus, the key to the VVA architecture is the high-pressure die cast corner nodes that are combined with bonding, mechanical fasteners, extruded and pressed aluminium. Having first been shown to the world at the Geneva motor show in 2006, the APX concept has won the 2006 European Aluminium Awards in the “Transport and Automotive” category.
The use of in-wheel motors leaves the space previously occupied by the conventional engine and drive train for additional battery capacity and amenities.
The development program is proposed to be managed from a new center of excellence for research and development of environmentally-friendly vehicle designs and technologies. Engineering input will come from Lotus Engineering Inc, and the British technology consultancy’s other R&D centers in the UK, Malaysia and China."Lotus Engineering’s APX is a world-class innovative concept and was developed to showcase real solutions to new challenges facing the automotive industry. So it’s very satisfying that ZAP’s proposed new model will make use of a great deal of the APX concept’s advanced body structure and chassis technology. The bringing together of these next-generation vehicle technologies represents another significant step forward for automotive technology."
—Mike Kimberley, CEO of Group Lotus plc
Earlier in January, ZAP had announced the selection of Lotus Engineering to undertake engineering concept studies for a number of electric vehicles. ZAP will display the current Lotus APX concept car at the North American Dealers Association (NADA) annual meeting and exhibition, 3-6 February 2007.
According to another great post on the ZAP-X over at The Energy Blog, ZAP is targeting a price point of about $60,000 and plan to have the high-performance EV available as early as 2008.
Given this timing and price point, the ZAP-X will likely compete with the second-generation electric sports-sedan planned by Tesla Motors, makers of the Tesla Roadster EV [see previous post]. Tesla is targeting a 2009 timeframe for it's sports sedan, which will be comperably priced between $50,000-$70,000 price range. The higher end Tesla Roadster sells for $92,000. Tesla plans to sell between 10,000 and 20,000 units per year of it's sports sedan model.
Presumably, ZAP could produce a 'tuned-down' model with a bit less 'get-up-and-go' and shave a bit off that price tag if they wanted to. Cutting back the power would mean a smaller and cheaper battery pack as well as electric motor.
It will be interesting to see if this higher-end, high-performance market segment can help drive forward the commercialization of electric vehicles (and plug-ins - the batteries for EVs are very similar as the ones used in PHEVs with all-electric ranges, just larger). I'm surprised that one of the big auto manufacturers hasn't decided that producing a high-end, high-performance EV, like these offerings from Tesla and ZAP, in order to help green their image a bit (with a production model EV) and build up the production lines, supply chains and technical expertise needed to get the cost down and produce a more average consumer-oriented EV or PHEV.
The high-end consumer market segment can afford to pay the premiums for an EV in order to drive 'the next cool thing' in a way that the average consumer can't, so it might actually make alot of sense to target that market segment first, and then work on an 'economy' model (interestingly, things worked the other way around with hybrids, with the first models focused on the average consumer and only recently have hybrids with a more luxury or performance segment in mind started to appear). Maybe if ZAP or Tesla is proves this business model can work, one of the major auto manufacturers will buy one or both of them out...
[Pheonix Motorcars is targeting a different niche market with it's electric Sports Utility Truck: fleet sales. Pheonix plans to produce and sell 500 of their electric SUTs to fleet operators by the end of 2007 and will build 16 pilot-build vehicles next month. The company has already received 75 fleet orders from several municipalities and one utility company for it's zero-emissions truck.]
Regardless, these Tesla, ZAP and Pheonix EVs continue to make me question all the fuss GM is making over Lithium ion battery technology not being ready for prime time yet. Either Tesla and ZAP are overly optimistic, or GM is dragging it's heels. Given GM's track record, I bet it's more likely the latter.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
2007 Detroit Auto Show Roundup
Well, better late than never...
As many of you may remember, I wrote a fairly extenensive summary of all the 'green' car offerings at the 2006 North American International Auto Show, held in Detroit each year. This year, I was too caught up in other things to write up a proper review of this year's offerings (I did begin a post on the plug-in hybrid offerings from GM and Ford but haven't gotten around to finishing it yet...).
Luckily for me, the boys at Green Car Congress have (as usual) put together an excellent summary of the 2007 Detroit auto show, and although I'm now two weeks late to the game, I'll repost it here for anyone who missed out:
The North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) in Detroit marks the beginning of the global auto show season, and often serves as a positioning venue where automakers introduce concepts as well as production models of new cars.
Crossover vehicles were a common thread throughout the show. However, hybrids were more in evidence, although not in the form of a new production car. Tier 2 Bin 5 compliant diesel announcements began to pile up, and several automakers introduced more gasoline direct injection versions. Herewith, a quick recap of the “greener” announcements from the major automakers.
General Motors set a high bar for the show with its opening announcement of the Volt plug-in series hybrid concept and the E-Flex architecture. The Volt offers an all-electric range of 40 miles before requiring a recharge. Drive less than that, and your fuel consumption is zero. At maximum range (640 miles), the fuel consumption of the genset is approximately 50 mpg.
GM also introduced the 2008 Malibu, and confirmed that the hybrid version of the Malibu will arrive later this year with the start of production. The automaker also highlighted the already introduced Saturn VUE (SUV) and Aura (sedan) Green Line hybrids. All three of those vehicles use the same GM Hybrid System, a Belt Alternator Starter system with a Cobasys NiMH battery pack. The Aura Green Line sedan will deliver at least a 25% fuel economy improvement over the non-hybrid Aura XE for a premium of less than $2,500, according to GM [from about 20 mpg city/30 highway to ~25 city/38 highway]. GM did not announce specs for the Malibu hybrid.
Also on display on the GM stand was the Saab BioPower Hybrid Concept, making its US debut. The vehicle combines fossil fuel-free bio-ethanol fuel (E100) capability with electric-only propulsion by utilizing the advanced 2-mode hybrid system that General Motors is co-developing with DaimlerChrysler and BMW Group. GM also had its other upcoming two-mode hybrid SUV models on display.
Ford also unveiled a plug-in series hybrid concept: the Ford Airstream. The Ford Airstream Concept is powered by a new hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid drivetrain Ford calls the HySeries Drive. The Ford Airstream Concept can travel 25 miles in battery mode—depleting the battery’s state of charge to about 40%—before the fuel cell begins operating to recharge the vehicle’s 336-volt lithium-ion battery pack.
Ford also introduced a Mustang-based E85 concept muscle car—the Ford Interceptor. The Ford Interceptor uses a Ford Racing 5.0-liter V-8 “Cammer” engine running on E85 (85% ethanol blend).
Mazda announced it will begin selling its hybrid version of the Tribute SUV in the second quarter of the year. The Tribute is based on the Ford Escape.
Toyota leaned toward power and performance at this show, introducing a crew-cab version of the Tundra full-size pickup with the promise of an E85 version of the Tundra to come, the Lexus IS-F high-performance luxury sedan and the Lexus LF-A high performance sports-car concept. On the hybrid side, Toyota showed its FT-HS hybrid sports car concept.
DaimlerChrysler. MercedesBenz emphasized its Vision GL 420 BLUETEC Tier 2 Bin 5 full-size diesel SUV targeted for introduction in the US in 2008. The V8 diesel engine delivers 216 kW (290 hp) and generates 700 Nm (515 lb-ft) of torque, with an expected fuel consumption of 9.8 liters per 100 km (24 mpg).
Detroit was also the venue for the US premiere of the new smart fortwo, also to be available in the US in 2008.
The Chrysler Group introduced a Jeep Trailhawk BLUETEC concept vehicle, and announced it is offering its new mid-size Avenger sedan with a flex-fuel engine option.
Honda also leaned into the high-performance sports car mode with its introduction of the V-10 Acura “Advanced Sports Car Concept. The company had on display its FCX Concept fuel cell vehicle, the basis for a production model still scheduled for introduction in 2008, and also unveiled the design of the next-generation Accord.
Nissan unveiled an advanced design study, the Nissan Bevel Concept. A Bevel would feature a small, efficient 2.5-liter V6 combined with a hybrid drive unit.
Volkswagen/Audi each had on display a Tier 2 Bin 5 BLUETEC diesel. Audi confirmed it will introduce its Q7 3.0-liter TDI SUV in the US in 2008 as well. The Q7 3.0 TDI will be Audi’s first model to showcase Tier 2 Bin 5 compliant BLUETEC technology. Volkswagen had on display its concept BLUETEC Tiguan introduced earlier at the Los Angeles Auto Show.
Mitsubishi confirmed plans to develop a next-generation common rail turbo-diesel engine to be applied in a new Lancer in 2010. The Mitsubishi turbo-diesel announced at the NAIAS for the US will be based on the 2.0-liter, Euro-5 compliant engine that MMC is developing together with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for the European market. The new engine will incorporate a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) and NOx trap catalyst system and will meet Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions requirements, according to Mitsubishi.
Hyundai concentrated primarily on the introduction of its new Veracruz crossover, but also introduced the Helion—a three-door sport crossover powered by a 3.0-liter diesel engine.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Climate Change Conversations with ExxonMobil, Part 4: - Earning The Public's Trust
The following is a letter I sent yesterday to Ken Cohen, Vice President of Public Affairs for ExxonMobil, following up on a series of recent conversations between bloggers and Mr Cohen on ExxonMobil's position on climate change and allegations of their continued involvment with organizations seeking to prolong the debate on the science of climate change or impune the credibility of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report released yesterday [Part 1, 2 and 3].
I decided to follow up on our last conversation with this frank email suggesting what ExxonMobil would have to do to 'get out of the hole' they are currently in and start shifting the public's awareness of Exxon's position on climate change...
What Its Going to Take to Get Out of the Hole - A Letter to ExxonMobil
Mr. Cohen,
Thank you very much for your quick response to my questions and concerns regarding the Guardian article on AEI and Exxon's involvement with their organization. Our continued dialogue has been very educational for me and I hope we all agree has elevated the level of discussion on these topics amongst the blogosphere. I very much appreciate you taking time to speak with us, and I will continue to extend you the courtesy of commenting on issues pertaining to ExxonMobil as they arise. I hope we can continue our open dialogue.
In the past two conference calls, you have made it very clear that ExxonMobil's position on climate change is that we should no longer be debating the science, but rather discussing smart policy solutions to the threat posed by global warming. While the science will continue to be refined over time, you've made it clear that Exxon does not doubt that the climate is warming (and has warmed already), that CO2 levels are at their highest level in several hundred thousand years, and that human activities including the burning of fossil fuels are a major contributor to those CO2 levels and the resulting increase in global temperatures.
This position was very much news to me, and I imagine to the other participants in our discussion (and our blogs' readers) as well. In fact, I had been under the impression, based on media reports such as today's Guardian article, that Exxon was still in a position of denial about global warming. In fact, this seems to be a very widespread and well-entrenched public opinion concerning ExxonMobil's position on climate change.
To a degree, this could be blamed on certain media outlets, or on groups like Greenpeace (who you mentioned today), who may latch on to any indication that Exxon is involved with activities calling into question the scientific consensus on climate change without doing adequate reporting or getting comment from Exxon. I know from personal experience with the press that reporters often have their angle when they set out to write a story and may not look too hard for anyone or anything contradicting that angle. The same can clearly be said for bloggers who don't even have a professional code of journalism to adhere to. And yes, perhaps Greenpeace's fundraising efforts stand to benefit from having a convenient 'bad guy' out there to point to.
Still, as I think we covered in our discussion today, if you don't want to be that 'bad guy' in the public's mind, it is also ExxonMobil's responsibility to make their true position clear if it is being consistently mis-reported in the press. And more specifically, it is your responsibility, as VP of Public Affairs for Exxon, to counteract any inaccuracies in press coverage of ExxonMobil.
As you have now made us aware (that is, the participants in our discussions), ExxonMobil's official position on climate change, as published in various publicly available statements and reports, is that the question is not about the science, but about the appropriate policy response. However, that position has clearly not been received by the public or the media, and if your goal is to avoid being "put in the bucket" with those who seek to confuse the science of climate change and continue that weary debate, ExxonMobil must do a considerably better job at publicly clarifying their position on climate change.
As Susan Smith pointed out, if you truly want to avoid being painted as being in a state of denial about climate change science, it would behoove you and ExxonMobil to actively attempt to distance yourselves from any organizations that might be engaged in such denial. From a PR perspective, this has now included AEI. Regardless of the veracity of the Guardian article, from a PR perspective, it must be clear that your continued funding of AEI has once again painted you in the public eye as a company engaged in activities designed to confuse the climate science discussion and continue what you have conceded is the wrong debate, detracting from efforts to move beyond debates about science and instead discuss smart policies.
This is a very widely held and well entrenched public view, and one that you will need to make concerted efforts to undo. It will take much more than publicly available statements on your website. Without a concerted and very public effort to clarify your position, the public will continue to consider ExxonMobil one of the last climate change detractors.
And this goes beyond simply clarifying your position. You must actively strive to maintain the consistency of that position. If you publicly clarify Exxon's position on climate change, yet continue to be linked to groups that are continuing to debate the science not the policy, than the perception will likely be that ExxonMobil is saying one thing while funding organizations that are saying another thing, maintaining a convenient level of deniability in the process.
Let's be honest, Mr Cohen; we both know the public is not going to trust you easily, nor will they simply take your word for it at first that your company is truly committed to policy solutions and wants to see us move past debating the science. You are going to have to earn our trust, and that will take a concerted effort.
If your goal as a company is truly to advance the discussion surrounding smart policy solutions to climate change, than it is in your interest to make that effort. Even if it is false, the public perception that ExxonMobil continues to deny the scientific consensus on climate change continues to mire us in the wrong debate, while hampering efforts to move beyond the science to discuss policy solutions.
Thus, making a very public effort to clarify Exxon's position will go a long way towards clearing your clearly tarnished reputation while advancing the debate on policy solutions to climate change, a goal that we supposedly both share.
To this end, I would suggest that Exxon make a very public announcement (on par with the USCAP press event last week) that it considers the scientific consensus on climate change to be adequate enough to begin a serious discussion on policy solutions. I would encourage Exxon to hold a press conference very soon to clarify your position and to publicly state that you are willing to testify to that effect before Congress and that you are very much interested in seeing Congress take policy action at the earliest practicable opportunity.
You do not have to endorse a particular set of policy proposals, or a particular bill, if you are not ready to do so at this time, but doing so would lend credibility to the fact that this is something ExxonMobil is very serious about and is something you have given considerable thought to.
I would also encourage you to publicly distance yourself from any organizations that could be perceived as further linking ExxonMobil to efforts to continue the scientific debate on climate change, so as to make your position appear as consistent as possible.
The release of the IPCC report today makes this a very opportune moment to make such an announcement and to receive the press attention that you will need to begin to counteract the widespread public misperception of ExxonMobil's position on climate change.
Counteracting that very public misperception will go a long way towards buoying Exxon's reputation and will help establish the credibility on this topic that your company will need if it wishes to become an active (and heeded) participant in the ongoing policy discussions concerning climate solutions. It will also be a significant help in advancing the public and political debate beyond questions of science and onto questions of policy, a goal you have repeatedly said you hold.
I very much appreciate your candor and honesty on this topic, and I welcome continued dialogue in the future. And I hope to see ExxonMobil become publicly viewed as one among a growing list of companies seeking to see smart policy solutions to climate change. I hope we can agree that such an outcome would be in all of our best interests. Thank you again for your time.
Sincerely,
Jesse Jenkins
We'll see if Mr Cohen and ExxonMobil take any of this to heart. Hopefully we will see a big press release in the near future in which ExxonMobil very publicly states their belief that the scientific debate on climate change is over and that they now want to see an ernest discussion of smart policy solutions.
I think that this will go a long way towards moving us forward towards implementing real climate solutions.
Whether it's true or not, the fact that ExxonMobil is still publicly viewed as continuing the question the remarkably strong consensus on climate science continues to mire attempts to move past the science debate and onto discussing policies. The opinion of the largest corporation in the world, however self-interested they may be, still have quite a bit of weight, and the continued perception that Exxon is still in doubt about the science fuels the fire and provides more ammunition to those like Senator Inhofe (R-OK) who continue to challenge the scientific consensus and maintain that climate change is "a hoax."
If ExxonMobil indeed truly wants to see Congress debating policy solutions, and not the science, then it's up to Mr Cohen and his PR department to make that very clear to the public and to Congress.
The ball is in your court, Mr Cohen. What's your next move?
Climate Change Conversations with ExxonMobil, Part 3: The Court of Public Opinion
The Allegations
Amidst all of the headlines yesterday about the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report, released Friday (see previous posts here and here), another set of climate change-related headlines may have caught your eye: "Exxon linked to climate change payoff," read one headline at CNN online:
A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.Environmental groups and media outlikes alike jumped on this story which spread like wildfire through cyberspace and print media.
The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.
When considered in the context of the many front-page articles on the IPCC report and it's "unequivocal" statements about the occurance of climate change and humans' role in causing it, a story about ExxonMobil, still widely viewed as one of the remaining detractors of climate science, being linked to a right-of-center think tank offering cash to scientists willing to impune the credibility of the climate report was simply to good an angle not to publish, it seems.
As those of you who read my previous "Cimate Change Conversations with ExxonMobil" know (Part 1 and Part 2), I have been lucky enough to have opened a line of dialogue with Ken Cohen, Vice President for Public Relations with ExxonMobil. After being made aware of these new headlines concerning ExxonMobil's reported involvement with AEI and their alleged attempts to fund scientists willing to criticize the IPCC consensus report, I decided to take advantage of this line of communication and give Mr. Cohen and ExxonMobil a chance to respond to the story before jumping on the all-to-popular Exxon-bashing bandwagon. Read on for Exxon's reponse...
Exxon's Position on Climate Change Science and the IPCC Report
The allegations of Exxon's continued involvement with organizations seeking to prolong the debate on the science of climate change and impune the credibility of the remarkable scientific consensus that has emerged on the subject in recent years directly contradicted the position on cimate change that Mr. Cohen had articulated in our previous conversation last week.
"We believe climate change is a serious issue and that action must be taken,” Cohen said during last Friday's conference call.
Mr. Cohen made it very clear in that conversation and in the follow-up conversation that occured yesterday that ExxonMobil's position is that the scientific debate was the wrong debate to be having at this point.
"The debate is not about whether the climate is warming," Mr. Cohen said yesterday. "You could say that debate is over," he said. "The debate is now about what the best policy response is. What are policies that put us on a path to produce the energy the world needs but do it in a way that has a lower emissions impact. That's what we're focusing on [at ExxonMobil]."
In the first conference call, Mr. Cohen also maintained that ExxonMobil had decided to stop funding at least some of the organizations that had been accused by the British Royal Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists of 'misrepresenting the science of climate change' sometime in 2005, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (responsible for the rediculous "Some call it carbon dioxide, we call it life" ads - video here [it's good for a laugh!]).
The American Enterprise Institute was on the BRS and UCS lists of organizations engaged in 'tobacco-industry style disinformation campaigns' to confuse the science of climate change, and I had assumed in our previous conversation that AEI was among those that ExxonMobil had stopped funding.
How was I to reconcile these new headlines with what Mr. Cohen had told me just last friday? Were the headlines wrong, had Mr. Cohen misled me, or did I simply misundestand his comments? I decided to go straight to the source and find out.
Within 20 minutes of contacting the PR firm, APCO Worldwide", that had setup the previous conference call, I had gotten a personal email response from Mr. Cohen, and in 45 minutes, myself and three of the other bloggers who had participated in the previous conference call were on another call with Mr. Cohen.
[Other conference call participants included Susan Smith of Environmental Law Prof Blog, Stuart Staniford of The Oil Drum, and Maria Surma Manka of Green Options].
We had also been provided with two statements, a longer one responding to the IPCC report, and a shorter one on the AEI story, originally broke by the Guardian (UK).
The Exxon statement on the IPCC report had some pretty reasonable stuff to say [full statement here]:
"The release of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of Climate Science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an important contribution to informed debate on the issue of climate change. The IPCC report process is valuable in that it facilitates the sharing of global scientific knowledge and encourages further inquiry on the important issue of climate change.In our conversation later, Mr. Cohen made it clear that ExxonMobil respected the findings of the IPCC report and considered it to be "the best compilation of thinking on the subject at this point." He said that Exxon's position is that the climate is indeed warming, that CO2 emissions are at their highest levels "probably in 400,000 years," that those levels are the cause of the warming and that "Man's use of fossil fuels, land use decisions and other activities contribute to those levels."
"The Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science provides an extensive update of scientific understanding regarding Earth's climate. It describes the scientific basis for concern regarding the risk of climate change and attempts for the first time to characterize the probabilities for change.
...
"There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.6 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.
"Because the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health."
"The question is not the science," Mr Cohen said several times. "The question should now be what are serious policy options to deal with it."
Furthermore, when asked how long this position had been held by ExxonMobil, Mr. Cohen pointed to their "Tomorrow's Energy" report, released in early 2006 (Mr. Cohen had said 2005, but the report I found was dated February 2006) in which they say:
"[W]e recognize that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere poses risks that may prove significant for society and ecosystems. We believe that these risks justify actions now, but that the selection of actions must consider the uncertainties that remain. Notwithstanding those uncertainties, ExxonMobil is taking action to address these risks."The report also stated the ExxonMobil agreed that concentrations of greenhouse gases were up, that "human activities have contributed to these increased concentrations" and that the earth had indeed warmed by "about 0.6 C since the mid-1800s."
Mr. Cohen said that that report had been in preperation for several years before it's release and that it was thus fair to say that Exxon had held this position on climate change science "since 2001 or 2002."
[ I should also point out that the "Tomorrow's Energy" report makes a big deal out of the remaining levels of uncertainty in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, released in 2001. At that time, the IPCC had concluded that the earth was indeed warming (with >90% certainty), but that they could only say with >66% certainty that human activities were the cause of the majority of that warming.
The latest report released yesterday raises that level of certainty to "very likely" or >90% certainty and now says "unequivocally" (>99% certainty) that the earth has been warming and will continue to warm due to increased greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. Presumably, given this increase in the level of certainty on climate change, ExxonMobil will have to back off of such discussions of remaining uncertainties.
To be fair, I should also say that despite bringing up the uncertainties in the 2001 IPCC report, the Exxon report did say that "even with many scientific uncertainties, the risk that greenhouse gas emissions may have serious impacts justifies taking action." (Well that was a long-winded digression... I apologize...) ]
Exxon and AEI - Reconciling Inconsistencies
So, if it is indeed ExxonMobil's position that the scientific debate on climate change "is over," that the scientific question "is the wrong question," and that it is now time to move on to discussing in ernest the appropriate policy response, and furthermore, that ExxonMobil has held that position for several years now, how do we reconcile this with the alleged attemps by AEI, long a recipient of ExxonMobil funding, to fund scientists trying to continue the debate on the science of global warming?
Is this a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is up to? Or, as the cynic in me might conclude, is this a case of Exxon saying one thing while funding "independent groups" that are up to another thing, while maintaining a convenient level of deniability?
Or has this simply been a failure by ExxonMobil's PR department to adequately disseminate their true position on climate change, as articulated in the "Tomorrow's Energy" report, the statements on the IPCC report and in our conversations with Mr Cohen, in order to counteract widely held and deeply entrenched public opinion that Exxon's position was in fact just the opposite?
First off, I asked Mr. Cohen what ExxonMobil's relationship is with the American Enterprise Institute including their history and level of funding and the purpose of that funding.
Mr Cohen replied that they have been longtime funders of AEI and that they continued to fund them today, but not at the level alleged in the Guardian story (i.e. $1.6 million). He pointed out that Exxon funds a variety of independent think tanks including what Mr Cohen descibed as "right-of-center" groups like AEI, as well as more liberal organizations like the Brookings Institute.
According to Mr. Cohen, ExxonMobil currently funds AEI at the level of about $250,000 per year, and that as per AEI's policy, no single organization funds more than 1% of AEI's operating budget. The funds go into AEI's general operating budget. The $1.6 million reported by the Guardian is a composite figure totalling all of the funding recieved by AEI over the many years Exxon has funded the think tank.
As to the purpose of Exxon's funding for AEI, Mr Cohen said that they had no particular outcome in mind. He said:
He pointed out that AEI is an independent organization and that Exxon does not control what they say or do. Mr Cohen said that while they are a "right-of-center" organization, they publish a variety of ideas, not all of which Exxon agrees with.
Exxon often flatly disagrees with their positions on energy security and international energy policy, Mr Cohen said. He also pointed out that "one of AEI's scholars recently published a paper in favor of a carbon tax to combat global warming." [I'm not sure what specific report Mr Cohen was referring to, and he couldn't recall the title at the time, but a quick search turned up this short AEI article criticizing President Bush's latest 'energy independence' proposals and promoting a carbon tax as a better alternative.]
When I pointed out that in our previous discussion, Mr Cohen had implied that Exxon had decided in 2005 to de-fund organizations involved in the kind of activities alleged by the Guardian story in their 2006 budget. Mr Cohen responded that he had said that they had stopped funding "many" such organizations, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, but that he had not specifically said anything about AEI.
Looking back over my notes, I suppose that is indeed true, although Mr Cohen certainly seemed to imply at the time that Exxon was no longer involved with organizations engaged in these kinds of activities.
Mr Cohen pointed out that a full list of organizations recieving funding from ExxonMobil in 2005 could be found online here and that a report on 2006 funding levels was due out soon (sometime this quarter).
The 2005 spending report shows that AEI recieved $235,000 in "general operating support" funding. Exxon also provided $95,000 in "general operating support" and $75,000 in "project support" to the Brookings Institute (for a total of $170,000), as well as $270,000 in funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2005.
When asked to specify which specific organizations Exxon had decided to de-fund after 2005, Mr Cohen declined, saying that the 2006 spending report was coming out soon and that he "would rather do it that way."
I asked Mr Cohen specifically if AEI was indeed funding efforts to impeach the credibility of the IPCC report and prolong the debate on science of climate change, would Exxon continue to fund AEI in the future?
Mr. Cohen declined to provide a 'yes or no' answer, but responded that they were not aware of the activities alleged in the Guardian article. "We were not aware of this, and it is not something we condone," he said. "Our decision now is whether or not we want to continue to contribute to their general operations."
Mr Cohen went on to say:
"The way we approach science is that it is what it is. It's a process that reaches a conclusion. We do not believe in fostering scientific research with a preordained outcome. The question [when it comes to AEI] is are they preordaining the outcome. We [Exxon] are not shopping for science.Stuart Staniford, of The Oil Drum asked Mr Cohen what kind of discussions they had had internally with their PR folks about how they would respond to the IPCC report, and what kinds of independent organizations they might seek out to respond to the report.
When it come to policy, we think it's fair to look at how it affects us as a company, as long as we are transparent, and say 'this is our position on this policy because it will affect us in this way.' We have a responsibility to be open and honest in our positions on policies."
Mr. Cohen responded:
"No we did not consider managing the public discussion on the IPCC report in any way shape or form. The report is what it is. The IPCC process brings together some of the best scientific minds on climate science. We participated in that process and we are a company that goes by the science.
The debate is not about whether the climate is warming. You could say that debate is over. The debate is about what the best policy response is. What are policies that put us on a path to produce the energy the world needs but do it in a way that has a lower emissions impact. That's what we're focusing on."
A Question of Public Relations
At this point in our conversation, it was clear that ExxonMobil's position on climate change, as Mr. Cohen was articulating it, was not supportive of any activities designed to continue the debate on the science of climate change or impune the credibility of the IPCC report.
It was clear, then, that this was truly a question of public relations. If Exxon's position was one thing, yet public perception of their position was entirely the opposite, we were looking at a very clear failure on Exxon's behalf to make the public aware of their true position on climate change and to convince them that they were serious about talking about policy solutions.
The cynic in me still considered it likely that Exxon had been trying to get away with saying one thing publicly while funding organizations like AEI and CEI with the aim of simultaneously continuing to prolong the weary debate on climate science. [If that is the case, hopefully this latest PR 'shitstorm' will convince Exxon that they can't get away with that kind of activity in this day and age!]
Still, I'm willing to give ExxonMobil a chance to convince me that this isn't the case, and the conversation soon turned to what ExxonMobil should do from a PR perspective to convince the public that they are not trying to prolong the scientific debate and are serious about discussing policy solutions.
At one point, Mr. Cohen said, "There are groups out there that want to put us is in a bucket that we are denying what the best scientific minds are saying. We're not in denial about that. The question is about what the policy response should be."
"Perhaps Greenpeace and others need a bad guy out there for their fund raising," Mr. Cohen said. "I refuse to be that bad person, we're not that bad person."
OK, Mr. Cohen. But now you've got to prove it to us.
Susan Smith, of the Environmental Law Professor Blog, got to the heart of the matter and asked, "given the desire to get out of 'the bucket,' don't you have to take a proactive approach and publicly say 'we don't want to be in anyway associated with efforts to continue the debate on the wrong question [the climate science]'?"
Mr Cohen responded:
"I believe in the rule of holes. The first rule is to stop digging, and the second rule is to figure out how to get out of the hole.As for how to 'get out of the hole' Exxon is clearly sitting in today, Mr. Cohen initially rejected the idea of "a grandiose PR campaign."
As for the first rule, any group that is getting funding from us and active in this area, a representative from Exxon has made it clear to them what our position is. We're not over here in this bucket of resisting the science. You can do whatever you want think tank, but Exxon is over here thinking and talking about what policies makes sense economically and environmentally. We've met some resistance from some groups, and then we have to go back and consider closing the door on those groups."
"It would be hard for me to visualize doing that," he said, "but we are trying to be constructive in the policy discussion and not be associated with groups that are marginalizing themselves on the scientific discussion."
I pressed Mr. Cohen on this point though, asking him, "If this has been your position for quite some time, since 2001 or 2002 even, then why have you not made a larger public effort to make your position on climate change clear?"
Mr. Cohen responded quite frankly, saying, "That's a fair criticism. Clearly I need to do a better job on that front."
And this is what it all comes down to: the court of public opinion.
ExxonMobil has clearly not been winning this battle, and frankly, it doesn't look like they've been trying particularly hard to do so.
It all comes down to effective PR and Exxon's image in the public eye.
It's going to be up to ExxonMobil to convince a very skeptical public that Exxon wants to be a constructive participant in the ongoing discussions on policy solutions to climate change, that they consider the scientific debate to be over, and that they are no longer involved with any organizations seeking to prolong this debate.
It's not going to an easy task, and it's going to take a very proactive and public effort. A press conference on the scale of the US Climate Action Partnership announcement two weeks ago and a consistent and concerted effort to distance Exxon from any organizations that could even be percieved as linking them to efforts to impune the credibilty of the scientific consensus on climate change will probably be necessary - after all, this is all about perceptions.
But ExxonMobil clearly has access to the best PR money can buy, and if they truly want to prove to the public that they are a constructive member of the dialogue on climate change solutions, they can do it; they're just going to have to work at it.
Frankly, it's up to Mr Cohen and his PR department. I'll be waiting to see how much they care about this.
If they want to change public perceptions, they'll have to redouble their efforts. If they don't mind continuing to be viewed as one of the last major climate change detractors, then all they have to do is sit back and wait for the next eager 'investigative reporter' to dig up something - anything - linking Exxon to efforts prolonging the climate science debate. Unless Exxon is very careful about avoiding any 'sticky situations,' it's only a matter of time before the next big Exxon-bashing headline.
As Mr Cohen must be keenly aware at this point, there are plenty of folks out there waiting to pick on Exxon. After all, the largest corporation in the world, currently enjoying record profits, is a very easy target, especially when they continue to get caught up with folks like AEI or CEI who insist on marginalizing themselves on climate change and are taking Exxon along with them...
At this point, the conference call wrapped up, but I followed up with a frank email suggesting what Exxon would have to do to 'get out of the hole' and start shifting the public's awareness of Exxon's position on climate change. The text of that email will be published in a 'Part Four' to follow shortly...
Friday, February 02, 2007
News From My Backyard: Pacific Northwest Faces Climate Change Impacts
[The following is an exerpt from the Oregonian's coverage of the IPCC 4th Assessment report released today (see previous post). It discusses regional climate change impacts to the Pacific Northwest. Just bringing this all home...]
Why we're vulnerable
Although the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" does not mention the Northwest, Mote said the implications are clear for a region dependent on winter snowpack for irrigation, power, fish and urban water supplies.
Mote -- the lead author of the yet-to-be-released full report's chapter about snow and ice changes -- said previous studies have shown that the Cascades' snowpack has been decreasing since the 1930s, resulting in lower summer streamflows.
"Those are a primary consequence of a warming climate," said Mote, "and poses challenges for water resource managers, agriculture and hydropower."
Mote, the state climatologist for Washington, said the past 10 years in the Northwest have been the warmest since record-keeping began in the 19th century.
Separately, researchers at Portland State University have in recent years tracked and verified the dramatic retreat of glaciers on Mount Hood and other Cascade peaks.
[Mt Hood's once extensive glaciers and the extent of remaining summer snowpack have retreated significantly in just the past two decades, as documented by these photos from Gary Braasch (image source: WorldViewOfGlobalWarming.com)]
Ruby Leung, a climate modeler at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., agreed that the region will be one of the nation's most hard-hit areas if warming projections are correct. Leung is a contributor to a chapter in the full IPCC report about regional climate projections.
Leung said previous studies by her and others indicate there will be a significant reduction in snowpack by 50 percent to 70 percent in the West's coastal mountains, including the Cascades.
There also will be a change in the type of precipitation in the winter, with more of it falling as rain rather than snow. That trend is already especially clear in the Northwest, where temperatures are not far below freezing and a slight increase could turn snow to rain.
Much of the rain will come in very heavy storms. That's because warmer temperatures allow the atmosphere to hold more moisture, which it releases in bigger downpours. That can lead to winter flooding and smaller streamflows in rivers and streams during the summer.
Ron Neilson, a U.S. Forest Service climate scientist in Corvallis who has been a primary author on previous IPCC reports, said the new conclusions support many earlier scientific findings.
"In some ways that's comforting," he said. But at the same time the speed at which the climate is shifting has surprised many of the researchers who study it. "We're rather abashed at how fast things are changing." But he said it's clear the public has begun to notice the climate changing in their own backyards.
"When records that have been standing for 100 years are falling right and left, people are sitting up and taking notice," he said.
Neilson added that land managers and other public officials must realize that the climate and the forests, wildlife and people who depend on it will face a shifting future as greenhouse gases push climate to new extremes.
Today's IPCC report is the group's fourth assessment -- and first in six years -- since the group was established, in 1988, by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.
Luckily for us Oregonians, we've got plenty of great climate solutions at our disposal in this year's legislature. Check out this previous post for a summary of all of the renewable energy bills being proposed.
Climate Report's Outlook Dire, but Challenge is Not Insurmountable
[From the USA Today:]
Prominent U.S. scientists and others said Friday that a new international climate report's dire outlook for global warming this century demands action but is not an impossible challenge.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) foresees a steady rise in temperatures and sea levels for centuries because of human-caused global warming [summary for policy makers here].
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widspread melting of snow and ice, and rising ... sea level," said the panel, a joint, 193-nation effort of the United Nations and the world Meteorological Organization.
A 21-page summary of the report said global warming is "very likely" caused mostly by human activity ['very likely' meaning with >90% certainty in the report] — in particular carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels — and not merely natural processes of Earth and its atmosphere. The panel said warming will "continue for centuries" regardless of how much the world reduces "greenhouse" emissions.
"We can adapt our way through this," said Jonathan Overpeck, a University of Arizona climate scientist who helped draft the summary and coordinated a chapter in the report. "What the IPCC is endeavoring to do is show everybody what's going to happen if we just let it go unabated, if we pull back some, or if we really try to cut emissions. It's just like turning the dial up. We control this climate system, that's clear. We can turn the dial down or keep it up."
Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and lead author of the report's chapter on projections of future climate change, added: "The longer you wait, the worse the problem gets. The longer you wait, the longer it takes (to fix)."
The panel's bleak summary, released Friday in Paris, lays out the how, what and why of global warming, but not remedies to the problem. Two more reports by the panel this spring will address in detail the effects of climate change and the most promising measures for slowing global warming.
"We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible," warned French President Jacques Chirac, who called for an economic and political "revolution" to save the planet.
Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program, said the report is a call to action and that the people of the world "should not sit back and say, 'There's nothing we can do.' Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible."
The report said human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases can already be blamed for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in the strength and rainfall in hurricanes and tropical storms, particularly in the Atlantic Ocean. Americans among the more than 1,600 scientists who participated in the report said all those elements are projected to grow worse in the USA, too.
[Image: summary of observed climate trends and level of certainty regarding human cause. Source: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%. (Click to Enlarge)]
"The element of surprise here is that the picture is becoming so clear that (climate) changes are due to human activity," said Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. "And the warming really is everywhere. We're not seeing pockets of cooling anymore."
Despite the report's strong wording, the Bush administration opposes a mandatory "cap" on the heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases primarily responsible for Earth's warm-up. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said "unintended consequences" could result, including job losses to countries without limits on carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. "We need a global solution," Bodman said. The administration's strategy emphasizes "market forces. .. (and) solutions that are technically and economically sound."
Linda Mearns, who heads NCAR's Institute for the Study of Society and the Environment, said ordinary citizens and local and regional politicians already are leading the response to climate change in the USA, which produces about one-quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions.
"Since we haven't had a lot of clear leadership at the top, it has actually created opportunity for more grassroots efforts," said Mearns, one of the report's lead authors on regional climate projections. She called it "truly extraordinary" that more than 375 U.S. mayors, representing one-third of the nation's population, have signed a pact pledging to cut greenhouse gases in their communities.
In Washington, Democrats seized on the report to criticize the administration.
"Although President Bush just noticed that the earth is heating up, the American public, every reputable scientist and other world leaders have long recognized that global warming is real and it's serious. The time to act is now," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. He and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, have sponsored one of a number of bills to tackle global warming.
But the White House defended Bush's record, saying he acknowledged in 2001 that rising greenhouse gases are due largely to humans. It said Bush has budgeted or proposed $29 billion for climate change science, technology, international aid and incentives, "more money than any other country."
Myron Ebell, global warming policy chief at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, said the report is "less alarmist" than the last assessment in 2001. But he said the "hoopla saying that the further along we go, the more alarmed we should be is not justified by the report."
Mark Bernstein, a professor at the University of Southern California, said it took a long time for the public to accept the link between cancer and cigarettes. He believes the climate report will move more people toward the same kind of acceptance of the connection of human activities to climate change.
The report is blunt. If things look bad now, the harmful effects of warming the rest of this century will "very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century," it says. It predicts temperature rises of 2°F to 11.5°F by the year 2100, a wider range than in the last report in 2001. The panel said its best estimate, however, is for rises of 3.2°F to 7.1°F.
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of this century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues. Some scientists dispute that as too conservative and believe the rise will be in feet, not inches, if melting in Greenland and Antarctic worsens. Meehl from NCAR warned that continued global warming could eventually lead to an "ice-free Arctic."
[Image: The IPCC report concluded that there was not yet enough solid scientific understanding of how rapidly the vast stores of ice in Greenland and other polar regions will begin to erode. The effect of Greenland ice melt was thus not included in this consensus report's estimates of sea temperature increases which were confined to melting glaciers and the thermal expansion of the world's oceans. Sea level rises could be measured in feet instead of inches if melting worsens in Greenland and Antarctica.]
As for hurricanes, Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said that the report shows "some evidence that there has been an increase in intensity in tropical storms and hurricanes. While there won't necessarily be more storms, it's likely that the most intense storms will become more intense, and that an increase in precipitation and wind speeds are likely. But there's still a fair bit of uncertainty in the data – this remains a cutting edge research topic."
Adapting to climate change is the next hurdle for the world, said Vicky Pope, climate program chief at Great Britain's Hadley Center, which does climate research for the United Kingdom. Drought and heat waves will be a principal concern in many regions.
Although Pope was not directly involved in the IPCC work, her center did a study last October — too late to be included in the panel report — showing droughts were more frequent in the past 50 years and will be more so in the next century. In addition, she said moderate droughts, "something that happens to us 25% of the time," will double in frequency, and extreme drought will jump from 3% of the time now to 30% of the time.
Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, said the "sleeper issue" in the panel report is "carbon feedback," or the possibility that Earth's biosphere — the air, ground, vegetation and seas — will reach a saturation point for carbon dioxide emissions.
"Right now, about 40% of carbon dioxide emissions get taken up by those various 'sinks,' " said Romm, author of Hell and High Water: Global Warming, The Solution and the Politics. If the biosphere maxes out and starts releasing that carbon, "that's the point of no return." Of particular worry, he said, is the frozen tundra of northern latitudes, which holds vast amounts of carbon that would release if polar warming worsens.
As the IPCC report was being released, environmental activists rappeled off a Paris bridge and draped a banner over a statue used often as a popular gauge of whether the Seine River is running high.
"Alarm bells are ringing," said Catherine Pearce of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group. "The world must wake up to the threat posed by climate change."
I'd like to point out that the IPCC report is a consensus document. It represents the work of over 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors and 450+ lead authors representing 193 countries. The report took six years to repare and represents the opinions of the best minds in the world on the current understanding of climate change science.
The Summary for Policy Makers in particular is a true consensus document in which not a single line could be printed without approval from representatives of more than 100 active reviewing memeber-nations in the IPCC, including ample representation of the United States government. Every sentance in the summary was belabored over for weeks before the summary's release to the public today.
This summary document should be considered a clear and practically unimpeachable representation of the worldwide scientific consensus on climate change, and the unerlying full report is a veritable treasure trove of imformation on the state of climate science today representing reviews of every peer-reviewed article on the topic published since the last IPCC report in 2001.
We may belabor exactly how much sea levels will rise, or how much global temperatures will increase; we may not know with certainty that hurricanes are increasing in intensity because of warming sea and air temperatures; in short, we can debate about the particular consequense of climate, but as the IPCC report now makes clear, it is simply "uniquivocal" that the climate IS warming, and we can say with greater than 90% certainty that human-produced greenhouse gas emissions are to blame.
It is now high time to leave behind the weary debate about the science of climate change and begin to discuss in ernest policy options and then implement as quickly as practicably possible smart solutions to the climate challenge.
We clearly know enough now to see that the risks of continued inaction are simply to high.
Other articles today on the IPCC 4th Assessment Report:
PetroSun/Algae Biofuels One Step Closer to Commercializing Algae-based Biofuels
[From RenewableEnergyAccess.com:]
PetroSun, Inc.'s field testing of the cultivation of algae for biodiesel production has progressed to the final stage prior to the construction of a commercial cultivation facility [see previous post on PetroSun].
This final stage will consist of producing adequate algae paste to test the output and economics of several biodiesel refinery manufacturers now under consideration by Algae Biofuels, a wholly owned subsidiary of PetroSun, which will own and operate the production and refinery facilities.
Algae BioFuels is considering sites in Arizona, New Mexico, California, Louisiana and Michigan for its initial commercial cultivation of algae feedstock in the U.S. In the foreign market, Australia and China are the leading candidates for production and refinery operations.
"Should the cultivation process prove to be successful outside of the U.S. Sunbelt, Algae BioFuels' model is to locate production and refinery sites near major cities and truck routes to reduce the cost of biodiesel in those areas," said Gordon LeBlanc, Jr., PetroSun, CEO.
The consumption of diesel fuel in the U.S. for on-highway use is 39 billion gallons per year and increasing over 3% annually. This represents 22% by sales and volume of the total U.S. transportation fuel market. The cost of diesel fuel has increased dramatically the past few years as a result of higher oil prices and refining costs due to the Ultra Low Sulfur diesel laws.
Algae-based biodiesel contains no sulfur, is non-toxic, highly biodegradable and is not subject to a commodity risk as is crude oil, corn and soybeans.
Algae BioFuels joins at least three other companies developing algae-based biofuel products - Solix Biofuels, whose in partnership with Colorado State University [previous post], GreenFuel Technologies Corporation [previous Energy Blog post and the cleantech business development company GreenShift (who is licensing technology developed at Ohio University) [previous Energy Blog post]. All four companies are developing algal bioreactors designed to feed off of waste CO2 and heat from industrial processes and powerplants, effectively recycling the CO2 from industrial or power plant emissions into algae-based biofuels.
While algae-based biofuels often take back seat to cellulosic ethanol when discussing second-generation biofuels, next-generation algae-based biofuels have the potential to scale large enough to actually make a significant impact on petroleum consumption. These companies are quietly commercializing these technologies, and I wish them luck in their efforts. If succesful, we could have yet another viable tool in our growing 'bag of tricks' to combat climate change, reduce our oil dependence and help us transition to a sustainable energy future.
New Study Finds Extensive Untapped Geothermal Potential In Western US
[From Geothermal Energy Association via Renewable Energy Access.com:]
A new report released today finds extensive undeveloped geothermal resources in fourteen Western states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The new report, An Assessment of Geothermal Resource Development Needs in the Western United States, written by Dan Fleischmann for the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) is the most in-depth study we've ever undertaken into the specific barriers and challenges to geothermal energy in the US.
Key conclusions of the 140 page report are:
The report documents efforts in each state to develop geothermal resources and defines challenges and opportunities for expanding geothermal energy production in the US.
The cross-cutting recommendations made in the report are based upon the feedback received from over 150 different experts including consultants, engineers, project developers, utilities, regulators, clean energy advocates, researchers and geologists.
"If federal and state policies address the issues identified in this report, the potential for geothermal development is incredible," says Daniel Fleischmann, the author of the report. "While the U.S. geothermal industry already has close to 60 projects and over 2000 megawatts in the pipeline - the development of which will double current capacity - much, much more is possible."
According to the report, "If policymakers are serious about energy independence and reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants, they must develop a comprehensive approach supporting geothermal development as one of several resources that can help meet these goals." According to the report, such an approach requires that policymakers:
"The geothermal industry is now in a position to make significant progress, take advantage of ongoing momentum and invest in new technologies," the report states. "With high energy prices, growing populations requiring additional energy supplies, and new technological advancements and applications the industry is heading towards a tipping point where what was theoretical will become standard."
To download the report free of charge, please visit the GEA website. An Executive Summary (12 pages) and Full Report (140 pages) are both available at http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/reports.asp.
This report, along with another new report on enhanced geothermal energy potential from MIT [previous post] are proof positive that Geothermal Energy is far from a tapped out, mature technology. Not only is there considerable untapped geothermal energy potential available using existing technologies - i.e. binary power plants - the potential for new technologies like enhanced geothermal energy/hot dry rock technology to open up vast reserves of geothermal energy is huge.
It is expected that despite President Bush's lip-service to renewable energy in his State of the Union, his 2007 budget proposal will 'zero out' funding for Department of Energy geothermal research programs, arguing that geothermal is a mature and developed technology needing no DOE support. Considering these two reports, this argument is ludicrious.
Geothermal energy has vast untapped potential and new technologies can expand that potential. And unlike wind or solar power, geothermal offers extremely reliable baseload power, meaning it can easily displace coal-fired power plants and become a major contributor to a sustainable energy future and help combat global warming.
The DOE geothermal research budget should be expanded, not axed, and government support to encourage geothermal energy development should be redoubled. Geothermal energy can play an integral part in fostering energy independence, combatting global warming, and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels while contributing to rural economic development, all goals that deserve government support.
Read more!
For Goldman Sachs, Going Green Means Making Green
[From EcosystemMarketplace via GreenBiz.com:]
In November 2005 Goldman Sachs surprised many people in the financial sector when it announced an ambitious new environmental policy framework. The slew of green measures included commitments to consider the environmental and social impacts of investments, encourage the development of environmental markets, and reduce the investment bank's overall climate footprint.
Now a little over a year later (and on the back of soaring profits) the investment giant is taking stock of its efforts. On January 21, 2007, it quietly released its year-end environmental report, demonstrating that environmental commitments are indeed in line with Goldman's raison d'etre: making money.
"We tried to make the framework as business-oriented as possible, because we believe it would be the best way for us to have a positive impact on the environment," says Sonal Shah, vice president of corporate citizenship at Goldman Sachs. "We want to show that there is a way to make money on this."
Winds of Change
"Goldman Sachs really pushed the envelope with [its] policy framework," says Jon Sohn, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute. "They are sending a message that valuing the environment can go hand in hand with wealth creation."
In particular, Goldman Sachs chose to focus its efforts on the renewable energy sector in 2006, where it thinks profits may just be blowing in the wind. Due to strong demand and opportunity, it exceeded its original pledge to invest $1 billion in alternative energy by 50 percent. In June 2005 the investment bank acquired Horizon Wind Energy (formerly Zilkha Renewable Energy), and then acted as a joint book runner on the syndication of $263 million in project financing for the company in April 2006. Horizon says it will put the money to work constructing turbines capable of producing enough electricity (4,000 megawatts) for 1.2 million homes.
In addition to betting on wind, Goldman Sachs kicked in support for companies in the solar, biodiesel and ethanol businesses. The investment bank made a private equity investment in SunEdison LLC, a Baltimore-based company in the solar photovoltaic systems business, and arranged $217 million in debt financing for Northeast Biofuels. Reflecting its appetite for innovation, Goldman also purchased a minority stake in Iogen Corporation, which is attempting to pioneer the conversion of agriculture materials like straw, corn stalks, and switchgrass into ethanol.
Of course, environmental advocacy groups are quick to point out that upping investment levels in alternative energy addresses just one side of the climate change problem facing the current economy. Sohn argues, for instance, that Goldman's year-end report did not say enough about the nature and number of transactions it screened when making project investments in environmentally-sensitive industries.
"Investment banks need to carefully evaluate who they're doing business with, and the environmental and social impacts of the full range of financial services that they provide," says Dana Clark, global finance campaigner for the Rainforest Action Network. "They need to reduce their involvement with the dirtiest industries, and find ways to reduce the carbon intensity of their investments."
Goldman admits that controversies about project finance decisions may become more commonplace in the future, but argues it is difficult to turn down such investments in light of the growing demand for energy, and the current inability of alternative sources to meet it. According to Shah, investing in alternative energy and technology is not without its own problems. For example, wind farms sometimes face local not-in-my-backyard opposition, and there are still some unresolved questions with regards to the implementation of certain technologies.
So instead of an abrupt shift from fossil-fuel based- to alternative energy, Goldman Sachs envisions a phased approach in which different sectors of the economy gradually become less and less dependent on coal and oil. In this context, Shah says Goldman Sachs will continue to make investments in proven alternative energy sources and will help develop the carbon market.
"Money is already flowing to alternative energy sources," says Sohn. "But with this policy, Goldman Sachs recognizes that markets have to be enhanced to significantly increase these flows globally and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels."
Making Markets
The investment bank's strategic investments in renewable energy are just one part of its market-making strategy.
Goldman Sachs purchased a 10.1 percent stake in the UK-listed Climate Exchange, the parent company of the European Climate Exchange (ECX), in September 2006. The investment formed part of the Climate Exchange's merger with the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), strategically positioning the company—and by extension Goldman Sachs—in two significant markets. Goldman liked this position enough to double its stake in the deal to 19 percent last week, fueling a five percent surge in Climate Exchange stock on January 19, 2007.
Goldman Sachs is also looking to stoke the fires of less established sectors of the carbon market. Just last month, the investment bank's new Center for Environmental Markets commissioned Resources for the Future, the World Resources Institute and the Woods Hole Research Center to research: policy options for federal greenhouse gas regulations in the United States; the promise of various clean technologies; and the value of avoided deforestation. The research will be made available to the public and discussed in a series of global conferences. The aim, says Shah, is to inform current policy debates about the potential of environmental markets in reversing environmental degradation.
Yet, in relation to other ecosystem services, such as the preservation of water-quality or biodiversity conservation, there was little progress to report. But Goldman Sachs says it is evaluating opportunities in relation to water and biodiversity, and may commission research or make investments in this area in the coming year.
"I would be disappointed if a market for valuing biodiversity does not emerge in the next 10-15 years," says Alice Chapple, director of sustainable financial markets at Forum for the Future, a UK-based organization. "I expect that financial institutions, alongside other companies, will begin to understand the role they play in both the extinction and protection of vulnerable species."
Long-Term Greed
Goldman Sachs has a history of making long-term strategic investments in new product lines. Gus Levy, its former legendary partner, famously conceded that the investment bank was greedy, but clarified, "long-term greedy." The fact that the powerhouse of capitalism is taking the plunge into environmental markets is perhaps the embodiment of this mantra, and the surest signal yet that there is money to be made on sustaining ecosystem services.
"People do perceive Goldman Sachs in a different way from other investment banks," says Chapple. "So when it released its environmental policy framework, some skeptics in the financial sector did reconsider their views on the commercial viability of green investments."
As with its investments more generally, thorough internal research will underpin Goldman Sachs' latest move. While the research grants provided to explore public policy options totaled $2.3 million, the investment bank's support for internal research is much more substantial. Last year, Goldman became a partner of ASSET4, a provider of non-financial data on corporations worldwide that incorporates environmental, social and governance (ESG) data into its investment research. The aim is to understand the relationship between ESG performance and share prices.
"We have done a lot of research on this and we feel we will become better investors," says Shah. "We are really trying to get to our clients and the investing audience out there, and demonstrate why these issues are important to think about."
If Goldman Sachs can drive interest in environmental markets, it would certainly be timely. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, approximately 60 percent of ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainably. Fortunately, Shah says the demand for advice on ESG issues is rising, particularly among corporations in Europe, and among utilities worldwide. But more importantly, as many clients will increasingly be exposed to such risks, Goldman Sachs wants to be in a position to help them.
The Hibernating Giant
A notable finding of Goldman Sachs' research is that the impact of pressures from NGOs and SRI funds, or single pollution incidences, impacts shareholder value much less than government regulation. Accordingly, the investment bank has strongly come out in favor of regulation that creates long-term value for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and new technologies. Voluntary action, it reasons, is insufficient.
"We are not advocating for any specific federal regulatory policy," says Shah. "Rather, we want to inform decision-makers of good market-principles that they should think about."
Chapple agrees with this approach: "The best input into policy that investment banks can provide is to conduct and present research to government and stakeholders that identifies the obstacles they face in expanding their investments into alternative energy and clean technologies," she says. In turn, government should set clear policy targets and stick to them, thereby providing regulatory certainty for investors.
Based on its financial standing and reputation, Goldman Sachs is a bellwether for investors. When it speaks, Wall Street listens. So given its endorsement of the sustainability agenda, are we seeing the contours of a green arms race in the financial industry?
Well, perhaps. Last October Morgan Stanley tripled Goldman's $1bn commitment, announcing plans to invest roughly $3bn in carbon credits and energy projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during the next five years. In the long run, however, only effective and stable federal regulation can put a robust price on carbon.
Market analysts have called the U.S carbon market a "hibernating giant." With Goldman Sachs leading the way, the conservative wing of Wall Street seems to have woken up. And so the question is: when will lawmakers on Capitol Hill follow suit?
Resources:
Thursday, February 01, 2007
News From My Backyard: OSU Study Burns Biofuels
[From the Eugene Register-Guard:]
A new analysis by a team of Oregon State University economists concludes that biofuels offer only marginal progress toward energy independence and reduction of greenhouse gases and do so at a much higher cost than other alternatives.
The study found that the "net energy" from biofuels - the amount of energy in the end product after subtracting the amount of energy used to produce and distribute it - is as low as 20 percent for corn-based ethanol. That compares with 75 percent for standard gasoline.
Also, although each of the three types of biofuels studied would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the reduction would be as much as 200 times more expensive than other options, such as improving gas mileage or establishing a carbon tax.
Biofuel supporters don't necessarily dispute the numbers but suggest that the math would tilt in alternative fuels' favor by changes in existing production and distribution systems and future improvements in technology. They say the biofuels market is a necessary first step and that rising consumer demand will help bring about advances that will improve cost effectiveness.
"We must keep in mind that biofuels are not the end answer to our liquid fuel problems," said Ian Hill, founder and a managing partner of SeQuential Biofuels. "What they are is a progressive step in the right direction."
The study was done by professors William Jaeger and Thorsten Egelkraut and research associate Robin Cross in OSU's College of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Jaeger said its purpose was not to tell people whether it makes economic sense to put biofuels in their gas tanks, but to help in the debate over steps Oregon can take as a state to address energy and environmental needs, such as encouraging development of biofuel refineries.
He said the report probably won't be welcome news for those who advocate greater use of biofuels, but he said it helps show where investments are needed to help make such fuels a more viable alternative.
The analysis looked at three types of biofuels: corn-based ethanol, wood cellulose-based ethanol and canola-based biodiesel. It looked at the cost of growing and processing the crops used to produce and transport the fuel, the net energy of the fuel and the effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
Importantly, the study did not factor in the environmental cost of refining and burning gasoline or of producing biofuels.
According to the study, only wood cellulose ethanol has a greater net energy return than gasoline, 84 percent, but it still produces fewer Btus per gallon, and with current technology it costs more to produce than it would generate in sales. Canola biodiesel has a net energy of 69 percent, 6 1/2 times that of corn ethanol, which is 20 percent.
But a big part of the net energy calculation comes from the byproducts of biofuel production. Both biodiesel and corn ethanol produce large amounts of left over vegetable matter that is used as animal feed, and that adds substantially to net energy because it reduces overall feed production.
Biodiesel also creates glycerin as a byproduct, which contributes to the net energy figure.
But producing biofuels in large quantities could flood the market for such products, dramatically lowering their price or creating more than can be used. If that happens, the net energy of biofuels will drop dramatically.
The study also found that the cost of greenhouse gas reduction is very high using biofuels. It said policy changes such as carbon sequestration, carbon taxes and "cap and trade" rules would cost about $50 per ton of carbon while corn ethanol would cost $10,700 per ton, biodiesel $580 per ton and wood ethanol $350 a ton.
The study said the energy benefit from increasing automobile fuel efficiency by one mile per gallon in Oregon alone would be equivalent to the gain from building three or four large-scale corn ethanol plants or 13 biodiesel plants.
Also, the study said, to meet 1 percent of Oregon's current petroleum energy consumption with biodiesel would require 400,000 acres of canola, 100 times the current acreage. That would produce 600 million pounds of leftover canola meal, enough to feed five times the numbers of cows currently raised in the state.
The gloomy findings aren't likely to deter biofuel supporters, who see alternative fuels in terms of environmental costs avoided as much as overall cost effectiveness. They say today's cost structure will change.
Hill said feedstocks other than canola could change the economics of biodiesel and increased corn production in Oregon could do the same for ethanol. The important thing, he said, is to keep moving ahead.
"We don't have a perfect solution today, but we do have some solutions that take us toward a sustainable system and move us away from the fossil fuel system," he said. "Is it better to take that step now or not? We would argue as a company that it's absolutely better to take that step and always be critical of where we are and push for greater efficiency."
This is a surprisingly good article, for the ole' Eugene R-G. The OSU study's energy figures are pretty much in line with my thesis research findings, and the economic numbers make sense.
And the quotes from the biofuels supporters are pretty good too. Clearly, biofuels can't be THE solution - to either energy independence, or global warming. They can help make an incremental difference and get us one (maybe small) step closer, but they certainly aren't a silver bullet. The guys at Sequential know this (I've heard both of the Oregon-based biofuels company's founders speak a several of times now), and their quotes in the article are pretty spot on.
The study's findings are yet another indicator that if we are really serious about energy independence and climate solutions, we need to be looking at increased efficiency first - raise fuel economy standards, increase appliance, lighting and building codes and capture all cost-effective industrial efficiency. This will be by far the most cost-effective effort to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
And while the study did not focus on other alternative transportation options (see my thesis for a comparison of the energy use and emissions of a much broader set of alternative transportation options), it is also clear that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will trump the energy and emissions savings of biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol. Plug-in hybrids fueled with cellulosic ethanol are even better...
