ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
see ALT ENERGY2 for newer
see green new deal
see BBB
SEE WIND 2
SEE SOLAR 2
cci 10 23
2 25
British energy giant had planned a big switch to green energy. That's been shelved.
11 23 fox
victory celebration
The wheels are starting to fall off the green energy bandwagon. The rose-colored glasses are clearing up and reality is sinking in. AND OTHER TRITE EXPRESSIONS
The giant push toward a net zero utopia is not practical and has been a complete disservice to the American consumer. Components of the green movement are experiencing major setbacks, namely offshore wind, electric vehicles (EVs), and investments.
Offshore wind projects are struggling to secure financing and stay on track. The biggest blow came last month, when the world’s largest offshore wind developer Ørsted canceled two major projects off the New Jersey coastline, taking the wind right out of Gov. Phil Murphy’s green energy sails. Ørsted is also suspending work on offshore projects in Maryland and Delaware.
President Biden previously set a goal of ensuring 50% of car purchases are electric by 2030. The White House said EPAs recent tailpipe rules would provide a "clear pathway for a continued rise in EV sales."
The EV market is also losing steam. Sales are slumping and manufacturers are scaling back on production. (Anna Moneymaker/Pool/Getty Images | Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Among the wave of cancellations are projects in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and Connecticut. Several other projects are on the ropes and a host of companies are paying millions to break their contracts.
BIDEN ADMIN QUIETLY RELEASED STUDY SHOWING GREEN ENERGY RECEIVES FAR MORE SUBSIDIES THAN FOSSIL FUELS
The industry hit another snag recently when Germany-based Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy pulled the plug on its wind turbine blade facility in Portsmouth, Virginia. Siemens Gamesa, one of the world’s leading suppliers, says, "development milestones to establish the facility could not be met."
According to BloombergNEF, at least half of U.S. wind contracts have or are at risk of being terminated. The causes are typically due to skyrocketing inflation, high interest rates, choked supply chains and financial troubles.
Offshore wind is leaving a ‘heavy environmental footprint’ on the East Coast: CFACT’s Craig RuckerVideo
Offshore wind is costly and difficult to implement.
The EV market is also losing steam. Sales are slumping and manufacturers are scaling back on production.
EXPERT WARNS GREEN ENERGY PROJECTS ‘ARE NOT WORTH IT’ AS PRICES SPIRAL ‘OUT OF CONTROL’
Ford Motor Company stands to lose $4.5 billion on its EV business for 2023 and will be delaying many of their EV investments.
General Motors said it was restructuring EV goals, Honda shelved plans to develop affordable EVs with GM, and Hertz said it will slow their rate of purchasing them due to high repair costs. Elon Musk is even considering putting off plans for a $1 billion plant in Mexico.
Nobody wins in this push for electric vehicles besides China: Lisa BootheVideo
Most, if not all, manufacturers are reporting major losses per EV sold. Ford lost $62,000 per vehicle in the third quarter; one luxury electric vehicle company lost an astounding $430,000. Countless others are losing tens of thousands of dollars per vehicle, quarter after quarter.
Car dealers are slashing EV prices. EVs sit on lots nearly twice as long as internal combustion engines. Even industry-leader Tesla has been shaving thousands off their retail prices due to unmet sales expectations.
This kind of loss is not sustainable for any company.
EV MARKET COULD BECOME THE ‘NEXT BIG FLOP’: ECONOMIST
President Biden pushes electric vehicles despite high pricesVideo
The EV market is niche. Those who want one have one. But the rest of America is not convinced they would be better off with an EV on account of a multitude of reliability factors. Nor can they afford the steep price tag.
Consequently, the last few months have seen stock prices drastically dropping in companies across the green spectrum. From wind to solar to EVs to fuel cells, investors are abandoning the "green" energy ship in droves. It might be sinking.
Siemens Energy stock is down 45%; Ørsted, 67%; Power Inc., a hydrogen fuel cell producer, 71%; Charge Point Holdings Inc., an EV charging company, 70%; Blink Charging Co., another EV charging company, 72%; and Nikola Corp., maker of heavy-duty EVs, has gone from $65 a share in mid-2020 to the current price of less than $1 per share.
Green energy agenda is ‘environmental nightmare’: Michael ShellenbergerVideo
A recent Wall Street Journal article noted that such companies are "finding it more difficult to secure financing than at any time in the past decade."
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
We need to read between the lines here. The green energy revolution is not working, nor is central planning. You cannot force Americans to buy cars they don’t want any more than you can force energy transitions that aren’t viable.
Green energy is wholly inadequate to meet the needs of all Americans, and turns out, is insanely expensive.
Doug Burgum: Green New Deal spending is buried in Biden's 'Inflation Creation Act'Video
The World Economic Forum says that getting to net zero by 2050 will cost an extra $3.5 trillion a year. The U.S. has already poured hundreds of billions into the effort and continues to keep shoveling. All on the backs of the American taxpayer, to save a mere fraction of temperature. Maybe.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Heritage Foundation’s chief statistician estimates that even if all fossil fuels were eliminated from the United States, not even 0.2 degrees Celsius would be salvaged.
It’s time to quit throwing other people’s money into these projects and let the market dictate the solutions.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM KRISTEN WALKER
Kristen Walker is a policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit www.theamericanconsumer.org or follow us on Twitter @ConsumerPal.
LNX
The wheels are starting to fall off the green energy bandwagon. The rose-colored glasses are clearing up and reality is sinking in.
The giant push toward a net zero utopia is not practical and has been a complete disservice to the American consumer. Components of the green movement are experiencing major setbacks, namely offshore wind, electric vehicles (EVs), and investments.
Offshore wind projects are struggling to secure financing and stay on track. The biggest blow came last month, when the world’s largest offshore wind developer Ørsted canceled two major projects
The EV market is also losing steam. Sales are slumping and manufacturers are scaling back on production.
EXPERT WARNS GREEN ENERGY PROJECTS ‘ARE NOT WORTH IT’ AS PRICES SPIRAL ‘OUT OF CONTROL’
EV MARKET COULD BECOME THE ‘NEXT BIG FLOP’: ECONOMIST
We need to read between the lines here. The green energy revolution is not working, nor is central planning. You cannot force Americans to buy cars they don’t want any more than you can force energy transitions that aren’t viable.
The World Economic Forum says that getting to net zero by 2050 will cost an extra $3.5 trillion a year. The U.S. has already poured hundreds of billions into the effort and continues to keep shoveling. All on the backs of the American taxpayer, to save a mere fraction of temperature. Maybe.
---
mma 8 23 no lnx
Fox News' Jeanine Pirro blames “green energy” for the Maui fire devastation
Pirro: “It's not about global warming and it's not about climate change”
WRITTEN BY MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
PUBLISHED 08/29/23
Video
CitationFrom the August 29, 2023, edition of Fox News' The Five
DANA PERINO(CO-HOST): Immediately, it's almost as ifany issue, if you don't want to deal with accountability, you just say "climate change."
JEANINE PIRRO (CO-HOST): Yeah. Well, I think I've said this before. In the winter, it's all about COVID. In the summer, it's all about climate change. Okay? And we just need to put more money into it. I heard today, the president's going to ask for more money for COVID. I mean, so here we go again.
But look. If what Maisie -- Horono -- if what Maisie Senator Horono says is true -- $300 billion to fight climate change -- how come this kind of thing is happening?
Alright, the Inflation Reduction Act was all about a giveaway to the green energy companies. In the end, it's not about global warming and it's not about climate change. It's about negligence. Pure and simple. It's about ineptitude. It's about an area that didn't keep up with what was going on because they were trying to get to the green energy next step.
And so, they were too busy working on green energy. They ignored the obligation of the current situation. They didn't fill the water reservoir, okay? They didn't turn off the power lines when they got a warning that there would be high winds coming. Andthey failed to follow protocol to shut down the live power lines.
And so what we've got now is the power lines are igniting dry grass and bush and people died as a result of it. And they didn't even send off the sirens. The guy said he was worried people that would run toward the fires if they turned the sirens off.
It's about an excuse. We live in a world that's all about excuses, that is blocked in terms of ideology. It's all tribalism. You're on this side, or you're on this side. Facts are irrelevant.
6 23 heat wave dome; solar saves day
https://www.alternet.org/environment/solar-texas/
NOTE 7 23 SOLAR IS SAVING TEXAS FROM HEAT KATRINA?!
aha: alt fact echo chamber/ tribal creates pre-conditions for
stunning bad faith alt fact earth2
guk ref no lnx gfx
Alarm at rightwing push to reverse clean-energy success in Texas and beyond
Supporters of clean energy say they expect further battles ahead to prevent state’s progress in solar and wind from being unwound
Oliver Milman and Dharna Noor
Thu 8 Jun 2023
:{
}:
In the scramble before the end of Texas’s legislative session last week,a must-pass bill was amended to impose new costs upon renewable energy.This came amid a barrage of anti-solar and wind power measures pushed forward by Republicans to reshape a state that has become the US’s powerhouse of clean energy.
But the conservative lawmakers had help.
Sections of the bill that impose new burdens upon clean energy providers were directly crafted and edited by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (or TPPF), a conservative group that has led the backlash to renewables and to make what it calls “the moral case for fossil fuels”, according to a copy of the draft language seen by the Guardian.
Several dozen edits were made to the bill’s amendments by Brent Bennett, a TPPF policy staffer, the document shows, and Texas lawmakers subsequently passed parts of this language along with the key TPPF desires – to impose new transmission costs on renewables and require them to source fossil fuel “backup” power when the sun isn’t shining or wind isn’t blowing.
The passage of the bill, which funds the ongoing operation of the Public Utility Commission of Texas, was the flagship victory for TPPF even as a raft of other Republican bills that would have “shut down the renewable energy industry in Texas”, as energy analyst Doug Lewin put it, faltered.
The burgeoning influence of TPPF, an organization substantially funded by fossil fuel interests and publicly lauded by Greg Abbott, Texas’s Republican governor, is the catalyst to a rightwing attempt to crimp the stunning progress of renewable energy in the state, whichnow produces more than a quarter of all wind-powered electricity in the US.
The group’s agenda is now extending far beyond Texas, bankrolling efforts to halt offshore wind turbines in Massachusetts and to prop up coal power on native American land in Arizona while spearheading efforts to crack down on sustainable finance in energy-producing states like West Virginia.
“We are very influential, we are meeting with policymakers to share recommendations and we’re having success around the country,” said Jason Isaac, a former state representative and now director of TPPF’s energy initiatives. Isaac said that TPFF regularly helped craft “certain aspects” of bills in Texas related to the state’s electricity grid or environmental, social, and corporate governance (or ESG) issues.
“I think conservatives are slowly but surely moving away from variable generation and towards reliable generation,” he said of the group’s quest against renewables. Isaac claimed renewables have been unfairly propped up by a “cult-like fascination” among politicians who have pursued what he called a “dangerous and deadly” agenda to reduce planet-heating emissions.
The aggressive push against renewables in Texas has alarmed environmentalists who fret it will undermine the state’s nation-leading wind industry and threaten the revenues solar and wind generates for local communities and farmers. More broadly, the template used by TPPF in Texas could hobble efforts by Joe Biden’s administration to tackle the climate crisis.
“We are seeing a rush of these bills attempting to wind the clock back on renewables and TPPF really are at the point of the spear on this,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “They are transparent advocates for the fossil fuel industry and I think they pose an incredible threat to renewables. TPPF have gained incredible traction, they really are shifting the narrative in Texas.
“They’ve won over the top politicians in the state, which is very dangerous. Texas is going to be critical if the US going to get to net zero emissions, so we should take this threat seriously.”
TPPF’s impact can now be found thousands of miles from its base in Austin, Texas, with the group filing a lawsuit in 2021 on behalf of six east coast fishing businesses – collectively calledNantucket Residents Against Turbines – targeting a major windfarm currently under construction off the coast of Massachusetts. Slated to come online by the end of the year, Vineyard Wind will be the first major offshore wind project to be built off the US east coast.
The lawsuit claimed federal agencies did not sufficiently analyze how the project, which is set to deliver enough electricity to power 400,000 homes, would affect wildlife – specifically the endangered North Atlantic right whale – and thereby violated the Endangered Species Act and slew of other environmental policies.
Meghan Lapp, a seafood dealer and longtime offshore wind critic who was a plaintiff in the suit, told Reuters in 2021 that TPPF got involved in the suit at her request. As it announced its involvement in the case, the thinktank also took the unusual step of releasing a trailer called “A Heavy Wind”.
The case was ultimately unsuccessful after a federal judge dismissed it last month, but the idea that wind turbines kill whales has been seized upon by conservatives, especially since December, when dozens of whales began washing up on the Atlantic coast in what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) calls an “unusual mortality event”.
Noaa has said there is no evidence that offshore wind power is killing off whales, with fishing practices, boat strikes and the climate crisis among the primary dangers to marine mammals, but congressional Republicans have called on the White House to pause offshore wind development, while Tucker Carlson, then of Fox News, aired a critical series of segments called “The Biden Whale Extinction”.
:{
}:
The assault on renewables by TPPF and its Republican allies has stunned conservatives who remain supportive of the longstanding bipartisan enthusiasm for clean energy.
The reversal has been particularly stark for Texas which, blessed with the capacious, flat terrain and amenable climate for abundantwind and solar energy, was championed as a bastion for renewables by previous Republican governors George W Bush and Rick Perry, even as they embraced the ubiquitous oil industry.
More than 40% of Texas’s electricity came from carbon-free sources last year, with the state now producing more wind and solar than the next three states – California, Iowa and Oklahoma – combined. This imperious status now seems uncertain.
“I don’t recognize the state sometimes any more from our elected leaders. It’s like we are in a twilight zone where up is down and day is night,” said Matt Welch, state director of Conservative Texans for Energy Innovation.
“I fear we’re losing our lead in the nation and the world as the source for clean energy advancement. It’s just amazing we’ve rolled up the welcome mat and told wind and solar operators they’re just not welcome here any more.”
The Texas Public Policy Foundation was founded in 1989 by James R Leininger, a San Antonio-based physician who made his fortune selling hospital beds, and initially focused on the issue of charter schools before branching out into other topics such as energy. The thinktank is a member of theState Policy Network, a network of far-right non-profits across the country that fight climate-focused legislation.
In 2021, the most recent year for which records are available, donations for the thinktank totaled $25.6m. Publicly available data shows that – like many State Policy Network affiliates – its largest known funder isCharles Koch, the billionaire industrialist who made his fortune from fossil fuels. Entities tied to Koch have contributed at least $8.8m to the group since 2012, according to an analysis by researcher Connor Gibson.
:{
}:
Tax filings show that the group has received donations from fossil fuel companies including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, but, as a non-profit, the full extent of TPPF’s fossil fuel funding is unknown.
Issac said, however, it has been “many years” since large oil firms such as Exxon have donated to TPPF as these companies now ostensibly support decarbonization and environmentally responsible corporate governance, which conflicts with the foundation. He insisted that the foundation is committed to “free enterprise and individual liberty” and the eradication of “market distorting” subsidies, not just for renewables but also fossil fuels.
But Welch said that Republican lawmakers, backed by TPPF, have ditched any ideological consistency by heaping onerous restrictions on renewable energy development on private property, in some cases attempting to impose requirements absent from oil and gas drilling, and trying to slash subsidies for the industry at the same time as offering state support for the buildout of new gas plants.
One proposed bill that didn’t get sufficient backing in the latest Texas legislative session would have placed stringent new rules for wind and solar projects, including written permissions from neighboring property owners and setbacks of up to half a mile from the edge of a property for wind turbines. Another would have cut all subsidies for renewable energy.
“On a Tuesday these lawmakers will be adamantly for private property rights, but on a Thursday they will want to stop the growth of renewable energy even though it’s on somebody’s private land,” Welch said, adding thatTPPF was once full of “mini Milton Friedmans for years until recently, and now all of a sudden they throw that out the window.
:{
}:
“It’s been a shocker. It’s so hypocritical,” he said. “I used to be an acolyte of TPPF but they are now driven by oil and gas billionaires who want to stop alternative forms of energy to benefit their own bottom line. They’ve sold their soul to the almighty dollar.”
Renewable energy remains broadly popular with the Texas public for delivering cheap, clean power along with an injection of cash for entities such as school districts, but affection has somewhat curdled among some of the state’s Republican leadership. A devastating winter storm in 2021, which left millions of Texans without power and led to several hundred deaths, was a major accelerant of this trend.
:{
}:
In the days following the crippling event, known as winter storm Uri, Abbott and other leading Republicans pushed the blame for the power blackouts upon renewable energy, with misleading pictures of frozen wind turbines from Europe quickly circulating social media as the supposed cause of the grid’s breakdown.
:{
}:
Subsequent studies have made clear the primary cause of the blackouts were frozen gas pipelines and a lack of infrastructure resiliency to extreme weather, rather than renewables per se, but the perception of faulty wind and solar has stuck, eagerly fanned by TPPF.
“I still believe [renewables] deserve a lot of the blame,” said Isaac. “The storm was helpful in educating people who just assumed when they flip a switch the lights come on that there are issues with grid reliability, that solar panels covered in snow don’t produce electricity.”
Isaac said the foundation accepts that the climate is changing but disputes that this is harmful to people,claiming that the benefits of burning of fossil fuels “far outweighs” any negatives, including deadly air pollution, which he asserts isn’t an issue for the US and its “near natural” air quality. Scientists have, in fact, found that the climate crisis poses huge and growing risks to humanity, with airborne pollutants from burning coal, oil and gas linked to an array of different health problems.
While the most severe of the anti-renewables bills pushed forward in Texas didn’t pass the legislature this year, Isaac said that TPPF remains undaunted and will continue to agitate against what he called “the false panacea of variable power”. Supporters of clean energy said they expect further battles ahead to prevent Texas’s progress in solar and wind from being unwound.
“With the growth trajectory of renewable energy, TPPF can either get on the train or lay down in front of the tracks,” said Welch. “I suspect they won’t rest on their laurels. They’re going to come for renewables again and again and again.”
9 22 almost daily headlines on solar and battery tech breakthrus?
https://www.alternet.org/2022/09/the-best-economic-choice-renewable/
'The best economic choice': Switching to :{renewable energy could save the world $12 trillion by 2050:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}:
Peer-reviewed research released Tuesday by a team at the University of Oxford reveals that transitioning to 100% clean energy within the next three decades could save not only live...
an 6 22
Renewable sources of energy are "bailing out" the Texas power grid as early summer temperatures spike and demand surges, CNN reported on Tuesday.
The boost has prevented a recurrence of the blackouts which plagued Texas during the winter months of 2021 when electricity usage exploded, overwhelming providers and transmission networks.
"Several experts told CNN that it's owed in large part to strong performances from wind and solar, which generated 27 gigawatts of electricity during Sunday's peak demand -- close to 40% of the total needed," the outlet said.
CNN noted that while Republicans in the politically crimson Lone Star State have been reliably outspoken about their opposition to sustainable sources such as wind and solar, Texas "has a massive and growing fleet of renewables. Zero-carbon electricity sources (wind, solar, and nuclear) powered about 38% of the state's power in 2021, rivaling natural gas at 42%."
Michael Webber, an energy expert and professor at the University of Texas at Austin, explained that "Texas is, by rhetoric, anti-renewables. But frankly, renewables are bailing us out. They're rocking. That really spares us a lot of heartache and a lot of money."
Perhaps somewhat ironically, CNN pointed out, "Texas generates the most wind energy in the country: In 2020, it produced more wind electricity than Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma — the next three highest states — combined, according to the US Energy Information Administration."
Solar, meanwhile, is viewed as an invaluable power source during the summer due to there being less wind and because "there's a good chance the sun is beating down," experts told CNN.
Joshua Rhodes, an energy researcher at the University of Texas in Austin, confirmed that renewables "are acting as a hedge against high fuel prices." He added, however, that "about half of the solar that could be produced is not being produced right now because there's no more room on the lines. The numbers for renewables would probably be higher if we had the transmission capacity to move them around."
Renewables have driven down prices because they are generated naturally, unlike fossil fuels, which require massive industrial refinement operations and energy-intensive efforts to be delivered to consumers. Oil and natural gas are also finite resources, a fact that has contributed to the increased costs of fuel worldwide.
Yet even with their much-needed cushioning, renewables are not a complete fail-safe against future collapses of the power grid.Texas is currently experiencing sweltering heat that normally arrives in August, causing people to crank up their air conditioners earlier in the season than in previous years.And engineers are facing additional challenges, like designing batteries that can store enough electricity to sustain communities when sunlight and wind are not immediately available.
But the biggest variable by far is climate change, which scientists have for decades warned will get catastrophically worse unless humanity's addiction to fossil fuels is curbed. More than 107 million Americans are experiencing record-shattering heat in the waning weeks of spring.
Andy Dessler, the director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A&M University, stressed to CNN that "everything's getting hotter. August is getting hotter; June is getting hotter. It is hot and this is the future."
CNN's full report is available here.
==
dn 820
BP to Slash Oil & Gas Production, Invest Billions into Renewable Energy
alec energy bills ref chris?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-battle-for-solar-energy-in-the-countrys-sunniest-state
The Battle for Solar Energy in the Country’s Sunniest State
By Carolyn Kormann
October 24, 2018
Despite the rapid decline in the cost of solar-energy technology and battery storage, Arizona gets only six per cent of its electricity from solar.
In late September, the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that receives donations from fossil-fuel companies, published a blog post titled“California Billionaire’s Renewable Energy Initiative Makes Arizona Ballot.” The billionaire in question was Tom Steyer, whose year-long effort to pass Proposition 127, an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would require power companies togenerate fifty per cent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030,has faced aggressive opposition from the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service, or A.P.S.
The blog post lamented a failed lawsuit filed by Arizonans for Affordable Energy, a political-action committee funded by A.P.S.’s parent company, to keep Prop 127 off the ballot,and quoted several opponents who believed the measure, now up for a vote in November, would be a costly mistake.
“Prop 127would tie Arizona’s future to technologies that do not deliver baseload electricity,” Mark Finchem, a Republican state representative, said, “and are arguably worse for the environment as a whole than the dependable technologies we already have.” The photograph accompanying the post depicted a wind-turbine farm, and, in the foreground, a dead bald eagle.
Arizona is the sunniest state in the country, with more than three hundred bluebird days per year. It is also projected to endure an additional month of hundred-degree days in the coming decades owing to climate change. Yet, despite the rapid decline in the cost of solar-energy technology and battery storage—to the point that, as an A.P.S. director told me, it now frequently outbids fossil fuels, even natural gas—in 2017, Arizona generated only six per cent of its electricity from solar, according to the ballot initiative’s advocates. The state currently requires utilities to generate eight per cent of their power from sources like solar and wind, scaling up to fifteen per cent by 2025. Natural gas, the largest source of Arizona’s net electricity generation, is imported from out of state. “Our most abundant resource in Arizona is our sunshine,” D. J. Quinlan, a spokesman for Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, the Phoenix-based political-action committee that Steyer is funding, said. “We need a nationwide transition to renewables. One of the first places we should be doing it is where it’s most efficient and cost-effective, and that’s here.”
Carolyn Kormann is a staff writer at The New Yorker.
1219 icn
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122019/ferc-pjm-grid-coal-subsidy-ruling-renewable-energy-nuclear-illinois-pennsylvania-climate-change
Federal energy regulators issued an order Thursday that likely will tilt the market to favor coal and natural gas power plants in the nation's largest power grid region, stretching from New Jersey to Illinois.
Critics say that it effectively creates a new subsidy to prop up uneconomical fossil fuel plants and that it will hurt renewable energy growth and, ultimately, consumers.
The new rules, approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, are designed to counteract state subsidies that support the growth of renewable energy and use of nuclear power. The rules involve what are known as "capacity markets," where power plants bid to provide electricity to the grid. The change would require higher minimum bids for power plants that receive such subsidies, giving fossil fuel plants an advantage.
the FERC order, passed 2-1, is a response to complaints from operators of coal and natural gas power plants who say that state subsidies have led to unfair competition in the grid region managed by PJM Interconnection.
Richard Glick, the panel's lone Democrat, cast the dissenting vote and said during the commission meeting that his Republican colleagues were trying to "stunt transition to a clean energy future that states are pursuing and consumers are pursuing."
In his written dissent, he called the order "illegal, illogical and truly bad public policy."
Environmental groups and clean energy advocates have long criticized PJM for rules that provide an economic lifeline to old fossil fuel plants, which produce greenhouse gases that drive climate change.
"Today's order erects a major new barrier to clean energy, undercutting efforts by states to slash pollution and address climate change," Tom Rutigliano, a senior advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council's Sustainable FERC Project, said in a statement. "Federal regulators are forcing customers to pay for dirty power they don't want or need."
Expect Court Challenges
GUK 1119 Africa poised to lead way in global green revolution, says report
==
Native Renewables: Powering Up Tribal Communities
==
1/17
Since the November election, the incoming Trump administration has threatened to cut back federal funding for clean energy and climate change initiatives, pull out of the Paris climate agreement and drop the Clean Power Plan (currently stalled in the Supreme Court).
But a handful of midwestern states are refusing to abandon their growing clean energy and efficiency industries, which support roughly 113,900 jobs in Illinois, 87,600 jobs in Michigan and 100,800 jobs in Ohio. Soon after the Prairie State passed its promising energy bill, Michigan enacted two of its own. And in late December, when a bill that threatened to kill Ohio's renewable dreams appeared on Gov. John Kasich's desk, he gave it the ol' Hell-naw veto.
==
California's Senate leader has introduced legislation that would require the state to draw all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045. If passed, the bill would make the nation's largest state the second to commit to a carbon-free grid.
State Sen. Kevin de Leon, a Democrat,introduced the bill last week as a placeholder ahead of a filing deadline, with more detailed language to come, spokesman Anthony Reyes said in an email.
The legislation makes California the latest in a small number of states this year to propose dramatically ramping up renewable energy, even as President Donald Trumpstresses primarily fossil fuels in his energy plan.
In January, lawmakers in Massachusettsfiled legislation that would go even further, requiring fossil fuel-free electricity by 2035, and asking the same from other sectors, including transportation and heating, by 2050.
Last week, a Nevada lawmaker introduceda bill that would update that state's portfolio standard to require 80 percent renewables by 2040. The current standard calls for 25 percent by 2025.
Of the 29 states with renewable portfolio standards, only Hawaii has set a target for reaching 100 percent, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hawaii's deadline is 2045.
De Leon's bill would also advance by five years, to 2025, California's existing target to hit 50 percent of electricity from renewable energy.
The state is already well on its way. TheCalifornia Energy Commission says the state got about 27 percent of its electricity from renewables last year, slightly better than the 25 percent required by law. Capacity has more than doubled over the past decade. California's largest utilitieshave also said they are ahead of schedule for meeting their 2020 goal.
With Republicans now in control of Congress and the White House, California's Democratic political leaders appear to be readying themselves for a fight. The day after Trump's victory in November, de Leonissued a joint statement with Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, also a Democrat, promising to defend the state's progressive policies from any changes at the federal level.
==
scotland 100% wind?
----How Renewables In Developing Countries Are Leapfrogging Traditional Power: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/04/3588512/bnef-renewables-developing-countries/
==
11/14
A new study by the UK’s Energy Research Centre (UKERC) took a deep dive into job creation claims made by proponents of renewable energy and energy efficiency, looking at the figures and projected figures for the EU from a number of angles. It came to the conclusion that in the short run, moving to renewables and ramping up energy conservation would create more jobs than the fossil fuel sector, at a rate of about one job per gigawatt hour of electricity saved or generated by a clean energy source, with the long-term picture murkier because of factors in the economy and government policy that are hard to predict....
http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/11/renewable-energy-jobs/
==
7/14
California and Texas continue to break new ground in making electricty generation from renewable sources a vital part of the United States' energy mix.
In the first quarter of 2014, solar accounted for more than 50% of all new electricity generation capacity installed in the US, some 584 MW, with new solar power plants going online in California, Massachussetts, North Carolina, and Texas. CLICK TO READ MORE
---
http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/04/187665/revealed-alec%E2%80%99s-2014-attacks-environment
An internal tracking document obtained from the American Legislative Exchange Council, :{ALEC:(style="color:#000000"):}: -- by the Center for Media and Democracy/the Progressive Inc. under Texas public records law -- :{reveals:(style="color:#000000"):}: the scope of ALEC's anti-environmental efforts in 2014.
The :{spreadsheet:(style="color:#000000"):}::{ :(style="color:#000000"):}:(dated from late March 2014 and made public by CMD/:{The Progressive:(style="color:#000000"):}::{ :(style="color:#000000"):}:today) reveals ALEC tracking a total of 131 bills that, amongst other things, roll back state renewable energy standards, increase costs for American households with solar, hype the Keystone XL pipeline, push back on proposed EPA coal regulations that protect human health, and create industry-friendly fracking rules despite growing national and international concerns about fracking.
ALEC's colorful spreadsheet provides insight into the lobbying agenda it pushed in the 2014 legislative sessions in states across the country. For example, an entire section is devoted to the thirty-one items of legislation concerning state standards for renewable energy generation.
Here are the key pieces of legislation ALEC has been pushing to become binding law in states:
Attacking "Freerider" Homeowners with Solar
Eleven of the bills attempt to amend "net metering" laws, which allow homeowners with solar panels on their property to sell excess electricity back to the grid, typically at a price that creates an incentive for homeowners to invest in solar for their homes. This makes the cost of installing solar cost-effective for ordinary homeowners over a period of years and net metering is part of the reason the U.S. has seen a :{60% increase in domestic solar installations:(style="color:#000000"):}: in just the past year.
Speaking to Suzanne Goldenberg and Ed Pilkington of the Guardian in December, ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force Director John Eick described these small-time solar generators as ":{freeriders on the system.:(style="color:#000000"):}:" ALEC corporate lobbyists and legislators on its energy task force then voted behind closed doors on a model resolution in December, which calls on states to "require that everyone who uses the grid helps pay to maintain it and to keep it operating reliably at all times."
The boom in solar generation is increasingly becoming a threat to the high polluting industries, like the coal companies and oil processors that underwrite ALEC. Longtime ALEC funders includes behemoths like Peabody Energy, Koch Industries (controlled by the infamous Koch Brothers), ExxonMobil, BP, and other global multi-billion dollar corporations.
As reported by Evan Halper in the *:{Los Angeles Times:(style="color:#000000"):}:*:{ :(style="color:#000000"):}::{on April 19:(style="color:#000000"):}:, the David Koch-controlled "Americans for Prosperity" has been running ads attacking solar in Arizona. "Solar, once almost universally regarded as a virtuous, if perhaps over-hyped, energy alternative, has now grown big enough to have enemies," wrote the LA Times.
Repealing Renewable Energy Standards
Thirty-one of the bills relate to state requirements for renewable energy production. :{Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia:(style="color:#000000"):}: have "Renewable Portfolio Standards" or "RPS," which are minimum requirements for utilities to produce a certain amount of the energy they generate from renewable sources such as wind.
Americans for Prosperity has :{targeted these laws:(style="color:#000000"):}::{ :(style="color:#000000"):}:for repeal, with support from rightwing leader :{Grover Norquist:(style="color:#000000"):}: in Kansas and other groups across the country. The :{Beacon Hill Institute:(style="color:#000000"):}:, based out of Suffolk University in Massachusetts, which is an :{associate member:(style="color:#000000"):}: of the Koch-backed :{State Policy Network:(style="color:#000000"):}: (SPN) -- as CMD and ProgressNow have :{documented:(style="color:#000000"):}: -- has written a series of reports that have been released in states by other SPN member think thanks including the :{John Locke Foundation:(style="color:#000000"):}: in North Carolina, the :{Maine Heritage Policy Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:, the :{Washington Policy Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:and the :{Wisconsin Policy Research Institute:(style="color:#000000"):}:. Following internal SPN documents released by the Guardian in December 2013, these reports have been largely discredited, with its host university refusing to stand by the studies. See the Guardian article: :{free-market research group's climate proposal denounced by host university.:(style="color:#000000"):}:
ALEC has been working to repeal or water down these laws since corporate lobbyists and legislators on its energy task force secretly voted for a Heartland Institute drafted "model" bill called the :{"Electricity Freedom Act":(style="color:#000000"):}: as its official policy in 2012. Despite calling the bill a :{priority for 2013:(style="color:#000000"):}:, ALEC failed that year to score a significant victory, and it adopted :{two further anti-RPS bills at its August 2013 Annual Meeting:(style="color:#000000"):}: in Chicago, called the "Renewable Energy Credit Act" and the "Market Power Renewables Act."
Attacking Proposed EPA Regulations of Coal
Seventeen of the bills concern Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, which following proposed rules issued last September on emission standards at new power stations, requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop regulations on carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. The expected rules, which are likely to be released in draft form in June, would set emission standards that may ultimately force the closure of some of the most polluting coal burning power plants in the country.
The coal industry and its allies, including many Fox News commentators and leading members of the Republican Party, have branded this attempt to limit carbon emissions through regulation a "war on coal."
The coal industry has been fighting back.
A bill to block the EPA regulations -- :{Preventing Government Waste & Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act (H.R. 2824):(style="color:#000000"):}: -- passed the Republican controlled House in March, mostly on party lines 229-183.
Peabody Energy, the world's largest private sector coal company, has launched a flashy PR campaign called ":{Advanced Energy for Life:(style="color:#000000"):}:." The campaign website claims that "half the world's population lacks adequate energy access," before :{asking users to submit comments to the EPA:(style="color:#000000"):}: opposing rules affecting coal plants.
Peabody Energy is also a :{leader within ALEC:(style="color:#000000"):}:, with the corporation's top lobbyist :{Kelly Mader:(style="color:#000000"):}::{ :(style="color:#000000"):}:sitting on the ALEC corporate board.
At the December 2013 ALEC conference in Washington DC, corporate lobbyists and legislators on ALEC’s task force :{voted behind closed doors for two resolutions:(style="color:#000000"):}: aimed at limiting the regulation of carbon emissions for coal power plants, with legislators reportedly urged to engage in :{"guerrilla warfare":(style="color:#000000"):}::{ :(style="color:#000000"):}:to block the EPA.
It is not known who brought the resolutions to ALEC, since ALEC keeps those details a highly guarded secret. Peabody Energy, Edison Electric Institute, Chevron, Shell, the Charles Koch Institute and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity were all among the sponsors of the December ALEC conference at which the bills were discussed and approved.
Hyping the Keystone XL Pipeline
Four of the bills are resolutions that call for the approval by the Federal government of the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline. ALEC corporate lobbyists and legislators voted behind closed doors for a resolution titled simply ":{Resolution in Support of the Keystone XL Pipeline:(style="color:#000000"):}:" in December 2011. In the 2013 session, :{ten states introduced similar resolutions:(style="color:#000000"):}: supporting KXL, as reported by :{CMD:(style="color:#000000"):}:.
TransCanada, the proposed pipeline operator, is a funder of ALEC and has sponsored ALEC organized all-expense paid :{"Academy" trips to Alberta:(style="color:#000000"):}::{ :(style="color:#000000"):}:in 2012 and 2013 to "educate" legislators about the tar sands. As reported by CMD, following the trip in 2012, ALEC wrote to participating legislators reminding them of what each oil-industry lobbyist on the trip had paid for and suggested the lawmakers send :{"thank you notes":(style="color:#000000"):}: to the lobbyists. One legislator -- Ohio Representative John Adams -- subsequently introduced a pro-KXL resolution sent to him by a TransCanada lobbyist, according to :{documents obtained by CMD:(style="color:#000000"):}: using the Ohio public records law.
Promoting Trojan Horse-like Fracking Regulations
Thirteen of the bills concern hydraulic fracturing, also known as "fracking."
ALEC has three items of "model" legislation in its library concerning fracking: two pro-fracking resolutions and a bill -- illogically titled :{"The Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act":(style="color:#000000"):}::{ :(style="color:#000000"):}:-- that allows operators to keep secret the details of chemicals injected into a well by making a near impossible to challenge claim of "trade secrets."
As reported by the :{New York Times:(style="color:#000000"):}: in April 2012, ExxonMobil brought the fracking bill to ALEC in December 2011 following its adoption as law in Texas. In the 2013 session, five states introduced legislation similar to the ALEC model, as detailed in the CMD report ":{ALEC at 40: Turning Back the Clock on Prosperity and Progress.:(style="color:#000000"):}:"
One of the bills ALEC is tracking is a proposed moratorium on fracking in Massachusetts. This does not relate directly to any of the ALEC "model" bills, but both fracking bans and federal oversight have been a focus at recent ALEC conferences.
For example, at the August 2013 ALEC conference in Chicago, the American Petroleum Institute presented to legislators on "Local Bans on Hydraulic Fracturing: Coming Soon to Your District." And during the most recent December 2013 ALEC conference in Washington DC, the Energy, Environment and Agriculture members received a presentation on the EPA "adversarial oversight" of fracking.
Wait, So ALEC Tracks Legislation?
As :{CMD has reported:(style="color:#000000"):}:, ALEC has recently been claiming that it doesn’t track legislation. As the official ALEC Twitter account tweeted to the Brookings Institute in December 2013: "we don't track our model policies."
In light of the tracking document obtained by CMD, this is obviously not accurate, but this particular document is just one example of many which demonstrate ALEC following where its "model" legislation is introduced.
CMD has on file :{additional ALEC tracking documents:(style="color:#000000"):}: from 2010, 2011 and 2012, and has copies of ALEC :{"legislative scorecards":(style="color:#000000"):}: from various years between 1996 and 2010, which note with varying levels of detail the number of bills introduced and passed in each state that year. ALEC even boasts to potential funders in numerous publications published in 1985, 2000, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2013 -- all on file with CMD -- that one of the services it engages in is "legislative bill tracking."
Significantly, as revealed in materials obtained and released by Common Cause as part of its 2012 ALEC IRS submission, ALEC sends email:{ :(style="color:#000000"):}::{"issue alerts":(style="color:#000000"):}: to its members in support of its own model bills when those bills are up for a vote.
Following complaints to the IRS concerning ALEC from Common Cause, the Voters Legislative Transparency Project, and Clergy Voice, supplemented by evidence provided by the Center for Media and Democracy, ALEC launched a new organization called the Jeffersonian Project in 2013, which was formally created earlier in 2012. The new organization is a 501(c)(4) social welfare group, so unlike ALEC it is free to engage in unrestricted lobbying to advance its goals. Lax IRS rules mean the new organization has not yet had to file any financial returns.
- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/04/187665/revealed-alec%E2%80%99s-2014-attacks-environment#sthash.BCv46sPX.dpuf
===
bp forecast vs coal:
...
A 'more bullish' forecast for renewables
BNEF's outlook, based on the work of 65 analysts over nine months of data collection, generally mirrors that of other forecasting agencies. But officials described it as "more bullish" on renewable energy due to Bloomberg analysts' strong belief that costs for renewable energy will continue to fall over the coming years.
"What we are seeing is global CO2 emissions on track to stop growing by the end of next decade, with the peak only pushed back because of fast-growing developing countries, which continue adding fossil fuel capacity as well as renewables," Michael Liebreich, chairman of BNEF's advisory board, said in a statement.
Representatives of the fossil fuel industry, however, characterized the report as reflecting a particular view of the global energy sector. "Maybe Bloomberg's analysts are drinking the same Kool-Aid that their anti-coal founder has been drinking," Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said, referring to Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, climate activist and founder of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of BNEF.
Seb Henbest, BNEF's regional head for Europe, Middle East and Africa, based in London, responded to critics, saying in an email that the analysis "is a conservative, bottom-up, country-by-country economic analysis of the evolving state of the power sector.
"Rather than dismiss and politicize our conclusions, the coal industry should study them to help quantify and better understand the risks and opportunities ahead of it," he said.
BNEF notes that the Asia-Pacific region "has become the centre of global energy growth" and that Asian countries will install as much power capacity through 2030 as the rest of the world combined. Renewables are expected to account for two-thirds of total investment in new power projects in Asia, averaging $252 billion per year, and by 2030 renewables should account for 33 percent of all electricity generated in the region.
In Europe, wind energy and solar photovoltaics will become "the main driver of capacity additions," and renewables will attract more than 75 percent of the projected $1.3 trillion invested in power generation over the 2013-2030 period, according to the analysis. Consumption of both coal and gas is expected to precipitously decline over the same period with coal falling from 19 percent to 8 percent of energy capacity and gas falling from 25 percent to 17 percent of capacity.
Natural gas constitutes 'largest single slice' in America
Bloomberg forecasts that public- and private-sector firms in the Americas will spend $1.3 trillion to add 943 GW of gross new power generation capacity by 2030, including for new and replacement power plants. More than half of that new capacity, 522 GW, will be built in the United States, while 341 GW will be added in Latin America and 80 GW in Canada.
The "largest single slice" of that future investment will be for new natural-gas-fired plants, at $314 billion, due to "the persistence of low natural gas prices in North America following the shale gas boom," according to the report. Bloomberg projects that between 2013 and 2030, the U.S. gas-fired power plant fleet will grow by 134 GW of capacity.
Bloomberg also forecasts continued strong growth in the Americas for rooftop solar PV and onshore wind power with investment of $231 billion and $200 billion, respectively. Roughly 90 percent of all new solar power generation will occur in developing countries as they seek to meet rising power demand and begin to achieve economies of scale for large solar arrays.
Projections for coal are stark, however, with expected coal-fired power generation shrinking to 17 percent of all electricity generation in the Americas combined by 2030, down from 26 percent today. In the United States, coal-fired capacity is expected to shrink by 109 GW, "mainly due to being out-competed by gas and renewables," BNEF said. But also because new U.S. regulations targeting emissions from coal plants, including recently announced carbon dioxide regulations, will make coal an less attractive fuel for power production.
"[Government] policy makes it all but impossible to build new coal in the U.S. and Canada," the analysis states.
By contrast, other parts of the developing world will embrace the construction of new coal, gas and oil plants in part "to meet the increased power demand that comes with industrialization, and also to balance variable generation sources such as wind and solar."
Henbest, BNEF's London-based analyst, said that coal should maintain and even grow its market share over the near term in China and India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Turkey, South Africa and parts of Eastern Europe.
Yet even with those caveats, NMA's Popovich argued that Bloomberg's findings are skewed with respect to coal consumption.
He pointed to the recent "BP Statistical Review of World Energy," which found that coal, while growing more slowly than before, is still the fastest-growing fossil fuel in the world.
"Coal's share of global primary energy consumption reached 30.1 percent, the highest since 1970," the BP PLC analysis said.
"If there was a World Cup for energy sources powering the global economy, coal would be crowned champion," Popovich said.
...
Though bills meant to revoke or undercut renewable standards in numerous states failed last session, clean energy advocates say the model Market Power Renewables Act and the Renewable Energy Credit Act proposed by ALEC’s energy task force during the conference pose a fresh threat.
The Market Power Renewables Act argues for a “voluntary market” that would allow people to invest in renewable energy if they choose without instituting mandates, and it claims that such an approach could lead to more renewable energy development overall.
The Renewable Energy Credit Act would expand the types of energy that would count toward credits. It would also remove caps on the proportion of an RPS that can be met through credits – a provision now enshrined in many states’ laws. And it would also allow the renewable standard’s full term – for example through 2025 – to be met in advance by bulk purchases of credits to meet future requirements.
The ALEC conference also included presentations by the American Petroleum Institute on local hydraulic fracturing bans; offshore energy as “good sense and good cents”; nuclear energy’s role in baseload electricity production; and the U.S. EPA’s “assault on state sovereignty,” hosted by a representative of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Gabriel Elsner, director of the pro-clean energy watchdog Checks and Balances Project, was among the advocates banned from ALEC’s meeting in Oklahoma City in May. Elsner was in Chicago for the recent conference, in an effort to learn more about state legislators’ and corporate executives’ ties with ALEC. The Checks and Balances Project also collaborated with the Center for Media and Democracy and Greenpeace to publicize ALEC’s confidential agenda and proposed model bills.
Midwest Energy News spoke with Elsner during his visit.
Midwest Energy News: Given that ALEC was unable to pass its bills last year, how serious a threat do these model bills pose to RPS standards and to renewable energy development as a whole?
Elsner: ALEC completely failed in 2013 to weaken or eliminate RPS laws. We’ve seen that because there’s bipartisan support for clean energy. Businesses and communities are seeing local economic development and job creation because of these laws.
ALEC’s new model legislation is a stealth attack on RPS’s. They are framed in a way that makes them seem pro-clean energy, but would open up RPS’s to allow sources of electricity – from large hydropower to landfill gas — to be included in state laws that are supposed to incentivize clean energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal. The net effect would be reduced incentives for local, clean energy development in states that adopted this new bill.
ALEC’s proposed “Market-Power Renewables Act” doesn’t mention hydropower or landfill gas – how do you figure it would allow such energy to be counted toward RPS compliance?
This bill as written would open up the market to the different registries that regulate renewable energy credits. For example, in Kansas, your renewable energy credits are regulated by a different entity than in California. But if Kansas passes this law, they could buy RECs from hydropower plants in California or Oregon to fulfill the entire RPS.
That’s already allowed in some states, how would this law be different?
I looked at the regional registries for RECs listed in the model bill. REC registries define renewable energy differently – some include hydropower plants as large as hundreds of megawatts. Others include landfills gas and biomass projects.
ALEC’s new model bills would create a lowest common denominator that would weaken the traditional RPS’s by allowing out-of-state RECs to fulfill the entire RPS. If building a wind turbine in Kansas cost a dollar and five cents but you could go out and buy an REC for a dollar from a hydropower plant in Maine, the utilities would go out and buy a credit and not build the local clean energy project. It would eliminate the economic benefit and jobs in the state....
aug 13
This Q&A originally appeared in Midwest Energy News.
alec win ?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/
Oklahoma residents who produce their own energy through solar panels or small wind turbines on their property will now be charged an additional fee, the result of a new bill passed by the state legislature and expected to be signed into law by Gov. Mary Fallin (R).
On Monday, S.B. 1456 passed the state House 83-5 after no debate. The measure creates a new class of customers: those who install distributed power generation systems like solar panels or small wind turbines on their property and sell the excess energy back to the grid. While those with systems already installed won’t be affected, the new class of customers will now be charged a monthly fee — a shift that happened quickly and caught many in the state off guard.
“We knew nothing about it and all of a sudden it’s attached to some other bill,” Ctaci Gary, owner of Sun City Oklahoma, told ThinkProgress. “It just appeared out of nowhere.”...
As the use of solar power skyrockets across the U.S., fights have sprung up in several states over how much customers should be compensated for excess power produced by their solar panels and sold back to the grid — a policy known as net metering. Net metering laws have come under fire from the secretive American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group backed by fossil fuel corporations, utility companies, and the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. Forty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have net metering policies in place and ALEC has set its sights on repealing them, referring to homeowners with their own solar panels as “freeriders on the system.” ALEC presented Gov. Fallin the Thomas Jefferson Freedom award last year for her “record of advancing the fundamental Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism and individual liberty as a nationally recognized leader.”
Oklahoma “could be the first complete defeat for solar advocates in their fight against utility efforts to recover costs lost to DG [distributed generation] use,” writes Utility Dive. Net metering survived attacks in Colorado and Kansas and Vermont recently increased its policy in a bipartisan effort. Last year, Arizona added what amounts to a $5 per month surcharge for solar customers, a move that was widely seen as a compromise, particularly after ALEC and other Koch-backed groups got involved.
While any extra charge placed on potential customers is a concern, Gary hopes that like Arizona, Oklahoma’s fee is modest enough to protect her business from serious damage.
Matt Kasper, energy research assistant at the Center for American Progress, contributed to this piece.
==
Bad news for the polluter-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, but wonderful news for the planet.
In 2012 and 2013, ALEC tried to roll back states' renewable energy standards, and failed. Now it's trying to roll back solar net-metering programs, which let homeowners sell electricity from their rooftop panels into the grid, and that campaign isn't going so well either.
Case in point: In Vermont, Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) just signed a bill that will expand the state's net-metering program, allowing solar panel owners to sell more of their clean electricity into the grid.
The bill will nearly quadruple the size of a cap on the amount of solar power that utilities must be willing to buy from their customers. It also creates pilot projects that could allow for solar projects as large as 5 megawatts to be built under the scheme. The AP reports:
Alternative energy proponents pushed for the increased cap after some Vermont utilities had reached the 4 percent cap and stopped taking new net-metered power.
"Our success exceeded our wildest dreams," Shumlin said before signing the bill into law, noting that since he took office in 2011 the state had quadrupled the amount of solar energy on the state's electric grid.
Vermont's increased use of alternative energy has helped the state to become the nation's per-capita leader in the number of solar energy jobs.
CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois is buying more renewable energy than any other state in the nation, which has reduced pollution by the equivalent of removing a million cars from the road over the past few years, according to a report released Friday by national and state environmental groups.
A 2009 state law allowed communities to buy their own electricity, rather than relying on a central purchasing agency. Since then, more than 600 Illinois cities and towns have adopted aggregation, which allows them to bundle residential and small business customers to buy cheaper electricity in bulk from smaller suppliers.
Of those, 91 are providing 100 percent renewable energy, either by buying it directly or buying credits that help fund renewable energy development, the report says.
Five other states — California, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island — also allow communities to buy electricity, but none comes close to matching the renewable energy Illinois is purchasing, said Keya Chatterjee, senior director for renewable energy and footprint outreach at the World Wildlife Fund.
"It is huge what is already being done," in Illinois, Chatterjee said. "This is a story about local choice, and (Illinois) is choosing renewables in town after town after town."
The central Illinois city of Normal began aggregation about 1½ years ago, allowing officials to buy electricity at lower rates than they would have gotten otherwise, said Mayor Chris Koos.
He said aggregation also "meshed with broader community sustainability goals," which include trying to improve the environment. Normal buys renewable energy credits, which helps fund development of power sources such as wind and solar....huffpo
The Oil Industry's Fight to Kill Renewable Fuels—and Why It May Win
For all its faults, the Renewable Fuels Standard is the only federal policy that is steadily eroding the oil industry's de facto monopoly on motor fuels.
American oil industry could be on the verge of winning its war on the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), as the Obama administration weighs changes that could severely undermine the nation's most successful—and most divisive—effort to cut crude oil consumption in the nation's cars.
Faced with what it called an "inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuels," federal regulators in November proposed lowering the 2014 usage requirements for the total volume of renewable fuel and for advanced biofuels. Last month, regulators said they may also grant oil industry requests for waivers on their biofuel obligations for 2014 as well as for fiscal 2013, which ends in June.
The moves triggered howls from biofuels companies and representatives from corn states fearful that those setbacks will lead to others, and that uncertainty over the program will pull the rug from under the fledgling market for advanced biofuels. The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to rule on the proposed biofuel reductions and the oil industry waivers in the coming months.
Of course, the potential unraveling of the RFS is complicated and highly controversial. The program's troubles stem primarily from sinking gasoline demand, overly optimistic biofuels targets and 2012's drought-driven rise in corn prices. In addition, the ongoing dependence on corn-derived ethanol has further inflamed critics who say the rush to produce that kind of ethanol has been gobbling up land and diverting food to U.S. gas tanks.
But, for all its struggles and faults, the RFS accomplished things that almost no other gasoline additive or alternative was in a position to achieve so quickly.
For example, the growing use of ethanol and other biofuels has reduced tailpipe emissions that cause air pollution and that are linked to health problems ranging from asthma to cancer. And now that more efficient ethanol plants are in place and U.S. refiners are making more fuel from Canada's dirtier tar sands oil, it's clear that biofuels also generate less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline—even in the case of corn ethanol.
What's more, biofuels have supplanted billions of gallons of petroleum in gasoline and diesel, a trend that is cutting overall oil demand and steadily eroding the oil industry's de facto monopoly on transportation fuels.
That has made reining in—or preferably, repealing—the renewable fuel requirements a top priority for oil companies in the last year. The result has been a high-octane battle pitting two of the nation's most potent political and economic forces against each other—the oil industry and corn ethanol interests, groups collectively known in political circles as "Big Oil" and "Big Corn."
"There's a lot of bad blood between those two industries," said Gal Luft, senior adviser to the U.S. Energy Security Council and an advocate of diversifying the nation's motor fuels.
With the economic stakes so high, the head-to-head features all the hallmarks of a yet another Washington showdown: Powerful lobbying, unlikely coalitions, court battles and dueling research, all of it infused with hyperbole and scare-mongering, and then spread far and wide through expensive advertising and public relations campaigns.
Farm state officials have taken to calling the EPA's move a "war on corn," and have warned that the RFS changes would crush the fledgling biofuel industry and ravage states that have prospered from growing corn and other biofuel feedstock as well as hosting the fuel processing plants. The oil industry's main lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, has countered with a dire prediction that higher ethanol mandates could harm consumers, damage their automobiles and trigger fuel rationing and supply shortages. API's allies include the trade association for refiners, livestock and poultry groups, a wide range of food interests and some environmentalists.
Tom Kloza, a long-time oil analyst, described the extreme polarization this way: "You'll get on an [oil industry] conference call one day, and it will make you think that you've got to be a pinko-commie-bedwetting-sympathizer to be an advocate for ethanol. Then you get on a press conference for [renewable fuel groups], and they'll make you think you're some goose-stepping Stalinist if you prefer hydrocarbons.
"There's no in between," said Kloza, who works for the Oil Price Information Service and Gas Buddy. "You don't hear anything that's in the spirit of compromise."
Oil's De Facto Monopoly...
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140210/oil-industrys-fight-kill-renewable-fuels%E2%80%94and-why-it-may-win
MediaMatters / By Laura Santhanam [1]
8 Most Absurd Attacks on Clean Tech in 2013
December 23, 2013 |
If 2012 was the year of Solyndra [2], then 2013 was the year of Tesla, whose initial success has encapsulated the potential of clean energy. The electric automaker received a loan from the same overarching program as Solyndra, the bankrupt solar company that became the target of political attacks, but it turned a profit and became the poster child for clean energy subsidies. This confounded conservative media, who alternated between praising Tesla while denying or ignoring its federal loan, and putting it down just days later.
In addition to the more traditional targets -- electric cars like Tesla's, solar (allegedly "tanking the economy") and wind energy (supposedly causing "devastating" health effects) -- this year conservative media reached so far right as to go after energy efficiency and bike-share programs. We collected some of the worst attacks from conservative media against clean energy technology during 2013.
1. Fox Business Reporter: Germany's Solar Industry Better Than U.S.'s Because "They've Got A Lot More Sun Than We Do."
In February, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson pushed [3] the claim that the solar industry's future in the United States "looks dim." Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi then compared the state of the U.S. solar industry to that of Germany, saying that Germans enjoy more success because "they've got a lot more sun than we do." Joshi added that "In California, it's a great solution, but here on the East Coast it's just not going to work." After her comments were widely derided [4] since the U.S. actually has much greater solar potential than Germany even on the East Coast, Joshi was forced to issue an online correction. The U.S. solar industry is on track to outpace [5] Germany's solar industry this year for the "first time in more than fifteen years," according to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
2. After Electric Automaker Tesla Becomes A Success, Fox Forgets Its Federal Loan.
Fox News and Fox Business hosts and pundits alike attacked Tesla Motors after the green technology company received federal loans to begin to produce electric automobiles. Once Tesla turned a profit, however, these conservative media figures developed amnesia [6] about the company's federal loan, even trying to use the company to dismiss the need for clean energy subsidies.
3. Bill O'Reilly Smears Tesla, Falsely Claims It Had Net Losses.
Fox News aired mixed messages about Tesla, offering the company praise and then disparaging it, all within the same week. Host Bill O'Reilly called the company a failure and claimed that it posted net losses. O'Reilly's statement, however, was untrue [7]. In fact, just days earlier, Fox News had heralded Tesla as a "success story [8]" after the company turned a profit [9].
4. WSJ Editorial Board Member: New York City's Bike Share Program Part Of "Totalitarian" Plot.
With a straight face, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board member Dorothy Rabinowitz said [10] that bicyclists were the "most important danger" facing New York City, and raged against bike share programs that are pursued by the "all powerful" "bike lobby" emboldened by "totalitarians." She emphasizes that "the city is helpless" before the driven ambitions of its "autocratic" mayor. Rabinowitz's overly hyped attack of a bike-share program attractedcriticism [11], notably from Comedy Central's The Daily Show [12]. However, Rabinowitz stuck by her attack, saying the bike racks are "instruments of aesthetic torture [13]" and told a bicyclist who asked her a question to instead ask "the therapist we hope this biker is consulting [14]."
5. Fox News: Wind Turbines May Cause "Devastating" Health Effects.
Fox News did not shy away from reporting on easily debunked allegations as if they were true, namely that clean energy was responsible for causing the dubiously named Wind Turbine Syndrome [15] among a handful of residents in a small Massachusetts town. In February, Fox News hyped [16] the "devastating" effects of wind turbines on a few residents in Falmouth, Mass. For all of Fox's reporting on the horrors of Wind Turbine Syndrome, the outlet failed to note that no evidence supports that this condition even exists, and multiple studies [17] have suggested that the array of health effects may simply be an effect of hypochondria. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection even concluded[18] in 2012 that "There is no evidence for a set of health effects from exposure to wind turbines."
6. Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Energy Efficiency Responsible For Super Bowl Blackout.
When the lights went out inside the Super Bowl, fans and television personalities alike were initially baffled. The Drudge Report and conservative media figures on Fox News were quick to spin [19] their own narrative about why the blackout occurred, blaming the energy efficient LED lighting [20] outside of the stadium, despite the fact that the LED lights outside the stadium never [21] went out.
7. Fox News: Solar Power "Might Be Tanking Our Economy."
In February Fox News hosts used the misfortune of one solar company to admonish the entire solar industry, going so far as to say [22] that this sector is "tanking our economy," despite the fact that solar actually has helped to grow the U.S. economy. After California-based solar panel company, SoloPower, laid off employees and had trouble meetings requirements for its federal loan guarantee, Fox News hosts surmised that the solar industry and the nation's entire economy was in peril as a result. However, solar industry jobs have grown [22] in recent years, and dropping prices are driving record [23] installations.
8. When Fox Couldn't Point To Actual Facts To Smear Tesla, They Made Some Up.
In May, Fox Business reporter Elizabeth MacDonald was thinking on her feet when making disparaging comments about Tesla Motors. She claimed that the Tesla Model S "conks out after about 16 miles," when in fact [24] the car's battery boasts a battery range of 265 miles, making it the longest-range [25] electric automobile battery on the market at the time. The next day she said [26] that she "gave incomplete information," suggesting she was referring to the range if you charged the car for only half an hour using a mobile connector.
See more stories tagged with:
clean energy [27],
bikeshare programs [28],
solar energy [29],
wind energy [30],
fox news [31]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/media/8-most-absurd-attacks-clean-tech-2013
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/laura-santhanam
[2] http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/06/01/media-fail-to-fact-check-romneys-solyndra-speec/185110
[3] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/fox-cedes-solar-industry-to-germany/192568
[4] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot_more_sun_than_we_do_video.html
[5] http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/US-Likely-to-Surpass-Germany-in-Solar-in-2013-930-MW-Installed-in-Q3?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+GreentechMedia+%28Greentech+Media%29
[6] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/26/after-tesla-becomes-a-success-fox-forgets-its-f/193798
[7] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/10/oreilly-smears-fox-news-electric-car-success-st/193555
[8] http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/2013/04/08/fox-forgets-its-electric-car-success-story/193529
[9] http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/291133-obama-backed-automaker-tesla-motors-turns-a-profit
[10] http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-death-by-bicycle/C6D8BBCE-B405-4D3C-A381-4CA50BDD8D4D.html#!C6D8BBCE-B405-4D3C-A381-4CA50BDD8D4D
[11] http://www.policymic.com/articles/44495/citi-bike-share-program-nyc-program-called-dreadful-by-wsj
[12] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-6-2013/full-pedal-racket<hr%20/>citi-bike
[13] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/dorothy-rabinowitz-lets-loose.html
[14] http://live.wsj.com/video/opinionrabinowitz-responds-to-the-bike-lobby/5FBFA551-0192-4FDB-B209-248E733E0083.html#!5FBFA551-0192-4FDB-B209-248E733E0083
[15] http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/05/25/myths-amp-facts-about-wind-power/183968#healthrisk
[16] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/26/fox-news-wind-power-hypochondria/192808
[17] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179699/
[18] http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/service/massdep-site-help.html
[19] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/04/conservatives-wrongly-blame-super-bowl-blackout/192510
[20] http://energy.gov/articles/super-bowl-city-leads-energy-efficient-forefront
[21] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/super-bowl-who-turned-out-the-lights-87128.html?hp=r5
[22] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/21/fox-news-solar-power-might-be-tanking-our-econo/193172
[23] http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/24/myths-and-facts-about-solar-energy/192364#business
[24] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/30/fox-reporter-conjures-mystery-numbers-for-new-t/194273
[25] http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/06/22/tesla-model-s-verified-as-longest-range-electric-vehicle-at-265-miles/
[26] http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2013/05/31/30420/fbn-varney-20130531-tesla
[27] http://www.alternet.org/tags/clean-energy
[28] http://www.alternet.org/tags/bikeshare-programs
[29] http://www.alternet.org/tags/solar-energy-0
[30] http://www.alternet.org/tags/wind-energy
[31] http://www.alternet.org/tags/fox-news
[32] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
markey American Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act oct 2013
http://www.markey.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=346975
===
The Guardian [1] / By Suzanne Goldenberg [2], Ed Pilkington [3]
Assault on Clean Energy Revealed: How ALEC-Inpsired Laws Plans to Charge Homeowners Who Install Solar
December 5, 2013 |
An alliance of corporations and conservative activists is mobilising to penalise homeowners who install their own solar panels – casting them as "freeriders" – in a sweeping new offensive against renewable energy [4], the Guardian has learned.
Over the coming year, the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) will promote legislation with goals ranging from penalising individual homeowners and weakening state clean energy [5] regulations, to blocking the Environmental Protection Agency, which is Barack Obama's main channel for climate action.
Details of Alec's strategy to block clean energy development at every stage – from the individual rooftop to the White House – are revealed as the group gathers for its policy summit in Washington this week.
About 800 state legislators and business leaders are due to attend the three-day event, which begins on Wednesday withappearances by the Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson and the Republican budget guru and fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan.
Other Alec speakers will be a leading figure behind the recent government shutdown, US senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and the governors of Indiana and Wyoming, Mike Pence and Matt Mead.
For 2014, Alec plans to promote a suite of model bills and resolutions aimed at blocking Barack Obama from cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and state governments from promoting the expansion of wind and solar power[6] through regulations known as Renewable Portfolio Standards.
Documents obtained by the Guardian [7] show the core elements of its strategy began to take shape at the previous board meeting in Chicago in August, with meetings of its energy, environment and agriculture subcommittees.
Further details of Alec's strategy were provided by John Eick, the legislative analyst for Alec's energy, environment and agriculture program.
Eick told the Guardian the group would be looking closely in the coming year at how individual homeowners with solar panels are compensated for feeding surplus electricity back into the grid.
"This is an issue we are going to be exploring," Eick said. He said Alec wanted to lower the rate electricity companies pay homeowners for direct power generation – and maybe even charge homeowners for feeding power into the grid.
"As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect, all the other non direct generation customers are being penalised," he said.
Eick dismissed the suggestion that individuals who buy and install home-based solar panels had made such investments. "How are they going to get that electricity from their solar panel to somebody else's house?" he said. "They should be paying to distribute the surplus electricity."
In November, Arizona became the first state to charge customers for installing solar panels. The fee, which works out to about $5 a month for the average homeowner, was far lower than that sought by the main electricity company, which was seeking to add up to $100 a month to customers' bills.
Gabe Elsner, director of the Energy and Policy Institute, said the attack on small-scale solar was part of the larger Alec project to block clean energy. "They are trying to eliminate pro-solar policies in the states to protect utility industry profits," he said.
The group sponsored at least 77 energy bills in 34 states last year. The measures were aimed at opposing renewable energy standards, pushing through the Keystone XL pipeline project, and barring oversight on fracking, according to an analysis by the Centre for Media and Democracy.
Until now, the biggest target in Alec's sights were state Renewable Portfolio Standards, which require electricity companies to source a share of their power from wind, solar, biomass, or other clean energy. Such measures are seen as critical to reducing America's use of coal and oil, and to the fight against climate change [8]. RPS are now in force in 30 states.
In 2012, Alec drafted a model bill pushing for the outright repeal of RPS.
In the confidential materials, prepared for the August board meeting, Alec claimed to have made significant inroads against such clean energy policies in 2013.
"Approximately 15 states across the country introduced legislation to reform, freeze or repeal their state's renewable mandate," the taskforce reported.
That compares to model bills in just seven states in support of the hot-button issue of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to figures in the documents.
"This legislative year has seen the most action on renewable mandates to date," the documents said.
Three of those states – North Carolina, Ohio, and Kansas – saw strong pushes by conservative groups to reverse clean energy regulations this year.
None of those efforts passed, however, with signs of strong local support for wind farms and other clean energy projects that were seen as good for the economy – from Republicans [9] as well as Democrats.
By August, Alec evidently decided its hopes of winning outright repeal of RPS standards was overly ambitious.
At its meeting in August, Alec put forward an initiative that would allow utility companies to import clean energy from other states – rather than invest in new, greener generation.
An "explanatory note" prepared for the meeting admitted: "One model policy may be the right fit for one state but not work for another".
Elsner argued that after its bruising state battles in 2013, Alec was now focused on weakening – rather than seeking outright repeal – of the clean energy standards.
"What we saw in 2013 was an attempt to repeal RPS laws, and when that failed … what we are seeing now is a strategy that appears to be pro- clean energy but would actually weaken those pro- clean energy laws by retreating to the lowest common denominator," he said.
The other key agenda item for Alec's meeting this week is the EPA. The group is looking at two proposals to curb the agency's powers – one to shut the EPA out of any meaningful oversight of fracking, and the other to block action on climate change.
A model bill endorsed by the Alec board of directors last August would strip the EPA of power to shut down a frack site or oil industry facility.
That would leave oversight of an industry that has to date fracked 2m wells in 20 states to a patchwork of local authorities that have vastly different standards of environmental protection.
The model bill would explicitly bar the EPA from shutting down any oil or gas well or facility in any of them, limiting the agency's capacity to enforce the clean water and clean air acts.
"The legislature declares that the United States [10] Environmental Protection Agency … lacks the authority to deny permits of operation to these oil and gas wells and facilities," the bill reads.
Eick said the bill was in keeping with the group's broader philosophy of expanding power to the states.
"A national regulatory agency might impose a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all regulation on states in many instances," he said.
The meeting will also focus on Obama's plan, announced last June, to use the EPA to limit greenhouse gas emissions from future and existing power plants.
"The EPA's forthcoming regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and specifically carbon emissions [11] from power plants will be of incredible interest to states and membership so we are going to be focusing on that. Absolutely," Eick said.
Power plants are the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for about 40% last year. The EPA last September proposed new standards for future power plants, and will tighten limits for existing power plants next June.
"It just shows that Alec uses lawmakers as lobbyists to block climate legislation at every turn," said Connor Gibson, a researcher for Greenpeace. "They try to undermine the authority of agencies that have the power potentially to control carbon pollution, so whenever there is a new EPA rule that pops up, they re-tool their arsenal of model bills to make sure they are blocking the new rule."
The resolution on the EPA for Alec members' consideration this week argues that requiring tougher standards from the next generation of power plants lead to spikes in electricity prices and would damage the economy.
"Alec is very concerned about the potential economic impact of greenhouse gas regulation on electricity prices and the harm EPA regulations may have on the economic recovery," the resolution reads.
Environmental lawyers said the resolution amounted to a "new manifesto" against the EPA regulating carbon pollution. "They don't want the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions," said Ann Weeks, legal director for the Clean Air Task Force.
She disputed a number of claims within the Alec resolution – including the assertion that reducing carbon pollution would lead to an 80% rise in electricity prices. Economic analyses by the EPA and others have suggested those rises would be fairly limited.
"They will probably tell you they don't want the EPA to regulate anything so it is in their interest to turn what the EPA has proposed into something that is grotesque and unreasonable, which I don't think is true," Weeks said.
See more stories tagged with:
alec [12],
clean energy [13],
wind [14],
solar [15],
energy [16]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/environment/assault-clean-energy-revealed-how-alec-inpsired-laws-plans-charge-homeowners-who-install
Va solar?
==
alec hit;
cmd
ALEC Partners with Heartland Institute for Rollback of Renewables
Even more extraordinary is ALEC's push this year to repeal Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which require that utility companies provide a certain amount of their total energy from renewable sources like wind.
"ALEC's long time role in denying the science and policy solutions to climate change is shifting into an evolving roadblock on state and federal clean energy incentives, a necessary part of global warming mitigation," says Connor Gibson, a Research Associate at Greenpeace.
In Germany, where the nation has set a goal of getting 35% of its energy from renewables by 2020, public committment to clean energy technologies is transforming markets, driving innovation and generating huge numbers of jobs. Even in the U.S., where there has been less public investment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says 3.1 million clean energy jobs have been created in recent years.
Perhaps because of RPS' job-creating qualities, ALEC's bill to repeal renewable standards, the "Electricity Freedom Act," was too much even for the most conservative legislatures. It failed to pass in every state where it was introduced -- even in North Carolina, where it had the backing of Grover Norquist, and whose Republican-dominated legislature has been rolling multiple ALEC bills into law in 2013
It may be little surprise that ALEC's attack on renewables was spearheaded by one of its looniest members: the bill was brought to ALEC in May 2012 by the Illinois-based Heartland Institute, a group best known forbillboards comparing people who believe in climate change to mass murderers like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.
ALEC is usually very secretive about its model legislation and its efforts in the states, but ALEC did not disguise the fact that it had made the Electricity Freedom Act a priority for the 2013 session. ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Director Todd Wynn published blog posts on the topic and was quoted in the press discussing how ALEC was working with Heartland to promote the repeal bills.
In many of the states that have proposed versions of the Electricity Freedom Act, the right-wing infrastructure has sprung into action, almost according to a script. The Beacon Hill Institute publishes a study (using discredited analysis) claiming that a state's renewable standards lead to higher energy costs, as it did in states like Maine and Ohio and Wisconsin and Arizona. The David Koch-founded and-led Americans for Prosperity organizes an event to "educate" its members about how renewables are "punishing" consumers, as they did in Nebraska, and perhaps invite a guest from the Heartland Institute to make similar claims, as they did in Kansas.
ALEC, the Heartland Institute, and the Beacon Hill Institute all have received money from foundations associated with Charles and David Koch, and each are also part of the State Policy Network, an umbrella group of right-wing organizations that claim adherence to the free market. SPN has received at least $10 million in the past five years from the mysterious Donors Trust, which funnels money from the Kochs and other conservative funders. SPN was also a "Chairman" level sponsor of ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference and ALEC is an Associate Member of SPN.
But even though the ALEC/Heartland anti-renewable energy fight found little success in 2013, the group is not giving up.
New Avenue Sought to Rollback Renewables
“I expect that North Carolina and Kansas will probably pick up this issue again in 2014 and lead the charge across the country once again,” Wynn said.
ALEC now appears to be modifying its strategy to find a more palatable way to attack renewable standards.
At its August 2013 meeting, ALEC will consider a watered-down version of the Electricity Freedom Act with a bill called the "Market Power Renewables Act." That legislation would phase-out a state's Renewable Portfolio Standards and instead create a renewable "market" where consumers can choose to pay for renewable energy, and allow utilities to purchase energy credits from outside the state. This thwarts the purpose of RPS policies, which help create the baseline demand for renewables that will spur the clean energy investment necessary to continue developing the technology and infrastructure that will drive costs down.
But, it would satisfy ALEC's goal of preserving reliance on dirty energy from fossil fuels.
ALEC Bills Undermine Environmental Regulations, First Amendment
ALEC energy, environment, and agriculture bills moving in the first six months of 2013 include:
- The "Electricity Freedom Act," introduced in six states, repealing (or in some states weakening) Renewable Portfolio Standards. The standards have been a key component driving renewable energy growth -- which threatens the profits of ALEC's polluter members.
- Variations on the "Resolution in Support of the Keystone XL Pipeline"(introduced in ten states) calling on the federal government to approve the controversial project to transport tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada across the United States. It is no coincidence that pipeline operator TransCanada is an ALEC member and funder.
- The misleadingly-named "Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act" (introduced in five states) which would actually make it harder to find out what chemicals are being pumped underground through the fracking process. The bill, which was brought to ALEC by Exxon Mobil, carves out a giant loophole for "trade secrets" -- potentially concealing the information the public might want to know.
- The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act" (introduced in five states), seeks to sow doubt in the minds of young people about man's role in the warming planet by requiring that educators "teach the controversy" when it comes to topics like climate change, where the science is beyond dispute.
- The "Environmental Services Public-Private Partnership Act" (introduced in two states) would give for-profit companies control of vital public health services like treating wastewater and drinking water -- the last place where you want a company to cut corners to increase profits.
- The "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" (variations of which were introduced in nine states) have come to be known as "Ag-Gag" bills, as they criminalize investigations into abuses on factory farms and deem videographers "terrorists."
- The "Disposal and Taxation of Public Lands Act" (considered in seven states) was modeled after a Utah law from 2012 and is an updated version of the ALEC "Sagebrush Rebellion Act," where Western states assert control over federal lands that are being protected as wilderness preserves, in many cases to allow for resource extraction.
ALEC Corporations Reap the Rewards
==
obama admin: One thing is for certain: the new drive for large-scale solar will require land. The U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management so far has issued permits or is conducting environmental reviews for solar, wind and geothermal projects covering about 310,000 acres — an area around the size of Wyoming’s Grand Teton National Park. Many projects require that electric transmission lines be built over miles of open space to connect the remote renewable generating plants to the grid serving population centers.
ati mapstracks eg
In August 2005 Gov. Rick Perry altered the state’s 1999 renewable energy mandate (REM). The new provision increased the amount of energy required to be generated from renewable sources to 5,880 megawatts (MW) or about 5 percent of the state’s demand by 2015. The requirement includes a 500 MW mandate from non-wind renewables and a 10,000 MW target for renewable energy capacity by 2025.
Qualifying sources include solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave or tidal energy, biomass, biomass-based waste products, and landfill gas.
The law sets a gradated compliance schedule and the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) requires utilities to add new transmission capacity where necessary to meet the demand for renewables.
The PUCT established a renewable energy credit (REC) trading system for utilities to buy and sell credits to meet the requirement.
The PUCT awards a compliance premium for all RECs purchased after December 31, 2007. The compliance premium is equivalent to one REC to be used toward satisfying the mandate.
The PUCT assesses a $50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) penalty to utilities that do not meet compliance requirements. The PUCT is empowered to establish an alternative compliance payment (ACP) but has issued no regulations for it. The PUCT can exempt a utility from the mandate if it determines events beyond the control of the utility (war, terrorism, weather, natural disasters) prohibit it from meeting its annual REC requirement.
Also, the PUCT can institute cost caps or suspend the requirement altogether if it deems it necessary to protect the reliability of the state’s electricity grid.
Large utility customers served by transmission voltage may execute an opt-out option from the REM. Ninety customers opted out during 2009.
Source: Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Texas Utilities Code Annotated Chapter 39
==
AlterNet [1] / By Scott Thill [2]
The 7 States Leading the Charge for Clean Energy
July 8, 2013 |
Full disclosure. I'm greenvesting thousands in solar and other no-brainer renewable energy alternatives, because I want to help save the world from an exponential mass extinction thanks to crap energy policy.
Sure, some bigshot and small-time "investors" and "innovators" may be in it for the money (see: Anschutz Corporation, below), but these days who cares? Climate change's clock is short. Thankfully, solar, wind and other green power projects are popping even in the most polluted of places.
What brings them all together are the inevitable political and economic compromises born of resource shortages and shared cosmology. For all of our imagined differences, we share the same singular paradise spinning through space. But we're knowingly trashing it at light-speed, when we could be living clean off the sun, sea and wind.
"Civilization has been around for thousands of years," the Solar Energy Industries Association's new spokesveep Ken Johnson [3] told AlterNet. "The idea that we're going to pretty much blow through most of our natural energy resources in a couple hundred years is pretty frightening. What are we going to do about future generations? Just shrug our shoulders and say, Sorry! We enjoyed it while we were here. Good luck, and try burning wood again! That's just not an option."
The solar sector's explosive year so far is one brilliant alternative Johnson is aware of, having migrated to SEIA from the cozy political and industry environs of Capitol Hill, Homeland Security, PhRMA and more. He's following the money like the rest of us. From massive investments from billionaires like Warren Buffet to recent stock-market performances that shame new-school blue-chips like Apple and Google, the renewables sector is on an evolutionary roll, gaining significant momentum across what advertisers like to call Democrat and Republican territories.
Here's a refresher on the realities of recent green blooms in red states and blue [4], including some who may be worse polluters than you think, like the so-called Golden State, land of airborne lung death.
- California
For all of the Golden State's leadership [5] when it comes to pathbreaking the green economy, it remains the United States' most confused paradise. American Lung Association's list of America's most polluted cities [6] scores several California notables across brackets, led by Los Angeles and cities smack dab in the state's breadbasket. California also ranks second in America's highest CO2 emissions [7], after Texas, which is the worst state in the country. Sure, California's per-capita CO2 emissions are lower than almost every state in the country, but it still annually spews out nearly 400,000 metric tons of CO2 on top of its reigning particle and ozone pollution. As a figurative country within a country, populated by so-called red and blue cities the size of states, California still has a long way to go before it can truly call itself a green state.
But it's on the right track, said Johnson. "We're trending in the right direction. Lancaster [8], which is under Republican leadership, has mandated solar on all new construction. Palo Alto [9] recently approved contracts which will have the city getting 18 percent of its electricity from solar."
Ivanpah [10]—billed as "the largest solar plant under construction in the world" by its bankrollers Brightsource, Google and NRG—will bring on hundreds of megawatts of generating capacity. Warren Buffet's twin Solar Star farms [11] in nearby Antelope Valley are together larger than Ivanpah, which is why he doubled down a cool billion to further fund construction. It's no accident that after he did just that, Sunpower, who built his solar stars, watched its stock skyrocket to a 52-week high. (Full disclosure: It's also no accident that I've greenvested in Sunpower since last year.) Because rich and poor alike know that solar is simply a no-brainer.
And yet Ivanpah and Solar Star are within spitting distance of Owens Lake, drained decades ago to create Los Angeles' image industry and unsustainable sprawl. L.A.'s continuing legal battles with Owens Lake [12] over geoengineering's inevitable blowback should be a sobering reminder that Los Angeles andCalifornia need to seriously crank up their ambition before the rest of America takes them seriously as scolds.
- Texas
Ivanpah may be in California, but its behemoth energy co-parent NRG [13] is based in New Jersey and Texas, which annually farts out over 650,000 metric tons of CO2. NRG recently closed [14] a deal to annually provide half of Houston's electricity using solar, which would rule if the state wasn't right behind California in ozone pollution, or well above the national average in per capita CO2 emissions.
“Houston is already known as the energy capital of the world, but we are committed to becoming the alternative energy capital of the world as well," said Mayor Annise Parker, whose metropolis is now reportedly the largest buyer of municipal renewable power in America. It's almost enough to erase memories of Reliant Energy's sinister role in California's manufactured energy "crisis" [15] or that energy corporation is one of America's worst CO2 emitters.
But Texas is nevertheless leaning green [16], especially on the municipal level, and it's not alone. "A lot of new solar is going to come online this year," said Johnson. "We've got 30 utility-scale projects under construction around the country. Other areas are watching carefully to see how solar takes hold, but costs to consumers have dropped by more than 40 percent. So solar is rapidly becoming very competitive with traditional energy sources. And we're doing it without adversely impacting the environment. So despite the amazing progress solar has made, its best days are ahead."
- Iowa
Responsible for some of the nation's lamest Republican leadership and per-capita CO2 emissions, Corn Belt [17] states like Iowa, Indiana and others stick out like a sore dinosaur's thumb when it comes to the so-called red states. But they are making better and better green-state bedfellows, as global warming inevitably dries out their powerhouse farming industries and economies.
Routinely advertised as America's heartland, Iowa reportedly generates a higher percentage of its energy from wind power than any other state. Along with his cool billion on California solar, Buffet also recently dropped two cooler billions on wind farms [18] in Iowa, the largest investment in economic development in state history. Iowa governor Terry Branstad [19] may be a red-state Republican, but he's still parted ways with the GOP on obvious green-state solutions like wind energy, and it's likely going to take a Democrat with more ambition to beat his environmentally friendly track record.
“The stakes for the wind industry and the country in general will only get worse with delay," warned Iowa's senator Charles Grassley, along with a host of other Republicans evidently hell-bent for greener pastures on the Red State Renewable Alliance [20]'s official site. That includes politicians from GOP strongholds like Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and more in fierce favor of the government's Production Tax Credit [21] (PTC), whose subsidies have galvanized the Midwest's renewable energy portfolio [22], especially in wind.
It is a supreme green irony, given the region wastes no shortage of hot air when it comes to admitting global warming is actually happening. Whatever works [23], dude.
- Colorado
What the PTC is to Midwest wind, the Investment Tax Credit [24] (ITC) is to nationwide solar. They serve the same function: Backstopping renewable energy policy and economic investment with the power of the government's purse, which in turn entices greedier private capital off the sidelines. And one state developing clever variations on the ITC is Colorado, which has ridden the fence between being a red or blue state for about as long as the reductive binary metaphor has been in contemporary usage.
"Senator Mark Udall [25] of Colorado recently introduced the Solar Uniting Neighborhoods (SUN) Act [26]," explained Johnson. "Today, if you put solar into your business or home, you qualify for the ITC's 30 percent tax credit, but you're not eligible if you pool your resources together as a community. Senator Udall's legislation would allow those who pool their community resources into a solar facility to receive the same tax advantages."
"This bill ensures that all homeowners are eligible for the individual renewable energy tax credit even if they participate in solar farms because their homes are unsuitable for solar panels," Udall said in June. "The SUN Act makes our tax laws fairer and encourages all homeowners to contribute to our nation's pursuit of true energy independence." Whether these homes can continue to stand in a state experiencing some of the most destructive firestorms [27] in the drying state's history—which only promises to get warmer, faster—remains an open question.
Either way, the ITC should remain, explained Johnson.
"Since the ITC went into effect, we've tripled the numbers of jobs in America," he told AlterNet. "Last year alone, investment in solar doubled from $6 billion to $12 billion. The number of businesses has grown from a handful to more than 5,000. Clearly, solar is having a huge impact on the economy; it's one of the fastest growing industries in America."
"All we are asking for is a fair fight when it comes to the energy sector," he added. "The oil and gas industries have enjoyed tax benefits embedded into the code for nearly 100 years. The ITC has only been on the books since 2006. So given a fair playing field, we have clearly demonstrated that solar can compete with any other energy source."
- Pennsylvania
The less said about Pennsylvania's filthy energy sector, which includes way too much coal and nuclear power, the better. Because it is extensive and tortured, and still annually responsible for over 250 metric tons of CO2, third worst behind California and Texas. Pittsburgh alone is a reigning particle polluter nationwide, so it's nearly safe to say that the state has hardly anywhere to go but up when it comes to being green.
And it's slowly moving that direction. With a steady stream of Appalachian winds at its back, Pennsylvania has over 20 wind power projects online [28]and more on the way. One of red state's few Democratic politicians, state senator John Wozniak recently introduced legislation [29] that would build another farm on state forest land that used to house a strip mine. Wozniak's proposal comes at a crucial time when entrenched Pennsylvania coal interests are wringing their hands over the potential of President Obama's recent climate action speech to throttle environmentally unsustainable coal production.
"We're not going to reopen coal mines [30]," prophesied Jake Smeltz, president of Pennsylvania's Electric Power Generation Association industry group. "We're not going to reconstitute rail lines that deliver coal. We're not going to fire up boilers that have sat unused. When you say goodbye, you really do say goodbye."
Yeah, that's the point. That kind of change could come faster to Pennsylvania if its lowly Republican incumbent governor Tom Corbett loses to a Democratic challenger like John Hanger [31], former Secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, who has made industry regulation and renewables a tentpole of his candidacy. He's up against a fellow DEP Secretary in Democrat Kathleen McGinty [32], meaning the much-needed green-state upgrades that currently red-state Pennsylvania desperately needs could come faster than before.
- Georgia
And then there is the South, out of which Georgia, spewing out over 170,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, stands pretty firm as a red state suffering from the intensified ravages of global warming, whether that's tornadoes, hurricanes or sea level rise. Perhaps that's why it has jumped more heartily into the renewable energy future other states are already working hard to bring to fruition.
"With respect to some of the newer places where solar is going gangbusters, Georgia Power's Advanced Solar Initiative [33], which was approved by the George Public Service Commission late last year, is a good example," Johnson said. "The ASI will drive 90-210mw of new installation in Georgia by the end of 2016."
Not bad for a state nowhere near the nation's top 25 in installed capacity. Billing itself as "the nation's largest voluntary solar portfolio" may be a stretch—it's still early, after all—but there's nothing wrong with being a bit confident after you've been way too complacent. Especially since Georgia's neighbor Florida, otherwise known as the Sunshine State, is quaqmired in a dirty energy portfolio [34] with zero leadership pointing the way forward. Heavily dependent on coal, nuclear and gas, and in danger of drowning thanks to climate change [35], much of Florida is stuck in the 20th century and needing inspiration. Maybe it can find some in Georgia.
- Wyoming
As the home of Dick Cheney [36], and the highest per-capita CO2 emissions in America (by an unbelievable country mile), Wyoming is about as red as states come, despite its heavily green environs and the fact that it receives more per-capita federal tax dollars nationwide than any other state. Withdirty mining [37] and declining agriculture as the prime drivers of its economy, the Equality State, as it is officially known, has a pretty unequal renewable energy portfolio. While it has evidently little problem unearthing death-bringers like coal, methane, oil, gas and even uranium, Wyoming traditionally hasn't been able to muster the same extractive enthusiasm for clean fuels.
But even staunch Wyoming is caving to climate change's new realities. A state with some of the highest wind power potential in America, Wyoming has experienced a land rush in the last few years intent on capitalizing on its dormant renewable market. And while it's been years in the making, the state's massive Chokecherry and Sierra Madre [38] wind farms are reputed to be the largest in the world. Another Wyoming-based wind project, theTranswest Express [39], recently released a draft environmental review [40] to build a 725-mile electricity corridor bringing 3,000 megawatts to the desert Southwest and perhaps even California. The fact that it is bankrolled by the Anschutz Corporation [41]—a George W. Bush bankroller that mindlessly lobbied against the Kyoto Protocol and same-sex marriage while defending creationism—might not sit well with the more scientifically inclined Golden State.
Then again, maybe you should read California's entry again for a sobering refresher on its blue-state credentials. Hopefully, all of the United States will bleed green before the nation bleeds out from a self-inflicted wound brought on by an unsustainable dependence on dirty fuels.
See more stories tagged with:
energy [42],
clean energy [43],
renewables [44],
renewable energy [45],
wind [46],
solar [47]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/environment/7-states-leading-charge-clean-energy
Links:
[1] http://alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/scott-thill
[3] http://www.seia.org/news/seia-hires-capitol-hill-veteran-ken-johnson-lead-communications
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
[5] http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/06/18/the-california-solar-initiative-is-ending-what-has-it-left-behind
[6] http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
[8] http://www.sfvbj.com/news/2013/mar/27/lancaster-require-solar-energy-production-new-home
[9] http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/6/prweb10846075.htm
[10] http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/ivanpah-solar-project
[11] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/utilities-midamerican-solar-idUSL2N0F40R520130628
[12] http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environment/2013/06/27/14126/la-dwp-and-great-basin-settle-dispute-over-dust-co
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRG_Energy
[14] http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2013/06/city-of-houston-makes-big-renewable.html
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRI_Energy#California_energy_crisis
[16] http://www.justmeans.com/World-s-Largest-Solar-Test-Farm-Planned-by-Texas-A-M-University-CT/59878.html
[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Belt
[18] http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-buffeted-by-turbulent-wind-industry-85899480877
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Branstad
[20] http://redstaterenewables.org
[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Wind_Energy_Policy#Wind_Production_Tax_Credit_.28PTC.29
[22] http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21579046-wind-power-doing-well-it-still-relies-irregular-and-short-term-subsidies-blown
[23] http://cjonline.com/news/business/2013-01-06/brownback-applauds-wind-tax-break-renewal
[24] http://www.seia.org/policy/finance-tax/solar-investment-tax-credit
[25] http://www.markudall.senate.gov
[26] http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3533
[27] http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/15/18975566-colorado-fire-now-most-destructive-in-state-history
[28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Pennsylvania
[29] http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/07/pa_senator_wants_wind_turbine.html
[30] http://articles.philly.com/2013-06-28/news/40235320_1_coal-fired-power-plants-pennsylvania-industry-group-emissions
[31] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hanger
[32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_McGinty
[33] http://www.georgiapower.com/about-energy/energy-sources/solar/asi/advanced-solar-initiative.cshtml
[34] http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/president-obamas-push-to-curb-emissions-leaves-florida-in-tough-spot/2129157
[35] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620
[36] http://www.alternet.org/story/154195/the_5_worst_%28and_5_best%29_presidents_of_all_time
[37] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming#Mineral_production
[38] http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article.asp?id=64848
[39] http://www.transwestexpress.net
[40] http://trib.com/business/energy/review-released-for-transwest-power-line-from-wyoming-to-nevada/article_38255e9a-73d1-51cb-a486-ae44247de80a.html
[41] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anschutz_Corporation
[42] http://www.alternet.org/tags/energy-0
[43] http://www.alternet.org/tags/clean-energy
[44] http://www.alternet.org/tags/renewables
[45] http://www.alternet.org/tags/renewable-energy
[46] http://www.alternet.org/tags/wind
[47] http://www.alternet.org/tags/solar
[48] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
_
_
==
green states:
http://ecowatch.com/2013/clean-energy-where-state-rank/
Here are the top 10 green energy rankings by state:
- California
- Massachusetts
- Oregon
- New York
- Colorado
- Washington
- New Mexico
- Illinois
- Minnesota
- Hawaii
Here are the top 10 rankings by metro area:
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Portland, OR
- Los Angeles
- Washington, DC
- Sacramento
- San Diego
- Denver
- Seattle
- Boston
Visit EcoWatch’s RENEWABLES page for more related news on this topic.
==
record better than seems? http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/10/18171438-obama-the-epa-and-environmental-opportunities
cap and trade dead unless dems sweep 2014
epa head scuttle: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/51837416#51837416
The conventional wisdom certainly has merit -- Obama has set worthwhile environmental goals, but progress has been slow, in part because congressional Republicans have made it impossible to pass legislation, even a cap-and-trade policy that GOP leaders championed as recently as 2008. Carbon emissions have sharply improved, but there's no credible reason to give administration policies too much credit, since the reductions are largely the result of the recession and the fracking boom.
Jonathan Chait, however, this week challenges some of the assumptions in an interesting piece and gives Obama more credit for "amassing an impressive record" than he usually receives.
He has done quite a bit, probably far more than you think, and not all of it advertised as climate legislation, or advertised as much of anything at all. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was many things -- primarily, a desperate bid to shove money into enough Americans' pockets to prevent another Great Depression -- but one of them was a major piece of environmental reform. The law contained upwards of $90 billion in subsidies for green energy, which had a catalyzing effect on burgeoning industries. American wind-power generation has doubled, and solar power has increased more than six times over.... [T]he wave of innovation -- new fuels, plus turbines, energy meters, and other futuristic devices -- will reverberate for years. [...]
The administration has also carried out an ambitious program of regulation, having imposed or announced higher standards for gas mileage in cars, fuel cleanliness, energy efficiency in appliances, and emissions from new power plants. In aggregate, they amount to a major assault on climate change. Some environmentalists judge them to be insufficient -- a fair critique -- but many more Obama supporters aren't even aware that they exist.
==
his is how the typical American thinks in 2013, according to a couple of new polls: “More solar power, please. No more nuclear, thanks though. And let’s get ready for this crazy climate-change thing.”
A Gallup poll of 1,022 people revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Americans think the U.S. should put more emphasis on developing solar power. Even Republicans are into it, with 68 percent of them calling for more solar. Wind is also popular. So too is natural gas, supported by about two-thirds of Americans. Support for oil and coal is split along party lines, with most Republicans favoring efforts to dig up and burn more of the dirty fuels and most Democrats opposing them. Nuclear, meanwhile, is not particularly popular with either party.
Let’s keep to the most critical immediate problem that civilization faces: environmental catastrophe. Policies and public attitudes diverge sharply, as is often the case under RECD. The nature of the gap is examined in several articles in the current issue of Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Researcher Kelly Sims Gallagher finds that “One hundred and nine countries have enacted some form of policy regarding renewable power, and 118 countries have set targets for renewable energy. In contrast, the United States has not adopted any consistent and stable set of policies at the national level to foster the use of renewable energy.”
It is not public opinion that drives American policy off the international spectrum. Quite the opposite. Opinion is much closer to the global norm than the U.S. government’s policies reflect, and much more supportive of actions needed to confront the likely environmental disaster predicted by an overwhelming scientific consensus – and one that��s not too far off; affecting the lives of our grandchildren, very likely.
As Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis report in Daedalus: “Huge majorities have favored steps by the federal government to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated when utilities produce electricity. In 2006, 86 percent of respondents favored requiring utilities, or encouraging them with tax breaks, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit. Also in that year, 87 percent favored tax breaks for utilities that produce more electricity from water, wind or sunlight [ These majorities were maintained between 2006 and 2010 and shrank somewhat after that.
The fact that the public is influenced by science is deeply troubling to those who dominate the economy and state policy.
One current illustration of their concern is the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” proposed to state legislatures by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded lobby that designs legislation to serve the needs of the corporate sector and extreme wealth.
The ALEC Act mandates “balanced teaching” of climate science in K-12 classrooms. “Balanced teaching” is a code phrase that refers to teaching climate-change denial, to “balance” mainstream climate science. It is analogous to the “balanced teaching” advocated by creationists to enable the teaching of “creation science” in public schools. Legislation based on ALEC models has already been introduced in several states.
Of course, all of this is dressed up in rhetoric about teaching critical thinking – a fine idea, no doubt, but it’s easy to think up far better examples than an issue that threatens our survival��and has been selected because of its importance in terms of corporate profits.
Media reports commonly present a controversy between two sides on climate change. Noam C http://www.alternet.org/print/noam-chomsky-can-civilization-survive-capitalism
Fossil-fuel-funded AEI fellow Steven Hayward has penned WSJ op-eds with titles like "No: Alternatives Are Simply Too Expensive."
Other conservative think tanks have jumped in the clean-tech-bashing game, too. Take the American Enterprise Institute, recipient of at least $2.8 million in money from fossil-fuel interests like ExxonMobil since 1998. AEI fellow Steven Hayward has penned Wall Street Journal op-eds with titles like "No: Alternatives Are Simply Too Expensive." [8] Then there's the Institute for Energy Research, an industry aligned [9] nonprofit that has taken money from Exxon and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, one of the Koch family foundations. The institute's president, Thomas Pyle, appeared in a January 2010 *Houston Chronicle* article [10] arguing that the government should not provide tax credits to renewable energy, because it's been proven that they are "not economically viable in the marketplace."...
In October 2011, Bryce did get some flack when an op-ed he wrote [11] for the New York Times bashing California's clean-energy mandate failed to disclose that the Manhattan Institute is supported by oil and gas interests. Checks and Balances, along with a group of 50 journalists and journalism educators, launched a campaign [12] in response, asking the Times to disclose any financial ties of op-ed contributors. The public editor responded with a column calling for more transparency [13] on contributors. kate s
1st debate:
“[A]ll of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land.”
Under Obama, domestic energy production has soared: The number of oil drilling rigs has quadrupled in number over the past three years. This has brought U.S. oil imports to the lowest level since 1996. And the Congressional Research Service issued a report [PDF] showing that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared to 2007. In addition, the oil and gas industry is sitting on more than 7,000 approved permits��[PDF] to drill on public and Indian land, but companies haven’t yet begun exploring or developing those areas.
- “[A]bout half of [the clean energy companies that] have been invested in [via the stimulus bill] have gone out of business.”
This is blatantly false. In this statement, Romney is conflating the Department of Energy’s loan-guarantee program with all clean energy companies economy-wide. And even when isolating the loan-guarantee program that supported the bankrupt solar company Solyndra, an independent investigation led by Sen. John McCain’s former finance chairman found that these investments will cost $2 billion less than initially expected. That’s because most of the loan guarantees are going toward companies developing large-scale electricity generation projects with long-term agreements for the energy.
Editor's note: Michael Grunwald, who literally [wrote the book on the stimulus package, estimates that about 1 percent of the stimulus-funded clean-energy firms failed, not 50 percent. "Seriously, that was the lie of the night," he said.]
- “[I]n one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world.”
This is also a piece of masterful spin, though not an outright lie. Since the stimulus package was passed, the Department of Energy has put $90 billion toward grants, loan guarantees, R&D programs, competitive prizes, and demonstration projects — everything we need in order to build a foundation to allow clean energy to scale. They are not all tax breaks and they were not all implemented in one year as Romney claimed. And according to the Government Accountability Office (h/t Washington Post), fossil fuel subsidies outnumbered clean energy investments 4 to 1 before the stimulus package was put in place.
What have these clean energy investments spawned? Renewable electricity production has doubled in the last four years; we’ve built some of the most innovative “first of a kind�� renewable energy projects in the world; content sourced from domestic wind manufacturing has doubled; we’ve created more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs in the solar industry; and we’ve leveraged $100 billion in private investments.
Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, contributed to this piece. lacey
Non-hydro renewable electricity generation has nearly doubled since President Obama took office, reaching 5.75 percent of net electricity, according to figures from the Energy Information Administration.
In 2008, before Obama entered the White House, non-hydro resources like solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass represented just over 3 percent of generation. Today, they total nearly 6 percent.
Ken Bossong of the Sun Day Campaign has been meticulously following EIA generation figures over the years. In his assessment of the figures below, Bossong offers an historical perspective:
During 2008, the last full year of the Bush Administration, non-hydro renewables accounted for 3.06% of net electrical generation with an average monthly output of 10,508 gigawatthours. By mid-2012, the average monthly electrical generation from non-hydro renewables had grown by 78.70% to 18,777 gigawatthours. Comparing monthly electrical output in 2008 versus 2012,solar has expanded by 285.19%, wind by 171.72%, and geothermal by 13.53%. However, electrical generation from biomass dropped by 0.56%.
According to the latest issue of the monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” published by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of Energy Projects with data for the first half of 2012, 229 renewable energy projects accounted for more than 38% of new electrical generation capacity (not to be confused with actual generation). This includes 50 wind energy projects (2,367 MW), 111 solar energy projects (588 MW), 59 biomass projects (271 MW), 5 geothermal projects (87 MW), and 4 water power projects (11 MW).
New renewable energy electrical generating capacity was more than double that of coal (2 new units totaling 1,608 MW). No new nuclear capacity came on line during the first half of 2012. However, 40 new natural gas units came on line with 3,708 MW of capacity (42% of the total). Renewable energy sources now account for 14.76% of total installed operating generating capacity (water-8.66%; wind-4.30%, biomass-1.23%, geothermal-0.31%, solar**-0.26%). This is more than nuclear (9.16%) but less than natural gas (41.83%) and coal (29.66%). The balance comes from waste heat (0.07%).
As natural gas and renewable energy development has surged, net generation from coal has fallen substantially. According to the EIA figures, coal-fired electricity has dropped 20 percent since May of 2011. (The decline in domestic coal is mostly due to plants switching to natural gas, according to the EIA — not EPA regulations).
Obama himself acknowledged the surge in renewable energy yesterday during a campaign event at Colorado State University:
“You believed we could use less foreign oil and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens our planet. And in just four years, we have doubled the generation of clean, renewable energy like wind and solar. We developed new fuel standards for our cars so that cars are going to get 55 miles a gallon next decade. That will save you money at the pump. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a level roughly equivalent to a year’s worth of carbon emissions from all the cars in the world put together.”
“If your friends or neighbors are concerned about energy, you tell them, do we want an energy plan written by and for big oil companies?”
“Or do we want an all-of-the-above energy strategy for America — renewable sources of energy. Governor Romney calls them ‘imaginary.’ Congressman Ryan calls them a ���fad.’ I think they’re the future. I think they’re worth fighting for.”
In 2011, global investments in renewable energy surpassed investments in fossil fuels for the first time. Since 2004, one trillion dollars have been invested in the global clean energy sector.
--
===
Nor does the Tea Party believe that states should be able to choose the best mix of electricity for their inhabitants. Delaware, for example, had entered into a program in which Bloom Energy, a hi-tech manufacturer of innovative fuel cells, agreed to build a factory in Delaware in exchange for the state agreeing to classify fuel cells as qualifying technologies under the state's Renewable Energy Standard. This kind of incentive to locate manufacturing facilities is standard, plain vanilla state economic development behavior -- George Bush and Rick Perry engaged in it when they were governors of Texas, and it was practically the hallmark of Haley Barbour's governorship in Mississippi -- including incentives for electric car and solar companies.
But now the Delaware Tea Party's legal arm, the Caesar Rodney Institute, is suing the state over the partnership with Bloom, claiming that the agreement is unconstitutional " economic protectionism."Since the Bloom cells actually burn any fuel, but mostly these days with gas so cheap are run on plain old geologic methane, this is actually a lawsuit against fossil fuel energy in Delaware -- it's just a cleaner and more reliable way to make electricity from natural gas....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/delaware-fuel-cells_b_1691109.html
Clean-Energy Requirements Targeted by ALEC, Norquist
by Jim Snyder, bloomberg.com - Apr 23, 2012
Small-government groups including the American Legislative Exchange Council, whose advocacy for Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground law and other measures have drawn calls to revoke its tax-exempt status, are taking aim at state mandates requiring renewable energy use.
While environmentalists view the clean-energy standards as vital to reducing the country’s reliance on fossil fuels, groups like ALEC and the Grover Norquist-run Americans for Tax Reform say the mandates are a hidden tax on consumers and a drag on state economies.
[...]
End of Stimulus
Opposition to the mandates coincides with the expiration of some federal incentives for renewables -- many contained in the 2009 stimulus legislation. The repeal or weakening of state standards puts at risk an industry still dependent on government aid to compete with dirtier but cheaper fossil fuels, advocates say.
State standards have “really helped get the market started for renewable-energy technology,” said Dylan Sullivan, a Chicago-based staff scientist with Natural Resources Defense Council in New York, in an interview. [...]
"State standards" -- Hmmm that's right up the ALEC's alleyway.
Look out green-energy-frontier people. Your government's got your back -- NOT! ... not if the GOP gets their short-sighted, 19th century way ...
It's not like rolling back Clean-Energy tax credits will put MORE money in Grover's greasy pockets.
Nope, it's just that he can't stand having Obama win -- on anything! ��Nope, the GOP can't have that, their lies depend on it.
Never mind this Renewable Energy rollback will impact real Americans, already working at real American Jobs ...
tens of thousands of them.
Wind Power Layoffs Mounting While Congress Remains Gridlocked
by James McConnell, Chicago Economic Policy Examiner, examiner.com -- May 4, 2012
Federal Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits are scheduled to expire December 31, 2012, unless Congress acts to extend them. Congress isn’t doing anything about moving extension measures forward. The wind energy industry needs at least 18 months of certainty about availability of the credit to make starting a new project economically viable. As a result, industry layoffs are already beginning, and by the end of 2012’s second quarter are expected to reach 10,000 jobs lost.
Passage of time makes the picture even bleaker. Without Congressional action, wind power layoffs could reach 20,000 jobs lost by the end of the third quarter and 30,000 jobs lost by year end. [...]
On the other hand, if Congress were to act now, according to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry could create 100,000 new jobs in the next four years. Certainty about tax credit availability is the key.
[...]
GOP Conservatives talk a big game about "creating jobs" -- but when it comes to putting Americans to work, to build our Energy Independent future, they apparently think the only good energy subsidy -- is a Big Oil Subsidy. ��
Ahh, we tried that already. How's that Big Oil promise working out for you people?
Hopefully the American people catch on this time -- and VOTE IN people who actually share our Clean Energy goals ...
Poll: 75 Percent of Americans Support Regulating CO2 As A Pollutant, 60 Percent Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax
by Joe Romm, Climate Progress, thinkprogress.org -- Apr 26, 2012
A new national survey confirms strong public support for funding renewable energy research, regulating carbon pollution, and signing a global treaty to slash emissions. The study, [...] found a remarkable 75% of Americans support “regulating carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) as a pollutant.”
The survey��s results are counter to widely held assumptions among the media and politicians, but consistent with recent polling. The poll found:
* 61 percent said they support holding the fossil fuel industry responsible for “hidden costs we pay for citizens who get sick from polluted air and water, military costs to maintain access to foreign oil, and the environmental costs of spills and accidents.”
[...]
�� * By 3 to 1 -- 58 percent to 17 percent -- Americans say “protecting the environment … improves economic growth and provides new jobs” vs those who say it “reduces economic growth and costs jobs.”
[...]
We really can't afford many more "business as usual" years, now can we.
—Tim Phillips, president of Koch-backed nonprofit Americans For Prosperity, on the group’s big new ad campaign attacking Obama’s green energy policies.
As the Los Angeles Times’ Matea Gold and Melanie Mason report, outside groups such as Americans For Prosperity and Crossroads GPS — both nonprofit “social welfare” organizations that are not required to reveal their donors — are pouring millions of dollars into attack ads hitting President Barack Obama before the general election gets in full swing.
Another article by Bloomberg’s Heidi Przybyla highlights the outside groups’ energy agenda:
In April, 16,991 negative ads aired in various parts of the country and 13,748 of them — or 81 percent — focused on energy, according to data provided by New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks advertising.
Republicans say the ads are timely and effective because high gasoline prices put Obama on defense at the onset of the general election. Democrats say they prove that Republicans are struggling to find an effective attack line amid an economy that is showing signs of recovery.
The outside spending is set to intensify from here: The Los Angeles Times reports that Americans for Prosperity plans to pour $151 million into TV and on-the-ground operations aimed at the 2012 election, with 80% of its TV budget to be spent before Labor Day.
http://source2012.tumblr.com/
consider the source
��
U.S. cleantech support about to fall off a cliff
http://grist.org/cleantech/u-s-cleantech-support-about-to-fall-off-a-cliff/
If you care about cleantech in the U.S., this graph should make your blood run cold:
That’s from a new report — ���Beyond Boom and Bust: Putting Clean Tech on a Path to Subsidy Independence” — from folks at the Breakthrough Institute, Brookings Institution, and World Resources Institute. It’s a welcome and much-needed attempt to put some numbers behind the debate over federal cleantech support.
��
This week, there were two big clean energy projects announced in California that are remarkable for a couple of reasons. Together, these two projects will power hundreds of thousands of homes with clean, affordable solar energy.
They will create thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in local economic benefits.
They also garnered support from a diverse and unexpected group of allies that included business, labor, and environmental organizations.
On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council approved an ordinance clearing the way for 150 megawatts of rooftop solar in the city. The CLEAN LA Solar program will allow local property owners to sell solar power generated from rooftops and parking lots back to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), using a mechanism called a feed-in tariff, or, in plain language, a solar cash-back program.
Los Angeles will be the largest city in the nation to adopt such a program, which will supply renewable energy at a reasonable cost while spurring private investment and creating high-quality jobs.
"This is a smart, cost-effective method for businesses to create economic opportunity while weaning ourselves off the coal-fired plants that generate most of the city's power," said Brad Cox, Immediate Past Chairman of the Los Angeles Business Council.
Evan Gillespie of our California Beyond Coal campaign says this victory represents two years of work with the business community in LA: "The program, when fully realized in three years, will lead to 4,500 new jobs and $500 million in economic activity here in LA," Evan says. This move will also offset 2.25 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.
Meanwhile this week, more clean energy good news came out of California when we (along with Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council) announced our support for a set of proposed large-scale solar power projects in Imperial County.
When completed, the Mt. Signal, Calexico I and Calexico II solar projects under development by 8minutenergy will produce 600 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 200,000 households. The projects are located on privately owned, disturbed land currently used to grow highly water-intensive landscaping grasses.
The developer has agreed to create and implement a conservation fund to address possible impacts to burrowing owls, which are potentially affected by the large-scale development of solar in Imperial County. The biological effects from the projects are significantly less than proposed renewable energy projects on environmentally sensitive public lands. These Imperial County projects show that it is possible to develop viable, cost-effective projects without sacrificing our precious desert wildlands.
Importantly, to help ensure this project would provide quality jobs, the Sierra Club introduced the developer to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. IBEW and 8minutenergy entered into a Project Labor Agreement to employ local Imperial Country workers for the projects. Imperial County has the highest unemployment rate in California (27 percent) and 23 percent of the population is below the poverty line. The projects represent a $1 billion economic impact to the county over 30 years and will provide $20 million for the Calexico Unified School District.
"These projects are truly a win-win for local Imperial County workers and the environment," said Johnny Simpson, Business Manager with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 569. "They will create good, middle-class green jobs with skilled training, health care benefits and pension retirement while reducing polluting greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change."
We are replacing dirty coal power with clean renewable energy that won't harm public health but will create good jobs. Now, we need to unlock this kind of innovation and job creation in every state in America. This is our energy future!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-anne-hitt/major-new-clean-energy-pr_b_1406486.html
===
Whopper, Indeed: Republicans More Responsible for Green Outsourcing
Submitted by Brendan Fischer on November 15, 2010 - 2:33pm.
Republicans ran misleading ads accusing their Democratic opponents of creating jobs in China by supporting the stimulus package. Not only did these ads completely twist the facts, but it was disingenuous for GOP candidates to accuse Democrats of sending jobs to China when GOP members opposed the “Buy American” provisions that would have prevented this offshoring. Here, we discuss how the GOP’s sustained opposition to meaningful climate and energy legislation played a larger role in sending green jobs overseas than a vote for the stimulus.
The ads in question twisted facts from an investigative report that had discovered some stimulus reimbursement funds for renewable energy projects, like wind farms, had gone to foreign-owned companies domestically and abroad, largely because there are few wind turbine manufacturers in America. The latest figures suggest only 0.00037% of the total $700 billion stimulus package, $2.6 million, may have made its way to China; however, the ads claimed that "China gets $2 billion to build windmills," or that the package "sent nearly $2 billion overseas to create jobs in China.”
Even though the numbers cited were incorrect (the majority of foreign-owned wind developers were European), America’s weak clean energy market makes it inevitable that development funds will make their way to foreign-owned businesses -- wind turbine purchases are half of the initial wind farm development costs, and the U.S. has only two homegrown wind turbine manufacturers, General Electric and Clipper Wind. What’s more, both manufacturers still import many parts from overseas factories, and their market share has been consistently slipping, thanks to increasingly vibrant wind industries in Europe and Asia.
Republican Policies are Responsible for the Dearth of Green Manufacturing Jobs
The dearth of domestic wind turbine manufacturers is largely attributable to Republican opposition to meaningful climate change and energy policy. When investors see that a stable market is growing, they build wind turbine plants in the area where demand is located. Companies won’t spend the millions necessary to build plants and hire employees until they can safely anticipate long-term demand for their products. The wind energy market grows when there is reduced reliance on nonrenewable fossil fuels. Few wind turbine plants are located in the U.S. because manufacturers have not seen the economic incentive to build them, primarily because corporatist politicians have repeatedly blocked the legislation necessary to make clean energy viable in the U.S., putting the interests of their corporate oil cronies ahead of those of the American people.
The modern wind turbine is an American invention, and wind energy became an American priority during the 1974-75 energy crisis, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel cut off America’s cheap oil supply. Throughout the 1970’s and into the 1980’s, entrepreneurs and researchers, in collaboration with NASA and the Department of Energy, installed clusters of wind turbines with the help of federal tax incentives. The Reagan administration’s free-market approach led the GOP to let these tax incentives lapse and slash federal funding for wind energy, bankrupting many wind start-ups. European companies bought some of these bankrupted companies and their technology, and European governments began investing heavily in their domestic wind industry, improving the technology and creating manufacturing jobs. In more recent years, green manufacturing has continued to lag based on weak domestic demand for wind energy, largely due to big oil-affiliated Republicans blocking energy legislation like the Kyoto Protocol or carbon emission standards.
Renewable energy is an international growth industry with great job-creating potential, as most of the world is aiming to reduce their dependence on foreign oil, based on both rising oil prices and national security concerns. Despite the current lack of U.S.-based “green manufacturers,” Obama administration policies have been aimed at catching up. The stimulus package was directed in part at retooling America’s workforce for green collar jobs and increasing clean energy production. The stimulus incentivized renewable energy projects in an effort to create the demand necessary to bring green manufacturing jobs to the U.S., as well as funds to train persons for these green-collar jobs. To further promote U.S.-based wind turbine manufacturing, in January 2010 President Obama announced $2.3 billion in tax credits for “Clean-Tech manufacturing” jobs.
But these projects can only generate short-term demand, and there will inevitably be a delay until plants are up-and-running. And even if plants are built from these stimulus incentives and tax credits, they will still need to have future buyers for long-term success. Capping carbon emissions would increase wind energy demand in the long term, thereby creating good, stable American jobs. What’s more, had climate change legislation been passed years ago, these green jobs would likely already have been in place, and there would have been no need to purchase wind turbines from foreign countries.
GOP Sends Jobs to China
Even though an insignificant amount of stimulus-funded wind projects sent any dollars to China, the country is becoming a clean energy giant.
Recently, investment analysts Ernst & Young ranked China the #1 “most attractive” nation for renewable energy investment, knocking the U.S. out of the top spot. Thanks to Republicans helping out their BP buddies, investors are now directing their money to China rather than the United States.
If pro-corporate poliiticians (mostly Republican, but also some Democrats) had not blocked proposals for reduced reliance on fossil fuels, America could have benefited from significant investment in renewable energy, as well as the good, stable jobs such investment can bring. Although China has similarly opposed emission caps, the Chinese government has taken affirmative steps to actively engage with renewable energy and subsidize production. If Republican administrations had not gutted federal investment in clean energy, we may not have been in this situation in the first place. America’s green infrastructure would have maintained its strength and manufacturing jobs would never have left our shores.
And it Continues...
Some Republicans floated into office on a wave of misleading statements about green jobs in China, and the party appears to be perpetuating the policies that created that condition. Newly-elected Republicans have taken a pledge to oppose climate change legislation, putting the interests of corporate polluters above those of Americans, further hindering our ability to create green jobs, and sending even more investment and employment overseas.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/9616
greenpeace
There is however, a glimmer of hope on the horizon.
Despite the massive odds against it, renewable energy
has doubled in growth each year over the past decade.
It employs more than 2 million people worldwide, and
in the US already provides more jobs than coal. Despite
the global economic crisis, investment in renewable
energy hit a record $243 billion in 2010, and is expected
to exceed $3 trillion in the next decade. We have the
technology today to ensure a transition to a greener,
safer and more equitable economy. However, we won’t
be able to ensure we make the global transition soon
enough to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts and
much human suffering unless national governments take
strong measures at home and we are able to reach a fair,
��
...
These corporations – while making public statements
that appear to show their concern for climate change
and working with their own seemingly progressive
trade associations like the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) – threaten to defeat
urgent global progress on climate change and economic
development for the 99% of the world’s population that
desires both clean energy and clean air.
This report helps to demonstrate why decisive action on
the climate is being increasingly ousted from the political
agenda. Firstly we summarise the lack of action at a
national level in several key countries to build the right
preconditions to a global climate agreement, which stands
in stark contrast to public opinion demanding change.
Then, the report reveals through clear case studies
how a handful of major polluting corporations such as
Eskom, BASF, ArcelorMittal, BHP Billiton, Shell and Koch
Industries, as well as the industry associations that they are
members of, are influencing governments and the political
process on climate legislation.
A global poll in 2009 showed that 73% of people placed
a high priority on climate change1, and a recent poll
confirmed that global concern about climate change
has risen since the Copenhagen climate summit in
2009, despite the ongoing global financial and economic
crisis2.
• According to the latest Eurobarometer opinion poll
released in October 2011 concern about climate change
among Europeans has grown since 2009 and almost
eight in ten respondents agree that tackling climate
change can boost the economy and create jobs.3
Analysis by the European Commission4 and several
independent research institutes5 indicated that it would
now be in Europe’s economic interests to introduce
stronger climate legislation.
...
• In the US alone, approximately $3.5 bn is invested
annually in lobbying activities at the federal level.6 The
US Chamber of Commerce tops the list of lobbyists.7
In recent years, Royal Dutch Shell, the US Chamber of
Commerce, Edison Electric Institute, PG&E, Southern
Company, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhillips
all made the top 20 list of lobbyists.8 The climate
campaign organisation 350.org estimates that 94%
of US Chamber of Commerce contributions went to
climate denier candidates.9
• Sector-specific trade associations such as the American
Petroleum Institute, the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers, the Australian Coal Association,
the Energy Intensive User Group in South Africa or
BusinessEurope and the European steel and chemicals
associations Cefic and Eurofer often campaign outright
against measures that would cut greenhouse gas
emissions, or run campaigns in support of unfettered
fossil fuel energy.10
• Some companies, on the other hand, have distanced
themselves from such practices. PG&E, Exelon,
PNM Resources and Apple all left the US Chamber of
Commerce over the Chamber’s positions and lobbying
against climate change action.11 In the EU more than
100 companies have supported a unilateral increase of
the EU’s outdated 2020 GHG emission target to 30% -
taking publicly the opposite position of BusinessEurope
that claims to represent them.12
• Key associations such as the Business Council of
Australia13, Association of Mining and Exploration
Companies14, Australian Chamber of Commerce
and Industry15,16, the Australian Coal Association17,
the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance18, as well
as companies including coal-mining firms, steel and
aluminium producers and coal power generators
have been opposing the introduction of a carbon tax
in Australia19, citing among other things job losses,
rising prices and carbon leakage as reasons for their
opposition.20,21,22 These carbon-intensive sectors
launched a series of colourful and seemingly chilling
print, TV and online advertisements highlighting their
importance to the Australian economy and seeking to
undermine both the carbon price and the proposed
resources tax.23
...
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2011/WhosHoldingUsBack-ExecSummary.pdf