The American Renewable

Best of the Bunch

2010-05-13T10:33:00.002-04:00

There are dozens of articles out there about the Senate's new climate bill. This one is the best.

Based on a lot of the stuff I've read, this thing might actually have a shot at passing. Although I still say it is unlikely, it is certainly possible. The offshore drilling veto provision was brilliant. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said they won't block the bill. That's big. The main thing conservatives are complaing about is a "gas tax."

It will be even more fascinating to see how some of the more liberal Senators react to the bill. Will they take what they can get or will they kill this thing because it is too friendly to oil, coal, and nuclear companies?

It's here....

2010-05-12T09:46:00.003-04:00

The Senate's climate bill is finally coming out today after eight months of negotiations. A few tidbits here before the big release...

Since I'll be doing a lot of (free) work relating to this bill, it is a bit crushing to read that the bill is 1,000 pages long. Here is a nice, and semi-brief, summary for everyone else.

Here are some of the key provisions:

-The Senate bill aims to cut U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 17% below their 2005 level by 2010 (same goal as the bill passed by the House last summer);

-Coastal states would have the authority to veto any offshore drilling within 75 miles of the shore. However, if states allow this drilling, they would get a 37.5% share of drilling revenue (licenses, leases, fees, etc.). The rest would go towards paying down the deficit.

-The bill would establish a federal cap-and-trade program, which would start for utilities in 2013. Factories and industries would be covered by this program in 2016. The starting price for carbon would be $12 per allowance.

-Oil refineries would not be subjected to the cap-and-trade program, but would be required to buy fixed-price allowances from the federal government.

-$54 million in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plant construction.

-$2 billion a year for the deployment of carbon sequestration technology for coal power plants. (We'd be much better off if this money went to renewable development instead)

-Vehicle emissions will also be regulated, but more to come on this.

-Products imported from countries that are not restricting their greenhouse gases will be subjected to a tariff. (This would be a HUGE change in American trade policy.)

More to come in the near future...

Plan B?

2010-05-11T10:38:00.002-04:00

I've been saying for 6+ months that cap and trade was dead in the Senate. However, Kerry/Graham/Lieberman were able to piece together a fragile bill, with a moderate shot at passing, that included a scaled-down version of cap and trade. Large-scale polluters and utilities would pay for their carbon emissions, but the program wouldn't regulate as much as the broader economy as the House's version of the bill.

Alas, Harry Reid and Obama got political, Graham got peeved, and that fragile Senate climate and energy bill unofficially died. Getting sixty votes was going to be a stretech, but when Graham bailed, all hope was lost. Furthermore, the only chance of getting those sixty votes was by offering nuclear and offshore drilling incentives to moderate Democrats and coastal Senators. After the incredible BP oil "spill," there is no way a bill that encourages drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico is going to pass. We'll see what the official bill looks like when it it unveiled tomorrow. Maybe (it was originally going to be published on April 26th.)

However, Harry Reid recently announced that an energy-oil bill might be on the table. This has been discussed many times before, but it was usually coming from the moderate Dems who weren't too keen about climate change. Personally, I think this is a great move. The soon-to-be-released climate bill is not going to pass. There isn't enough time and there aren't enough votes. Especially as millions of gallons of oil float towards the American coastline. Alas, it is time to abandon the massive climate bill, piece together a few things mostly everyone can agree with (incentives for nuclear, a moderate renewable portfolio standard, etc.) and just get something passed. China and India aren't waiting.

The History of Cap and Trade

2010-03-26T09:40:00.002-04:00

Brilliant article by the New York Times here...

A few interesting tidbits...

"The idea began as a middle-of-the-road Republican plan to unleash the market to reduce power plant pollution and spur innovation. But when lawmakers tried to apply the concept to the far more pervasive problem of carbon dioxide emissions, it ran into gale-force opposition from the oil industry, conservative groups that portrayed it as an economy-killing tax and lawmakers terrified that it would become a bonanza for Wall Street traders and Enron-style manipulators."

"Cap and trade was first tried on a significant scale 20 years ago under the first Bush administration as a way to address the problem of airborne sulfur dioxide pollution — widely known as acid rain — from coal-burning power plants in the Eastern United States. A limit was imposed on emissions from the plants, and utilities were allowed to buy and sell permits to comply. Today it is considered one of the most effective environmental initiatives."

"Environmentalists and industries resurrected the idea in recent years as a centerpiece of measures to address global warming and growing oil imports. Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, built their climate change bill last year in large measure around it. But in trying to assemble a majority to pass it, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey dished out a cornucopia of concessions and exemptions to coal companies, utilities, refiners, heavy industry and agribusinesses. The original simplicity was lost, replaced by a bazaar in which those with the most muscle got the best deals. "

Climate Bill Prospects

2010-03-09T09:44:00.002-05:00

The New York Times just posted a wonderful article that details the political possibilities of the climate/energy bill that is stalled in the Senate. My gut reaction after reading this article is that some sort of climate/anti-carbon bill is going to pass through Congress, but it is going to take a whole lot of political giveaways to get it done.

Cap and Trade IS Dead

2010-03-01T10:01:00.004-05:00

I wrote back in early January, in the midst of the heath care drama, that cap and trade was dead. Even after the Scott Brown setback, President Obama and his Senate friends (and Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham) insisted that higher house of Congress was moving forward with cap and trade.

No longer.

Spoken from the mouth of Senator Graham (R-SC), one of the fiercest supporters of cap and trade legislation, "cap and trade is dead."

However, it looks like the trio of Kerry, Liberman, and Graham are working on some similar alternatives, which will still put limits and taxes on carbon emissions. To get some additional Republican and Blue Dog Democrat support, they will likely make some concessions for nuclear power and clean coal (you can read a summary of Graham's own Clean Energy Act here.) I honestly don't think that will be enough and any talk of pricing carbon will set off a political firestorm. Like I wrote a long time ago, rather than punishing those who exceed carbon limits, the federal government should reward those who satisfy these new CO2 or efficiency requirements with additional tax incentives.

Buy Clean Energy...and for Really Cheap Too!

2010-02-26T09:53:00.000-05:00

With energy and climate change legislation stalled in Congress, the challenge of transforming the United States to a clean energy economy may seem daunting. However, some organizations aren’t waiting for Washington to develop solutions to America’s dependence on fossil fuels. Buy Clean Energy 2010 is a grassroots campaign that is helping equip individuals and businesses with the necessary tools to make the move to clean energy resources. President Obama has said he hopes that 25% of America’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2025 and the Buy Clean Energy 2010 campaign is trying to make that green dream a reality.

Currently, only three percent of the United States’ electricity generation comes from renewable energy sources. The leaders of the Buy Clean Energy campaign believe shifting domestic electricity production to clean energy sources will substantially improve America’s environment, economy, and national security. Accordingly, the campaign hopes to spur Americans to buy 1 million megawatts hours of certified clean energy through the Buy Clean Energy website.

To accomplish this lofty goal, the Buy Clean Energy 2010 campaign “encourages individuals and organizations to reduce their electricity use and buy clean energy” by teaching and encouraging participants to make small lifestyle changes. For example, the campaign’s website instructs visitors how to determine the amount of energy they use each month and how individuals and businesses can buy clean energy from local power providers. Although the official campaign just launched this week, many companies and organizations, such as Sterling Planet, ecoelectrons, greentech media, and ACORE, have already teamed up with Buy Clean Energy to attain these notable goals.

The Buy Clean Energy campaign is poised to have a huge impact on the market for renewable energy, as it empowers consumers to move to a clean energy economy even if Washington fails to act. ACORE salutes the Buy Clean Energy campaign for these efforts and encourages our members to buy certified clean energy through this important initiative.

Another Reason to Love New England...

2010-02-25T09:11:00.002-05:00

...in addition to the Patriots.

Below is an article I wrote for ACORE that features an absolutely wonderful organization in New England, the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative (NHEC.) NHEC is very much a "people's" organization, as like any other co-op, the customers are the owners too. They are doing some great work up there, especially in the renewables sector. Not only are they moving towards getting more and more of their electricity from renewable plants/farms, but they are also really encouraging their customers/members to install mini-renewable projects in their homes. Even better, the executive team at NHEC are rockstars and an absolutely pleasure to work with.

I wanted to post the article here to give people a little peak into some of the work I'm doing (about 50% communications and corporate work and the other 50% doing law/policy goodness) and to give some additional props to the NHEC.

...and...here...we...go...

"A utility leading New England towards a greener future, the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative is ACORE’s Member of the Month.

NHEC is the largest electric cooperative in New England and serves more than 200,000 people in the Granite State. The cooperative is a member-owned and controlled electric distributor that has devoted considerable resources to energy efficiency programs and the development of renewable energy sources in New England. Fred Anderson, President of NHEC, says these green initiatives have been a priority for the cooperative since the 1970s because “supporting energy efficiency and the growth of renewable sources is the right thing to do.”

NHEC has backed up this philisophy by investing over $11 million in energy efficiency programs during the past decade. These initiatives have saved nearly 350 million kWh of energy and reduced carbon emissions by 158,000 tons. NHEC has also launched the smallSTEPS campaign, which encourages members to "take small steps that make big strides towards a better energy future." Steve Kaminski, Vice President of Power Resources, says NHEC will build off these successes by "deploying a system-wide advanced metering and communications infrastructure, which will allow members to efficiently respond to real-time usage and pricing."

NHEC is also committed to going “above and beyond” New Hampshire’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the “25 by ‘25” initiative endorsed by the state’s Governor. By purchasing electricity from two wind farms and a landfill gas plant, NHEC’s portfolio of renewable sources is triple the amount currently required by the state’s RPS. Kaminski is confident that NHEC will continue to exceed these goals and notes that the cooperative has “already finalized contracts for new renewable projects.” Additionally, NHEC has provided more than $600,000 in rebates to members who installed small wind turbines and solar hot water and photovoltaic systems in their homes.

NHEC also plays an important role in the local communities of its members. NHEC’s Act Socially & Environmentally Responsible initiative encourages local economic development, employee participation in community organizations, and provides resources for local non-profits through the NHEC Foundation. In recognition of these successful efforts to make New Hampshire a greener and more prosperous state, ACORE is proud to name NHEC as our newest Member of the Month."

You can find the original article, with some fun pictures, here.

Someone in California is REALLY Celebrating...

2010-02-24T11:36:00.003-05:00

BrightSource Energy, an ACORE member, received a conditional $1.37 billion loan guarantee for a solar thermal power complex in the Mojave Desert that would ultimately produce nearly 400 megawatts of electricity. This project would almost double the existing generation capacity of solar thermal power in the U.S.

The loan guarantees will be drawn from resources given to the Energy Department under the Recovery Act. Although the terms of the solar loan guarantee are still being negotiated, Energy Secretary Steven Chu highlighted the jobs the project will create. Secretary Chu noted, “this is an investment in American jobs and the clean, renewable energy our economy needs.” BrightSource estimates that during the construction phase, the solar power complex will employ about 1,000 people and operation of the plant will require 86 permanent jobs. << Full Story >>

Virginia Leading the Way?

2010-02-22T09:30:00.004-05:00

This past week, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar met with the governors of six Atlantic states to discuss the development of offshore wind projects. One of those Governors was Virginia's own Bob McDonnell. The group has pledged to work together to get some of these projects up and running and Salazar vowed that the Department of Interior would efficiently move these projects through the daunting regulatory process.

McDonnell took some really bad PR hits last week, but props to him for leading the way on this. This could be a huge boost to the state's economy and especially for the Virginia Beach area. It will be a lengthy process, but getting an offshore wind farm going off the Virginia Beach coast would be huge.

You can read a bit more about the story and Virginia's wind power potential here.

Google's Bid for Power

2010-02-19T10:21:00.002-05:00

Well, Google, the internet giant, is now a power company.

The Wall Street Journal reports that "Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously backed Google's application for what is known as market-based rate authority." This will allow Google to function as a utility since it can now buy and sell energy in bulk. But why is Google entering the power markets? First, to have more control over the insane amount of electricity the company uses for their server farms. Second, so they can have better access to renewable energy. Props.

Summary of Senator Graham's Clean Energy Bill

2010-02-18T12:17:00.011-05:00

Yesterday, I wrote that Senator Graham (R-SC) is floating a new energy bill to replace the cap and trade legislation that has stalled in the Senate. Well, as promised, here is my summary of the substantive provisions of this bill.

I think it has a pretty good chance of passing. President Obama and Harry Reid will soon be pretty desperate for any sort of bill that supports clean energy development. Although there are no carbon restrictions in this bill, the creation of a Federal Clean Energy Standard takes a more business-friendly step in that direction. Thus, it seems like the liberals wil be (relatively) happy with this bill. Meanwhile, there are provisions that support clean coal and nuclear energy, which will be well received by the Republicans in the Senate. There are also some provisions to ease potential increased costs to consumers and mandates for the Secretary of Energy to make loans to companies who are wanting to construct new renewable energy facilities.

...and...here...we...go....

This bill implements a Federal Clean Energy Standard by amending Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to include “Section 610: Federal Clean Energy Standard.”

Subsection A ― Definitions
This subsection would define the following sources as “clean energy:” (A) solar, wind, geothermal, or ocean energy; (B) biomass; (C) landfill gas; (D) qualified hydropower; (E) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy; (F) incremental geothermal production; (G) coal-mined methane; (H) qualified waste-to-energy; (I) qualified nuclear energy; (J) advanced coal generation; (K) eligible retired fossil fuel generation; (L) another clean energy source based on innovative technology, as determined by the Secretary through rulemaking.

Subsection B ― Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Requirements
(This is the BIG one)
This subsection would require each utility that sells electricity to consumers to obtain a percentage of the base quantity of electricity sold from clean energy sources or energy efficiency programs. The percentages mandated by this bill are:

Calendar year: Minimum annual percentage:
2012 through 2014 : 13%
2015 through 2019 : 15%
2020 through 2024 : 20%
2025 through 2029 : 25%
2030 through 2034 : 30%
2035 through 2039 : 35%
2040 through 2044 : 40%
2045 through 2049 : 45%
2050 : 50%

This bill would allow utilities to satisfy these requirements by submitting “federal clean energy credits” or “federal energy efficiency credits” to the Secretary of Energy each year. Additionally, electricity providers could make “alternative compliance payments” at the rate of $.05 per kilowatt hour (inflation adjusted) to satisfy these percentages.

Subsection C ― Federal Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Credit Trading Programs
This program would require electric utilities to submit federal clean energy credits and federal energy efficiency credits to the Secretary of Energy for certification of compliance. Double credits would be given for electric generation from facilities on Indian land and $.25 credits per kilowatt hour would be given for eligible retired fossil fuel generation. This subsection would allow utilities to transfer or sell credits to other utilities or to carry forward clean energy credits to subsequent years. This subsection would also allow the Secretary of Energy to delegate the administration of a national clean energy and energy efficiency market to an appropriate entity.

Subsection D ― Enforcement
This subsection of the revised act would establish enforcement mechanisms for the substantive provisions of 610(b) and 610(c). Subsection D states that the amount of the civil penalty for violation of this bill shall be the product of the number of kilowatt-hours sold in violation of the percentages in subsection (b) and 200% of the value of the alternative compliance payment under subsection (g) (initially set at $.05 per kilowatt hour, but this is subject to inflation.)

This subsection also allows the Secretary of Energy to waive the above penalty if the utility was unable to meet these requirements for a “reason outside of the reasonable control of the electric utility” (floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.) Additionally, the Secretary may waive the requirements of subsection (b) to limit the consumer rate impact of the incremental cost of compliance of the electricity utility to not more than four percent per retail customer in any year. However, the relevant utility must demonstrate that it has “exhausted all opportunities under this section to comply with the requirements of subsection (b)”

Lastly, federal penalties may be offset if the utility has paid penalties for failing to comply with a state clean energy program, so long as the state requirement is greater than the applicable federal requirement in subsection (b)

Subsection E ― Alternative Compliance Payments
An electric utility may satisfy the requirements of subsection (b), in whole or in part, with a payment in the amount of $.05 per kilowatt hour. These payments would be made to the state in which the electric utility is located. Governors receiving these alternative compliance payments could use these funds for (1) for the development of clean energy sources, including nuclear and advanced coal technologies; (2) the deployment and use of electric drive vehicles in the state; or (3) offsetting the costs of this legislation to electric consumers through direct grants or energy efficient investments

Subsection F ― Exemptions
This subsection lists a number of entities exempt from these legislative changes, which include any electric utility that sold less than 4,000,000 megawatt hours of electric energy to electric consumers during the preceding calendar year (sales to an affiliate, lessee, or tenant of the electric utility will not be treated as “sales”) or any utility located in Hawaii.

Subsection I ― Energy Efficiency Credits
This subsection details the Energy Efficiency Credits program that would be created by this bill. Under these provisions, up to 25% of the requirements in subsection (b)(1) can be met by submitting federal energy efficiency credits. This subsection also provides that the “increment of electricity output attributable to incremental nuclear production and incremental fossil fuel production shall be considered electricity savings.” However, this subsection defers responsibility for the measurement and verification of electricity savings to the Secretary of Energy.

Subsection K ― Loans for Projects to Comply With Federal Clean Energy Standard
This subsection would authorize the Secretary of Energy to administer loans to utilities for the construction of a clean energy generation facility, the installation of energy efficient technologies, or any other project approved by the Secretary that is consistent with the purposes of this legislation. The borrowing period of these loans could be no longer than thirty years and would have an annual interest rate that is 50 basis points higher than the federal funds rate established by the Federal Reserve

Sections 4 and 5 are still pending, but will deal with loans for nuclear reactor construction and clean coal development.

The Stimulus Bill After One Year

2010-02-18T09:22:00.002-05:00

The Office of the Vice President has just released its annual report about the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Whether you love it or hate it, lots of interesting news in there. I'll post a summary in the next day or two.

New Senate Renewables Bill

2010-02-17T13:43:00.002-05:00

Hot off the press!

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has just released his draft version of a renewable energy bill. I'll post a summary of the bill tomorrow...

Texas and Virginia Join the Party

2010-02-17T09:30:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, I wrote how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was challenging the EPA's proposed regulations of greenhouse gases. Well, Texas and Virginia have filed petitions in the same suit. Meanwhile, a number of other organizations, states, and cities have filed petitions in support of the EPA.

Regardless of my thoughts on climate change, I think this is a matter that should first be addressed by Congress. To give an executive entity the power to regulate such a substantial amount of the American economy is a bit worrisome. I know Obama and Co.'s hopes of passing climate change legislation are on life support, but I don't think it is appropriate to eschew the legislative process and push these changes through the executive branch.

Big Business v. Obama

2010-02-16T10:26:00.002-05:00

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is filing a formal petition in federal court that will challenge the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases. Although the Chamber has not indicated what legal arguments it will use to block this action, it has noted that the EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases, which would circumvent the stalled legislative process, is the "wrong way" to reduce carbon emissions.

Although this development gets the energy law nerd in me really excited, the best part of the story is that one of the Chamber's lawyers working in this area is named Steven Law.

When So Good Becomes So Bad

2010-02-12T13:01:00.003-05:00

Interesting news is breaking out of Oregon, a state leader in the renewable energy industry...

Oregon's House of Representatives has passed a bill that will reduce renewable energy tax credits (a bill that will likely become law.) The main reason: the program was too popular. The new law will limit state spending on renewable energy products and completely phase out incentives for wind farms. If the state didn't take this action, it could have been on the hook for an additional billion dollars of tax credits. Massachusetts has taken some similar actions and I won't be surprised to see more states go down the same path.

In 2009, government incentives were a huge shot in the arm for the renewable energy industry. Can they continute to grow in 2010? We shall see.

Will the U.S. Get a RES?

2010-02-10T09:10:00.002-05:00

Although Cap and Trade gets all the drama, the establishment of a nation Renewable Energy Standard ("RES") would also be an important shift in American energy policy. Such a RES would require that a certain percentage of America's energy production come from renewable sources. With Cap and Trade likely dead and any kind of bill that prices carbon on life support, the movement towards the creation of a RES is gaining some steam. This article talks about how renewable energy companies are really starting to push a RES as an alternative to a potentially pricey Cap and Trade system.

Although I have some concerns about Cap and Trade, I'm definitely down with a national RES. First, more than half the states already have a RES and so the change would not be quite as dramatic. Second, a RES doesn't punish companies, and thus, consumers, in the same manner that Cap and Trade does. Third, I don't think the renewable energy industry can get the government support it needs by hitching its wagon to climate change fears. Thus, moving away from Cap and Trade, and towards the economic arguments in support of the creation of a RES is a good idea. However, since climate change is third on my list of renewable energy-related worries, after economic development and energy security, I would honestly prefer a DES...a domestic energy standard. Renewable energy would still benefit from this, but we would still encourage the development of other forms of American energy resources.

An Office of Climate Change?

2010-02-09T10:54:00.002-05:00

News is just breaking that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has asked for the establishment of a National Climate Service. The NOAA operates the National Weather Service and has asked Congress to create a National Climate Service to create an agency to help governments and businesses prepare for and cope with major climate changes.

My initial thought is that the Climate Change PR team was smart in rebranding concerns about "global warming" into fears about "climate change." The NOAA would have looked a bit silly calling for the establishment of an Office of Global Warming while DC was buried under three feet of snow with another twenty or so inches of the white stuff headed our way.

I think it is important to continue studying this important issue, but I am always worried when government gets a bit too involved in science. The global warming/climate change issue has already become way too politicized and this will only take things a step further. Hypothetically, what if data eventually proves that recent climate changes are actually natural and just another spike in our world's historical weather cycle? I have a hard time believing that a National Climate Change Office will truthfully evaluate this information when the entire existence of the organization is at stake. Thus, I'd rather these issues stay under the wider umbrella of organizations such as the NOAA, EPA, or Department of Energy.

M.I.A.

2010-02-02T10:31:00.001-05:00

With ACORE's RETECH2010 going down this week, I'll be working from 6:15am-8:00pm each day. In short, I'll see you NEXT Monday!

Obama's State of the Union and What it Means for Clean Energy

2010-01-29T11:54:00.003-05:00

You can find an excellent article that highlights all of Obama's clean energy references during his recent State of the Union address here...

The New Space Race?

2010-01-29T10:08:00.002-05:00

This article likens the race to develop clean energy technologies to the American-Soviety showdown during the space race of the mid-20th century. Just like the U.S.S.R.'s launchinf of Sputnik, the Chinese are way ahead of the U.S. in renewable energy development. Rather than being trillions of dollars in debt, they are flush with cash, just like Scrooge McDuck jumping into his tower of money. Second, while renewable energy development is largely dependent on the free market in the U.S., the government runs the show in China.

I hope we can catch up and lead the clean energy movement, just like we did in the Space Race, but I just don't see it happening with our continually increasing deficits and market uncertainty.

Rock On, Ted, Rock On

2010-01-29T09:17:00.002-05:00

"Southern Co., the nation's largest electricity producer, and Ted Turner said Thursday they are teaming to pursue development of renewable energy projects in the U.S., including some on the billionaire's vast land holdings. 'We have said for some time that renewable energy should play an increasing role in this country's energy mix and that Southern Company would seek opportunities to expand our renewable portfolio where it makes sense,' said Southern Co. CEO David Ratcliffe." -Forbes.com

This new alliance will focus on developing large solar projects in the American Southwest. Ted won't just bring his dollars to these projects, but more importantly, his star power will certainly garner lots of attention for solar energy.

Huge Coup for India...Can the U.S. Retake the Lead?

2010-01-28T11:03:00.007-05:00

BTS Investment Plans $150 Million Clean Energy Fund for India

It has been exciting to see huge polluters, such as India and China, make giant strides in renewable energy development during the past few years. I really hope the U.S. can attract some similarly massive private green investments in the comings months, but I doubt that will happen until Washington comes up with a clear energy plan. Thankfully, Obama really emphasized clean energy in last night's State of the Union address. I was thrilled to hear the President really push for nuclear development (a new thing for him) and I think increased federal upport for nuclear power and domestic drilling is the only way to get any sort of climate bill done in 2010. Hopefully both parties in Congress can find some common ground and move forward with these plans. Asia passed the U.S. in 2009 in clean energy development and we really need to regain our lead in 2010 because " the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy."

Energy Lawyers, Rejoice! (Update)

2010-01-28T09:47:00.001-05:00

It is official...

The Securities and Exchange Commission will now require companies to disclose the risks global warming poses to their businesses.

China? Seriously?

2010-01-27T14:07:00.001-05:00

People in the U.S. like to hate on China for their lagging environmental policies. It is easy to complain about their lax labor rules and lack of environmental regulations as big reasons why Chinese manufacturing is continually growing, to the detriment of the U.S. However, news is just breaking that the Chinese, THE CHINESE, may soon be taxing car emissions. If you drive a bigger car that pollutes more, you get a hefty tax as a reward. That goes much further than anything that the U.S. has ever done. Wow, China, wow.

The Evolution of Cap and Trade

2010-01-27T10:20:00.002-05:00

Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, the main proponents of climate change legislation in the Senate seem to be giving up their efforts to pass a cap and trade bill. Bloomberg.com quotes Senator Graham (R-SC) as saying the trio is looking into a "hybrid" approach and Kerry (D-MA) as stating that they are "looking at everything."

It seems like these guys are finally starting to listen to businesses and economists a bit more. I just don't think this is the right time to slap all these additional expenses on Corporate America. However, we need some sort of energy and climate policy now. Congress should pass something they all agree on (tax credits for renewable energy, domestic drilling, natural gas, etc.) and then worry about the more controversial climate change legislation down the road. Alas, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) disagrees:

“I don’t think an energy-only bill is the right way to do it, and I certainly hope that is not the compromise,” Lieberman said. “The best way to achieve energy independence is to have it tied to a bill that puts a price on carbon, and the best way to something about global warming is to tie it to an energy independence bill.” (Blooomberg)

Energy Lawyers, Rejoice!

2010-01-27T09:54:00.002-05:00

Bloomberg is reporting that the Securities and Exchange Commission will likely publicize some new rules today about including climate change information in corporate public filings. The banks seem to think this is a good thing since it will provide some clarity in a very confusing investment world. Information about corporate environmental risk will be more public, and most importantly, standardized for easy consumption. However, I'm not sure how investors can measure climate-related risk if no one has any idea about what kind of enery policies will emerge from Congress.

I got a serious crush on securities law after taking the class during my 3L year (highest grade in the class, holla!), but even I will admit that all those public filings are insanely complex. I don't think anyone actually reads the stuff, except for the attorneys. Thus, any energy attorneys who do climate change work, it is time to celebrate. If the SEC goes in this direction, there will be tons of new publicly traded companies needing legal advice on (1) how to figure out their effects on climate change; and (2) how to write about these risks in a way as to not scare off investors.

Strike Six?

2010-01-26T16:53:00.000-05:00

Climate change activists can't catch a break these past few months. First, Climategate revealed that some of the evidence backing up global warming claims was, at best, erroneous, at worst, forged. Second, the COP-15 Conference in Copenhagen provided a few nice headlines for President Obama, but without guaranteed emission cuts and inspections in China or India, the final agreement is pretty meaningless. Third, and on a related note, the health care drama just about killed any chance Obama had at getting the Senate to pass climate change legislation in 2010. Thus, the U.S. won't even be a final party to the very climate agreement he negotiated. Awkward. Fourth, Scott Brown's dramatic victory in the Massachusetts Senate race killed any remaining hope for getting climate change legislation passed this year. Fifth, the UN's IPCC Panel admitted that its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 was incorrect. Whew!

And now this...

All the Congressional expense reports from Copenhagen are finally coming in and it doesn't look pretty. $1 million. Keep in mind, these folks weren't even there representing the United States in any official capacity. That is why Obama and the rest of the executive branch was in Copenhagen. Yet, they still spent $1 million in taxpayer money. That is a small sum compared to our massive budget deficit, but you have got to start somewhere. The average hotel room for 21 Congressmen was $2,200 a night. Some of this crowd flew commercial, but the average flight cost was still $5-10,000. Truly shameful.

Of course, Speaker Pelosi refuses to respond to any questions about this extravagant adventure. However, she said that the hotel costs were so high because a lot of the Congressional delegation could only stay in Copenhagen for two days, but they were charged for six nights. First, I've never heard of a hotel policy like that. Second, if that is the case, go to a different hotel. Lastly, if you're not in Copenhagen for official business and are only staying two nights, then why on earth are you going across the Atlantic anyways?

So yea, this is strike six against climate change in the past month. This is an important issue that deserves serious attention and debate, but irresponsible spending of taxpayer money and the fudging of climate data is not the way to convince America that we need to pony up in the middle of a recession to help pay for excess carbon emissions.

Are the Winds Changing?

2010-01-26T13:42:00.001-05:00

2009 was a H-U-G-E year for wind energy. Wind companies got lots of love from the U.S. government in the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus or Waste Bill, depending on your political persuasion. Without those federal dollars, the industry could have died. Literally. However, it ended up being a banner year for this renewable energy industry.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) recently released its Fourth Quarter 2009 report. The great news: the industry installed nearly 10,000 megawatts of new generating capacity in 2009. To us normal people whose only knowledge of watts stems from Back to the Future, 10,000 megawatts is enough energy to power more than 2.4 million homes. Yea, that is kind of a big deal. This shattering of all previous installation records is a great step towards being able to count on the wind as a major domestic energy player in the future. So props to you, Wind Industry.

But yea, there is bad news too.

AWEA's CEO, Denise Bode, said wind turbine manufacturing was down in 2009. Since those numbers were already pretty low in 2008, that isn't a good thing. If manufacturing is down, 2010 doesn't look so hot for wind energy and growth will be s-l-o-w. It also means all those new clean tech manufacturing jobs we've all been counting on aren't exactly appearing as quickly as we expected.

However, you'll never guess what AWEA says it needs to continue growing its generating capacity, and more importantly, to get turbine manufacturing numbers up: energy policy certainty. Sound familiar?

I sure hope someone in Washington is listening...

Certainty-What Wall Street Wants

2010-01-26T13:02:00.000-05:00

Wall Street financed the expansion of the renewable energy industry in recent years, but capital markets have frozen during the Great Recession. With a bloated federal deficient and recent Republican electoral victories, the renewable energy industry really needs these private investments to return in a big way.

I recently sent a few energy finance questions to Jeff Holzschuh, Vice Chairman of Morgan Stanley and a panelist at ACORE's upcoming RETECH Conference. I was infinitely nervous about emailing such a Wall Street bigshot and so I probably proofread my email about fifty times. I only wish I was kidding. In the midst of our current economic recession, Mr. Holzschuh believes it is imperative that the renewable energy industry "work with government policymakers to provide practical incentives and certainty to the rules under which projects are developed." Without a clear direction from Washington, Mr. Holzschuh thinks that it will be challenging for "lenders and capital markets to provide more robust financing opportunities."

As the national debt calculator continues to skyrocket in NYC, it is doubtful the renewable energy industry will benefit from another massive stimulus bill to provide it with the funding it desperately needs. Furthermore, those Recovery Act funds are drying up in less than a year. Thus, the renewable energy industry really needs some Green Love from Wall Street. However, just like a gambler wouldn't bet on a game if he didn't know the rules or who was playing, Wall Street won't invest billions of green dollars until Washington passes some sort of energy bill in 2010. Thus, renewable energy players should be telling Congress that we need something passed ASAP. In the meantime, Wall Street will largely hang out on the sidelines.

In the Beginning...

2010-01-26T12:36:00.000-05:00

After 18 months of lighthearted blogging about pop culture and travel misadventures over at The Arena, I thought it was time to finally separate the adults from the kiddie table. It is a little awkward to find discussions of cap and trade sandwiched between posts about Miley Cyrus and Twilight. Although I'm certainly still passionate about backpacking around the world and Britney Spears, I want to dedicate this blog, The American Renewable, to my clean energy obsession.

I've been interested in renewable energy since I first saw the wind farms off the coast of Copenhagen back in 2001. In fact, I even wrote to President Bush that summer and encouraged him to provide some incentives for wind energy development during his presidency. His office wrote back two years later and apologized for the anthrax-related delay and thanked me for my suggestions. Since writing that nerdy letter, I've acquired two semi-marketable degrees, did some energy law work, and now find myself volunteering for the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) during my law firm deferral period. I hope to practice energy law when I finally get that coveted start date and would love to do work in the burgeoning renewable energy markets.

My tasks at ACORE include doing all sorts of legal, policy, and financial research related to renewable energy development. As I've written before, renewable energy will increasingly have a huge impact on America's economy, environment, and national security. Thus, I want to help keep people informed on these important issues, and especially those of us who don't have the time and energy to read every new legislative proposal or regulatory ruling. I don't think the posts here will be as entertaining as the ones over at The Arena, but they will certainly be more important. (No offense, Lady Gaga.)