2012 August 06

New Jersey GOP Senate Candidate Won’t Sign Anti-Tax Pledge: ‘I Don’t Sign Pledges’

Another Republican candidate has refused to sign the radical anti-tax pledge authored by activist Grover Norquist and pushed by his group, Americans for Tax Reform. The pledge has played a major role in the GOP’s tax intransigence over the last several years.

Republicans who disavow the pledge, however, are growing in number, and New Jersey state Sen. Joe Kyrillos (R), who is running against Sen. Bob Menendez (D) this year, has joined the list. Asked on Fox News this afternoon if he would sign Norquist’s pledge, Kyrillos said bluntly, “I don’t sign pledges”:

HOST: Would you sign the pledge? No new taxes?

KYRILLOS: I don’t sign pledges.

HOST: So you wouldn’t sign it?

KYRILLOS: I don’t sign pledges. But I’ve been in the state senate a long time, and I don’t vote for broad-based income or sales taxes or broad-based taxes of any kind, and I’m not going to do it now. But you know what? I want to go into this thing open and honestly and deal with it in a forthright way.

Watch it:

Though it’s a positive sign that Kyrillos is rejecting Norquist’s pledge, his insistence on opposing broad-based tax increases still runs counter to a “wide consensus” among economists that the U.S. will need to increase tax rates to reduce its debt in the future.

And though there are an increasing number of Republicans taking on Norquist, the GOP’s refusal to even consider tax increases continues to cause problems for the American economy. A year ago this week, Standard and Poor’s downgraded the country’s credit rating for the first time in history, blaming the decision specifically on the Republican Party’s refusal to consider new revenue.

The Vast Potential For Renewable Energy In The American West

by Jessica Goad, Daniel J. Weiss, and Richard W. Caperton

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah—the “Four Corners” states plus their western neighbors—are home to some of the best renewable electricity potential in the country. These states have consistently sunny skies for solar power, wind-blown plains and deserts for turbines, and underground heat perfect for geothermal energy. They also have incredible potential for smaller-scale technologies like rooftop solar panels and energy efficiency improvements.

Our analysis shows these states can house clean energy projects that could realistically provide more than 34 gigawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy over the next two decades. This development could stimulate more than $137 billion in investment in the renewable energy sector, create more than 209,000 direct jobs, and provide electricity for 7 million homes. With supportive federal policies, these renewable electricity goals can be met and surpassed.

Already, the American West leads the way in construction of clean and renewable electricity projects on the ground, spurred forward by policies including state renewable electricity standards and government investments in clean technologies. A recent Bureau of Labor Statistics study reflects this success, determining that in 2010, “green goods and services” accounted for:

• 49,717 jobs in Arizona
• 338,445 jobs in California
• 72,452 jobs in Colorado
• 17,254 jobs in Nevada
• 21,267 jobs in New Mexico
• 27,948 jobs in Utah

This comes to 527,083 jobs altogether in these six states.

Such projects and employment reinforce westerners’ perspective that renewable energy is a key component of their states’ economic future. A poll this year by the Colorado College “State of the Rockies Project” found that two-thirds of voters polled said “increasing the use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power will create new jobs” in their states.

And when it came to comparing fossil fuels and renewables, western voters were far more likely to encourage more wind and solar power over coal and oil. In response to the question “which one of the following sources of energy would you want to encourage the use of here in [your state]?”, respondents answered overwhelmingly in favor of clean energy. (see Figure 1)

The clean energy revolution in these western states is already under way, and federal lands offer significant opportunity for continued and increased investment in clean electricity. The West is home to hundreds of millions of acres of federally managed public lands, which are mostly under the purview of the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service. Lands open for energy development do not include millions of acres of national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, and other places protected by law.

Much of the energy development on public lands occurs on areas managed by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. This agency oversees a large amount of the acreage in all six states: about 17 percent of Arizona, 15 percent of California, 12 percent of Colorado, 68 percent of Nevada, 17 percent of New Mexico, and 43 percent of Utah.

Taxpayer-owned lands are already a part of our country’s clean energy revolution. In fact, dozens of solar, wind, and geothermal projects sited on public lands are either currently providing electricity or have been permitted to do so and are ready to be built. A report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory elaborated that:

With 5,200 MW of [renewable energy] authorized or approved [on Bureau of Land Management Land], and approximately 8,000 MW of additional 2011 and 2012 high priority projects, the BLM appears to be on track to meet the [Energy Policy Act of 2005] requirement of approving 10,000 MW of RE on public lands by 2012.

This is just the beginning, and many more installations could be responsibly sited and built in these states over the next 20 years, bringing economic development and job creation to the West. Additional policies are essential to turn these opportunities into reality.

To capture the full economic, energy, and public health benefits from this opportunity, the federal government should adopt four essential policies:

• A national clean energy standard of 80 percent by 2035, with 35 percent for renewables
• A clean resources standard for public lands and waters
• Renewable energy zones
• Comprehensive electricity transmission reforms to rehabilitate our aging system

Our report identifies the vast opportunities for renewable energy installations on public lands in the West, but this does not imply that we endorse their deployment on every acre. Some places are not appropriate for energy development, and instead should be managed for multiple uses including hunting, fishing, recreation, wildlife, and other such essential values.

How much clean energy, jobs, and investment could western public lands generate?

We assessed the federal government’s “reasonably foreseeable development scenarios” for the likelihood of renewable energy development on public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. These analyses examine the economic and policy conditions in the six states to determine how much renewable energy on public lands could realistically be generated over 20 years. These results are shown in Figure 2.

As seen in the chart above, public lands in these six states could reasonably be the location for the development of 34,399 megawatts (or 34.4 gigawatts) of wind, solar, and geothermal energy over the next 20 years. This is enough electricity to power more than 7 million homes, or about equivalent to the number of homes in the Four Corners states.

It is important to note that these figures are what the Department of the Interior considers to be realistic development, which is different than renewable energy potential on public lands in the West which is much greater. Our goal is to encourage the achievement of this outlook and to go beyond it.

It is difficult to determine how many acres this development might entail for the six states that we studied due to lack of data for geothermal energy. But the same reasonably foreseeable development scenarios that we relied on for megawatt estimates found that on public lands in all of the western states surveyed, together about 214,000 acres of solar and 160,100 acres of wind could likely be developed over two decades. While the government’s analysis is less clear on the number of acres that could be disturbed for geothermal development, it estimates that about 133 additional geothermal power plants could be built by 2025, which would cover an average of up to 367 acres each. So we can guess that approximately 48,811 acres at most could be used for geothermal energy.

The development of renewable energy on public lands in the six states that we examined could create hundreds of thousands of direct jobs through project construction, installation, and operation and maintenance. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, each megawatt of wind energy creates about 2.9 direct jobs, solar creates about 6.6 direct jobs, and geothermal creates about 5.7 direct jobs.

Under these assumptions, and using the development scenarios in Figure 2, we find that more than 209,000 direct jobs could be created by building these 34.4 gigawatts. These results can be seen in Figure 3.

Additionally, building these projects will create direct investment in the six states. Many large financial institutions plan to invest in clean energy. Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Bank of America Corp. have pledged to invest a combined $120 billion in the clean energy technologies sector over the coming years. Responsibly developing clean energy projects on America’s eligible public lands can help attract these investments, particularly in more rural areas that would benefit from the jobs and economic opportunity that the new projects can bring.

To calculate the investment in renewable energy development that public lands might help stimulate, we looked at average investment in the renewable energy sector per megawatt by determining the costs to install the projects. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, the average installed costs for utility-scale solar are $4,667 per watt ($4.667 million per megawatt), $2,403 per kilowatt ($2.403 million per megawatt) for wind, and $2,482 per kilowatt ($2.482 million per megawatt) for geothermal. In total, we estimate that $137 billion of investment in the renewable energy sector could be stimulated by reasonably foreseeable development on public lands in the West. (see Figure 4)

Making clean electricity from western public lands a reality

Several important policies are necessary to ensure that we meet the realistic projection to build 34 gigawatts of renewable energy on appropriate public lands over the next two decades, and to eventually exceed that goal. Policies are also needed that account for the impacts of any industrial development on air and water quality, and landscapes. Specifically:

• A national clean energy standard
• A public lands clean resources standard
• New energy zones
• Electric transmission policy reforms

Let’s examine each of these proposals briefly in turn.

National clean energy standard

President Barack Obama proposed a clean energy standard of 80 percent by 2035 that includes low-pollution electricity generation such as wind, solar, geothermal, natural gas, coal with carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power. This standard would require utilities to ensure that 80 percent of the electricity that they deliver is low carbon by 2050.

We support this proposal because of the jobs and market certainty that it would provide, but also urge that the standard include a requirement that at least 35 percent of electricity be generated by wind, solar, geothermal, other renewables, and efficiency by 2035 to ensure continued investment in these technologies. This would help energy development on public lands by stimulating a strong market for renewable energy across the country.

Public lands clean resources standard

The president also should use executive authority to establish a “clean resources standard” for energy resources from eligible public lands. This would require that 35 percent of the electricity generated from resources mined, drilled, or otherwise extracted from public lands and waters be renewable by 2035. Similar to President Obama’s proposed clean energy standard designed to increase the amount of renewable electricity that utilities sell, this policy is designed to boost development of renewable electricity from public lands.

Currently, 66 percent of electricity generated from resources from public lands and waters is from coal, while only 1 percent is from solar, wind, and geothermal combined. This shows that the use of our public lands for electricity generation heavily favors coal, and it neglects the contribution that our public lands could make toward development of low- and no-carbon electricity.

New energy zones

Siting large-scale renewable energy development on public lands across the country must take into account other values including hunting, fishing recreation, clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, and scenery in accordance with the Bureau of Land Management’s multiple use mandate. One way to ensure that renewable energy development on public lands respects these values is for the Department of the Interior to build upon its program to establish incentivized zones for solar development on public lands. This program allows for incentives such as streamlined permitting, lower fees, and prioritized transmission capacity to be put in place for solar projects that are sited in designated zones. The zones will also have been screened for wildlife and other environmental conflicts to ensure that they will be minimal.

On July 24, 2012, the Department of the Interior released the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. It designates 17 solar zones covering approximately 285,000 acres, and also opens up an additional 19 million acres to the possibility of solar energy development. A final decision approving the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement will be made by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in the next few months.

In addition to fine-tuning and finalizing the solar energy zones, this policy should also be extended to wind projects to ensure that they too will have more certainty and fewer legal challenges when it comes to siting on public lands.

Electric transmission policy reforms

A major challenge to the deployment of large-scale renewable energy on public lands is the lack of adequate electrical transmission capacity to transmit this clean electricity to communities that need it. This process should be reformed, which could be accomplished in a variety of ways. As CAP previously wrote in 2010:

Transmission reform is urgent. … [we need to] create a system for effectively siting new transmission. Such a system will likely combine [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] oversight with a clearly defined role for state regulators, balancing the need for regional and national planning with respect for state and local conditions.

This policy would lead to the construction or improvement of transmission lines by clarifying and streamlining the siting and permitting process. Additionally, federal authority to plan, site, and allocate costs for the construction of new transmission lines should be strengthened in the case that states do not work together to upgrade transmission capacity. The implementation of the Federal Regulatory Commission’s Order Number 1000 should be supported to help achieve these goals.

Conclusion

Public lands in the American West can help lead the nation’s transition to a cleaner, cheaper electricity system. Our analysis shows that under reasonably foreseeable federal government development scenarios for renewable energy development, more than 34 gigawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy could be built on public lands in the Four Corners states plus California and Nevada over the next 20 years. This would provide economic opportunities—more than 209,000 direct jobs and $137 billion in investment in the renewable energy sector. With supportive policies there is great potential to build additional wind, solar, and geothermal electricity projects on public lands in the West.

This region has the opportunity to become a leader in the development of homegrown American energy not subject to volatile fossil-fuel prices, creating jobs that cannot be outsourced and developing technologies for export to other countries. But in order to realize this likelihood and also help the region achieve its even greater potential for renewable energy, a number of additional policies should be put in place. These include a national clean energy standard, a clean resources standard for public lands and waters, energy zones, and electric transmission policy reforms to update our aging system.

Jessica Goad is Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress; Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center; Richard Caperton is Director of Clean Energy Investment at the Center.

Airbus Could Reduce Plane Fuel Consumption 15% with Hydrogen Fuel Cell

The idea is to take a load off the plane's engines by powering non-propulsion systems - basically everything that run on electricity in the plane, light the entertainment electronics avionics, lights, etc - with a fuel cell rather than with the engines.

Asia Report: World Takes Hard Look at India Grid, Promises of Solar

Suddenly, the world is intrigued by India's unstable grid and the role solar can play in providing solutions for a country desperately in need of a new energy strategy.

Why Do You Ride?

A new website profiles cyclists, shows the passion behind this great way to get around while having fun.

Should Bike Lessons be Required to Get a Driver’s License? (Poll)

This could make roads safer for cyclists, and almost certainly have the added benefit of 'creating' new cyclists by showing more people how fun and convenient biking can be.

Before Attacking Navy Biofuels Program, Sen. Inhofe Pushed Fossil Fuels Costing 29 Times More Than Conventional Fuel

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has been one of the fiercest critics of the Navy’s procurement of biofuels for its fleet of ships and aircraft. However, before calling the military’s $12 million R&D program for renewable fuels part of a “green agenda,” Inhofe secured millions of dollars for a company developing liquid fuels from natural gas that cost 29 times more than conventional fuel.

In 2002, Inhofe earmarked more than $2 million for the Oklahoma-based company Syntroleum, which is looking to produce gas-to-liquid fuels for military use. According to 2010 filings at OpenSecrets.org, Inhofe holds between $15,000 and $50,000 in assets through BlackRock, the largest investor in Syntroleum.

Jim Lane at the Biofuels Digest reported that Syntroleum’s fuel cost considerably more to produce than the renewable fuels used by the Navy today:

Adjusting for inflation, the $2.3 million contract in 2002 dollars equates to $2.93 million in today’s dollars, or $28.21 per gallon. Back in 2002, jet fuel was selling at considerably less than today – at an average price of 75 cents per gallon in the second half of the year, according to indexmundi.com.

Overall, the cost of the natural gas-based alternative fuel was 29 times more than the cost of conventional fuels at the time, and cost more, per gallon, in today’s dollars than the Navy’s advanced biofuels program.

Since the original contract in 2002, Syntroleum has reportedly secured nearly $6 million in contracts with the Department of Defense.

In a recent statement, Inhofe said he supports the development of alternative fuels. However, that support seems to be limited to fossil fuels. He called the Navy’s biofuels program a part of the “liberal green agenda” that could threaten “the lives of service men and women” — even while supporting a technology that was almost 30 times more expensive than conventional fuel when originally funded.

Jim Lane sums up Inhofe’s contradictory stance on renewable fuels:

There seems to be ample evidence that Senator Inhofe is intimately aware of the costs of developing and testing alternative fuels in small quantities. It appears to be a simple case of playing political games, by criticizing Dynamic Fuels for selling advanced biofuels for $26 per gallon, when the Senator himself won an earmark requiring the military to purchase even more expensive natural gas-based fuels from Dynamic’s parent.

Paying nine times as much for test quantities of advanced biofuels? “Far-left agenda.”

Paying 29 times as much for test quantities of alternatives to fossil fuels made from, ahem, more fossil fuels? “A real difference for America.”

Last month, the Navy purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuels at $26 per gallon. Blended together with petroleum, the fuel procurement was enough to power three warships and 70 aircraft for a few days. The 50-50 mixture cost $15 per gallon. The Navy is also working together with biofuels producers to develop commercial refineries to supply operations in the future.

Many Congressional Republicans have criticized the Navy’s push for biofuels, saying the fuels are too expensive. The Navy has defended the move toward next-generation renewable fuels, saying that new domestic supplies would help protect against price volatility and make the military more secure.

In an interview with Climate Progress last year, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus put the fuel switch into a historical perspective:

The Navy has always led when we’ve changed energy. In the 1850’s, we went from sail to coal. In the early part of the 20th century, we went from coal to oil. We pioneered the use of nuclear for transportation in the 1950’s. Every single time we did these things there were people who said ‘it’s a fad.’ There were people who said ‘you’re trading one very known source of propulsion or energy for something that’s unsure – too expensive or just won’t work.’ And every single time they were wrong. Every single time. And I am absolutely confident those folks are going to be wrong this time too.

Unless, of course, politicians purposefully derail the program in order to continue our reliance on fossil fuels.

U.K. Pledges 100 Million Pounds for Energy Investment Funds

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will pledge 100 million pounds ($156 million) for two investment funds that seek to back renewable and energy efficient projects.

Can Clean Energy Strike Back Against the Growing Smear Campaign?

There has been a noticeable shift within the clean energy industry over the last few months as the election season brings a fresh round of attacks.

11 Clean Energy Stocks for 2012: August Update

July was a good month for my Clean Energy model portfolio. Since the last update, these 11 stocks are up an average of 3.3%, with a year to date return total return a tiny loss of -0.5%. While it's never pleasant to be down for the year, it's helpful to compare this performance to that of the most widely held clean energy ETF, the Powershares Wilderhill Clean Energy ETF (PBW), which was down 8.7% for the month, and down 21% year to date. All in all, it has been a miserable year so far for most clean energy investors, and I'm happy to say that my model portfolio has managed to avoid almost all of that misery.

Colorado Utility Got a Record 57% of Its Electricity From Wind Power

One evening, back on April 15th, Colorado dramatically demonstrated the potential of wind power in the United States.

Rep. Jim McDermott Introduces Carbon Tax Law

by Matt Kasper

On Thursday, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) introduced a bill that would force fossil fuel producers to pay for their carbon dioxide emissions. It is the latest attempt by Congress to put a price on carbon.

The Managed Carbon Price Act of 2012 (MCP) would grant the U.S. Treasury Department authority to issue permits representing one-quarter ton of CO2. Unlike the cap-and-trade legislation that failed in the Senate in 2009, the MCP does not allow permits to be traded. Rather, they can only be purchased or refunded from Treasury.

McDermott said in a statement:

What seems to have fallen by the wayside is concern over the climate and how carbon emissions are playing a factor in the extreme weather conditions we have been seeing. My colleagues are seeing this in their districts. Just yesterday, the USDA said that half of the counties in the United States – 1,584 counties – had been deemed ‘natural disaster areas’ with 90% of those counties listed due to drought conditions. We can’t keep ignoring these major environmental issues, and this proposal addresses emissions reductions in an economically responsible way.

The revenue generated from the carbon tax would be put into a public trust fund with 25 percent of funds going to pay down the deficit and the rest to subsidize any rate increases consumers might face.

The MCP would specifically tax the producers of coal, natural gas, oil and gas refineries, and cover other industrial emitters of greenhouse gases.

As for the price of carbon, McDermott has been citing a recent Brookings Institution report that analyzed the starting price set at $15 per ton. If carbon was priced at that amount, Brookings estimates that $80 billion would be raised in the first years of implementation, rising to $170 billion in 2030 and $310 billion by 2050.

McDermott is hoping that this bill will also be supported by Republicans in Congress. He added:

Mitt Romney’s Economic Advisor Greg Mankiw, Exxon-Mobil, the American Enterprise Institute and other conservatives have backed this concept because they know we have to wean ourselves off of carbon emitting energy sources, and do it in a way that doesn’t hurt our economy and makes sense for businesses.

McDermott is a senior member on the House Ways and Means Committee, the body responsible for writing tax law.

Matt Kasper is a special assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

Related Post:

• Poll: 75 Percent of Americans Support Regulating CO2 As A Pollutant, 60 Percent Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax

Endless shrimp? Alas, no…

 

Americans love shrimp. We eat about four pounds of the little pink crustaceans per person, per year, three times as much as we ate back in the 1970s and more than any other species of seafood. (Canned tuna used to be No. 1.)  The trouble is, our appetites can’t be satisfied by wild-caught shrimp: Wild-shrimp stocks are fully fished or overexploited in much of the world. So aquaculture–shrimp farming–has stepped in to fill the gap.

This is good news for shrimp lovers. Restaurant chains like Darden’s Red Lobster promote Endless Shrimp® specials, and wholesalers sell imported shrimp for less than $4 a pound, NOAA reports. In poor countries like Vietnam, Thailand and Ecuador, shrimp farming has created tens of thousands of much-needed jobs as well as export income. But the impacts of  shrimp farming on the environment are serious. They range from the destruction of mangrove groves to the depletion of ocean stocks of small  forage fish that are caught and made into fish meal to feed the shrimp on farms.

Today, on the Yale Environment 360 website, I write about efforts to fix shrimp aquaculture. A nonprofit coalition called the Aquaculture Stewardship Council has developed standards for shrimp farms, as well as other forms of aquaculture, that are designed to guide buying decisions by big companies like Darden and Walmart as well as individual consumers.

Here’s how the story begins:

Carlos Perez, a well-to-do businessman, has been farming shrimp in Ecuador since 1979. He has seen the industry boom: Ecuador exported about $1.2 billion worth of shrimp last year, and its shrimp farmers employ about 102,000 people. He has also watched as shrimp farms have played a major role in the destruction of two-thirds of the country’s mangrove swamps — rich ecosystems that serve as buffers against storms, store carbon, and support fish, birds, and small mammals.

There’s got to be a better way, Perez says, and so he is working closely with a global alliance called the Aquaculture Stewardship Council to develop, test, and deploy new standards for shrimp aquaculture. The Aquaculture Stewardship Council, or ASC, hopes to do for fish farming what its sister organization, the Marine Stewardship Council, or MSC, has done for ocean fishing: Reward the most responsible producers. “It is the most demanding standard that has ever been produced for shrimp and fish,” Perez says.

But, as the story goes on to say, these efforts are complicated by existing aquaculture standards that are less stringent. You can read the rest of the story here.

One thing the story does not address is whether consumers can be persuaded to eat differently. Much journalism about food and the environment assumes that current consumption habits and patterns will continue; in particular, the assumption is that as another billion or two people enter the middle class, they will consume more meat and fish.

This need not be so, of course. Americans’ tastes are constantly shifting — away from canned tuna to shrimp, for example. They can shift again, ideally towards seafood that is lower on the food chain and therefore more sustainable. (Or better yet towards a plant-based diet.) Fast-growing fish that don’t require as much feed, or those that rely on vegetable-based feed in place of fish meal, have a lower environmental impact. The technical term for this is “feed fish efficiency ratio,” or FFER, and it’s much higher for salmon, say, than for shrimp. Some of the most innovative work going on in aquaculture focuses on species that are more sustainable, albeit not as popular as shrimp, salmon or tuna. Later this week I’ll report on plans for a mussels farm off the coast of California.

Meanwhile, in the UK, as Mallen Baker reports, supermarkets say that sales aof more sustainable fish, such as tilapia and pangasius, are growing. Retailers are promoting the alternatives, as are food writers. Maybe instead of promoting “endless shrimp” the folks at Red Lobster should be talking about endless mussels or tilapia.

A Remote-Controlled Mini Mini Picks Up the Javelins at the Olympic Stadium

It's a remote-controlled mini Mini, just the thing to pick up the javelins from the kitchen, oops, stadium floor.