What Fighting Deforestation Can And Can’t Achieve

When we talk about combating climate, the most obvious issues that come to mind are policies to prevent carbon dioxide emissions — cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes and environmental regulations. Then there are the technological solutions like renewable energy and electrified vehicle fleets and more energy efficient infrastructure. If people are feeling desperate, they start discussing geoengineering

But one part of the climate change solution mix doesn’t get talked about as often, perhaps because it’s almost too obvious: we need more plants. Or, more specifically, we need more forests.

Thanks to photosynthesis — the process by which plants convert sunlight into energy — trees and other flora remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen. This allows them to act as a “carbon sink” — any process that results in a net removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Conversely, deforestation releases the carbon forests store up back into the atmosphere. The 2007 report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined that deforestation contributes roughly 17 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, putting it in third place behind the global energy sector’s 26 percent and the global industrial sector’s 19 percent. Most of that action is in tropical forests, where the most egregious deforestation is occurring. Also, contrary to the image of individual rural farmers chopping down rainforest for crop land, most tropical deforestation these days can be laid at the feet of major industries and corporations.

What It Can’t Achieve

Start with the bad news. A recent article in The Conversation pointed to a 2011 study that attempted to measure the effect of living biomass, dead wood, and other organic products from temperate, boreal, and tropical forests between 1990 and 2007. Assessing global satellite data, global forest growth, and density is tough, but the researchers determined that Earth’s forests are taking in around 4 billion metric tons of carbon a year. Unfortunately, deforestation — which exists in a constant tug-of-war with regrowth — rolled a lot of that back, resulting in a net carbon sink effect of 1.1 billion metric tons annually.

The problem is the sheer scale of the numbers surrounding the global forest carbon sink. In 2010, fossil fuel burning, cement production, land use — including deforestation — dumped a grand total of 36.7 billion metric tons into the atmosphere. But only half stayed there. (Deforestation’s 17 percent contribution was to that final atmospheric amount.) The rest was absorbed by the oceans and the land, the latter including the forest carbon sink’s 4 billion metric ton contribution.

Those numbers were about the same in 2011. So just considering the carbon dioxide that got into the atmosphere, even getting back all 3 billion metric tons lost to deforestation would take out only a slice of the problem. The most pessimistic study on this front was released in 2013, and determined that even the best case scenario of deforestation reduction would cut atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide by 40 to 70 parts per million (ppm). That’s in comparison to the up to 600 ppm above 2000 levels human activity is anticipated to add by 2100 under most projections.

There are lots of reasons why reforestation’s potential to curb climate change is limited.

Given human needs and activity, complete reforestation is obviously a pipe dream. Younger and recently planted forests also tend to take in less carbon than older and more developed forests, and carbon can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years — making the path from fossil fuel reserves underground to burned emissions effectively a one-way ticket. Even without deforestation, a forest’s carbon intake for photosynthesis enters into a natural equilibrium with natural fires, decomposition, and other processes that return some of their carbon to the atmosphere under much shorter time periods. So the researchers concluded the most important reason to fight deforestation is to preserve the remaining forests not caught in the deforestation-regrowth tug-o-war, and which have held the most carbon the longest. Losing all of them would add another 130 to 290 ppm to atmospheric carbon concentrations.

That’s really the key take away: fighting deforestation won’t be able to help us roll climate change back that much, but it can help us hold the line against things becoming any worse. But there are other reasons to keep up the fight as well.

What It Can Achieve

Progress on preventing deforestation is mixed, but overall seems to be trending in the right direction. Brazil recently announced that rainforest deforestation there was reduced 84 percent over the last eight years, hitting 1,764 square miles from mid-2011 to mid-2012 — the lowest rate since the country began monitoring it. (Though there are concerns that failure by the Brazilian government to properly enforce its forestry code could reverse that trend.) At the same time, the Mekong region — which encompasses Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar — lost nearly a third of its forest cover between 1973 and 2009. Globally, we’ve seen carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation drop by over 25 percent since 2000, in comparison to 1990s levels.

All that said, we can certainly do better on fighting deforestation. After assuming relatively high levels of economic and population growth a 2007 study, found that reducing present deforestation rates by 50 percent by 2050, and then holding the line until 2100, could prevent as much as 50 billion metric tons of carbon emissions this century. That’s 12 percent of what’s needed through 2100 to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon at 450 parts per million — the threshold beyond which most scientists agree the threat of catastrophic climate change becomes intolerable. The IPCC estimates this could be done for less than $20 per ton.

There’s also ocean acidification to consider. Approximately 10 billion metric tons of the carbon dioxide that didn’t enter the atmosphere in 2011 was absorbed by the oceans, driving up the creation of carbonic acid and threatening a whole host of marine ecosystems.

Human jobs and human lives sit at the top of many of those food chains; about one billion people around the world rely on seafood as their primary source of protein, the vast majority of them in poor and under-developed countries. So every bit of carbon taken in by forests is carbon that isn’t threatening ocean life.

Finally, there’s a feedback loop to keep in mind. Preventing tropical deforestation slows down the climate change that leads to more deforestation, and vice versa. In the rainforest specifically, trees and vegetation actually introduce additional moisture into the air, meaning deforestation reduces rainfall. That makes hydroelectric power harder to produce: a study warned that this process could eliminate 40 percent of the power produced by Brazil’s Belo Monte hydropower complex — the third biggest in the world — which is a problem for a country that gets 80 percent of its electricity from hydropower.

What We Can Do About It

An international mechanism to financially reimburse countries for preventing deforestation has been in the works at the United Nations for several years now. Called REDD or REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) it’s already provided $67.3 million in 16 partner countries. Unfortunately, the program wasn’t part of the Kyoto negotiations in 1997 (though it may make its way into the Paris talks in 2015) and only has $112.5 million to work with, thanks to donations from Norway, Denmark, and Spain. Japan and the European Commission have pledged funds as well, but so far the United States has not contributed a cent. And many of the details for how REDD should operate remain in dispute. So a serious move by the United States’ government to both bulk of REDD’s funding and push it along policy-wise could certainly help.

Granted, REDD is not without its critics or possible pitfalls, particular the fact that much of the program — so far as its developed — is structured around offsets. Monitoring and verifying offsets, which allow one actor to continue emitting a certain amount of carbon if they pay some other actor to carry some net carbon negative act, can be logistically and conceptually difficult. And of course, offsets still allow emissions elsewhere. A better approach for REDD might be to financially encourage developing countries to preserve forests, with no counterbalancing allowances for carbon emissions elsewhere. Just straight up pay them to conserve, on the precept that economically underprivileged countries should not be bearing the burdens of climate change.

Climate Advisors and other groups have also just put forward a raft of recommendations for other ways the United States could step forward to promote commodities and markets that don’t rely on deforestation. These include clamping down on illegal deforestation through tougher import laws, use our technical expertise and resources to bulk up the transparency of of both global agricultural practices and supply chains, and push reforms to both foreign aid and trade agreements.

Finally — and it’s a bit of a second-order effect — another thing the U.S. government could do to help is completely rethink its mandated blend of biofuel in our gasoline supplies. The current policy drives up the demand (and thus the profitability) of corn, soy, and other biofuel stocks, encouraging more deforestation both here in the states and in rainforests around the world to make room for cropland.

So that’s where we are with deforestation. It’s just a slice of the possible solutions, but it’s not a negligible slice. And we aren’t doing enough to make full use of it.

Throw It Out And It Powers Your Home: Puerto Rico Turns To Garbage For Renewable Energy

Puerto Ricans will soon be turning their trash into renewable energy. On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its final approval of an air permit for a 77 megawatt EfW plant, owned by Energy Answers International, a first for the U.S. island territory.

The $650 million facility, which will be built in three years in the town of Arecibo, will create thousands of direct and indirect induced jobs, and turn more than 2,100 tons of garbage a day into renewable electricity for more than 76,000 homes on the island. Creating domestic renewable energy is a major necessity since Puerto Rico’s electricity is overwhelmingly derived from imported petroleum, natural gas, and coal.

Six public hearing sessions were held since May 2012, and over 3,000 public comments had been reviewed by the EPA. And while the comment period is open for this issued permit, Energy Answers has gone through a long and rigorous review process and there should be no objections that delay the project from moving forward.

Here are five reasons why energy from waste is a great opportunity for Puerto Rico and the rest of the United States:

Energy from waste reduces greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change

According to the EPA, for every ton of garbage processed at an EfW facility, approximately one ton of emitted carbon-dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere is prevented. This is because the trash burned at an EfW facility doesn’t generate methane, as it would at a landfill; the metals that would have been sent to the landfill are recycled instead of thrown out; and the electricity generated offsets the greenhouse gases that would otherwise have been generated from coal and natural gas plants.

Furthermore, EPA scientists concluded that sending waste to EfW facilities is the better than sending to garbage landfills with optimum conditions for capturing methane and turning it into electricity because these landfills will generate two to six times more greenhouse gases than EfW plants.

Energy from waste increases recycling rates

Communities can have both EfW and recycling strategies that are compatible. In fact, communities using EfW technology have an aggregate recycling rate above the national average. A 2009 study examined EfW facilities in the U.S. and found that communities using EfW have a 33 percent recycling rate. Puerto Rico currently has an 11 percent recycling rate. It is important to note then that the EfW facility in Arecibo will be the island’s largest recycling plant.

Energy from waste produces renewable energy

Puerto Rico is heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels for electricity. According to the EIA, 68 percent of the island’s electricity comes from petroleum, 16 percent from natural gas, and 15 percent from coal, and the remaining one percent of electricity comes from hydropower. While onshore and offshore wind, solar, and tidal energy must be developed on the island, EfW should also be a vital source of electricity to free Puerto Ricans from imported dirty energy.

Unlike other types of renewable energy sources, EfW is considered a base load power that operates 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. This means that EfW can pair nicely with wind and solar energy and provide electricity to the grid when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

Energy from waste can save local governments money

Hauling trash to landfills is expensive for many cities and territories. New York City, for example, paid more than $300 million last year just to transport trash to out-of-state landfills. In these cases, EfW facilities could be immediately beneficial by saving governments money while generating jobs and local revenue from an EfW facility. On a long-term economic basis, EfW facilities cost less than disposing of waste in landfills due to returns from the electricity sold and even the sale of recovered metals.

Jeremy K. O’Brien, director of applied research for the solid-waste-management advocacy organization Solid Waste Association of North America, writes that, “Over the life of the [EfW] facility, which is now confidently projected to be in the range of 40 to 50 years, a community can expect to pay significantly less for MSW disposal at a [EfW] facility than at a regional MSW landfill.”

Energy from waste is an important solution to solving landfilling issues

Of Puerto Rico’s 32 landfills, government officials have said that only about five meet local and federal standards. This means that by 2014 the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board could close the majority of the island’s landfills causing Puerto Rico to run out of space to dispose of its trash by 2018.

Additionally, methane emissions in landfills are a problem since methane is more efficient at trapping radiation than carbon dioxide emissions. Consequently, landfills are the third-largest contributor of anthropogenic methane emissions in the U.S., accounting for 16 percent of total methane emissions as a result of human activities in 2011 and preceded only by the natural gas and agricultural sectors, respectively.

Energy from waste is a key solution for fossil fuel-dependent regions like Puerto Rico to reduce their reliance on dirty energy, cut emissions from landfills and save money — all while taking out the trash.

Matt Kasper is the Special Assistant for Energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) Will Bring More Investment To Clean Energy

One of the most promising — and obscure — pieces of energy legislation moving in Congress is the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act. This bill that would help drive down the cost of renewable energy, making it significantly cheaper to move to a clean energy economy.

As a reminder, a master limited partnership is a type of corporation that is able to raise money on public exchanges and doesn’t pay income tax at the corporate level. These two qualities lead to a much lower cost of capital for the companies organized as MLPs.

The problem is that only companies in certain industries — like oil and gas pipelines — are allowed to be MLPs. The MLP Parity Act would fix that, by expanding the treatment to renewable energy and energy efficiency. This is a commonsense fix with bipartisan support on the Hill, and a broad range of supporters in the think tank and advocacy community.

Of course, virtually no policy has unanimous support, and MLP parity is no exception. Most intriguingly, John Farrell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance wrote a piece recently called, “Why Master Limited Partnerships are a Lousy Policy for Solar, Wind, and Taxpayers”. Farrell’s very smart and a strong advocate for clean energy, so when he says something is a lousy deal for solar, wind, and taxpayers, it’s worth paying attention.

Farrell’s argument is essentially that the cost savings from MLPs in the oil and gas sector haven’t flowed through to consumers, and that MLPs in renewables will likely lead to more large-scale projects from large investors. These are fair points, but it’s important to respond. First, note what John doesn’t say: he doesn’t say that MLPs actually won’t lead to more wind and solar. They will. This is the point that Todd Foley made in a piece published today, “MLPs a powerful tool to boost renewables”. There doesn’t seem to be any disagreement on the fact that MLP parity would lead to more renewable energy.

The disagreement seems to be mostly about who we want to have building renewable energy: large corporations, or a mix small investors like individuals, communities, and local governments? The truth is that we need both. Certainly, large corporations have an inappropriately large role in many parts of our economy (for-profit prison operators strike me as particularly loathsome), but we should be careful about dismissing policies out of hand just because they would enable corporations to participate in certain businesses.

The problem in clean energy is that it’s not clear that small investors have enough money to make the transition to a zero-carbon future happen on their own. Let’s go through some numbers.

There are countless estimates of how much investment is needed to move away from fossil fuels, but every estimate is a tremendously large number. For argument’s sake, let’s go with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Renewable Electricity Futures study. They estimate that getting to 80 percent renewable energy in the United States will cost just under $2 trillion (see Figure A-4 here). Since there are about 115 million households in the U.S., that means we would need about $17,000 in investment from every household to pay for new renewable power. Unfortunately, the median net worth of American families was about $77,000 in 2010, which means that we would need the middle-of-the-road family to invest a whopping 20 percent of their wealth in renewable energy. (You could argue, of course, that families will have more money in the future, but keep in mind that median net worth today is actually lower than it was in 1983). This would be great for renewable energy, but it’s almost certainly a bad idea for families to invest 1/5 of their money in one specific industry, when we know the value of diversification.

This means that we’re going to need money to come from other places, and this is where MLPs come into play. The dominant investors in MLPs are individuals, corporations, and various retirement and trust accounts. These are the big pots of money, and it’s what we need to access if we want to get $2 trillion into clean energy. Fortunately, they’ve already demonstrated an appetite for MLPs, so there’s no reason to believe that they won’t like MLPs focused on renewable energy.

That’s not to say that there’s not a place for small investors. Quite the contrary, there are plenty of smart investments for regular people. Putting solar on your rooftop, for example, is a fantastic investment in much of the country (as ILSR’s Farrell has shown). Buying a small share in a Solar Mosaic fund — as part of a diversified investing strategy — can make a ton of sense. Indeed, the clean energy future requires these types of investments. But for most people, putting 22 percent of your family’s wealth into renewable electricity would likely be a mistake, which is why the other sources of capital are needed.

Finally, a word about whether or not ratepayers will benefit from MLP parity. Farrell is right that some oil and gas pipeline MLPs have gotten very generous rulings from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allow them to recover the cost of corporate income tax in their rates despite not paying a corporate income tax. This is ridiculous, and everyone responsible should be ashamed. But instead of using this to say that renewables shouldn’t have access to MLPs, we should call on FERC to do the right thing and not let companies charge ratepayers for phantom costs. And, given the number of different regulators involved in determining how much renewable energy generators get paid, it’s not at all clear that they would follow FERC’s bad precedent.

The scale of the challenge of moving to a clean energy future is tremendous, and it will take trillions of dollars. We need a full policy suite to bring every source of capital to the table. Master limited partnerships are a key part of that suite, and we should welcome them to the effort.

Richard W. Caperton is the Managing Director of Energy at the Center for American Progress.

Maine Tries To Increase Energy Efficiency, Gov. LePage Threatens Veto

Maine is trying to lower energy costs and increase energy efficiency. Sadly, its Governor may veto legislation that would do this at the expense of Maine’s ratepayers and emerging renewable energy industry.

A bipartisan omnibus energy bill is making its way through the Maine state legislature. The compromised package, L.D. 1559, passed the Senate on Thursday.

However, Governor Paul LePage opposes the bill, and his energy director said a veto will occur if the bill reaches his desk in its current form.

Andrew Sturgeon, president of the Action Committee of 50 (a group of business and community leaders promoting economic development), wrote a special for the Bangor Daily News highlighting the ways the omnibus bill helps Mainers:

• “By expanding efficiency programs, all electricity consumers achieve a net savings — amounting to $76 million last year.”
• “The expansion of natural gas infrastructure could reduce electric bills of Mainers by $100 million to $200 million per year after full implementation.”
• “The governor proposed adding ‘lowering energy costs’ to the Public Utilities Commission’s mandated responsibilities and goals for the Efficiency Maine Trust, something this bill achieves.”
• “By using $3 million to $5 million per year from Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to reduce residential heating costs, this bill does exactly what the governor asks for.”

Despite the bipartisan work and the savings customers in Maine will experience, LePage will veto the bill because he wants the 100-megawatt cap in the state’s renewable energy standard to be removed.

This provision requires renewable energy facilities to be smaller than 100 megawatts in generating capacity in order to quality for energy credits. Wind energy, thankfully, is not included in this provision. If this specific part of the RES law is repealed, large hydro facilities (specifically from Canada) would be allowed to receive energy credits and therefore Maine’s standard would be “watered down.” The incentive for wind energy companies to continue their growth in Maine would likely end.

LePage is certainly not putting the citizens of Maine first. Over the past few years, an ALEC sponsored initiative undertaken by LePage and his allies — State Senators Michael Thibodeau and Edward Youngblood — have introduced legislation that would dismantle the state’s RES. The “model legislation” provided by ALEC would require the use of large hydropower as a part of the RES calculation. This change would reduce the ability of Maine to utilize its own existing renewable resources to provide for the state’s electricity needs.

Wind energy is becoming a vital and innovative energy resource within Maine due to its positive economic and environmental benefits. Indeed, wind developers in Maine have spent nearly $1 billion since 2004 which has led to the creation of hundreds of jobs. Furthermore, for every 300 megawatts of wind energy installed in Maine, $375 million in construction wages is generated along with a $750 million tax base increase.

Health and environmental advocacy groups, such as the American Lung Association and Sierra Club Maine, have also endorsed new turbine projects citing their potential to “reduce pollution, create good local jobs, and protect wildlife.”

Phil Bartlett, Maine’s Senate majority leader from 2008-2010, recently wrote in the Bangor Daily News:

“The attempts by LePage and his allies to dismantle Maine’s RPS represent an embrace of a corporatist approach to Maine’s energy policy, which, if left unchecked, will have serious, damaging consequences for Maine consumers and our environment. As a former legislator, I am perhaps most troubled by the ease with which these groups have infiltrated our State House.”

It is necessary for wind energy to increase in Maine as 63 percent of the state’s electricity is generated from gas and oil, and 90 percent of homes are heated by oil — mostly imported from other countries.

Renewable Energy Gets A Rural Boost in Colorado

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper has signed legislation that will double the amount of energy that his state’s large rural electric coops and the utilities that provide them power must get from renewable sources to 20% by 2020. Enactment of the legislation represents a major victory for clean energy advocates and Colorado’s rural economies, and came despite a massive disinformation campaign run by the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity that is backed by right wing oil billionaires David and Charles Koch.

Hickenlooper’s signature on the bill is the latest rejection of a national campaign by conservative organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, and the Heartland Institute to thwart clean energy momentum by rolling back state renewable energy standards that have been adopted in 29 states and the District of Columbia. This year, legislators in more than a dozen states have sought to either outright repeal such mandates or water them down, but most of those efforts have failed.

Colorado has been a leader in requiring utilities to provide a significant share of electricity from wind, solar and other renewable sources. It was the first state to require a renewable energy standard through a statewide vote, a 10 percent requirement for large investor owned utilities. Since that initial effort the state legislature has twice increased the requirement, which now stands at 30 percent.

Until passage of this year’s legislation, rural electric coops had been required to produce only 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. The legislation sponsored by the president of the state Senate and speaker of the state House, will affect two entities, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, a utility which supplies power to 18 coops, and the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a coop which has 140,000 customers.

Opponents of the legislation, including the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, mounted a furious campaign to secure a Hickenlooper veto of the legislation, claiming it will mean a “war on rural Colorado” and cost rural consumers billions of dollars.

Investors show appetite for Energy from Waste

Energy-from-waste facilities get green light across UK

Combining Electric Cars With Smart Grid Technology Can Cut Charging Costs In Half

Electric cars are one of the key pieces of the renewable energy economy of the future, but they do come with a few challenges: charging them currently takes a while (30 minutes to a few hours), charging can add considerably to a home’s overall electricity use, and — when scaled up to thousands or millions of homes — that charging places a lot of extra demand on an electrical grid. At the same time, smart grid technology offers two-way information and communication between consumers and providers, allowing the first to better manage their electricity use and costs, and the second to better manage electricity supply. But so far, there hasn’t been much investigation into how smart grid technology could help with electric car charging specifically.

Enter a new demonstration project from the Australian state of Victoria. As part of the Victorian Department of Transport’s Electric Vehicle Trial, the firm DiUS outfitted ten electric-car-owning homes with their ChargeIQ system. The participants could pick “on demand” charging, which works the same way recharging something like an electric razor or drill works — you plug it in, and it immediately starts drawing power. Or they could pick the “smart” charging option, using the ChargeIQ’s smart grid technology to manage the charging of their cars. This would allow them to monitor their charging from a website or a smartphone app, respond to suggestions for the best time to charge, make choices, and react to unanticipated events.

The designers used flexible pricing so participants could respond to peak and off-peak costs, and they were even occasionally hit with simulated events such as an outage due to weather, a demand peak, or a heat wave to see how they’d respond. The result? Participants using the smart grid option cut their charging costs in half, and the electrical utility itself enjoyed less strain and smoother power utilization.

Based on residential electricity tariffs and the project outcomes, Victorian electric vehicle drivers could save around $250 per year, or around 50 per cent on their charging costs, by adopting ‘Smart’ charging practices. Grid-integrated ‘Smart’ charging technology would deliver this saving without sacrifice or effort on their part.

Managing electric vehicle charging at the network level will not only defer costly infrastructure upgrades through peak demand management, but may deliver better returns on existing investments through improved asset utilization. Grid-integrated ‘Smart’ charging technology would deliver these benefits and avoid creation of a ‘second peak’ in electricity demand as drivers individually defer charging to the off-peak period. Importantly, the outcome from these improvements will be lower costs for all electricity consumers – not just those who drive EVs.

“Using ChargeIQ to manage EV charging through the Smart Grid, the project has demonstrated how EVs can be integrated into our electricity networks — easily, conveniently and cheaply,” said Clency Coutet, Director at/of DiUS Computing, arguing for the global relevance of some of the demonstration’s findings.

That said, there were some hiccups. In at least one instance, the ChargeIQ equipment was installed over an unusually far and cluttered distance from the relevant smart meter, making communication between the two devices difficult. In a few instances, decisions from the participants took as long as fifty minutes to transmit to the ChargeIQ station — though the vast majority of the transmissions occurred within a few seconds. This led the project authors to make several recommendations, including the need to formalize practices to ensure the equipment is properly installed and that connectivity issues are responded to promptly.

Another point not mentioned in the report, but worth considering, is that using the ChargeIQ technology involves a lot of internet use. That brings up an economic justice issue, since regular access to computers, smartphone devices, and the internet is often unavailable to people lower down the income ladder.

Of course, identifying such challenges early and getting out ahead of them is what these sorts of preliminary experiments are for. And the dramatic cost reductions are evidence that moving to renewable technology won’t just mean isolated changes to help the climate — it will mean overlapping and reinforcing benefits that end up in people’s pocketbooks.

(HT: RenewEconomy)

Efforts To Repeal North Carolina’s Clean Energy Standard Not Dead Yet

State Representative Mike Hager’s mission to repeal North Carolina’s successful renewable energy standard just won’t end. Two repeal bills, HB 298 and SB 365, failed to pass either chamber by a May 16th legislative deadline, even though the Senate bill passed the Senate Finance Committee in a controversial manner: without a vote count. The two bills met resistance from not only State Senate and House Republicans, but also by a coalition made up of farmers, renewable energy companies, and rural economic development advocates.

Rep. Hager is driving the repeal efforts, along with radical conservative organizations like ALEC, Heartland Institute, the Koch Brothers, Art Pope, the American Conservative Union, and Americans for Tax Reform. As a member of ALEC, Hager is now trying to find new ways to repeal the standard. He recently told the Carolina Journal that he is working to have the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Study Commission examine the RES.

“Anything where you have a sector of business being propped up by taxpayers is not an ideal situation,” said Rep. Hager.

However, a poll conducted earlier this year by Fallon Research for the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association found that 89 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of independents, and 76 percent of Republicans want North Carolina leaders to expand the use of renewable energy.

Furthermore, Duke Energy Corp. CEO Jim Rogers at the company’s annual shareholder meeting said, “We [Duke Energy] still support (the renewables law) because it has the economic provision in it… Personally I support the renewable energy portfolio standard.”

Having the CEO of the largest electricity power holding company in the United States, supplying energy to 7.2 million customers, publicly support the North Carolina RES is a great message any commission should be aware of when dealing with energy policies.

Any commission created to examine the state RES should also note the 1,100 clean energy companies in North Carolina that have contributed $3.7 billion in annual gross revenue, and that clean energy deployment has led to a net gain in employment of over 21,000 jobs in just five years.

Moreover, the RES has lowered residential bills and these savings will more than double within a decade, with expected savings of up to $173 million to ratepayers. The RES standard also catapulted North Carolina to fifth in the nation in solar energy development and the state is expected to move to fourth place this year.

As long as ALEC continues their misguided efforts to repeal energy standards, we can expect the state lawmakers who are members of the organization to continue their efforts as well.

China Just Endorsed Construction Of Its Biggest Hydropower Dam Yet

Reuters reported on Wednesday that China’s environmental ministry has okayed the construction of a new hydroelectric dam on the Dadu River in the Sichuan province, which when completed will be the country’s largest.

China’s energy mix was 9.4 percent renewable as of 2011, and the Sichuan project is part of the country’s effort to boost itself to 15 percent by 2020. Hydroelectric power is anticipated to make up most of that increase.

The environmental ministry acknowledged that the project is massive enough to damage the local ecology, negatively effecting certain rare fish species and plant life. The dam’s developers have promised to try and offset those effects with “counter-measures,” and the project still requires the approval of China’s ruling cabinet.

To be built over 10 years by a subsidiary of state power firm Guodian Group, it is expected to cost 24.68 billion yuan ($4.02 billion) in investment.

The ministry, in a statement issued late on Tuesday, said an environmental impact assessment had acknowledged that the project would have a negative impact on rare fish and flora and affect protected local nature reserves.

Developers, it said, had pledged to take “counter-measures” to mitigate the effects.

Right now the title for China’s tallest dam goes to the Xiaowan project, at 292 meters, while the tallest dam in the world is currently Tajikistan’s Nurek dam, at 300 meters. The Sichuan dam will top 314 meters when all is said and done.

China has been at the forefront of hydroelectric development for a while now, with an enormous number of dams either constructed, in the works, or in the planning stages. Even individual projects can be of tremendous scale, providing in at least one instance an electrical capacity equal to nearly half of Britain’s entire national grid, and preventing 200 metric tons of carbon emissions each year. As of 2010, worldwide hydroelectric capacity was 850 to 900 gigawatts, meaning about one-fifth of the world’s electricity — and half the electricity for almost two thirds of the world’s countries — comes courtesy of hydropower. Though that use varies widely: the United States and Europe have developed 70 and 75 percent of their hydroelectric potential, while Africa has only taken advantage of 7 percent.

At the same time, the large bodies of water and massive landscape alterations that are part and parcel of large dam projects mean hydroelectricity can come with unusually significant downsides. The construction of the Three Gorges Dam in China’s Hubei province, for example, caused significant ecological damage, increased the risk of landslides, flooded a number of archeological and cultural sites, and displaced 1.3 million people. And the constricted water flow can hurt downstream populations that rely on the rivers for their fresh water supplies.

Meanwhile, climate change itself is also making hydropower less reliable, as altering weather patterns dry up some river flows, boost others, and generally make the future availability of water flows more difficult to predict.

One answer to those challenges could be small scale hydropower. Studies suggest there’s as much as 30 gigawatts of unused potential for such projects in the United States. These set-ups generally provide 10 kilowatts to 30 megawatts a piece, and don’t require damming rivers. (Or they can be built into already existing dams, the vast majority of which are not hydroelectric.) Unfortunately, regulatory red tape is in many ways the major hurdle to taking advantage of small scale hydro.

Top 5 Things You Need To Know About Immigrants And The Environment

Anh Phan is Manager of the Anti-Hate Table in Immigration Policy and Mari Hernandez is a Research Associate in Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress. Special thanks to former American Progress staffer Jorge Madrid for his help.

Since last November’s Presidential election, immigration reform with a road map to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country has been gaining momentum. On April 16 the bipartisan Senate “Gang of 8″ introduced their immigration bill, and diverse groups such as organized labor, evangelical Christians, and business leaders have lent their support for reform.

Just last month, the board of the Sierra Club, the oldest environmental organization in the United States voted to add their voice to the movement, officially supporting immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship. In doing so they joined other well-known environmental leaders like Bill McKibben and Van Jones.

Immigration reform and environmental protection are progressive issues that are in alignment, as the Sierra Club’s support illustrates: immigrants are affected by climate change and care about the environment, and the environmental movement is in turn strengthened by the inclusion of immigrant voices.

Here are the top five things you need to know about immigrants and the environment:

1. Immigrants are already a part of the environmental movement. Immigrants and people of color have long been key players in the environmental justice movement, which has been fighting back against environmental injustice that has disproportionately affected communities of color and low-income communities. Environmental justice organizations, for example, often speak out against polluting and toxic businesses, like power plants and fuel tank facilities that are sited in or near communities of color. But while immigrants have been active in the more localized environmental justice movement, they need to have a larger role in the overall environmental movement which has all too often been criticized for a lack of diversity. In a recent Grist post, One America board member Sudha Nandagopal wrote, “… we don’t just need to add diverse faces to the crowds at environmental protests. We need inclusive strategies and a diversity of ideas. Communities of color must be equitable partners in identifying problems, crafting solutions, and pushing for change.”
2. Immigrants have a big stake in the health of the planet. Historically, immigrants and people of color have borne a greater share of environmental burdens in their communities and at their jobs. According to the Sierra Club, 43 percent of Latino voters either live or work near a toxic site (such as a power plant, refinery, highway or factory.) This figure has increased by close to 10 percent since 2008, showing a dangerous uptick in the number of Latinos potentially exposed to dangerous environmental conditions, and the need among this community for a cleaner, healthier planet.
3. Immigrants tend to lead low-carbon lifestyles. More than half of all immigrants live in large metropolitan areas, which have some of the lowest per capita emissions in the U.S. In fact, CAP analysis has found that cities with the lowest carbon footprint had an average immigrant population of 26 percent, while the 10 highest per-capita carbon emitting cities have an average immigrant population below 5 percent. In addition to living in big cities, immigrants are almost three times more likely to take public transportation and nearly two times more likely to carpool than native-born residents.
4. Immigrants are helping to drive the green economy. Immigrants are leading new businesses in the green and high-tech industries, having launched 40 percent of publicly traded, venture-backed companies and nearly half of private, venture-backed startups. Additionally, immigrants occupy many “green-collar” jobs (blue-collar jobs in the green goods and services industry) and use their skills to advance energy efficiency, clean energy and sustainability. Green-collar employment includes jobs in wind turbine manufacturing, solar power project construction, home weatherization, solar panel installation, etc.
5. Immigrants support environmental policies. A recent poll found that 7 out of 10 Latino voters support environmental protections while 9 out of 10 feel a sense of “moral responsibility” when it comes to protecting the environment. A similar study of Asian American voters in California found that 3 out of 4 are extremely or very concerned about environmental issues, and 7 out of 10 believe that environmental regulations “provide an important benefit to society and protect health, air and water.” Immigrants from Latin American and Asian countries represent more than 60 percent (over 24 million residents) of the U.S. foreign-born population and these polls indicate that they can be strong advocates for environmental protections.

In coming out in support of immigration reform, Sierra Club President Allison Chin stated, “By establishing an equitable path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in America today, we can empower those in our society who are most vulnerable to toxic pollution to fully participate in our democracy, fight back against polluters and demand public health protections and clean energy solutions.” The intersection of environmentalism and immigration reform will continue to benefit and strengthen both movements.

Renewable Energy Potential in the Western Isles

10,000 jobs could come from islands’ renewable energy projects

Renewable energy projects could create more than 10,000 jobs on the Scottish islands by 2030, according to a Government-commissioned report.

An independent study found that investment in wind, wave and tidal energy would bring significant socio-economic benefits to the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney and could establish Scotland as a world leader in marine technologies.

However, the expense and difficulty of assessing the National Grid means the Government needs to weigh up the cost and benefits of developing renewable energy on the islands against other sources of electricity, the report said.

The Government has agreed a target of meeting 15% of the UK’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2020, which requires about 30% of UK electricity to come from renewables by this date.

The Scottish Government aims to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland’s gross annual electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020.

If renewable projects in the region are to be a key contributor to the targets then a co-ordinated policy is “urgently” needed, consultants advised.

The report states that “the costs of connecting to the transmission system are too high, making it difficult for developers and the regulator acting on behalf of customers to commit to costly new transmission infrastructure.

“In turn, the lack of grid access deters new developers, particularly those not in a position to meet the financial commitments required to secure future grid capacity.

“Ongoing uncertainty will inevitably lead to delays meaning that, despite the potential, renewable generation on the Scottish Islands would only make a minimal contribution to 2020 renewables targets, and an opportunity to develop the UK as a world leader in marine renewables could be lost.

“Government will need to weigh up the costs and benefits of renewable generation on the Scottish Islands against other sources of electricity, as set out in this report and elsewhere, and in particular considering the impact on the local economies and communities, and importantly on wider GB consumers.

UK Energy Secretary Edward Davey said: “The Government is keen to unlock the potential for the development for renewable energy on the Scottish Islands, but it’s vital that projects represent value for money for the consumer.

“The report being published marks a considerable step in progress towards making decisions about supporting renewables investment on the Scottish Islands.”

WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said: “It would be a great pity indeed if we were unable to make full use of the huge wind, wave and tidal power resource to be found on Scotland’s islands.

Orkney MSP Liam McArthur said: “This is a valuable piece of work, vividly highlighting the potential for Orkney to be a world leader in wave and tidal energy.

“It also sets out clearly the obstacles that need to be overcome if we are to ensure our islands play their full part in helping create a renewables revolution in this country.

Allen & York are renewable energy recruitment specialists.  Current jobs opportunities include:

---

With Record Sales, Tesla Turns A Profit As Consumer Reports Says It ‘Comes Close’ To Being ‘The Best Car Ever’!

Tesla Motors Company is coming off a very good week. On Wednesday, the company reported that it had sold more electric vehicles than any other automaker during the first quarter of the year, and turned a profit for the first time in its 10 year history.

On Thursday, Consumer Reports — the famously austere purveyors of customer satisfaction surveys and product testing for all manner of consumer goods — announced that Tesla’s Model S roadster outperformed every other commercially-available vehicle in their annual battery of stress tests, scoring a 99 out of a possible 100:

The Tesla Model S outscores every other car in our test Ratings. It does so even though it’s an electric car. In fact, it does so because it is electric.

Built from the ground up as an EV, this car’s overall balance benefits from mounting the battery under the floor and in the lowest part of the body. That gives the car a rock-bottom center of gravity that enables excellent handling, a comfortable ride, and lots of room inside.

The reviewers didn’t stop there. So thorough was the performance of Tesla’s flagship car, the magazine went on to describe the Model S as one of the best cars they’ve ever tested in its nearly 80 year history: “So is the Tesla Model S the best car ever? We wrestled with that question long and hard. It comes close.”

Tesla’s score of 99 is the highest for any hybrid or electric vehicle, and tied for the highest rating awarded to any car in the history of the magazine. The market for 100 percent electric cars has lagged behind the rest of the industry, hindered in part from the perception that the cars weren’t reliable or practical for everyday use. But coupled with the quickening expansion of high-speed charging stations in the most highly trafficked parts of the country, the endorsement from Consumer Reports could further expedite Tesla’s growth.

Lest critics think that fancy sports cars always sell well, it turns out that Tesla outsold the similarly-priced cars that drink gasoline created by Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Audi.

Sales of the company’s luxury sedans have steadily grown in recent months and the company is now on track to sell an estimated 21,000 cars by year’s end. Tesla believes that one way the company will sell more cars is to be able to sell them directly — not through a dealership. It is asking states that currently bar manufacturers from doing this to change their laws so that Tesla could sell cars to, say, Texans in Texas.

Tesla’s recent growth and profit are nice, but the company needs to grow a lot more if it plans to displace more of the gas-guzzling vehicles currently on the road. Two things will help:

• More models: Tesla plans to release the “Model X” in 2014, which is a combination of an SUV and a minivan. A truck concept has intrigued CEO Elon Musk: “I have this idea for a really advanced electric truck that has the performance of a sports car but actually more towing power and more carrying capacity than a gasoline or diesel truck of comparable size.” The more models (which will require more factories) the better. Not everyone wants or can afford to buy what amounts to a very well-constructed sports car.
• Lower costs: Tesla makes a good argument that the true cost of ownership is much lower than the sticker price because the car does not require gasoline, buyers get federal and state tax credits and a strong resale value. However, the price tag is still only realistic for wealthy people. As the company scales up and charging stations become more widespread, costs will start to come down. One can hope that more varied models will provide those who want to buy an electric vehicle with more economical options.

The company’s recent successes have also highlighted the success of the Obama administration’s Energy Department, which granted Tesla a $465 million to fund research and development of energy-efficient cars. Tesla has already announced that they are on schedule to repay those loans in full by 2017, five years earlier than originally planned.

Doubling Wind Power Could Save Mid-Atlantic Consumers $6.9 Billion A Year

Wind power had a banner year in 2012, accounting for more new generating capacity than any other resource. Despite the boom in cheap natural gas, 42 percent of all new capacity last year was actually from wind, which clocked in at 13,131 MW in new installations for the year.

The economics for wind power have only gotten more compelling, helped in no small part by the Production Tax Credit and the Investment Tax Credit creating strong investment incentives. This boom in wind power has begun to transform electricity markets across the country, creating significant net benefits for consumers and providing low carbon power to homes nationwide.

A new report from the consulting firm Synapse and Americans for a Clean Energy Grid found that increases in wind power in the PJM Interconnection could save consumers $6.9 billion per year out to 2026, along with 14 percent reductions in CO2.

The PJM Interconnection is the world’s largest competitive wholesale electricity market, serving 60 million customers across 13 states and the District of Columbia. Currently, wind provides about 1.5 percent of the electricity to PJM’s customers, and accounts for 3.4 percent of installed capacity. Based just on the Renewable Portfolio Standards in states within the PJM region, renewables must provide 14 percent of all electricity by 2026. It is likely that about 11 percent of this will come from new wind generation.

The report from Synapse uses the projections from meeting Renewable Portfolio Standards as a reference case, and then takes a look at the effects of doubling the amount of wind power required by statute in the PJM region out to 2026. By modeling the production costs and capital investments, the authors can ascertain what the difference is between these two cases for revenue requirements (and therefore, the impact on ratepayers). The big difference between these two cases is that in the reference scenario, natural gas composes the majority of new generation beyond what the state Renewable Portfolio Standard requires—and wind takes that market share in the other. This illustrates the shortsightedness of the “cheap natural gas” narrative that has become conventional wisdom in mainstream reporting. The cheaper bet, actually, is increasing deployment of wind.

The report finds that doubling capacity of installed wind, from 32.1 GW in the base case to 65.4 GW in the wind case, would create net savings of $6.9 billion per year. This is the result of savings from production costs amounting to $14.5 billion, and capital investment requirements of $7.6 billion. Remember that the capital investment numbers here represent the difference between what would be spent in the reference case ($17.4 billion) and what would be spent in the wind case ($25 billion).

The other benefit of more wind in PJM is lower wholesale prices. The report finds that the load-weighted average annual price for power drops from $80.27 per megawatt hour to $78.53 per megawatt hour.

The report notes that “the price differences are the greatest in non-summer months, when wind output is the highest, load is the lowest, and supply margins are the greatest.” These price differences are a function of how the electricity market works; the clearing price for all resources is set by the last marginal unit that is needed to meet load. More wind power in the system, whose bids are close to zero because of no fuel costs and low operational expenses, edges out the use of peaker plants. Since these peaker plants are often much more expensive, the net effect of more wind power in the market is that the clearing prices get set lower– saving consumers money while still providing the same electricity.

While net prices are lower, the modeling shows that market prices are higher in the summer months due to variability of wind output. These higher prices are reflective of the fact that more peaking fossil fuel resources are used in those times when wind power isn’t as available, or when load is higher and more resources are required to meet demand. This dynamic could be altered by new energy storage technology, higher utilization of demand response, and increasing efficiency standards to drive demand reductions during peak hours.

On top of all that, the high wind case means that CO2 emissions will go down significantly from 3.2 million tons to 2.6 million tons. This is the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road, or forgoing 610 million gallons of gasoline.

The bottom line is that going beyond the Renewable Portfolio Standards in the PJM region would lower electricity prices, save ratepayer’s money, and lower emissions to help fight climate change.

Loan Program Made Infamous By Solyndra Has Created 20,000 Jobs While Its Cost To Taxpayers Is Shrinking

The Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program was started in 2005 under the Bush Administration, but ramped up thanks to the 2009 stimulus passed by President Obama and the Democrats. It has gotten a bad rap ever since the high-profile failure of Solyndra, one of the solar tech companies the program invested in.

But, of course, a certain amount of failures and losses just come with the territory of investments in new technology. And The Atlantic Wire reports that the latest numbers reveal the program’s successfully shepherded 28 companies with various renewable energy projects, while creating over 20,000 jobs. Throw in the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program, and the total created jobs come to around 60,000.

The purpose of the program, which is no longer handing out new loans, was to help companies cross the “valley of death” — the point when a company’s debt is at a maximum, because it’s already spent money investing in capacity and research and development, but hasn’t yet seen enough success in the market to have the revenue to begin paying those loans back. The government guarantee then encourages private investors, who must ultimately make up at least 20 percent of the investment pool under the programs rules, to take the risk of backing the company. The government’s own contributions are also structured as a loan, meant to be paid back over time.

As The Atlantic Wire notes, that last point is especially important to remember. The loan program has paid out $26 billion in total, resulting in a less-than-impressive ratio of $1.2 million per job created. But that’s with the government’s expenditures all out the door, and the returns from the companies yet to come in:

The loan guarantee is often considered a cost, which it isn’t. Some programs — like that wind farm out in Hawaii, are already repaying the loan, though it’s not clear how much. Others, like NextEra Energy, never received the full loan amount. We are currently at the high point of the dollars-for-jobs-created ratio. Given the nature of the program, the amount the government is out is reduced gradually over time.

The calculation is only temporarily that 0.8 jobs were created for every $1 million spent. It is nearly as fair to say that the ratio is 20,000-to-zero.

Obviously, the 20,000 jobs for $0 is an almost-certainly unattainable ideal, but that’s the direction in which the ratio is headed. And for the curious, here’s a map The Atlantic Wire compiled of the various projects and their numbers:

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the loan program has already brought one utility-scale solar project to operation, with ten more in the process of construction, in states such as Michigan, Kentucky, and Alabama. When they’re all completed, the eleven projects will supply over 2,700 megawatts — enough power to run roughly half a million homes. Another one of the loan program’s projects is expected to install 750 megawatts of solar arrays on commercial rooftops, across 28 different states.

‘Banana Republic’ In North Carolina: GOP Committee Chair ‘Approves’ Bill To Gut Clean Energy Without Counting Votes

The ALEC-sponsored bill to gut North Carolina’s clean energy standard failed last week in one House committee. But as the Charlotte Observer reports, last night it passed a Senate committee over shouted objections to do something most people take for granted in a democracy — counting votes to see which side has more.

Over the objections of Democratic lawmakers, a Senate committee approved legislation Wednesday to end the state’s 6-year-old renewable energy program.

Opponents of the bill shouted “No!” when voting to show their frustration at Republican Chairman Bill Rabon’s refusal to count votes with a show of hands. In what was clearly a razor-thin margin, both sides said they would have won if the votes had been counted.

“North Carolina is not a banana republic,” Democratic Sen. Josh Stein of Raleigh, one of the no votes, said after the meeting. “That was no way to run a proceeding.”

It was also evident that the Republicans are split on the legislation that would end a state policy of requiring electric utilities to buy green electricity from solar farms and other renewable generators.

At least a half-dozen Republicans voted with Democrats against the controversial bill Wednesday.

The Senate bill would keep the utilities’ clean energy requirement at a laughable 3 percent and get rid of the mandate entirely by 2023. Utilities support the standard: Duke Energy has found that the clean energy promoted by the standard helps with peak load, is reliable, and makes a profit. North Carolina agriculture showed up to testify in favor of the standard, from farmers to the Pork Council. (Pork farmers would rather use the methane from swine waste lagoons to make energy instead of letting it waft into the atmosphere.)

Who opposed it? Mostly radical conservative groups like the Heartland Institute, the Koch Brothers, ALEC, Art Pope, the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and their friends in the North Carolina State Legislature.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Bill Rabon heard the loud nays (consisting of at least six Republicans voting with Democrats) and without allowing a show of hands to count, approved the legislation out of committee. This is democracy in action in North Carolina:

This Senate bill moves to the Commerce Committee for a vote and would have to pass there as well as before the full Senate by May 16 to get to the House in time to pass this legislative session.

If it gets there the House version’s sponsor, ALEC member Mike Hager, will have to bring his version back before his Public Utilities and Energy Committee for a re-vote after his bill failed there last week. Hager was in the Senate committee room, talking with staff as this “vote” took place.

Gutting laws that have wide support and economically benefit the whole state becomes easier when you can do it just because you say so, and don’t have to worry about counting votes.

The Rough Patch For Solar Manufacturers Should End Within Three Years

The latest report from NPD Solarbuzz — a market research firm based out of Santa Clara, California — projects that global revenues for the solar photovoltaic (PV) module industry will drop from $25.5 billion last year to $20.5 billion for this year. That 20 percent plunge, according to Solarbuzz, is a simple matter of overproduction.

The supply of potential solar PV capacity shot all the way up to 45 gigawatts by 2012, while end-market demand only reached 29 gigawatts. The cause was a precipitous drop of 50 percent in the average selling price of the modules, which is great for anyone who wants to buy, install, or use solar energy, but not so great for firms that supply it.

So now there’s an ongoing drop in revenues, and a lot of backtracking amongst firms to bring supply back into line with demand, according to NPD Solarbuzz Senior Analyst Michael Barker:

Share values of several publicly listed PV companies have been falling close to delisting levels, operating losses have been reported in the hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter, and many manufacturers are continuing to file for insolvency.

As CleanTechnica noted, the recent bankruptcy of then Chinese solar manufacturer Suntech Power is only the most high-profile example of the problem. (Though it looks like Suntech’s troubles also had a lot to do with bad financial management outside of any question of market fundamentals.) The good news is that the reckoning should be short. NPD Solarbuzz also projects revenues will start climbing again in 2014, and should clear 2012′s level by 2016.

Solar PV Module Supplier Revenues Forecast To 2017

There’s an argument to be made that the short-term culprit here is the contest between the United States and China, to see who can subsidize their respective solar industries the most (Hint: China is winning). On the other hand, finding the most economically efficient way to deliver energy — or finding the best “comparative advantage” roles for the U.S. and China in the solar market — is only the second most important goal of promoting renewables.

The most important goal is preventing worldwide ecological and civilizational catastrophe. And the entire way we currently conceptualize and measure economic activity doesn’t grapple with the damage we’re doing on that account.

Admittedly, tax and grant subsidies for renewable energy technology are an imperfect response to that problem. Building prices into the energy we get from fossil fuels that actually account for the ecological and social risks of carbon emissions would be far more elegant — and might help avoid some of these annoying overshoots and busts in the renewable energy market. But getting a price on carbon is proving to be a difficult political lift.

And in the meantime, simply sitting on our hands isn’t an option.

(h/t: CleanTechnica)

Global Renewable Energy Is Growing, But Is It Fast Enough?

How can we design an energy system that improves the quality of life of those who use it? In an event last Thursday entitled Policy Briefing: The Present and Future of Renewables in the United States and Around the World, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) pointed out that this is the type of question that we should be asking.

While the event highlighted the growth of renewable energy and its future prospects all over the world, Rep. Holt emphasized what he sees as the lack of urgency in deploying the amount of renewables and clean energy needed to really address climate change. He added, “We are losing track in this country [and] we have lost track here in Congress that about now we are barreling past 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere … and that is not driving our energy policy and it should.”

During her presentation on the forthcoming Renewables 2013 Global Status Report (GSR 2013), Renewable Energy Policy Network of the 21st Century (REN21) Executive Secretary Christine Lins shared some good news on the current status of energy policy globally: the number of countries that have renewable energy targets has doubled since 2005 and now includes 120 countries – more than half of which are developing countries.

The GSR 2013 will be published in June, and Lins presented some of the main insights from it, including:

• Renewable energy makes up 18% of global final energy consumption
• 25% of global power generation capacity comes from renewable energy
• Cumulative installed capacity of solar photovoltaics (PV) has reached 101 gigawatts (GW), including 30 GW added in 2012
• Solar PV module prices fell 40% in 2011 and another 20% in 2012
• Cumulative installed wind capacity reached 282 GW, including 40 GW added in 2012

The event not only reviewed the current status of renewable energy, but also looked to the future with a presentation by Eric Martinot on the Renewables Global Futures Report (RGFR). Martinot, who authored the report, interviewed 170 leading experts and analyzed current renewable energy projections to provide an outlook on the future of renewable energy.

There were three main takeaways from Martinot’s presentation on the RGFR:

1. Most industry experts (interviewed by Martinot) believe that shares of renewable energy could reach at least 30-50% in the long term – showing that conservative projections that predict renewable energy shares of less than 20% out to 2040, like those from ExxonMobil, are no longer credible
2. Renewable energy investment is expected to nearly double by 2020, though many experts agree that higher levels of investment will require new investors and equity sources, such as oil companies, aggregated securities funds, pension funds, insurance funds, etc.
3. In the transition to greater levels of renewable energy, there will be opportunities for companies other than manufacturers and installers of renewable energy products, including electric power utilities, automakers, oil companies, IT companies and building materials manufacturers

Both the GSR 2013 and the RGFR offered insights into the renewable energy sector, showing positive trends in renewable energy deployment and investment. But, as Rep. Holt said, this growth and the policies that are driving it must be coordinated with our overall climate goals to ensure that it’s enough to drastically reduce our emissions.

If we can do this, we will be able to address climate change in a meaningful way while also improving the quality of life for people around the world.

Colorado Senate Votes To Strengthen State’s Successful Clean Energy Standard

Colorado residents will now be able to enjoy even more clean energy coming out of their outlets, along with cleaner air and less carbon pollution.

After nearly two days of strenuous debate, Colorado’s House of Representatives voted shortly before midnight Friday night to strengthen the state’s successful renewable energy standard (RES). The bill, which has already passed the Senate and is supported by Governor Hickenlooper, will increase the clean energy standard to 25 percent for rural electric cooperatives by 2020 — a 15 percentage point jump from the current 10 percent. This would mean in seven years, rural areas of Colorado will benefit from one-quarter of their energy portfolio being derived from renewable sources.

These efforts proved successful despite:

• attacks from the conservative American Tradition Institute, including an ongoing lawsuit that argues the RES is unconstitutional
• previous attempts from state representatives to pass American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) “model” bills to fully repeal the standard (documented across the country)
• sudden opposition to expanding the RES from utility interests like the Colorado Rural Electric Association, an organization that had actually supported a broader RES in 2007 as renewable energy prices dropped

Prior to the vote, Democratic State Representatives made strong arguments about diversifying their energy portfolios and how important it is to decrease carbon pollution. Rep. Max Tyler, author of the 2010 law increasing the standard to 30 percent for utilities, explained how his own utility bill was cheaper than those in rural electric cooperatives because renewable energy prices have dropped steadily. Speaker Pro Tempore Claire Levy reported that the utility Xcel found that increasing its share of renewables was good for its bottom line, and because this bill included a 2 percent rate cap, ratepayers would be protected. Responding to arguments that the bill is an “assault” on rural Colorado, Levy said that instead, the bill would allow rural areas to benefits from the economic activity generated by the higher standards in other areas. In the end, the bill passed the House by voice vote.

In 2004, Coloradans were the first to approve a renewable energy standard by ballot initiative. The Centennial State has already seen the benefits of implementing and expanding a robust RES. In fact, from 2005 to 2010, the clean technology sector grew by 32 percent. This growth has led to the creation of 1,600 clean technology companies that employ over 19,000 workers, which ranks Colorado fourth nationally in clean energy jobs. In fact, the clean technology sector was the only sector in the state to show growth in 2010.

Coloradans also overwhelmingly support the policy, with 72 percent of the state agreeing that “rather than using more coal, we should move toward cleaner sources of energy,” a view held across party lines. Prior to the vote, nearly 4,000 Coloradans signed CREDO Action’s petition in support of the bill, which urged the Colorado representatives to “Please vote yes on SB 252 to ensure that Colorado continues its transition to clean sources of energy.”

Expanding Colorado’s renewable energy standard will not only continue to create clean jobs in Colorado, it will also reduce soot, smog, mercury, and carbon pollution from the state’s electricity sector. This legislation would promote investments in small-scale projects that will allow rural landowners to benefit by leasing land for wind farms — creating an additional income stream, as well as allow additional credits for renewable sources.

In fact, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind energy provides 10 times more local tax revenue than a coal-fired power plant in Colorado. If enacted, the legislation would clean up the grid for at least 100,000 Coloradans served by rural cooperatives and bring them closer to the 30 percent renewable target that urban customers enjoy.

If Oil Companies Can Have Master Limited Partnerships, Why Can’t Clean Energy Companies?

This week, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and a diverse group of original co-sponsors introduce a bill that would lower the cost of capital for clean energy, a critical piece of deploying clean energy at the scale needed to fight climate change. The bill — the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act — would allow renewable energy and energy efficiency to access the MLP structure.

The MLP Parity Act is a common-sense bill with bipartisan, bicameral support that simply levels the playing field for clean energy. Now, when someone tells you that they have a “common-sense bill with bipartisan, bicameral support that simply levels the playing field for clean energy,” you should be skeptical. Allow me to address that skepticism.

First, a little background. (Take a deep breath, and bear with me for just a second.) When a business starts, it can be organized in any number of corporate structures. S-Corporations, C-Corporations, sole proprietorships, limited liability corporations, and countless other structures all have unique implications for how a company can raise money and how they’re taxed.

A master limited partnership is a type of “publicly traded partnership,” which has two valuable characteristics: it can raise money on public exchanges, is traded just like stocks, and it doesn’t pay corporate income taxes. All of the income flows through to shareholders, who pay a personal income tax, so there’s no “double-taxation” as happens with other corporations. (Okay, exhale.)

The problem is that the law that created MLP’s says that only certain types of companies can use this structure. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are not eligible, so most MLP’s in the energy industry are oil and gas pipeline companies. The MLP Parity Act simply adds renewable energy and energy efficiency to the list of technologies that can be MLP’s. This is leveling the playing field by treating all energy technologies the same.

The bill has bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. Original co-sponsors include Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Representatives Ted Poe (R-TX), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Chris Gibson (R-NY).

While each of these legislators has different reasons for supporting the bill, they all understand that MLP’s are a proven tool for building energy assets, and that it doesn’t make any sense to limit the benefits to oil and gas. Today, there are $350 billion invested in MLP’s, none of it clean energy. Giving clean energy access to this pool of capital would be valuable, because equity raised via a publicly-traded tool — like an MLP — is much cheaper than equity raised from private investors (like private equity firms). Since many clean energy projects are essentially all capital investment and very little operating costs, the cost of capital is a huge factor in how much the project costs. Passing the MLP Parity Act would lower the cost of clean energy.

In addition to these eight co-sponsors of the bill, hundreds of organizations have voiced support for MLP parity for clean energy. Two-hundred thirty-six unions, private companies, environmental groups, financiers, and other advocates for clean energy sent a letter to Congress today urging other legislators to support this bill. In the letter, the groups explain why MLP treatment would be valuable:

The US has the largest and most efficient capital markets in the world, but renewable energy generally does not have access to those markets. Congress thus has chosen winners and losers in the energy sector by extending the most efficient form of capital formation only to companies involved in the fossil fuel industry. MLP treatment can take the clean energy industry from relying on a small base of investors demanding high rates of return to a broader and deeper investment pool that MLPs have created for the fossil fuel industry.

Furthermore, clean energy projects are attractive assets for MLP investors, featuring stable revenue sources and a good long-term risk profile for investors. While different companies and sectors of the industry will utilize the MLP structure in different ways, the structure will be particularly important in creating a strong new market (now virtually non-existent) for owners of existing and even recently completed projects to sell those projects to an MLP, thereby accelerating the investment of capital into new projects. Supplementing successful energy tax credits with access to MLPs for renewables and other clean energy technologies would enhance the sources of capital for the industry and increase investors’ opportunities to take ownership in America’s clean energy future. It has worked for traditional energy technologies and would work for clean energy.

(Read the full letter here)

While the MLP Parity Act would be valuable, Congress needs to keep working on extending the production tax credit. The PTC has a history of demonstrated success in driving private investment in renewable energy. Congress extended the PTC at the end of 2012, and should do so again at the end of 2013.

There are two reasons not to get rid of the PTC, even if the MLP Parity Act is signed into law. First, the wind energy industry has made it clear that they can survive with a phased out PTC, but that the phase-out will need to happen in a predictable manner over a matter of years, no matter what other policies exist.

Second, if the MLP Parity Act is signed into law, it will likely take regulators (like the Internal Revenue Service), financial service providers, and investors several years to actually implement the tool. If Congress wants to alter the PTC, they should do so in the context of comprehensive tax reform, not just because clean energy has access to MLP’s.

Bloomberg Study: 70 Percent Of New Global Power Capacity Added Through 2030 Will be Renewable

According to Bloomberg’s renewable energy research team, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), 70 percent of the power generation the world will add between now and 2030 will most likely be renewable.

That would mean $630 billion in new renewable capacity investments in 2030 alone — over three times what was built in 2012, and 35 percent higher than what BNEF predicted for 2030 a year ago. So not only does renewable energy’s future look formidable, it’s looking more formidable every year we project it.

After accumulating the latest data on economic prosperity, market trends, demand growth, technology development, and likely future policies, BNEF’s modeling program spit out three projection scenarios: the optimistic “Barrier Busting” scenario, the pessimistic “Traditional Territory” scenario, and the middle-of-the-road “New Normal” scenario.

The New Normal scenario is considered the most likely. It shows the investment requirement for new clean energy assets in the year 2030 at $630bn (in nominal terms), more than three times the investment in the renewable energy capacity that was built in 2012. This 2030 investment figure is 35 percent higher than that produced in Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s last global forecast a year ago, and the projection for total installed renewable energy capacity by that date is 25 percent higher than in that previous forecast, at 3,500GW.

In the power sector, the research company’s latest forecasts project that 70 percent of new power generation capacity added between 2012 and 2030 will be from renewable technologies (including large hydro). Only 25 percent will be in the form of coal, gas or oil, the remaining being nuclear.

Significantly, even under the Traditional Territory projections, renewable investments would be $470 billion in 2030 — over twice what they are now.

As Grist points out, things don’t look nearly as bright once you add back in already installed power. Totaling it all up, half the global power supply will still be non-renewable in 2030. And there’s still plenty of uncertainty built into BNEF’s projections — with a possible boom in natural gas for a China among the biggest question marks.

But the larger point is that the rise of renewables is driven by concrete changes int he structure of the energy market. “The news right now is dominated by stories of pain caused by overcapacity on the supply side of clean energy, and the lure of cheap shale gas,” said Michael Liebreich, BNEF’s chief executive. “But this is playing out against the falling costs of renewable energy and of all the technologies required to integrate it into our energy system, and falling costs win.”

Of course, they’d be winning even faster if we corrected the massively-distorting failure of both the United States’ domestic market and the global market to properly price in the future costs of carbon emissions.