With elections and emissions deadlines just around the corner, looming policies are enough to leave one’s head spinning at the end of the day. Here is a breakdown of a few of the top power-related policy issues:
*Proposition 23 – will it or won’t it pass on Tuesday? The results will shape the future of renewable energy in California.
*Future chairmen of committees related to renewable energy and emissions control – If Republicans take the House, two important seats to watch will be the new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
*Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations – The first ever GHG regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are set to go into effect Jan. 2, 2011. Several states stand in strong opposition to the regulations, Texas being the ringleader.
Proposition 23
If Proposition 23 passes on Tuesday, the renewable energy future of California will be greatly altered, at least for the time being. Proposition 23 has been created to suspend A.B. 32, a law that requires cutting carbon and other greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by mandating power companies to cap their emissions and by slashing carbon in gasoline. Proposition 23 would keep the full law from going into effect in 2012 until California's unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters. Since that has happened just three times over the last 40 years, the passing of the proposition could effectually kill A.B. 32.
On Oct. 27, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rallied against Proposition 23 and its supporters on World News with Diane Sawyer, accusing Washington D.C. of backing oil companies and calling politicians “wimps” with “no guts.”
“Our soldiers, our men and women who go to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they’re risking their lives to defend this country and you’re not even willing to stand up against the oil companies,” Schwarzenegger said. “That’s disgusting. You promised the people to represent them. You didn’t promise the people to represent the oil companies.”
According to a poll conducted Oct. 10-17 by the Public Policy Institute of California, or PPIC, 48 percent say they will vote against the measure and 37 percent say they will vote for it.
Schwarzenegger said that if Proposition 23 is shot down, it will be “one of the first times big oil has been defeated.”
New Chairmen
If Republicans take the House, a line of relatively young legislators who may be more willing to cut a deal than their predecessors will be handling the future of energy policy. One of the potential incumbent chairmen is Dave Camp (R-MI), in line to lead the House Means and Ways Committee. As the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and other renewable associations push for tax incentives, the relationship with this committee will continue to prove imperative.
Camp is the current top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee. His Michigan District 4 is home to a number of wind and solar manufacturers, such as Dow Chemical, Dow Corning and United Solar Ovonic. Though a self-proclaimed supporter of alternative energy, Camp believes “it takes today’s energy to power tomorrow’s technology,” as he said in the April 14, 2010 Hearing on Energy Tax Incentives Driving the Green Job Economy.
“You cannot increase the cost of producing 85 percent of the energy being used today and expect consumers or employers to benefit from tax incentives that are going to less than 10 percent of the energy being used today,” Camp said.
For a full profile on Rep. Camp, check RenewableEnergyWorld.com on Nov. 3.
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton (R-TX) is looking to reclaim his position as chairman. However, GOP leaders are looking to keep Barton out of that position, while still unclear on where to put him.
The potential replacement for Barton is Fred Upton (R-MI).
"I'm not running against Joe,” Upton told POLITICO. “I want to be the post-Joe guy. If he doesn't get a waiver, I'm in the hunt.”
“Should Republicans get the gavel, rigorous oversight of the EPA will be a top priority,” Upton said in a statement to POLITICO. “Federal agencies have overstepped their authority and have not been held accountable. No significant regulation should take effect until Congress has thoroughly reviewed and voted to approve or disapprove.”
However, if Camp does become the next Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, it is questionable if the Republican leadership will allow two Members from Michigan to lead two very powerful committees.
GHG Regulations
States are split over the EPA’s Jan. 2, 2011 implementation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations from stationary sources under provisions of the Clean Air Act. Currently, 37 states have taken sides in a court battle for or against the EPA rules. Click here to read more about the regulations.
Since these regulations are EPA-implemented, not Congressionally-implemented, their authority is limited by the structure of the Clean Air Act, meaning regulations cannot be imposed economy-wide. Many of the states are opposed to the regulations, but EPA says they must comply by coming up with a state implementation plan (SIP), or allow EPA to take over temporarily. Texas is currently the only state without a plan to either issue a SIP to EPA or allow the EPA to create a plan for them.
Texas legislators have focused much attention on the “endangerment finding” in which the EPA concluded that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and welfare, saying that the agency should have rethought its endangerment finding after the discovery of errors in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as the controversy over leaked emails from climate researchers at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Polls, Projections and Policies
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Just Who Is Saying "No" To Proposition 23?
Oct. 13, 2010 -
Supporters of renewable energy are emerging to champion the "no" campaign to California's Proposition 23 amidst worries of the future for the renewables industry in California. On Sept. 27, I wrote about the California renewables' tug-of-war. Will California continue to be the forerunner in the U.S. when it comes to the development of renewable energy, or will Proposition 23 pass, slowing down that ship?
On Nov. 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 23, which has been created to suspend A.B. 32, a law that requires cutting carbon and other greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by mandating power companies to cap their emissions and by slashing carbon in gasoline. Proposition 23 would keep the law from going into effect in 2012 until California's unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters. Since that has happened just three times over the last 40 years, the passing of the proposition could effectually kill A.B. 32.
About 74 percent of the "Yes" campaign contributions for Proposition 23 have come from oil companies Tesoro and Valero, and Flint Hills Resources, the petrochemical company owned by Kansas billionaires Charles and David Koch, according to campaign records.
But just 20 days before the election, foes of the proposition have spent twice as much as the backers on campaigning efforts. However, Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for the main "No" campaign, told The New York Times that he expects the "Yes" campaign to "drop of nuclear bomb" of campaigning in the coming weeks.
Many of the main contributors to the "No" campaign are involved in renewable developments of some sort. Wendy Schmidt, a philanthropist and wife of Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has donated $500,000. Google made renewable energy headlines with the Oct. 11 announcement that it will spend $5 billion on an underwater transmission network that will harvest electricity from wind farms off the Mid-Atlantic coast and power 1.9 million homes across Virginia, New York and New Jersey.
Members of San Francisco’s Fisher family, founders of the Gap clothing chain, have donated more than $ 1 million. Gap Inc. has its own social responsibility campaign, which includes an environmental segment that teaches people how to lessen their environmental footprint. The company also makes its annual energy consumption numbers public information through its web site.
Foes of Proposition 23 are abounding at the same time that nationwide expectancy of renewables growth, particularly solar, is all abuzz.
A solar jobs census conducted by The Solar Foundation with the help of Cornell University tallied 93,000 solar power industry jobs in the United States as of August, and projects industry job growth of 26 percent in 2011. According to the survey's results, roughly half of solar employers plan to add employees next year, compared with just 2 percent for private industry economy-wide.
Will California supporters of renewables and the public's belief and expectations in clean energy put an end to Proposition 23? Nov. 2 will tell.
Supporters of renewable energy are emerging to champion the "no" campaign to California's Proposition 23 amidst worries of the future for the renewables industry in California. On Sept. 27, I wrote about the California renewables' tug-of-war. Will California continue to be the forerunner in the U.S. when it comes to the development of renewable energy, or will Proposition 23 pass, slowing down that ship?
On Nov. 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 23, which has been created to suspend A.B. 32, a law that requires cutting carbon and other greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by mandating power companies to cap their emissions and by slashing carbon in gasoline. Proposition 23 would keep the law from going into effect in 2012 until California's unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters. Since that has happened just three times over the last 40 years, the passing of the proposition could effectually kill A.B. 32.
About 74 percent of the "Yes" campaign contributions for Proposition 23 have come from oil companies Tesoro and Valero, and Flint Hills Resources, the petrochemical company owned by Kansas billionaires Charles and David Koch, according to campaign records.
But just 20 days before the election, foes of the proposition have spent twice as much as the backers on campaigning efforts. However, Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for the main "No" campaign, told The New York Times that he expects the "Yes" campaign to "drop of nuclear bomb" of campaigning in the coming weeks.
Many of the main contributors to the "No" campaign are involved in renewable developments of some sort. Wendy Schmidt, a philanthropist and wife of Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has donated $500,000. Google made renewable energy headlines with the Oct. 11 announcement that it will spend $5 billion on an underwater transmission network that will harvest electricity from wind farms off the Mid-Atlantic coast and power 1.9 million homes across Virginia, New York and New Jersey.
Members of San Francisco’s Fisher family, founders of the Gap clothing chain, have donated more than $ 1 million. Gap Inc. has its own social responsibility campaign, which includes an environmental segment that teaches people how to lessen their environmental footprint. The company also makes its annual energy consumption numbers public information through its web site.
Foes of Proposition 23 are abounding at the same time that nationwide expectancy of renewables growth, particularly solar, is all abuzz.
A solar jobs census conducted by The Solar Foundation with the help of Cornell University tallied 93,000 solar power industry jobs in the United States as of August, and projects industry job growth of 26 percent in 2011. According to the survey's results, roughly half of solar employers plan to add employees next year, compared with just 2 percent for private industry economy-wide.
Will California supporters of renewables and the public's belief and expectations in clean energy put an end to Proposition 23? Nov. 2 will tell.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
10:10:10 And Why It's Scary
Oct. 5, 2010-
I recently read an article heralding each day in October to be a celebration, working up to the month's climax on Halloween. For carbon emissions slashers, it looks like the climax of October will hit early this year, with 10:10:10 consecrated as a day to reduce carbon emissions via a UK-based initiative.
10:10:10 is being dubbed "a global day of doing." The group is encouraging people to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent on 10:10:10. "From sumo wrestlers cycling to training in Japan to 10,000 schools planting trees in Croatia and Russia, from a carbon-cutting telethon on national TV in the Netherlands, to hundreds of people in the UK sitting down to low-carbon Sunday lunches, this is going to be a really inspirational day," says the web site. The site also offers a number of suggestions on how to have a carbon-free day.
While all of this is surely in good intentions, 10:10:10, a "young and creative team," according to the web site, released a video on their web site about cutting carbon "which was supposed to be humourous but in the event upset a lot of people." The premise of the video (no joke) is, "Cut Carbon Emissions, Or We Will Kill You. No Pressure." Out of good taste, I won't link to it, but if you really want to see the video, you can search for it on brandchannel.com.
The video has gained so much negative feedback that the 10:10:10 pulled it from their web site and issued an apology.
Global iniatives to go green and cut carbon emissions seem to be growing in popularity. Events like 10:10:10 have their place in raising awareness, but not much long-term effectiveness. Some people may ride their bikes instead of driving for one day and be successful at cutting emissions by 10 percent for that one day.
But anyone in the power industry knows that lasting change in cutting emissions comes through years of research and development and investments in clean air technology. Our October issue of Power Engineering magazine will feature an article on clean air technology methods, particularly flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units. Some of these units are capable of SO2 removal efficiencies up to 98 percent.
Now that's real emissions slashing.
I recently read an article heralding each day in October to be a celebration, working up to the month's climax on Halloween. For carbon emissions slashers, it looks like the climax of October will hit early this year, with 10:10:10 consecrated as a day to reduce carbon emissions via a UK-based initiative.
10:10:10 is being dubbed "a global day of doing." The group is encouraging people to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent on 10:10:10. "From sumo wrestlers cycling to training in Japan to 10,000 schools planting trees in Croatia and Russia, from a carbon-cutting telethon on national TV in the Netherlands, to hundreds of people in the UK sitting down to low-carbon Sunday lunches, this is going to be a really inspirational day," says the web site. The site also offers a number of suggestions on how to have a carbon-free day.
While all of this is surely in good intentions, 10:10:10, a "young and creative team," according to the web site, released a video on their web site about cutting carbon "which was supposed to be humourous but in the event upset a lot of people." The premise of the video (no joke) is, "Cut Carbon Emissions, Or We Will Kill You. No Pressure." Out of good taste, I won't link to it, but if you really want to see the video, you can search for it on brandchannel.com.
The video has gained so much negative feedback that the 10:10:10 pulled it from their web site and issued an apology.
Global iniatives to go green and cut carbon emissions seem to be growing in popularity. Events like 10:10:10 have their place in raising awareness, but not much long-term effectiveness. Some people may ride their bikes instead of driving for one day and be successful at cutting emissions by 10 percent for that one day.
But anyone in the power industry knows that lasting change in cutting emissions comes through years of research and development and investments in clean air technology. Our October issue of Power Engineering magazine will feature an article on clean air technology methods, particularly flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units. Some of these units are capable of SO2 removal efficiencies up to 98 percent.
Now that's real emissions slashing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)