Cooler Planet

One would think that all the brouhaha about $4-a-gallon gas prices would get Congress to act on passing legislation addressing energy policy.  Perhaps they would, if this were not an election year.

That’s the current excuse as to why the bill to extend renewable energy tax credits was stymied in the Senate yesterday – June 10, 2008.  The bill fell 10 votes short of the amount it needed to make it to the floor for debate.  According to the New York Times, Democrats sensed that even asking Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, or ailing Senators Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd back to vote would not change the outcome. (Note John McCain was not there either.) True the vote was 50–44 in favor and fell largely along party lines, but 10 votes is a significant gap. 

Perhaps the bill also perished because the Democrats tried to bring to the floor a different bill that would have created a windfall profits tax of 25% for the oil industry with the proceeds earmarked to fund new renewable energy initiatives.   Plans to fund the renewable energy tax credits came from closing a loophole that targets specific offshore corporations (essentially hedge-fund managers).  Taken together, the two bills gave Republicans the fodder they needed to decry any new taxes.

Who knows what will happen next.  There are still six months left before the end of the year.  Six months provides enough time in politics – to borrow a cliché – for anything to happen.

Senator John McCain is making environmental news headlines again for taking a stance on climate change and distancing himself from the Bush Administration.  In recent days, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate has campaigned in the Pacific Northwest touting his pro-environment commitment and agenda.  McCain’s commitment to fight global warming differs from current Administration policy and from many other standard-bearing Republican Party agendas.

For McCain, the cornerstone of his environmental plan mandates a “cap and trade” system.  McCain argues that establishing a cap on carbon emissions and setting a national goal to reduce overall carbon emissions to 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 is a realistic, and effective way to tackle climate change.  (In contrast, both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton have said they would set a goal to reduce overall carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by mid-century.)

In McCain’s analysis, establishing a national standard for tradable carbon emission permits will allow the so called “good carbon emitters” to offset the “bad” ones.  Furthermore, a nationwide cap and trade system would provide the necessary incentives to promote growth of solar, wind, and other renewable energy industries.  McCain does not offer specific policy or market tools for solar or wind technologies because he is confident that a cap and trade system would sufficiently bolster those and other similar renewable energy markets.  Nor has McCain outlined a more detailed plan on how his cap and trade system would work or what industries and activities would be targeted.

For McCain, alternative energy means energy independence.  As we’ve mentioned in previous posts, of the three current presidential frontrunners, John McCain most vocally favors reinvesting in nuclear power.  He views nuclear energy as the most viable technology to meet the nation’s electricity demands.  In his speech he made in Oregon (and posted on his website), McCain views the nexus among energy, the environment, and national security as one of the most important issues facing our nation.   

McCain’s voting record, however, leaves critics dubious about his intentions and commitment toward the environment.  The League of Conservation Voters who created a National Environmental Scorecard gives McCain a lifetime rating of 24 percent for his previous voting record regarding the environment.  For this year’s legislative session, McCain gets a Zero; thus far he’s been absent for any of the environmentally related bills that have come up for a vote.  

Critics point to inconsistencies in McCain’s voting record.  As an article in Monday’s Washington Post points out, McCain has embraced some environmental provisions, yet shunted others not so seemingly different from the ones he supports.  

Supporters contend that McCain, as a political maverick, has consistently distinguished himself from conventional Republicans.  They cite that McCain was one of the first in Congress to acknowledge climate change and introduce legislation addressing the issue.   

He’s certainly savvy when it comes to renewable energy photo-ops.  In February McCain stood in front of a solar photovoltaic manufacturer when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his endorsement for the Senator.  On Monday, McCain restated his environmental policy at a wind power company in Oregon. Time may reveal whether these press events truly signify McCain’s intentions toward renewable energy.

Nice to see that national columnist Thomas L. Friedman has returned from his leave and has resumed his discourse on national energy policy.  On Wednesday, April 30 Friedman devoted his New York Times column to our federal government’s failure to focus on a viable and sustainable energy policy.  Friedman specifically cited Congress’s inability to extend the federal tax credits for solar energy and other renewable energy sources, like wind. 

At Cooler Planet we applaud Friedman for raising awareness.  Already, the Times posted roughly 100 responses to Friedman on its link to Blogrunner; all of you have probably already looked at Friedman’s editorial as well.

As we’ve mentioned before, the federal tax credit for residents who install solar energy systems (up to $2,000) is set to expire this December.  Arguably, $2,000 is not much, however, it does send a message that the US government takes a bit of a stance on solar.

Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama are in a fierce race to gain national attention.  Currently they are not talking about solar, rather are focused on a summertime suspension of the gas tax.  Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt that some of what they say is purely for political gain, it doesn’t say much for any of them if they dumb down issues.  Nor does it say much for Congress, or the American public if we can’t overcome our collective quibbles over solar.

Just in case you missed it, here’s a link to Friedman’s column, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

Of course, it’s not completely fair to assess the three current front-running presidential candidates’ voting records on solar energy alone.  The US Congress has yet to address solar and renewable energy as an issue worthy of its own “isolated” bill.  Instead, potential solar and renewable energy legislation gets packaged into larger energy bills that wrap renewable and nonrenewable energy provisions together. 

Still, it is intriguing to look at Senators Clinton’s, McCain’s, and Obama’s stance on the big energy bills that included solar policy.  This past December, the provisions that would have included tax incentives for renewable energy were stripped from the 2007 Energy Independence and Security bill at the last minute.  In fact, it fell ONE vote short of 60 votes needed to override a Republican filibuster.  Clinton and Obama took time off from the campaign trail to vote “yes” for the first version of the Act before it was stripped of the renewable energy incentives.  McCain, however, was absent; he was the only senator not to cast a vote. 

In the final version of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, none of the three senatorial presidential candidates stuck around to vote (the final bill passed in the Senate 79 to 14, with 7 senators refraining).

Senators McCain, Clinton, and Obama voted differently on the 2005 Energy Policy Act (the one that instituted residential tax credits for solar installations).  At that time, Clinton and McCain voted against the bill, Obama voted for it. 

On Senator McCain’s website, McCain defended his vote and argued that the 2005 legislation “contains numerous provisions that will distort competitive markets for energy through subsidies, tax breaks, special projects . . . and it is unlikely to have any positive short-term effect on energy prices.”  Clinton expressed displeasure for the legislation because “it simply ignores several of our most pressing energy challenges, such as our dependence on foreign oil.”  Obama likely voted “yes” for the bill because it included favorable provisions for ethanol production, an issue near-and-dear to the State of Illinois.

Ah, the messy side of politics.  Luckily solar power is here to stay.  Of course, it would move faster with robust federal incentives.  However, state and local mandates also nurture alternative and renewable energy policy.  Cooler Planet will continue to track how solar energy policy fares at both the national and local scale.

Global warming is not going anywhere.  In fact, it’s becoming more pronounced.  That’s one reason why solar power to generate electricity and heat water makes more sense than ever before. 

Solar power reduces our reliance on our traditional coal or natural gas powered electrical-grid.  And several states are getting into the solar-energy game.  For example, in Arizona utility companies are planning mega solar-energy plants to generate electricity.  The nearly two square mile power plant located southwest of Phoenix near Gila Bend would generate 280 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 70,000 households when it opens in 2011.  The plant would essentially rely on a type of solar thermal technology.  The thermal tubes could heat a petroleum-based compound up to 735 degrees, and then transfer that heat to water to make steam which would spin the turbines for two 140-megawatt generators. 

As coal and natural gas prices continue to increase and become more unpredictable, it’s logical that utilities turn to these types of innovative technologies.  Furthermore, national policy trends lean more and more toward taxing carbon dioxide emissions (something that coal and natural gas naturally emit), solar energy becomes increasingly attractive.

As always, there are a few challenges yet to face.  The Arizona Corporation Commission is likely to approve the project, due in part to a state mandate requiring utility companies to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.  However, the utilities companies behind this colossal solar power plant also have factored in the 30 percent federal tax credit that applies to solar energy investment.  That credit, like its $2000 residential tax credit cousin, is set to expire by December 31, 2008.

So as John McCain, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton continue to duke it out in the race for the presidency, hopefully they will take time to advocate and vote for the renewable energy incentives their campaigns tout. 

Hillary Clinton has a reputation for thoroughly researching issues.  True to form, it’s not hard to find a detailed description of Clinton’s proposed policy for solar energy on her website.  In a 14-page fact sheet entitled Powering America’s Future:  Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Address the Energy and Climate Crisis, she proposes set a goal that by 2025, 25%of our country’s electricity is produced from solar, wind, biomass and other renewable sources. 

In her fact sheet, Clinton pledges to create a permanent 1.9 cent per kilowatt-hour federal tax credit for producing electricity from renewable sources such as solar (currently a federal tax credit for 30% of the cost of a system, up to $2,000 is set to sunset on December 31, 2008).  Clinton also hopes to provide tax incentives to families and businesses to install small-scale renewable energy systems, and establish national net-metering standards so that those who install solar photovoltaic and other similar types of equipment can sell power back to their utilities “on fair terms.” 

Since we’ve talked about McCain’s and Obama’s views on nuclear power, we’ve looked at what Hillary Clinton thinks as well.  Clinton calls herself “agnostic” towards nuclear energy and opposes new subsidies for nuclear power.  She proposes to improve safety and security at current nuclear power plants and explore alternatives for the safe disposal of nuclear wastes.

Those who appreciate details will approve of Clinton’s comprehensive road map for environmental policy.  Her 14-page fact sheet touches on all the “hot button” environmental issues our country faces today.  Like Obama, she too acknowledges that climate change must drive public policy and her website emphasizes her proposal to create a cap and trade system for carbon emissions.  (Obama supports a similar plan.) 

In the end, it’s hard to distinguish Hillary Clinton’s proposed environmental policy plan from Barak Obama’s.  Both presidential candidates consider climate change a fundamental issue and support “cap and trade” solutions.  Both candidates explicitly include solar energy in their mix of renewable energy solutions and both pledge to bolster the renewable energy industry through supportive policies and strong leadership.  

If you are interested in a comprehensive analysis of what a “green organization” thinks of Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and the other candidates’ environmental proposals, check out Grist, www.grist.org.  Grist staff writer David Roberts devotes considerable time to comparing and contrasting each candidate’s views on the environment.