Cooler Planet

Although the Democrats and Republicans cannot yet find a way to extend credits for renewable energy, both want to make headlines as renewable energy supporters.  Perhaps that’s why both the upcoming Republican and Democratic conventions in Minneapolis-Saint Paul and Denver, respectively, will get part of their power from renewable energy.

Xcel Energy is one of the nation’s leading providers of renewable energy and the country’s largest provider of wind power.  It will use its facilities close to Denver and Minneapolis-Saint Paul to power each convention.  Most of the renewable power will come from wind.  Xcel Energy expects that power through its Windsource program will offset the estimated 3,000 megawatt-hours of energy both conventions will use.

Wind power for the Republican convention will come from an Xcel Energy facility on southwestern Minnesota’s Buffalo Ridge.  The Democratic convention will receive its wind energy from a wind farm near the Colorado-Wyoming border.  Xcel will also tap into the excess energy generated from solar photovoltaic arrays from its commercial customers.  In Denver, Xcel will use energy from the 10-kilowatt solar array on top of the Pepsi Center in Denver where their convention will be held.  In Minneapolis-Saint Paul, solar power will come from a 10-kilowatt installation at the High Bridge Generating Station in Saint Paul.

We’re sure that as the conventions near we’ll hear more from their planners on how much carbon emissions are offset through the alternative energy power sources.  

By the way the Democrats have announced other “green plans” for their convention; they hope to make their convention the greenest-ever.  Plans include recognizing delegates who offset their travel emissions; partnering with Native Energy for carbon emission offsets; and providing a fleet of bicycles for delegates to borrow for quick trips between hotels and the Pepsi Center.  Molson-Coors will donate $40,000 worth of E85, an ethanol-gasoline fuel blend made from waste beer lost during packaging or rejected for quality reasons from the company’s plant in Golden, Colorado.  The fuel will power the flex-fuel vehicles from General Motors used to shuttle delegates and supplies.   Convention planners also want to go paperless, challenging their staff to complete transactions, communications, and bookings electronically.

Not to be overshadowed, Republicans have “green plans” as well.  Republicans, too, hope to have the greenest convention their party has ever hosted.  And General Motors is the Official Vehicle Provider for the Republicans supplying over 300 hybrid fuel vans and cars for delegates and staff.  The Republican Convention will showcase an energy-efficient office, complete with recycled furnishings.  Planners have also directed staff and committees to reduce the amount of paper used in planning, printing, and booking reservations.

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.

There’s an article in today’s Wall Street Journal that contrasts Barak Obama’s and John McCain’s views on energy policy.  We’ve contrasted both candidates’ views on solar energy in previous blog posts.  The Wall Street Journal  article focuses on how each men view the role of the federal government in changing US energy policy.

On the surface, their rhetoric sounds the same.  Both McCain and Obama talk about the importance of achieving energy independence.  Both are willing to consider nuclear power.  And both recognize the importance of addressing global warming via carbon dioxide emissions.

In the end though both men embrace relatively classic Republican and Democratic solutions toward energy independence.  John McCain favors a government hands-off approach, whereas Barak Obama is more willing to fund programs that foster the development of alternative energy technologies.  McCain is wary of incentives, such as tax credits for renewable energy because he views them as subsidies, something he is disinclined to support.

Obama, on the other hand, believes the industry could greatly benefit from a government boost and has stated his intention to create a goal that the USA obtains at least 25 percent of is electricity from renewable sources by 2025.  Obama wants to challenge the country to reduce its carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels; McCain seeks a 60% reduction.

The article also points out the inconsistencies within each candidate’s position.  McCain has successfully remained absent from voting on all the major legislation involving climate change and energy policy over the last couple of years.  Obama walks a fine line between the coal and ethanol interests he represents for his home state of Illinois, and his more aggressive approach toward carbon emission reduction and renewable energy.

With gas prices rising almost daily, the public has a heightened interest.  Let’s see if McCain and Obama refine their energy policy approach in the days ahead.

It’s fascinating to discover that the same day - that is, Monday, May 12 - John McCain delivered his speech in Oregon touting his stance on energy, the environment, and his support for nuclear power, the US Department of Energy held its own press event to announce the viability of wind power.

DOE’s report, “20% Wind Energy by 2030” addresses how the USA could harness wind energy and fulfill 20 percent of its electric power needs by 2030 if it made a concerted effort. 

To accomplish such a goal, the country would have to overcome hurdles such as improving its current transmission infrastructure and streamlining site and permit regulations.  Nevertheless, reaching 20 percent wind capacity is within reach using current technology available today. 

According to the DOE, the US currently leads the world in new wind installations and could potentially become the number one country capitalizing on wind by 2010.  That said, to grow its wind capacity by 2030, the US will have to increase its annual installations at least threefold from roughly 2,000 installations in 2006 to nearly 7,000 by 2017.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to overcome will be to ensure that transmission lines and grid are expanded to provide seamless connectivity.  Much of the best wind is located in places with low population densities.  To take full advantage of wind from these regions it must be efficiently transported to larger population centers.

The DOE report proudly asserts that, “supplying 20% of U.S. electricity from wind could reduce electric sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 825 million metric tons” (which is essentially 25%).   

The report did not compare the capacity of wind energy to other types of energy sources.  Thus it’s not possible to assess whether John McCain’s push for nuclear energy would have a better cost-benefit ratio than wind.  Certainly both energy types would require considerable infrastructure upgrades and improvements to permit and site guidelines.  Nuclear power has arguably steeper political obstacles than wind.  Wind is likely a more feasible strategy, politically.

It’s hard to know how the Bush Administration will react to the report.  The DOE’s Assistant Secretary Andy Karsner presented the report’s findings, yet made no mention of whether the current administration has plans or will approve measures to advance a wind energy infrastructure.  Hopefully the next administration will not let this report languish.

Here’s a link to DOE’s full report: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

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. 

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is hanging in there.  So what’s his position on solar energy?   

Mike Huckabee’s stance on environmental policy centers solely on energy independence.  From his point of view, energy independence is a vehicle toward national security.  He supports activities that promote energy independence:  solar power, nuclear power, “clean coal,” natural gas, and biofuels.   

Unlike McCain, Huckabee does not necessarily believe global warming is the result of human activity.  Instead Huckabee is motivated to protect the earth for religious reasons.  In a MSNBC hosted Republican debate in 2007, Huckabee expressed his view on how the environment relates to global warming, “our responsibility to God means to be good stewards of this earth, be good caretakers of the natural resources that don’t belong to us we just get to use them, we have no right to abuse them.”  (Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep0DGbrwdzw if you’re interested in hearing Huckabee’s view firsthand.)

Huckabee’s campaign website is light on specifics on how he will achieve his plans toward energy independence.  He does, however, set forth a bold plan: “The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence.  I’ll use the bully pulpit to inform you about the plan and ask for your support . . . The plan will get underway during my first term, and we will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term.”  

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.