A Focus on USA Energy Policy – On Target?

It was a curious time in Washington DC last week. While the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted against three amendments on the validity of climate change science and its potential future impact, some 400 other people were meeting close to the Capitol at the IETA (International Emissions Trading Association) Carbon Forum North America. The Forum attracted a wide range of participants from House and Senate staff, state government policy makers, senior industry representatives of Fortune 100 companies and lead representatives of US policy think tanks and NGOs. All focused on a single key issue, the need for a clear way forward with regards CO2 legislation in the United States.

While legislative clarity is needed but remains in limbo, the nation has nevertheless pledged, and the Administration continues to reiterate, its goal to reduce emissions by 17% by 2020 relative to 2005. This was the subject of one of my early posts in April 2009 and at that time it looked to be a formidable undertaking even with a clear policy framework in place. Yet as I noted just a few months ago, much has changed as a result of the global financial crisis and the expanding role of natural gas in the economy.

Recent (late February) greenhouse gas data released by the EPA for the calendar year 2009 shows the impact of the recession, but also offers some further insight into the pathway forward. Economy wide emissions have dropped sharply, with the carbon intensity of the power generation sector dropping even faster.

In addition, revised EPA regulations are expected to have a significant impact on coal fired power generation. A study released by The Brattle Group last December assessed the impact of emerging EPA regulations on air quality, water use and ash disposal and the choice of retrofit or retirement for older coal fired units. The key conclusion of the study is that up to 66 GW of coal capacity could close by 2020. Natural gas is a potential and probably likely replacement. Although new nuclear is now in planning, any further acceleration could well be delayed by the events in Fukushima over recent days. Renewables will play a role, but I have assumed that they fill the demand gap for electricity versus current levels – i.e. they do not contribute to an actual reduction in emissions.

In addition to the power sector, the auto sector is also changing. Biofuels are continuing to come into the mix, revised CAFE standards are having an impact and by 2020 some (small) part of the fleet will be electric. Higher oil prices will almost certainly have some impact on vehicle use. Assuming an on-the-road efficiency of 22 mpg today and incoming vehicles improving from 27 mpg now to 35 mpg in 2020, a theoretical drop in gasoline consumption of just over 10% is possible, even with a rise in the total number of vehicles as population increases.

Pulling all this together and assuming some rise in industrial CO2 as the economy recovers, but no rise in other sectors as efficiency improvements take hold, it is possible to build a case for a reduction in CO2 emissions of up to 14% by 2020 vs. 2005.

But to get to 17% with some certainty, two additional changes are necessary. A further 35 GW of coal fired generation needs to be replaced by natural gas and the carbon footprint of the biofuels coming into the gasoline pool needs to improve beyond the madates for advaced biofuels. Both of these need a carbon price.

While it was clear in Washington last week that a sharp political divide remains in terms of progress on this issue, it was also clear from the IETA meeting that those actually making the decisions on new generating capacity are assuming a carbon price anyway. This assumption alone may well see the additional 35 GW go and allow the US to at least come close to meeting its international obligation.

A Focus on USA Energy Policy – On Target? | The Energy Collective

NPR: Nuclear as Usual

WattHead.org Founder and Chief Editor and Breakthrough Institute Director of Climate and Energy Policy Jesse Jenkins was on NPR's Weekend Edition this past Sunday discussing Japan's nuclear crisis and what it means for the future of nuclear power. The interview touched on many of the issues that were the subject of a recent Atlantic Monthly article co-authored by Jenkins and Breakthrough Institute co-founders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. Here is an excerpt of that article:

[L]ost in the hyperbolic claims of nuclear opponents, the defensive reactions of the nuclear industry, and the carefully calibrated repositioning of politicians and policymakers is the reality that Fukushima is unlikely to much change the basic political economy of nuclear power. Wealthy, developed economies, with relatively flat energy growth and mature energy infrastructure haven't built a lot of nuclear in decades and were unlikely to build much more anytime soon, even before the Fukushima accident. The nuclear renaissance, such as it is, has been occurring in the developing world, where fast growing, modernizing economies need as much new energy generation as possible and where China and India alone have constructed dozens of new plants, with many more on the drawing board.

Absent Fukushima, developed world economies were not going to build much new nuclear power anytime soon. The deliberations in Germany have involved whether to retire old plants or extend their lifetimes, not whether to build new plants. The decade long effort to restart the U.S. nuclear industry may result in the construction of, at most, two new plants over the next decade. By contrast, even a much more serious accident would have been unlikely to delay the construction of new nuclear plants in the developing world for long. For major emerging economies like China and India, energy is still too scarce and expensive for much of their populations and economies and they will likely continue to build new nuclear plants as fast as they can in the coming decades. In the end, what it all looks like is business as usual, for nukes specifically and the global energy economy more generally. Despite the claims of proponents, present day renewables remain too expensive and undependable for any economy in the world to rely upon at significant scale. So Germany, despite its vaunted solar feed in tariffs, will rely more heavily upon coal, which it has in abundance, as it retires its aging nuclear fleet. The US, already in the midst of a natural gas boom, will use more gas. And China and India, desperate for every kilowatt of power they can produce, will develop every available energy resource they have as fast as they can, including nuclear.

Jenkins also appeared on MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show at 1:40 PM PST/ 4:40 PM EST today to discuss nuclear power and the situation in Japan. Check out the clip here.

About Jesse Jenkins

Jesse is currently the Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute where he helps develop and advance new energy solutions to power America's future, secure our energy freedom, and halt global warming. Jesse joined the Breakthrough team in June 2008 to co-direct the Breakthrough Generation Summer Fellows Program, and previously worked as a Policy and Research Associate at the Renewable Northwest Project. He is the founder and editor at www.WattHead.org - Energy News and Commentary and writes regularly at theBreakthrough.org, and his work has appeared on The Huffington Post, Grist.org, Forbes.com, and in the San Francisco Chronicle and Baltimore Sun. A full bio can be found here: http://www.thebreakthrough.org/staff.shtml#jesse

WattHead's Jesse Jenkins on NPR: Nuclear as Usual | The Energy Collective

Energy Efficiency Creates Jobs in the UK

UK to US: Green energy makes jobs

Apr 1, 2011 Charlotte Observer

As the United Kingdom slashes public spending to tackle its largest post-war deficit, new Prime Minister David Cameron set a heady goal: To lead the island nation's greenest government ever.

The Brits believe lowering their greenhouse gas emissions, investing in energy efficiency and partnering government with private industry is a way to grow the economy. The UK energy and climate change minister, Gregory Barker, talked about the possibilities Thursday in Charlotte with representatives of British and local firms headed toward the same goal.

There's a lot of work to do across the pond, Barker said.

The British record of energy efficiency is "rubbish," he said, making it cheaper to heat homes in icy Norway than in Britain. The UK has embarked on a campaign to retrofit 14 million homes, an effort estimated to create 250,000 jobs. It plans to invest the equivalent of $5 billion in a new green-energy investment bank and will offer innovative financing for renewable heating sources.

"Green will touch every sector," said Bill Rumble of the Mark Group, a British firm that specializes in making buildings more energy efficient. Millions of jobs for energy-efficiency technicians could be created, he predicted.

The long-term UK plan, Barker said, has bipartisan political support. "This is such a vital agenda," he said. "It really is important that we work together."

There's no such unanimity in the United States. President Barack Obama's administration has failed to win congressional support for limits on greenhouse gases, seen by energy advocates as a vital first step. Republican leaders are demanding more domestic drilling for oil and gas, while the Japanese crisis may shake support for new nuclear plants.

But that hasn't stopped businesses here, U.S. executives said.

NASCAR, with its 70 million fan base, has a green campaign underway that ranges from recycling to solar power. US Airways, which has its largest hub in Charlotte, has reduced its per-passenger use of fuel by 45 percent in the past 20 years. The owners of Indian Trail-based Radiator Specialty Co., which makes petroleum-based cleaners, degreasers and lubricants, last year formed a company to make biodegradable products.

"Over the last five years, I have seen a tremendous shift" toward green products by businesses, said Heather Killgallon of RSC Bio Solutions, the new company. "They want something tangible, not just because it feels good."

Energy Efficiency-Architects Join In with 5 proposals-Legislation

AIA reiterates top five proposals for increasing energy efficiency
	Apr 1, 2011	Construction News
	The American Institute of Architects (AIA) reacted to President Obama's proposals for increasing the nation's energy security by reiterating its top five energy conservation legislative priorities. "Architects make design decisions every day that have significant impact on the energy that buildings use both during their construction and throughout their life cycles, " said AIA 2011 President Clark Manus, FAIA. "Architects also have a major impact on whether communities are designed in a sustainable fashion." Among the AIA's energy conservation legislative priorities are: Strengthening the commercial building energy efficiency tax deduction. The AIA supports increasing the value of the deduction, an increase that was included in bipartisan legislation in 2010, or by turning it into a tax credit as proposed by the Administration. Passing a long-term transportation bill that empowers communities to plan in ways that reduce energy-wasting congestion and promote livable, walkable neighborhoods. Passing the bipartisan America's Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA) approved in 2009 by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which promotes stronger energy building codes and building retrofits. Restoring funding for government building energy retrofits that was cut in the most recent continuing resolution, which will save taxpayers more money over the long-term. Passing legislation to allow states and localities to use PACE bonds. The sales proceeds from such municipal bonds are lent to commercial or residential property owners to finance energy efficiency measures and small renewable energy systems. The owners repay their loans over a 20 year term via an annual assessment on their property tax bill.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Googles Added Dynamic View for Blogs

Google unleashed 5 Dynamic Views for your viewing pleasure.  To view the Dynamic View of St Louis Renewable Energy use this Dynamic View Web Links Provided Below

•  Flip Card Dynamic View 

• Side Bar Dynamic View 

• Mosiac Dynamic View 

• Snap Shot Dynamic View 

• Timeslide Dynamic View

Feel free to leave comments if the Dynamic Views failed to work properly for your Computer System.  Let me know which view you liked best in the comment form.  If you would like to enable Dynamic Views for your Site use the instructions on Google

        All about Dynamic Views for Authors 

Build Green,
Scotty

Latest News on Missouri Nuclear Reactor Agenda

Nuclear siting bill awaits committee action (AUDIO))

by Bob Priddy on March 31, 2011 cross-posted via: Missourinet

 

Four bills focused on how to pay to pick a site for a second commercial nuclear power plant are stuck in a Senate Committee.  Senator Jason Crowell, the sponsor of one of the bills, chairs the committee that held a seven-hour public hearing about three weeks ago. The committee has not considered whether to recommend full senate debate.
For him, the big issue is who will pay for the site selection.  He thinks the utility company and its stockholders should bear that cost.

The sponsor of one of the proposals, Jefferson City Senator Mike Kehoe, thinks most senators are comfortable with having consumers pay for the site selection—but be repaid if no site is picked or no plant goes into operation.

Crowell worries that having consumers pay for the site selection is the first step toward repealing the construction work in progress law that says consumers won't be billed for construction costs until the plant is running.  Kehoe says he favors whichever approach is the most economical way to build the plant.

Kehoe comments 7:38 mp3                   crowell comments 4:03 mp3

Find Additional News on Missouri's Nuclear Agenda Here

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Ameren UEs Greed-Missouri-Nuclear Reactor-

Here is some of the latest news on Energy (Electricity) Issues affecting the St Louis Area, Ameren UEs Nuclear Reactor Agenda is just plain GREEDY and will cost us the rate payers now and in the future.

• Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency
  

• US Department of Energy Statistics on Energy Efficiency-Saves 10% Energy Costs, 20-30% Heating/AC Costs. 
  

• The proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.

• Missouri General Assembly is considering legislation that would allow Ameren Missouri to charge ratepayers $40 million for a permit for a second nuclear reactor in mid-Missouri.
  

• The proposed legislation-SB 321 and SB 406- would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.

• To understand the many other reasons why SB 321 and SB 406 are bad public policy, read Senator Joan Bray's guest column in the Joplin Globe last month.                                                                                                                                                                                        
• Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the Nuclear Plant because it is too risky and expensive.

• Scotts Contracting/Facebook Page Latest Estimated Costs for Nuclear Reactor is $10 Billion. we'll have to pay an additional $4 Billion Dollars                                             

• Therefore, Ameren must pass SB 321 or SB 406 which shifts the financial risk of investment of a new nuclear plant from shareholders to ratepayers.  But while shareholders dodge the risk, they still receive a financial windfall if/when the reactor comes online and Ameren then sells the excess electricity out of state for a premium.                                                                                                                                                                           

•  Ameren can easily meet Missouri's energy needs through energy efficiency instead of raising your electric rates to pay for a $6 billion nuclear reactor.  (Per Nuclear Reactor in Florida 6 Billion in Projected Costs ends up with total costs of 22 Billion over Budget)  In the St. Louis Post Dispatch on February 25, Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:  

1.  
   "If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Join the Movement and Contact the Missouri Legislative Department Here

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat,
and Let Your Voice BE HEARD!     
Active Participation is Suggested Tell My Politician

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com