California plan facing ‘NIABY’ foes (Not In Anyone’s Back Yard)

[UPDATE: I have added a list of the environmental groups that oppose Superlink below] A project being developed by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and Stirling Energy is facing opposition from some environmentalists because the plan also calls for a 150-mile, high-voltage transmission line that would pass through 23 miles of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, a spot known for its hiking trails, wildflowers, palm groves, cacti and spectacular mountain views.

The proposed Sunrise Powerlink would carry energy produced from several wind, solar, and geothermal installations from the California’s Imperial Valley to San Diego. The entire route would be about 150 miles long with 554 towers from end to end. (But with a cheery name like Sunrise Powerlink, how could anyone oppose it?)

While federal and state officials put the brakes on new coal-fired power plants and as investors back out of others, the demand for more renewable energy will only grow stronger. And as it turns out, the spots with the best renewable resources also have the harshest and often least habitable climates - dry, hot, windy, barren, etc. - so the electricity then needs to be transmitted to areas where people have settled (i.e. cities). And that is where some problems are surfacing.

Some environmental groups are not particularly keen about the preferred route in Southern California, and they are using every tactic they can think of to stop it - including working the aesthetics angle. “This transmission line will cross through some of the most scenic areas of San Diego” [my emphasis added], said David Hogan of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Biological Diversity. “It would just ruin it with giant, metal industrial power lines.”

These scenarios are playing out in the Imperial Valley and elsewhere as growing public demand for renewable energy intersects with a localized or generalized desire to protect open spaces and scenic vistas. One need only look to the long political skirmish that has surrounded the Cape Wind project for the last seven years to see exactly how heated these battles have become.

Renewable energy super-highway

Utilities, including San Diego Gas and Electric, argue that utility-scale renewable energy development is absolutely necessary to supply growing baseload energy demands, and that rooftop PV panels will help, but cannot produce enough power to meet the state’s renewables requirement of 20% by 2010.

The Sunrise Powerlink route was preferred by SDG&E because the next best route paralleled the Southwest Power Link along the American-Mexican border and would leave the grid vulnerable to the frequent forest fires that require the transmission lines to be shut down entirely. DG&E has some excellent multimedia resources on its website concerning the selection process, and their efforts to mitigate any environmental impacts of the transmission corridor

But rarely is everyone happy. The Center for Biological Diversity argues on its website that:

“The primary purpose of the Powerlink is to… import cheap, polluting power from fossil-fuel power plants in Mexico and deliver this power to greater Los Angeles. This means that, besides destroying habitat for imperiled species like the golden eagle, Peninsular bighorn sheep, and Quino checkerspot butterfly, the project would significantly foster global warming by supporting polluting facilities, allowing for evasion of U.S. air-pollution laws, and discouraging renewable energy development.”

The group also claims that they have “worked closely with environmental partners, property owners, and communities” in the Powerlink project but they unfortunately do not list any of them on their website.

[UPDATE: Here’s a list of some of the local and California statewide groups opposed to the]

Environmental Justice Groups:
Border Power Plant Working Group
Environmental Health Coalition

Utility Advocacy Groups:
Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN)
Ratepayers for Affordable, Clean Energy

“Broad Purpose” Environmental Groups:
Pacific Environment
Environment California
Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter

Resource Conservation Groups:
California Native Plant Society
California State Parks Foundation
California Wilderness Coalition
Center for Biological Diversity
Desert Protective Council, Inc.
Friends of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park
San Diego Audubon Society
San Diego Cactus and Succulent Society
Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Chapter
Wilderness Society

One of the projects dependent on Powerlink is the 900 MW Stirling Energy solar dish project that will consist of an initial phase of 12,000 SunCatcher 25 kW solar dishes providing 300 MW to the grid. Phase 2 will expand the number of solar dish Stirling systems to 36,000 units, capable of generating up to 900 MW of power designed to automatically track the sun and focus solar heat onto a power conversion unit that converts the intense heat to grid-quality electricity.

That plant would initially feed into an existing power line and provide enough electricity for more than 200,000 homes. But moving into phase two and three, it would need substantially more more transmission capacity.

What is the future of the project? Well, considering that SDG&E would likely fall short of the 20% renewables by 2010 RPS requirement without it; and that the utility already holds a right-of-way through the park that predates the park’s establishment, I would say that CPUC will pass the proposed transmission project.

The California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote as soon as August on Sunrise Powerlink.

Related posts on utility-scale solar

“Mega-Solar: The World’s Thirteen Biggest Solar Thermal Projects”

“Clean Energy Intro: Solar Thermal”

Photo: 1. © Achilles | Dreamstime.com 2. Stirling Energy

Speculation began immediately thereafter that Crist might make a great running mate for McCain, given his popularity in Florida, and his potential ability to swing the crucial electoral state toward McCain during the general election.

One reason why Crist is popular is because there is a public perception that he really cares about environmental issues, much more so than the typical governor or politician (Republican or Democrat). As Crist might become McCain’s running mate, it seems worthy of investigation as to whether or not the Governor’s green credibility is rightly deserved– especially after Crist’s reversal Tuesday on his position as to lifting the U.S. ban on drilling offshore for oil. Now he says we should do it.

Here are some of the environmental highlights from Charlie Crist’s first 2 years as governor of Florida:

• In July of last year, Crist hosted a Climate Change conference in Miami. The conference served as a national platform for Crist to sign executive orders pledging the state of Florida to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, among many other initiatives to combat global warming. It places Florida among the most “green” southern states, at least in government philosophy and legislation. The conference included notable guests such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Theodore Roosevelt IV (a relative of the famous conservation-minded president).

• Right after the conference, Crist returned to Florida’s capital city of Tallahassee and showed off some improvements that he made to the Governor’s Mansion. A $70,000 hydrogen fuel cell now powers the house, and solar panels help heat the pool and circulate water. The Governor’s staff estimates that the eventual reduction in carbon emissions will be approximately 20%. The hydrogen cell, however, won’t pay for itself in cost savings until sometime around 2031. The solar panels have already paid back their cost financially in energy savings (they only cost $3500).

• Crist said several weeks ago that he would veto a bill that would allow developers to destroy sea grass, a crucial keystone species in Florida’s ocean waters, under the condition that developers would replant elsewhere. Environmental groups cheered this decision.

• Crist came out early in his term and said that he supports restoration of Florida’s famous and important Everglades Ecosystem. Just last week, he and John McCain toured a part of the Everglades. McCain’s blogging daughter discouragingly confused the Everglades Safari Park for being Everglades National Park (in fairness, the Everglades is a huge area, and the distinction might be lost among most Americans as to which part is in the national park. Full disclosure: I used to work for Everglades National Park). The tour group traveled via airboats. They are rarely used in Everglades National Park because they, among other reasons, are thought by some to destroy sea grass. McCain also took some heat from reporters and also Barack Obama for having voted against a bill last year in the U.S. Senate to fund Everglades restoration. He claimed that he would have supported a bill for restoration if it had not included spending elements unrelated to the Everglades. Crist supported the bill, which eventually passed in Congress with a 2/3 majority. This majority was necessary to override a veto from President Bush. Nonetheless, when asked, Crist said that he believed McCain’s word when McCain said that he really did want to protect the Everglades. McCain also said that he does not support a federal catastrophe relief fund, angering Floridians who know well about the damage that hurricanes can create.

• Finally, John McCain recently has stirred up controversy and negative press by releasing an energy plan that would allow for the moratorium on drilling offshore for oil to be lifted (today President Bush said something like, “Great idea! Let’s start now!”) McCain and Bush’s reasoning is that this will allow Americans some relief at the gas pump, and less reliance on foreign oil. McCain at the time of his 2000 campaign for President had a different opinion and supported a ban. Governor Crist, trying to help defend his future potential running mate, has also reversed his own opinion on the matter. He used to oppose drilling offshore. Some people believe that drilling offshore might pollute Florida’s beaches, which are extremely important to the state’s tourism industry and economy.

So, what do these things tell us about Governor Crist’s level of credibility as a green advocate? My personal assessment is that so far he has shown himself through words and actions to be a true friend to the environment. However, the reversal of his position toward offshore drilling combined with his shrugging off of McCain’s negative vote toward the restoration of the Everglades reak of political opportunism. Such compromising of principle for political gain is disconcerting. Plus, drilling offshore for oil is an idea that I believe is a very bad one, and also utterly lacking in creativity as a method for lessening the burden of the energy crisis.

My guess is that ultimately McCain will chose Crist as his running mate. Florida’s Governor has proven himself a loyal soldier, and the McCain campaign will probably find Crist’s advantages as a wingman too hard to resist. Given Crist’s environmental record so far, this choice might be something to cheer. If McCain and Crist are to win the White House, perhaps they can outfit it with some new solar panels. I’d support my taxpayer dollars going to that. I’m not sure about heating the pool though– that seems a little bit extravagant (and who needs to heat a pool in Florida anyway?)

Read More about McCain’s Plan to Drill for Oil Offshore:

• McCain Calls for More Offshore Drilling: What Else Would He Say in Houston?
• Oil: Our National Dog and Pony Show

Photo Credit: fredthompson on Flickr under a Creative Commons license

For the second time this week, the Senate has voted to block progress on a bill designed to extend Renewable Energy Tax Credits. Although the Bill, that enjoys broad cross-party support, gained a majority of 52-44, Republican opposition meant that it fell just short of the 60 votes needed to proceed.

News that progress on the $17.7 billion package of tax breaks could now be delayed until after the presidential elections in November has been greeted with dismay by the renewables industry. Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association warned that if the tax credits were allowed to expire at the end of this year it will “result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar.”

In more cheering news, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newson will later today approve the largest city-wide solar promotion scheme in the U.S. The program, set to run for ten years, will allow individuals to apply for rebates of between $3000 and $6000, rising to $10,000 for businesses, to install photovoltaic systems.

Other posts on the U.S. Senate and Renewable Energy Policy:

“Senator Attacks Solar Energy Industry”

“Senate to Vote on Renewables as Early as Today”

“Senate Passes Renewable Energy Tax Credits. Shouldn’t I be More Excited?”

Despite the fact that he supported a moratorium on offshore drilling during his previous run for the White House and he has opposed drilling in Florida, North Carolina, Oregon and elsewhere, McCain will call for the elimination of that moratorium today in Houston.

McCain’s prepared remarks will be be well-received in Houston, arguably the oil capital of America. My point is this: When McCain is in Portland, Oregon he speaks at a Vestas Wind Energy facility and touts the benefits of renewable energy (but offers little policy support to back it up); when McCain is in Houston he calls for a gas tax holiday and lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

In short, the part of me that hears Sen. McCain speak about addressing climate change and developing “alternate energy sources” doesn’t jive with the part of me that reads his voting record on this stuff. And apparently, I’m not the only one.

“The easiest point to make about John McCain’s current support for offshore drilling is that it is a flip-flop. When McCain ran for president in 1999, he supported the current moratorium on offshore drilling, slated to last until 2012.” (Mother Jones)

“McCain’s reversal on off-shore drilling is a blatant pitch for donations at today’s Houston fundraising events.” (David Donnely of Campaign Money Watch)

“Although McCain says that he supports renewable energy, he has set so specific targets. John McCain’s website makes no mention of solar, wind, renewable energy, or even public transportation under the section on climate change and has no section on energy.” (Sarah Lozanova of Red, Green, & Blue)

Considering the mission of this blog, I would be remiss to not include a snippet from a conservative pundit and backer of the McCain plan (especially considering how much time I spent trying to find one!):

“In fact, the economic slowdown, including the spike in gasoline prices, gives Republicans chance to attack Democrats as elitists, as “let-them-drive-bicycles”-type snobs; as polar-bear loving Greens who would rather worry about glaciers on the North Pole than about jobs for Middle Americans in North Carolina or North Dakota.” (James Pinkerton of The Fox Forum)

Related Posts:

“Help Set the Environmental Agenda for the 44th President”

“Obama Ad Rejects Gas-Tax Break”

“McCain and Obama Differ on Energy”

“McCain’s Plan to Combat Climate Change”

Photos:

1. cmakin via flickr under a Creative Commons license

2. John McCain for President Website

Breaking ranks with the the state’s increasingly important solar industry, Ensign said that efforts by the Solar Energy Industry Association to force his hand on tax breaks had in fact had the opposite effect of “personally alienating” him and other senators.

In a scathing letter, later released to the press, Ensign accused the lobby group of squandering goodwill by accusing him of favouring “billionaire hedge fund managers” over job creation in Nevada. Indicating the depth of his feelings on the issue, he went on to say “It is rare to have such overwhelming bipartisan support in today’s political climate but the solar industry had it and your association’s leadership squandered it.”

Nevada solar executives had privately become increasingly unhappy with the Senator’s record of voting against bills containing the tax credits. Ensign said that he opposed the bills because the funds for tax breaks would have been raised by increasing the burden on the oil and gas industry. Earlier this spring, he co-sponsored an alternative approach, calling for tax credits without the corresponding offsets. It made it through the Senate by a vote of 88-8, but has become bogged down in the House.

Last Tuesday, the senate voted to block progress on the Consumer First Energy Act and the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. However, with a new vote expected this week, the rift is likely to dismay observers hopeful of progress on the hotly disputed tax credits bill. A block would be particularly damaging to the renewables industry, which wants to make investment decisions against a background of long-term stability in renewable energy policy.

Other posts on the U.S. Senate and Renewable Energy Policy:

“Senate to Vote on Renewables as Early as Today”

“Senate Passes Renewable Energy Tax Credits. Shouldn’t I Be More Excited?”

“Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 Lacks Support”

The reason that I am concerned is that I believe that high oil prices are hurting nearly everyone and the pain will increase as time goes on. The hands on the controls, however, are feeling no pain.

The Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an internationally recognized cartel established in September, 1960 that holds well publicized meetings on a regular basis to discuss production allocations that are specifically designed to maintain a market price that members agree best meets their internal and external needs. Many of the country representatives to that meeting have spent lengthy careers thinking deeply about oil prices and how best to manage them to benefit the people who send them to the meetings and pay their generous salaries.

Oil market controllers have experienced a number of ups and downs and worked diligently to master the many price influencing tools at their disposal. Those tools may be a bit blunt, but they can be effective if wielded with skill by experienced manipulators. OPEC supplies about 40% of the total world’s oil and has an impact that is disproportionate even against that large total. Its decision are closely watched and often widely respected by large suppliers that are not members. All oil suppliers recognize that they have a very special commodity that responds to even tiny differences between daily supply and daily demand.

During the decades that I have been interested in energy as a study topic, I have heard or read hundreds of reports in oil industry trade publications that indicate the respect given to OPEC as a disciplined cartel that does all suppliers a service by keeping prices at profitable levels.

Though traders can store oil, the volume of daily consumption is so vast that even a 1% over supply situation can fill up storage areas in just a matter of months while a 1% deficit can result in significant shortages in some locations. Like a hot air balloon, there is a potential for a disastrous crash with an inexperienced or poorly coordinated crew, but there is also the potential for a very pleasant ride for those who know what they are doing.

Unfortunately, the basket under an oil fed hot air balloon is not very large and the number of people who benefit from an oil price balloon that never comes back to earth will be rather small. I see few prospects, however, that those of us left on earth will be invited to share in the benefits of the ride any time soon. It is way too much fun for the people in the basket to collect massive quantities of money from the rest of us who seemingly have no means of forcing that balloon to return to earth.

Recently, an oil minister from an OPEC member told the world that his country saw no reason to increase supplies since demand destruction was already working to put supply and demand into balance and a Russian oil and gas executive gleefully predicted that oil prices would reach $250 per barrel in 2009.

At my own water cooler, the objection that I get to my line of thinking is that oil prices experienced a collapse during the mid 1980s and remained low for about 15 years. They tell me that proves that a period of high prices will almost inevitably be followed by a period of low prices caused by the combination of new supplies encouraged by high prices and reduced demand caused by a reaction to the high prices. Their interpretation of oil price history is that the conservation efforts install a long term change in consumer habits. Apparently they think that OPEC recognizes this and will reduce prices in time to avoid a long term loss of market share.

The difficulty that I have in accepting this interpretation is that low energy prices through the 1980s and 1990s were driven not by a reduction in demand, but by a relentless increase in the available supply of useful energy. Most of the new supply came into the market from sources outside of OPEC.

Total energy use did not fall after the oil shocks of the 1970s, but the annual rate of increase slowed. Total supply actually increased substantially as new production areas like the North Slope of Alaska and the North Sea came on line at the same time as new nuclear power plants added the energy equivalent of 12 million barrels of oil per day to the world supply.

Today there are no major production areas that are beginning operation and there are not any massive new nuclear plant programs with plants ready to connect to the grid. The time delays required under current laws are going to make it difficult to change supply rapidly enough to make much difference for at least a few years.

We are in for a long slog of high prices - unless the world’s political leadership takes action to enable massive new supplies to reach the market more quickly than is currently predicted. Jawboning might just work, but it is a long shot. It just might be that the balloon will remain aloft for a long time without popping or even leaking very much.

Photo credit:Hot Air Balloon - used under Creative Commons license from aoife mac

Related Posts:
Three Hidden Costs of High Oil Prices
T. Boone Pickens Says Peak Oil Reached, Plans World’s Largest Wind Farm
The Big Oil Company Scam

GM is backing a hydrogen refueling station near Los Angeles. The station will be located at Clean Energy’s compressed natural gas (CNG) facility and should be operational by the fall (gas 2.0).

U.S. Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) will introduce a national renewable energy feed-in tariff. Under the bill, utilities would be required to pay a set price to anyone supplying less than 20MW of renewable electricity to the grid. Inslee plans to introduce the bill in the next week or two. But requiring utilities to pay a mandated amount for renewable energy is “a new idea to D.C., and like a fine wine it’ll need time” (ecopolitology).

U.S. Department of Energy promises $30 million to build plug-in hybrid vehicles. “Among the trio of three-year projects, General Motors would seek to improve lithium-Ion battery packs and charging systems, integrating its research by 2011 within a test fleet” (Green Tech Blog).

The world’s energy leaders have launched an energy efficiency initiative. The International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC) will “support on-going work of the participating countries and relevant organizations, exchanging information of best practices, policies and measures and developing public-private partnership programs” (Renewable Energy World).

Related Posts:

“The Week in Cleantech News (5/12-5/16)”

Photo: Muenzer via flickr under a Creative Commons license

Regardless of who is elected next November, both candidates agree that climate change is a fact and not a theory. “I know that climate change is real,” said John McCain. “We can have a debate about how serious it is, but the debate about climate change is over.”

McCain and Obama however vary widely in their response to this issue, leaving the American people with a choice of approaches when choosing the next president. McCain’s primary weapons in this battle includes implementing a cap and trade system for emissions and utilizing greater amounts of nuclear power.

Cap and Trade

“Cap and trade is being implemented in Europe and they have stumbled and they’ve had problems but it is still the right thing to do,” said John McCain. “It is what we did in relation to acid rain.”

One of the reasons McCain supports this approach is because it encourages the market to respond with the lowest cost approach. He believes the market will correct itself with the use of cleaner technologies without the need for intervention, such as a tax credit or major investment from the government.

One challenge with this plan is that we don’t operate in a free market, which is needed for the market to correct the problem. Large subsidies for oil companies makes alternative energy sources less affordable. Many of the hidden costs of pollution are not accounted for, even under a cap and trade system. For example, who is paying for the hospital visits when a child has an asthma attack?

Nuclear Power

“Nuclear power has got to be part of any real meaningful effort that we are going to make to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said McCain. “It has got to be part of the equation.”

McCain is concerned about proposed coal power plants and encourages development of nuclear power. Despite his view that the market should correct itself, in May of 2005 and January of 2007, McCain and Lieberman introduced a climate change bills that would give billions in subsidies to the nuclear industry.

Renewable Energy

Although McCain says that he supports renewable energy, he has set so specific targets. John McCain’s website makes no mention of solar, wind, renewable energy, or even public transportation under the section on climate change and has no section on energy.

The Senate was one vote shy of passing an economic stimulus package earlier this year that contained an incentive for solar energy. McCain didn’t show up to vote.

“Coal fired power plants,” said McCain “are being proposed to be built all over this country…If you can generate that power and set up a station that is powered by solar, by God I would love it, but you know we don’t have that technology.” Despite the advancement of renewable energy in recent years, McCain doesn’t support incentives similar to what he has proposed for nuclear power.

Related Posts on Climate Change and Renewable Energy:

• Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil?
• McCain and Obama Differ on Energy
• Obama’s Plan to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence
• U.S. Cap and Trade Politics and the Election

The American political season is now in full swing, and with Barack Obama finally securing the nomination for Democratic Presidential nominee, the games can really begin to heat up. One of the big topics – alongside or just underneath the economy – will be the environment, and how to best preserve it (or resurrect it after George W. Bush is finished with it).

And, not surprisingly, a lot of the end results being pitched by Senator Obama and Senator John McSame McCain are looking mighty similar. However how they want to get there are bipolar at best.

Stephan Power at the Wall Street Journal took the time to take a look at what the two Senators differences were when it came to the environment. For those of us looking to make a change in the world, it is no surprise that Senator McCain is definitely living up to his reputation as the next model (or previous model) of George W. Bush.

The senator from Arizona has a voting record that is in stark contrast to that of Obama, despite saying he wants to reduce a dependency on foreign oil. McCain wants to back the government involvement off; way off. He believes that “when government jumps in and distorts the market, then there’s unintended consequences as well as intended.” McCain has voted time and time again against policies such as tax credits that attempt to push a higher reliance upon alternative and energy efficient technologies.

Without a doubt I’m not a fan of McCain or his policies. He is, from my far away view, exactly the same as George W. Bush in his methods. McCain believes that providing benefits for alternative energies is nothing more than subsidies for special interests. Well of course they are! But by labeling them “special interests” he attempts to blacken the name of alternative energies. It’s a crude and crass way of sliding in under the radar.

Senator Obama on the other hand, despite a somewhat hypocritical voting record, is fully intent on using the government to make changes to the countries energy and climate change policies. He believes rightly that the US doesn’t do enough to help create clean energy technologies, a point which is proven by the US’s flagging position behind European nations flying ahead with wind and hydro solutions.

If he manages to claim the Presidential office, Obama would invest $150 billion over the next decade into alternative fuels, and push for the US to acquire at least 25% of its electricity from renewable sources. Stephan Power quotes Obama from a meeting in Portland, Oregon, last month: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees [Fahrenheit] at all times and then just expect that every other country’s going to say OK. That’s not — that’s not leadership.”

Senators McCain and Obama differ on a lot of aspects. McCain wants to reduce emissions by 60% from the 1990 levels, whereas Obama wants to reduce them by 80%, a number that a vast number of scientists agree with. Senator McCain wants to temporarily kill the federal gasoline tax, a move that, along with Senator Obama, some conservatives oppose.

On a last note, I will say this personally. I realize that fuel prices are heading up and up the world over, but seriously people, have you heard of walking? Fuel prices should not be an issue in a world where fuel is causing the destruction of our planet.

And, if your like me and not living in the US, or even if you are, head along to the Green Options Mock US Election in the forums, located here.

[UPDATE 1: The Consumer First Energy Act which would impose a 'windfall profits tax' on big oil companies, and the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act both failed to move on. The second of those two contained a one year extension of the Production Tax Credit. The votes were largely along party lines. Kate Shepard at Grist provides a good review of the two bills in this report.]

The PTC has been the single biggest policy driver of renewable energy development in the U.S., and the short one and two year extensions (as well as the absence of those extensions) have produced a ‘feast-or-famine‘ cycle of renewable energy growth in the United States, where all new development is virtually frozen in place, awaiting a tax incentive. As it currently stands, the PTC will expire at the end of 2008.

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), studies show that 116,000 jobs and more than $19 billion in clean energy investment are at risk from a failure to extend the PTC and other renewable energy tax credits.

Thus far, the biggest hangup for extending the renewable energy tax credits has been the question of funding. Ironically, the Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility in Congress, and do not want to pass the bill without a way to pay for it.

Last week at WINDPOWER 2008, I had the opportunity to sit down with Greg Wetstone, Senior Director of Government and Public Affairs for AWEA, and Tom Gray, the Deputy Executive Director. The pair told me that the tax credit issue was really one of fiscal ideology. And that unfortunately, many in Congress had been using the renewable energy tax credits as a “political football.”

Both Gray and Wetstone expressed concern that a lapse in the PTC would have a detrimental effect on the installation of new wind energy projects, especially considering wind developers are currently in the planning stages for projects that would not go online until 2009 or 2010. According to Wetstone:

“This really has to happen by the August recess…If it drags out beyond that and gets done in some kind of lame duck [action] - or doesn’t get done - I think it’s a major problem for the industry, and a major embarrassment for the Congress.”

Considering the popular support for policies that promote renewable energy development, it seems odd that Congress continues to drag their collective feet on passing the PTC. The results of a recent poll show that a vast majority of Americans, across all political parties, overwhelmingly support development and funding of solar energy. Ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the U.S.

The tenuous position of the PTC was a hot topic at last week’s WINDPOWER 2008 in Houston. At the event, virtually all of the industry leaders, advocates, and public officials I spoke with strongly voiced support for passage of the tax credits. And nearly all of them were maintained that we need the stability of a long term renewable energy policy, as opposed to the one and two year extensions the Congress has favored more recently.

If you want to continue to see sustained growth in renewable energy in this country, I suggest you contact your Senator to urge passage of the PTC today!

Other Posts on the U.S. Senate and Renewable Energy Policy:

“Senate Passes Renewable Energy Tax Credits. Shouldn’t I Be More Excited?“

“Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 Lacks Support“

“74 Percent of GOP Senators Doubt Human Causes of Global Warming“

Photo © Stephen Meese | Dreamstime.com

Last week’s Newsweek/American Petroleum Institute panel at Stanford that I was invited to helped shed light on the very technology v. behavior problem I addressed above.** The panel moderator, Newsweek Senior Editor of Business and Technology, David Jefferson kicked off the event by admitting that, while he is certainly cognizant of the pressing environmental issues we are currently facing, he could be doing be more. He candidly admitted that he drives a Mustang convertible, that he has installed compact fluorescent lightbulbs in his outside lights, but not his indoor ones, and that he does not shy away from using his home’s thermostat, although he is also not afraid of throwing on a sweater if it is a little chilly.

Kennedy set the event off on an interesting note by taking an editorial position that struck me. Kennedy said something like, “it is not about changing consumer behavior,” and this is where Kennedy and I have a theoretical and philosophical divergence.

[Note: I included the photo above as evidence of the rapidly changing world of media. Five to ten years ago, who would have guessed that oil executives would ever sit down with green bloggers to talk about energy policy? Certainly, not me. Pictured left to right are Maria Surma Manka of Maria Energia, me (Tim Hurst) of Green Options & EcoPolitology, Paul Siegele of Chevron, and Brian Westenhous of New Energy and Fuel].

Consumer behavior MUST be part of the equation. My concern is that the quest for technological fixes as panaceas for our major environmental and energy problems ignores the fact that said reliance has essentially been the Western strategy of choice thus far, and look where THAT has gotten us. Take, for example, the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s that drove down the supply of gasoline and drove up demand. What emerged from this scenario was an energy crisis that caused consumers to clamor for smaller, more efficient vehicles - and auto manufacturers obliged by designing smaller, lighter and more efficient cars.

However, as we all know, the high price of gasoline did not last. Oil supply went up, demand went down, and the era of small, efficient cars was a thing of the past, and our behavior emerged from the oil crisis of the 1070s relatively unchanged.Don’t get me wrong. Technology, taken at face value, can be a very good thing. But a blind, over-reliance on technological fixes will obscure the necessary political and behavioral questions that must be a part of addressing the current energy and environmental problems we currently face.

**Many thanks to API for providing travel support to this event. I applaud the organization, and especially Jane Van Ryan, for reaching out to the bloggers, especially skeptical ones like myself.

Photo Courtesy of the American Petroleum Institute

In the wake of yesterdays annual meetings at ExxonMobil and Chevron that saw shareholders vote down several proposals that would have required the two energy giants to give greater consideration to issues of environmental protection and human rights, Chevron and Newsweek are co-hosting a forum called “Energy’s Future is in Technology: Innovation in Energy Supply, Energy Efficiency and Alternative/Renewable Energy” (now that’s a mouthful). The event, hosted at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California has just commenced and I am blogging in a room of about 150 academics, journalists, energy industry representatives, and opinion leaders (they even gave us our own table to sit at). More to come…

(Part II - Politics and Policy)

(Part III - Consumer Behavior)

Photo courtesy of the API