Green Options » Markey

National Renewable Energy Lab Looks at Proposed U.S. Electricity Standards

Jeff Kart — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:14:20 +0000

The United States have already started down the path of Renewable Portfolio Standards.

There are now almost 30 states with their own RPSes, which require utilities to generate more of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar and even landfill gas. Different states have set different standards, often with percentages based on years: 15 percent by 2015, for instance. It’s more catchy that way.

Now Congress is discussing a national RPS, which would set minimum standards for all states. RPSes, also known as Renewable Electricity Standards, can drive investment in renewable technologies. They can pave the way for new investment in turbines and panels, and associated jobs that come with the pay out. Sure, renewables may cost more for now, but you probably remember that economies of scale thing from high school.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory looks at three proposed standards in a new 30-page report (.pdf). They’re the master plans — from Senator Jeff Bingaman and Representative Edward Markey, and jointly by representatives Henry Waxman and Markey — that have risen to the top for now, being discussed in U.S. House and Senate committees.

The bottom line: The report doesn’t really choose a “best plan.” But Markey seems to get the best marks for a 25% by 2025 RES target with no energy efficiency substitutions allowed.

“The Markey RES legislation requires significantly greater renewable power deployment and the construction of new transmission infrastructure in a timely manner,” it says on pdf page 22.

Browse the report, and tell me what you think. Which of these plans is best for America? Or is there a fourth plan that was left out?

Image Credit: Divwerf via flickr under Creative Commons License

House Moves Closer to 15% Renewable Energy Standard

Timothy B. Hurst — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:26:33 +0000

Bill would require just 15% of electricity to come from renewable sources

House Democrats negotiating a climate and energy bill have reportedly reached a compromise on a renewable energy standard (RES) as part of the American Clean Energy & Security Act that would allow those states unable to meet the requirement to make up for it with gains in energy efficiency.

The agreement would break what has been a point of contention for House negotiators for weeks. Concerned that they would be unable to meet the target of 25 percent renewables by 2025 first proposed in the Waxman-Markey draft in March, Southern Democrats balked, arguing that they didn’t have access to strong solar or wind resources the other states do and that high cost would make such a target cost prohibitive.

So SUE Me! — Waxman-Markey might make it legal to sue over Global Warming

Alan Smith — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:11:21 +0000

The Waxman-Markey bill that recently was introduced into the House has already caused quit a stir, and that was before someone found a provision tucked in it’s 600 plus pages that would make it legal to sue the Government if you suffer from Global Warming.

The bill is big, robust, and in many cases even more aggressive in it’s battle against C02 then the Obama plan (maybe for a reason: to make the Obama plan seem palatable in comparison?). This one little subsection, however, has the Washingtin Times all up in arms. They are worried about the huge number of new lawsuits that this could cause tying up the legal system. Wait a second… does that mean that they are admitting that these hypothetical lawsuits would be justified? That the realize there would be a reason to be upset at the Feds for their inaction on Global Warming? Nah…

Legal Options for Those “Harmed” by Global Warming.

According to the Times, the bill opens up a direct legal action option for individuals who feel they have been harmed in some way by Global Warming. I located the passage they are talking about in the bill, and the Times seems to have it about right: here’s a line or two from the SEC. 336. ENFORCEMENT bit of the bill.

The persons authorized by subsection (a) to commence an action under this section shall include any person who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part, to a violation or failure to act referred to in subsection (a).

What is harm, you ask? Well as near as I can tease out, it’s a wide open definition: “any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring.” Well, I’m an asthmatic, and it’s been getting worse my whole life. Does this mean I now have someone to blame!?

Good News: Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Fails in Senate

Jennifer Lance — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:24:52 +0000

My first reaction to the failure of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act was disappointment. The Senate was unable to defeat a filibuster led by Minority Leader McConnell and Senators Allard (CO), Inhofe (OK), and Cornyn (TX) and fell 12 votes shy of cloture. The bill also did not have enough support to override Bush’s promised veto. Once again the US government failed to act on climate change; however, the news is not all bad. Lieberman-Warner was weak legislation, and it did not follow scientific recommendations to limit carbon emissions.

Lieberman-Warner was not opposed by a majority of environmental groups, and it was recognized as an important step. Dave Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs for the Sierra Club, explained the flaws in the legislation, “We’d like to see the targets and timetables stronger,” although the Sierra Club supported Lieberman-Warner. Hamilton was not alone in concern over the bill. 1Sky, an organization that did oppose the bill, felt we should not back it because it only offers a band-aid solution. Betsy Taylor, President of the 1Sky campaign’s Board of Directors stated:

This bill failed on two fundamental measures and that is why 1Sky and many others did not support it. It would not have reduced carbon emissions as deeply or as quickly as the world scientific community says is necessary to address global warming. And, it would have given more money to the bloated fossil fuel industry, and left ordinary Americans paying too much for rising energy bills.
Read more of this story »

The Big Oil Company Scam

Jennifer Lance — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:08:16 +0000

We are all feeling the prices at the pump and the ramifications of increased oil prices throughout our economy, so why are the big oil companies still making record profits? Not only are these big oil companies reaping in record amounts of money while consumers suffer, they are also still receiving federal subsidies. What’s up with that?

Personally, I don’t understand how the oil companies can justify passing the entire burden off on the American people of the rising cost of gasoline considering our current economic recession. Exxon Mobil Corp., BP America Inc., Shell Oil Co., Chevron Corp., and ConocoPhillip know high fuel prices are hurting consumers, but on Tuesday they defended their profits of $123 billion last year as in line with other industries. “Our earnings, though high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our industry as well as the huge investment requirements,” said J.S. Simon, Exxon Mobil’s senior vice president.