BlogNod & New Energy News

• The Climate and Energy Project blog has an excellent post wrapping up the latest developments in the Kansas legislature visa vis the Holcomb power plant expansion. One of the partners in the Holcomb project, Tri-State Generation and Transmission of Colorado, has announced that they will be investigating the possibility of building a nuclear power plant in southeastern Colorado - news that apparently came as a complete surprise to the residents of Holly, CO.
  
• A post by Sarah Gilman at High Country News' GOAT blog illuminates the coalition of 400 sportsmen’s groups who are fighting to revamp the antiquated 1872 Mining Act. Led by the National Wildlife Federation, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Trout Unlimited, the so-called Sportsmen United for Sensible Mining is seeking to gain legal protection for millions of acres of public lands, rivers, and streams from dangerous mining practices and fly-by-night mining operations.
  
• This week's Living On Earth had a story about a paper plant's 'test burning' of tires for energy, and how Sen. Hillary Clinton was not opposed to it - in fact she supported it [audio available].
  
• A measure requiring renewable energy sources make up half the electricity in California by 2025 took a step toward making the November ballot on Tuesday, when proponents turned in about 735,000 signatures to officials in the state, according to a report in Reuters.
  

Can I Re-energize My REA? I've Got to Win an Election First

In 2004, Colorado became the first state in the country to pass a citizen-initiated renewable energy standard (RES). Amendment 37 required all investor owned utilities get 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Xcel Energy made such strides towards meeting the requirement that, in 2007, Gov. Bill Ritter signed a bill doubling the RES for investor owned utilities to 20 percent by 2020. Why am I rehashing all of this? Because, during the period from 2004-2008, while Xcel was building substantial renewable energy capacity, nearly all of the state's rural electric associations carried on with business as usual, because the renewable energy requirement did not apply to them. And that's where I come in. It is time to let the cat out of the bag: I have spent the last several months campaigning for a seat on the Board of Directors of my co-op, the Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association.

I decided early on that I would not use any of the Green Options blogs as a bully pulpit, and that I would also steer ecopolitology away from my PVREA board candidacy. With that said, now that the election is only a few days away, and most people who intend to vote have already done so, I have decided to tell my readers a little more about the whole thing. But instead of me telling you about it, I will let others do the talking for me. Below are two sets of excerpts, the first is from a media statement released by a non-profit called PV-Pioneers, a group that I am proud to be associated with. The second set of excerpts is taken from a recent article by Dan MacArthur that appeared in the North Forty News.

The Colorado non-profit organization, PV-Pioneers, has announced its support of Tim Hurst, Steve Szabo, and Roger Alexander, in this year's Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association Board of Directors election.

The local citizen's group, which promotes energy efficiency, renewable energy, and rate reform by PVREA, encouraged members to watch for election ballots in their mail box, for the co-op's first mail-in election. Candidate Steve Szabo said, "This is an opportunity to join other utilities who are saving money by making smart investments in efficiency, wind and solar power and who are passing savings to their customers." The Longmont area organic grower added, "PVREA has been overcommitted to yesterday's technologies and has been slow to adopt effective and aggressive energy efficiency programs. The unfortunate result has been higher rates for everyone."

Roger Alexander, candidate for the PVREA Board seat representing Larimer County, said "This election is about your money, and your electric rates. It is important to support a vision with programs that will keep our electric bills low by promoting energy efficiency, wind, and solar." Alexander, a Fort Collins energy efficiency consultant and solar energy system integrator noted that PVREA rates have jumped 30% over the past 3 years. He added "Our first priority is to proactively choose efficiency programs which minimize costs for customers and the utility."

Tim Hurst, candidate for the at-large seat, supports increased investment in clean energy. He exclaimed, "This is a terrific chance to simultaneously protect our environment and create new jobs and economic growth for the area's rural community." Hurst further explained that "Our vision of a clean, cost-efficient energy future begins here in Larimer, Weld, and Boulder counties, not exclusively with distant, costly coal based electric plants."

PV-Pioneers president Kevin Markey explained that the citizens' group looked for candidates with a progressive vision, who were willing and able to face the electric cooperative's challenges with new ideas and new vigor. He said, "The traditional ideas and conservative management style of the current board may have worked when energy prices were stable and the energy world was predictable. Now we need to replace that thinking with a more proactive, entrepreneurial management." He also noted that the three candidates, although in disagreement with current PVREA policies, have worked constructively with PVREA Board and staff.

Challengers Energize REA Voting

By Dan MacArthur - North Forty News

The theme of change dominating presidential politics is seeping down to the local level in the fierce race for election to the Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association board of directors.

A slate of three alternative energy advocates allied as the PV Pioneers is waging a concerted campaign for three of the four director seats up for election at the March 15 annual meeting.

The race makes apparent the changing face of the consumer-owned, nonprofit cooperative.

Formed nearly 70 years ago in the wake of the Depression, its mission was bringing electricity to far-flung farms across Larimer and Weld counties.

Today it serves 35,618 increasingly suburban members. The REA maintains more than 3,800 miles of line spread over 3,600 square miles of Northern Colorado.

"Previously there were few contests for the 11 board seats. They typically were held by long-time directors associated with agriculture. In 2007, however, a pair of relative newcomers pushing renewable resources and challenging continued reliance on coal-fired electric generation came within a whisker of unseating two incumbents.

Roger Alexander and Steve Szabo challenged plans by the REA's wholesale supplier, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, to build two new coal-fired power plants in western Kansas and a third in southeastern Colorado.

Tri-State insisted the plants were needed to meet future demands. But Alexander and Szabo maintained the $5 billion total cost was excessive and unnecessary. Those needs, they asserted, could be met more economically and environmentally soundly through greater conservation and use of renewable energy.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment rejected the power plant plans, however, and a compromise is now being drafted by the Kansas Legislature. It would allow construction of the plants to proceed, providing Tri-State minimizes the carbon dioxide emissions widely believed by scientists to contribute to global warming.

Those two PV (Poudre Valley or Photo-Voltaic) Pioneers are back again, with the addition of Tim Hurst, campaigning on a plank of three R's - rates, reliability and renewable energy. They want Poudre Valley and other co-ops to press for greater development of renewable energy by Tri-State.

"This year's contest has been quiet and civil for the most part with candidates from both camps expressing respect for the ideas and opinions offered by the other. Beneath it all, however, is a deep split between those convinced coal-generated electricity is the only real option in the foreseeable future and those equally convinced it should be the last option.

"There are two very different philosophies," said 18-year board member Jim Park, who is being challenged by Hurst.

"They think green power is the answer to everything," said Dean Anderson, who's being opposed by Roger Alexander. While green power has its place, Anderson said it remains expensive and unreliable. It is available only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing and can't be stored for later use when it is needed most.

There also is a less profound split about whether global warming is a consequence of the carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

"I don't think (the directors) really understand what's happening with climate change. It's kind of irrefutable," said Szabo.

"Quite frankly, I don't buy into that totally," Park said. He suggested such warming instead could result from long-term cyclical variations.

"It really seems that it's only in the U.S. that the discussion still exists," said Alexander. Disputable or not, he asked, "What's the downside of moving away from fossil fuels now? Why would you gamble with the future of the human race?"

Video: State of Resolve

This short pbs video highlights California's relatively progressive environmental policy and juxtaposes it with our (lack of) federal policy. The well-produced piece also does a good job of linking our drive for material wealth as a contributor to environmental pollution in China. About 4 minutes.

Just a Reminder of What We Are Up Against

Edwards Stumps on Clean, Renewable Populism

Enjoy this very short video of Presidential hopeful, John Edwards stumping in LA about two weeks ago. In my view, John Edwards has the strongest ecopolitical platform of any of the candidates. He is the only one gutsy enough to call for a moratorium on any new coal-fired power plants. The question that raises, however, is will that matter in the end? And if so, how?

I am considering caucusing for Edwards in Colorado on the Feb. 5th. If he doesn't get the required 15% in the first preference poll, I'll have to realign with another candidate (but not without letting my fellow precinct members why I chose Edwards). A piece of advice to the candidates' strategists and advisors: Pay attention to the Western vote (not just CA).


If any Democrat wants to do well in the purple states of the mountain west, they must start talking about issues that westerners care about (i.e. energy and enviro issues). If, come election time, the Democratic nominee is not talking about these issues, they will not catch the swing voters, indies, and Republicans who are considering casting a vote for a Democrat. How do you think Gov. Bill Ritter (D) got elected in CO? Three words: New Energy Economy.

MMS Establishes Offshore Wind Guidelines (sort of)

January 11, 2007

The U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) has formally established an interim adaptive management program called the Alternative Energy and Alternate Use Program to regulate the development of offshore wind projects on the outer continental shelf. The new program puts forth 52 "best management practices to minimize potential adverse impacts of future projects" but has no impact on the imminent decision in the proposed Cape Wind project.

In a bit of bureaucratic reorganization, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized MMS to regulate offshore wind development, thus pulling the carpet out from under Cape Wind, America's first proposed offshore wind energy project. The proposal was awaiting final approval in 2005 when Sen. Edward Kennedy was able to place a moratorium on offshore wind development until the permitting process was relocated out of the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and into the jurisdiction of the MMS, an arm of the Department of the Interior that deals primarily with offshore oil and gas leases.

Photo: Danish Windpower Association (www.windpower.org)

Hopes for Michigan Feed-in Tarriff Fading

Not too much has been heard about Michigan's HB 5218 since it was introduced by Rep. Kathleen Law earlier in this legislative session. HB 5218 was the first proposed legislation containing a 'feed-in tariff' for renewable energy in the U.S. If you don't know, a feed-in tariff or 'fee-schedule' is a policy mechanism which guarantees a premium rate payed to any entity that adds renewable energy to the power grid. Feed-in tariffs have been wildly successful at building the distributed generation of renewable resources very quickly in Germany and Spain -- but not without substantial cost and commitment.

But the latest out of MI is that the proposed tariff because it has not gained the same amount of support as a different bill that would require Michigan get 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015. I think nearly any move toward promoting renewable energy is a move in the right direction - and it is also quite possible that Michigan just wasn't ready for the economic commitment to such an aggressive policy as a feed-in tariff. The point will be moot if the U.S. Senate includes a 15 percent RPS possibly in their version of the bill which may be voted on as early as Saturday. Then again, if President Bush follows through on his veto promise, then Michigan might have something after all.

So what's the deal with feed-in tariffs, and why haven't they caught on in the U.S.? I will suggest that there are two very formidable structural impediments standing in their way:

1. The modern grid was not built with distributed generation in mind. Distributed generation brings fluctuations in generating capacity that would need to be addressed by making substantial investments in infrastructure.
2. There are corporate and interests heavily invested in keeping things pretty much as they are. Power providers and utilities are trying to solidify the futures of their enormous corporations by institutionalizing the process by which power is generated, bought, and sold.

Basically what it will take in this country to move to a more decentralized grid is a whole new politics. We need to reassess how to think about electricity generation and distribution in this country. Decentralization of the power grid will be the future of electricity in the United States, the only question is how long it'll take to get us there.

Consumer choice and the eco-social "externalities" of coal (part one)

It is quite common for the end-user of a commodity to have no idea where the good was actually produced, never mind how it got from point A to point B. But some consumers might prefer to get their vegetables them from a local farmers’ market, instead of the supermarket. A person might want to support a business because they have received exceptional service there in the past; or, because they know the signature dish is made with the freshest local ingredients. The global commodities market has separated the consumer and the producer across both time and space. Goods can be shipped all the way around the globe and many can be stored away for future use/sale. When consumers do not see where the good is produced, how it is produced, and the byproducts of that production, they are less likely to have the knowledge that will alter their own spending habits. Not only that, but it may not be so easy to buy something even though it is all around you (as my search for locally-grown soybeans proved). Why does this matter? It all boils down to consumer choice. On one hand, the modern globalized economy consists of consumers that are primarily concerned with getting a given commodity for the best price possible. On the other hand, some may want to choose something other than the least expensive product - and that's where coal comes in.

There are increasing numbers of people who want to weigh other variables or 'social costs' such as the ecological sustainability of a good and the process of manufacturing it; the human rights records in the country where the good is produced or workplace health and safety records of the company making the product. The global economy lives and dies at the level of uncertainty a consumer will accept before choosing to not buy a good. Coal may be less expensive in terms of how much you pay every month for electricity, but those bills do not accurately reflect all of the electricity’s costs or, what economists call, “externalities,” like sulfur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide Externalities occur when neither the producer nor the consumer bear all of the costs of an economic transaction and these costs are inimical to the provision of such 'public goods' as air, water, streetlights, and public safety.

As consumers, we are constantly being bombarded with choices that can challenge the strength and conviction of our beliefs. Most of the choices seem minute, but depending on how loud that little voice inside your head shouts, other choices may present some rather sticky cognitive dissonance at an uncomfortable level. Don't believe me? What is the first thing you think of when you are faced with the ubiquitous inquiry 'paper or plastic?' Concerned about the consequences of all that Styrofoam, do you calculate differences in total resource depletion when asked 'dine-in or carry-out?' Do you buy organic or conventional fruits and vegetables? always? why? why not? Do you buy your gas at Exxon/Mobil or BioWillie? Would you rather have a Budweiser or a Fat Tire? Do you prefer coffee from Starbucks, the coffee cart, or your French press? Would you rather go to to WAL-MART or AL-MART?(*) Would you choose fresh, crisp apples from New Zealand or last autumn's apples from upstate? Would you like bananas that were grown by a company that pays extortion money to violent crime syndicates? or would you rather have no bananas at all?

As electricity consumers, we have no way of determining exactly where the electricity that powers our homes and businesses is generated. Unless you live off the grid or you’ve got the ability to completely disconnect from the grid and generate your own electricity, you cannot distinguish between an electron generated from coal and one generated from wind, natural gas, solar, hydro, or any other source. We can determine the probability that our electricity is of a specific mix, but that is about it. Electricity consumers also often lack any specific knowledge of when electricity is expensive and when it is cheap; we generally know that electricity is more expensive in the morning and in the evening but most of us do not have the ability to monitor those price fluctuations and act accordingly. Fortunately, there is some hope in all of this, as barriers to markets are removed and electricity providers are held accountable for their externalities.

As the issues of energy use and its relationship to climate change are achieving greater acceptance among the general public, consumers want more control over how the energy they consume is produced and how they consume energy. People would be much more interested in the production cost of coal if they were paying the actual cost of coal-fired electricity. Energy generated from “traditional” fossil fuels is only cost-effective because the formula used to determine those costs omits too many of the social and ecological externalities of production...(to be continued).

(*) AL-MART is a small store located in Alma, CO (locals at the South Park would remind me to tell you that Alma's elevation of 10,578 feet above sea level makes it the highest incorporated town in North America, despite what any other towns might claim).

Denial of Kansas Plant Seen as Opportunity for Co-ops

TOPEKA, Kan. – Supporters of a proposed coal-fired power plant in Kansas that would provide power to most parts of rural Colorado are working to revive it after the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant. Tri-State Generation and Transmission’s partner in the project, Sunflower Electric, has filed papers with the KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby to reconsider his rejection of the air permit.

In the written decision to deny the Tri-State/Sunflower permit last Friday, Secretary Bremby said that “it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing.” Sunflower and Tri-State have already begun the appeal process. "We are disappointed with the Secretary's arbitrary and capricious action," said Earl Watkins, Sunflower's president and chief executive officer.

I see the denial of the air permit as an opportunity for Tri-State's 44 member owned co-ops to seize opportunities in efficiency and renewable energies. Not only is Northern Colorado blessed with excellent wind, solar, and biomass resources that can all be harnessed to make clean, reliable, and cost-effective energy, much the same can be said for most of Tri-State's coverage area. Tri-State needs to see the writing on the wall that carbon-emission legislation is coming, and that it is only a matter of time before we are living in a carbon-constrained world. In stead of frittering away member-owners' valuable resources fighting for the construction of new coal-fired power plants, Tri-State should be investing in efficiency, smart-grid technologies, distributed generation, and other ways in which its many members can directly capitalize on the new energy economy.

Exactly how the co-ops will be able to take advantage of the upcoming energy legislation remains to be seen. Rumors continue to swirl that the final bill may be only a skeleton of its former self. I am not playing prognosticator here, but it is quite possible there may be no RPS, no solar tax credit, no extension of the federal production tax credit, and only a meager increase in CAFE standards. I believe that something useful will be passed out of the legislature, I'm just a little skeptical about how many of those good things will make it.

Yet there may be one kernel of hope for renewable energy that is tucked away in the otherwise much-maligned farm bill that would grow renewables by incentivizing distributed microgeneration through a tax credit for small wind. More on this later this week...

Photo Credits:
1. Brian Brainerd, Denver Post

Energy Bill: Losing its luster?

I was hopeful yet somewhat skeptical when I last wrote about the chances of meaningful energy legislation making its way through both houses and avoiding the president's recently discovered 'veto pen.' For much of Bush's tenure in the White House, the administration has had little or no need to break out the veto pen. But even when Bush does pass a bill that he has serious reservations about, he has preferred to use the 'signing-statement pen,' despite the fact that there is no Constitutional provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permitting or prohibits signing statements. Signing statements give an opportunity to the president to add a 'P.S.' that allows the president to voice rhetorical disagreement or otherwise evade proper execution of the laws. Despite the fact that Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", the President has made clear on several occasions that he does not need to execute laws that he does not believe are constitutional.

In the preceding sixteen years of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton presidencies, the three produced 347 signing statements between the three of them. By October 4, 2006, Bush II had signed 134 signing statements that challenged 810 federal laws. If you have more time and are really interested in this topic, I highly recommend Boston Globe columnist Charlie Savage's new book, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy .

But before the president even has a chance to see a bill come across his desk, there are some serious substantive differences between the two bills that need to be reconciled, but it is quite possible the differences will not even have a chance to get ironed out before the impending vote some time this week. It appears as though Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are ready to call for a vote on this before Thanksgiving break, without a conference committee on the subject ever have been convened. It looks like an extension of the production tax credit, and the establishment of aggressive renewable energy targets may be overlooked. Major obstacles to the successful passage of quality energy bill include:

1) The Senate version proposes the increasing of new vehicle fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards. Some House members have been trying to ratchet back the Senate-endorsed 35 mph mileage standard. The House version contains no CAFE standards.

2) The house version of the bill included a 15% renewables portfolio standard (RPS) for investor-owned utilities by 2020. States were also permitted to invest in energy efficiency in lieu of renewable energy. The Senate passed no RPS in their version, largely because Senators from the southeast states argued that they do not have adequate renewable resources.

3) There is a proposed repeal of oil, coal, and gas subsidies in the form of tax credits to big energy companies. Pres. Bush has said he would veto a bill with any such repeal and he may get the help he needs as K. Bailey Huthinson of Texas may have the ability to block a joint committee.

4) Perhaps the biggest issue for renewable energy advocates is the apparent lack of tax incentives such as the production tax credit (PTC) and the investment tax credit (ITC). I would be very surprised to see the PTC be passed over for extension, although some large wind energy manufacturers have already shown that they are not waiting to find out.

You can have an impact on what this energy bill looks like. These are not insurmountable obstacles. Urge your Representatives and Senators to consider the RPS, the PTC, and cuts in coal, oil and gas subsidies.

The New Politics of the New Energy Economy

Last week I attended a sold-out conference in downtown Denver that addressed the future of Colorado's 'New Energy Economy.' In the absence of any substantial federal legislation to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, state-level government initiatives in such states as California, Vermont, New Jersey, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Colorado to name a few, are giving shape to a technological 'race to the top' scenario where states are competing with each other to attract the type of businesses that can spur the development of a regional new energy economy.

While renewable energy technologies are receiving much needed attention from Wall St. to Main St. and from Cape Cod to Capitol Hill, the consensus at the conference seemed to be that planners, policymakers and investors should focus their immediate gaze on the 'low hanging fruit' of energy efficiency.

A rather interesting group was assembled for this event; it attracted CEOs of major utilities, well-known environmental advocates (and lesser known ones), coal advocates, reps from big oil, governors, farmers, mayors, contractors, energy researchers, policy wonks, etc. It is these sort of interdisciplinary events that have the effect of expanding the green movement beyond the constraints of its traditional boundaries.

In a smart political move, the Governor's Energy Office and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission have already posted links to PowerPoint presentations and high-quality audio of the conference sessions. I have no intention of pouring through the entire conference agenda for you, but if you are interested, I can suggest some worthwhile speeches and panels. The morning began with a pep-talk from Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter who touted a few of the state's legislative initiatives passed in the last session which included a doubling of the renewables portfolio standard (rps) for publicly owned utilities. Ritter delivered his remarks in a high-energy, high-spirited address that started the event off on the right foot. The governor did hint at the proposed policies in his new climate change initiative, but refrained from getting too specific about the details, which will be appropriately announced Monday at Coors Field in Denver. If you do listen to the Governor's talk, pay attention to the Q&A at the end and see if you can pick out which one of the questioners was yours truly! Other worthwhile talks in the morning plenary session came from Ron Binz from the Co. Public Utilities Commission, and from the Director of the Governor's Energy Office, Tom Plant.

If you are interested in traditional fuel sources, you might be interested in listening to the session titled "Coal and Gas: What are the Challenges..." I personally did not attend this session but instead attended the "Consumer Demand" session which featured political analyst Floyd Ciruli and was moderated by the excellent environmental historian Patricia Limerick. During the same time period there was another session for the technically-minded featuring "New Generation Technologies." In the second afternoon session I attended "Meeting Future Demand" which featured some spirited debate between Matt Baker, Executive Director of Environment Colorado and Jim Sims, who is best known as being a part of Vice President Dick Cheney's infamous energy task force (you remember, the one that was criticized for being cloaked in secrecy). This last session was informative but, unfortunately, the equivocating and loquacious Mr. Sims prevented too many questions from being asked by the audience because he was too busy reiterating his redundant messages.

Image Credit: Alexsandar Rodic

Colorado's New Energy Economy: The Path Forward

On Tuesday I will be attending what should be an excellent conference in Denver sponsored by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, the Governor’s Energy Office, and the Office of Consumer Counsel. The three state agencies will partner with the non-profit organization Energy Outreach Colorado for what is being billed as a "First-of-its-kind conference" (not my word choice, theirs) to examine current and future energy issues in Colorado. State and local elected officials will be joined by academics, energy leaders from various government agencies, investment bankers, energy industry representatives (both clean and dirty), and non-profit organizations to explore the policies, incentives, and economic impact of transitioning to a future of clean tech and renewable energy in Colorado.

Recapitulating on one of the central themes of his campaign stump speech, gubernatorial inaugural address, and 2007 State of the State speech, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter will deliver the morning plenary address on how his energy initiative coupled with recently passed legislation will be implemented to help construct Colorado's "New Energy Economy." The lunchtime keynote address will be given by NREL Principal Engineer Chuck Kutscher.

Other notable speakers, presenters, and moderators include Richard C. Kelly, Chairman of the Board, President & CEO of Xcel Energy; Greg Wasserman, Vice-President of Alternative Energy Investing for Goldman Sachs; Patty Limerick, Chair of the Center of the American West at the University of Colorado; and Matt Baker, Director of Environment Colorado.

Photo Credit: Denver Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau

Germany to Phase Out Coal Industry; U.S. to Not.

The German government is making headway on a proposal that would seek to totally phase out the country's entire coal mining industrial sector by 2018. The proposal, which is subject to approval by both houses of the German Parliament, will ensure structured

compensation payments for the country's 34,000 coal workers. The German Social Democratic Party has secured a review of the plan in 2012 before it goes into full effect. This reflexive approach is intended to safeguard the mining industry, which was largely responsible for the success of the Social Democrats in the 19th century.

How is Germany able to take such aggressive steps towards eliminating coal? For one thing, the cost of coal-mining in Germany is making the practice economically unattractive. Stringent safety measures, high labor costs and the increased expense to dig deeper to find untapped coal seams has driven the cost of German coal to about 180 euros ($250) per ton, more than three times the global market price. Second, and not completely unrelated, the German feed-in tariff which I have written about here, mandates that utilities enter into purchase agreements for any producer of renewable electricity to the grid.

The formidable presence of the Greens in the German Bundestag has had the ultimate effect of 'devolutionizing ' electricity generation and revolutionizing grid interconnectivity. Now, it looks like their aggressive push for renewable energy sources will help anchor renewable energy sources as the essential ingredient in the German energy mix.

So, with that said, what is the future of coal in the U.S.? Well, put it this way, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of coal development in a country and the number of Green Party representatives in that country's legislature (Congress, Bundestag, Parliament, etc.). The preceding assertion would certainly need to be tested to find a statistically significant correlation, but the point is that there is virtually no third party presence, Green or otherwise, in the American system of interest representation and there is also no significant political efforts toward phasing out coal development.

In fact, one reporter from the Voice of America, has suggested that "like it or not, coal is here to stay." I think those types of blanket statements can be problematic, especially when we are addressing the mobilization of political action. Reporting that something cannot be changed can have the effect of suppressing thought and action. Yes, coal is currently the number one source of electricity in the U.S. And yes, the most powerful coal advocate's national political action committee CoalPAC donates tremendous sums of money to the campaign coffers of legislators in both parties in hopes of perpetuating the 'we need coal' myth. But one of the beauties of democracy is that just because it is here now, does not mean it will necessarily be here later.

Despite the fact that coal is often projected to be our primary source of electricity for some time to come (and I generally agree with this statement), asserting that it must, or accepting such assertions as a predestined certainty precludes the possibility of any discussion of other alternatives. Some will just shrug and accept their perceived reality of a coal-based future, because that is what the 'experts' are saying. Fortunately there are increasing numbers of people and organizations that are not limiting their discussion to the alternatives that provide no alternative

Wind and Hydro Power in Colorado: The Irony of the 'Event' as Politics (part I)

On any other day, Xcel Energy would have been basking in the sun. On any other day Xcel officials would have been standing proudly alongside Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and executives from energy conglomerate BP and global financiers Babcock & Brown to announce the grand opening of the new Cedar Creek wind farm in rural Weld County, CO. But Xcel had another issue launching them to the front pages of newspapers across the country, and that was the death of five contractors in a freak fire at a hydro-electric plant in the mountains west of Denver. The ironic timing of these two occurrences is quite striking.

The intent of this piece is not to disparage Xcel directly (a company that has invested rather aggressively in the development of renewable energy resources in MN, CO and NM), rather to illuminate more broadly, the massive social costs of modern electrification -- costs that are not shared equally by all of those who benefit from them -- especially the costs of centralized energy distribution versus distributed (or dispersed) energy distribution.

The language of efficiency has dominated the politics of energy development, but the language of efficiency does not dominate the entire system of accounting for energy. We are efficient in terms of extracting and producing the supply, but there seems to be much less focus on efficiency in terms of demand. Not only that, but we often achieve efficiency by simply not counting all parts of the equation. Take, for example, the economist's prized value of "cost-effectiveness", which is determined by some calculus of cost-benefit ratios and analyses.
The problem is that cost is all too often measured only in terms of real dollars which can have the real effect of obscuring so-called 'externalities' (i.e. mercury pollutants, widening economic disparities, the buildup of heat-trapping gasses, and dead miners).

Meanwhile, in what I am certain ended up being a rather anticlimactic opening ceremony at Colorado's newest windfarm, Governor Bill Ritter flipped a switch that essentially did nothing. While BP and Babcock & Brown have erected several of the 1MW+ turbines, they have yet to connect them to the grid. The farm will not produce any energy until the transmission lines have been hung, thereby bringing the generated windpower to Xcel customers in Colorado. And even though the suit-wearing participants in the grand opening believed their ceremonious but meaningless coalescence would produce a powerful political statement, the event would have been much more "cost-effective" politically, had the freaking turbines been plugged in when Ritter "flipped the switch."

The maximum or "nameplate" capacity of the $480 million wind project is approximately 300MW, which could bring electricity to as many as 90,000 homes in Colorado. However, very few of these homes will be located particularly close to Cedar Creek, most of the power will go to Xcel customers subscribing in the Denver metro area. Theoretically, the green juice goes to customers who have signed up via Xcel's Green Power program but, in actuality, once electricity is generated and transmitted to the grid, accounting for it becomes difficult, it really just becomes completely indistinguishable from any other sources contributing to the grid. So, I suppose that I would accept the argument these locals may in fact get the electricity that is actually produced at Cedar Creek, but that is beside the essential point here. Relatively few of those who will see these 274 turbines spread over 32,000 acres (50 sq. mi.) of eastern Weld County on a daily basis (or several times per day) will actually receive any direct economic benefits of them. Certainly there will be landowners (largely ranchers and farmers) who will receive lease payments from BP and B&B, and there will be ancillary contributions to the local economy when technicians visit gas stations, supply stores, restaurants, etc.; but these pale in comparison to the economic boon to the entire community if they were owned cooperatively by the local rural electric association. It is these REA members and electricity consumers who will undoubtedly make visual contact with one or more of these turbines per day, and whether like the sight of the new turbines or not, most will not receive any sort of compensation. Nor do the members of the REA even get the personal satisfaction of knowing that they are doing something about producing renewable energy, because the money that they pay for their electricity goes mostly to the coal-happy Tri-State Generation and Transmission (which oddly serves FOUR states not three).

Now that I have hopefully gotten your attention, I realize that this post has gotten too long, and still haven't sewn up a coherent argument about how all of this is ironic...

...so, please stay tuned for part II!

Photo Credits:
1. American Wind Energy Association, The 165-MW Colorado Green Wind Farm, Prowers County, Colorado.
2. Windustry

Should Coal Have Standing?

Even Professor Christopher Stone would have some difficulty extending moral consideration to coal, oil, or gas (I think). Stone first posed an ethical question in the pages of the University of Southern California Law Review 45 (1972) that has remained a perennial favorite for nearly two generations of environmental philosophers, ethicists, law school professors and the like; Stone's question: "Should Trees Have Standing?"

Bad pun aside, Stone was able to hang his academic hat on that question. Although I don't really remember the exact logic of his argument, I don't think he successfully argued that trees should be extended moral (or legal) rights.

Everywhere it is occurring, the development of mineral resources for fuel (i.e. coal, gas, coalbed methane) presents a deluge of social and ecological challenges for policymakers and citizens alike. But I find it to be particularly troublesome when land use planning officials can successfully claim that coal has any sort of legal right. Unfortunately, it is also the case that in many mostly western U.S. states that, while the mineral itself does not have any inherent right, there's a good chance that someone or something has the legal right to get at it -- and that something is usually the federal government.

So-called "split estates" are legally binding mechanisms by which a land title is considered as completely separate from the title to the underlying minerals, including oil, gas and coal. According to the High Country News, forty-eight percent of Wyoming’s private land is split estate, and the Bureau of Land Management began leasing the minerals under tens of thousands of acres of this private land. Once the subsurface rights are leased, surface owners have little recourse against the traffic explosion on freshly bulldozed roads. Energy exploration and development (and most mining practices more broadly) threaten the quality of the air and water, they disrupt and fragment wildlife habitat, they have contributed to boom-and-busty cycles with often devastating economic consequences. And, as recent events in Utah and elsewhere have reminded us, energy development endangers the health and safety of the humans who live and work amongst it.

As miners and oil and gas industry workers toil away at their dangerous and pursuits, and as labor and environmental groups make efforts to make those jobs safer, western ranchers are fighting a different kind of fight altogether. For example, Shaun Andrikopoulos (pictured) and a group of his neighboring ranchers have been engaged in a battle to regain control use of their surface rights in Sublette County, Wyoming (photo: Justin Fantl, for Planet Jackson Hole).

Owners of the lands' surface have little they can do about the noxious fumes, flair-offs, noise from drill rigs, diesel generators and seismic exploration, add the addition of city-like skylines created by the illumination of drill rigs and their necessary outbuildings at night, and you've got some pretty disappointed landowners.

Thankfully, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition has publicized some of these problems in a powerful series of pictures of mountaintop removal mining and information as well as a collection of quotes from energy industry representatives, company execs and public officials. Below is one of the most memorable ones (and ultimately, the inspiration for this post):

"There's still coal underneath the land and sometime in the future, that coal has the right to be mined. What I am saying is there are areas where people will build and in the future they will have to un-build." -Campbell County (WY) Commissioner Alan Weakly and former mining engineer.

Survey Finds Overwhelming Support for Wind

New and Improved! Now with Even More Empirics!

The political back-and-forth in the Cape Wind debate rolls on. Renewable Energy Access has just shed some light on a new iteration of a Massachusetts energy survey.The Opinion Research Corporation poll for the Civil Society Institute has found that Massachusetts citizens are, perhaps, not as divided over wind energy development as they have been portrayed by the media and opposition groups.

From ecopolitology

read more | digg story

Small Wind on the Cape: A Joke or a Stroke of Political Brilliance?

[Here's some more juicy Cape Wind fodder]

Is Christy Mihos joking or is he using some some of that well placed "strategery." Mihos owns two properties on Great Island in West Yarmouth, supposedly within sight of the proposed Cape Wind location. And now the former gubernatorial candidate of Massachusetts, and present co-chair of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has suggested an alternative to the original Cape Wind plan. Mihos has volunteered the sites of his convenience stores as spots for wind turbines. Here's the details from the AP: "The turbines proposed for Mihos’ Hyannis store will rise 31 feet above the pavement, according to plans filed with the town. Each turbine would generate about 2,600 kilowatts per year."

Wendy Williams, co-author of the unambiguously one-sided book, Cape Wind, believes Mihos is setting up an elaborate practical joke. She writes in an e-mail: "Let's do the math. One of Cape Wind's 3.6-megawatt turbines in Nantucket Sound would be equal to how many of Christy Mihos' 1.5-kilowatt toys? About 2,400. So to replace the [Cape Wind] project, Mihos would have to put up about 312,000 of his little jokes all around the Cape."

However, I'm not so sure that Ms. Williams gets it. Quite often, political strategy is considered "political theater," and this is a perfect example By showing that he is willing to erect small wind on-site at his many stores, he is publicly displaying that he is not opposed to (the concept) ofwind energy as a potential power source. Said Mihos: "I think wind power is a wonderful idea."

Whether or not I agree with Mr Mihos' politics, I think it is a rather brilliant move on his part.

Stay tuned for more on small wind v. big wind...

"House energy bill, this is Senate energy bill. Say hello"

On a Saturday flurry that encroached one day into their summer vacation, the people's house passed an energy bill that should have put a smile on a few faces. For those who believe that we have not seen decent renewable energy incentives in the U.S. since the Carter administration, there is reason to feel somewhat victorious. But before you pop the cork on that bottle of Cold Duck or, as Fred Sanford liked to call it, "the good stuff," I must remind everyone that the Senate passed a different collection of energy bills, and now the two must be reconciled into a bill that President George W. Bush might just veto. That is, unless the most significant language in the bills is tempered rather considerably in an effort to get it past the White House.

The differences between the two bills are many. Some of the highlights include a solar energy tax incentive and the elimination of a multi-billion dollar tax break for big oil companies (coupled with a redistribution of those funds toward renewable energy research/production.). But the most significant piece of legislation in the Senate energy bill was completely omitted in the House version; the House did nothing in terms of raising automobile fuel efficiency standards. The Senate bill increases the requirement to 35 mpg by 2020 for cars, SUVs and small trucks, about a 40% increase. Simply put, the House dropped the ball, and the fact that they whimped out on CAFE standards is not particularly surprising.

Oddly, the part of the House legislation which had the most potential for inducing any sort of real change, was also the most yawn-inducing. The House bill energy mandates that investor-owned utilities purchase 15% of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Beside the point that this renewable portfolio standard (RPS) may get by fillibustered by senate Republicans, the language of it has considerable weaknesses.

I am not as optimistic as some that: a) The bill is an effective policy tool, and; b) The bill will even be passed by Congress. First, RPSs are a little clunky as a policy mechanism; they lack flexibility, and do not incentivize renewable energy prodcution the way European and Canadian mechanisms do. The EU, and parts of Canada have used renewable energy tariffs, feed laws, and fee schedules that mandate utilities to purchase renewable energy from any provider at a (fairly high) fixed rate; a rate high enough that makes buying solar panels and sticking them on your roof fiscally attractive. This very aggressive yet somewhat draconian provision has pushed Germany to the forefront of micro-scale renewable energy generation. Just last month, the German Ministry of Environment announced that the targets for 2020 had increased to 27% from the previous 20% and had added a target of 45% by 2030. If there is to be a substantial increase in renewable energy generation, this is perhaps the fastest way to achieve that goal--but politically it is unlikely.

The second shortcoming of the House RPS is that it is only for investor-owned utilities. The House RPS exempts rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the state of Hawaii from the mandate. Not surprisingly, the investor-owned utility lobbies were a little disappointed for being singled out in the house's legislation; Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, called the House vote “very disappointing.” (I bet you're disappointed, Thomas.)

The third reason I am disappointed with the house RPS is that several states have already enacted renewable energy standards that are considerably tougher than the federal mandate. The cartographic wizards over at the Pew Center on Climate Change have put together the handy little map below that shows the states which have enacted some sort of renewable standard. Doesn't it look strikingly similar to another map of the U.S. you saw last November? Well I have news for everyone, even that map is a little misleading. Can we break those units down a little more? Try this more detailed map from 2004 on for size! (to be continued...)