Hill Heat

From the Wonk Room.

The Washington Post’s Al Kamen reports that there’s “buzz” that the Obama transition is “looking hard at some scientific types” to lead the Energy Department. Dr. Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is reportedly a dark horse candidate.

In a presentation at this summer’s National Clean Energy Summit convened by the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Dr. Chu described why he has moved from his background in experimental quantum physics to tackling global warming:

Consider this. There’s about a 50 percent chance, the climate experts tell us, that in this century we will go up in temperature by three degrees Centigrade. Now, three degrees Centigrade doesn’t seem a lot to you, that’s 11° F. Chicago changes by 30° F in half a day. But 5° C means that … it’s the difference between where we are today and where we were in the last ice age. What did that mean? Canada, the United States down to Ohio and Pennsylvania, was covered in ice year round.

Five degrees Centigrade.

So think about what 5° C will mean going the other way. A very different world. So if you’d want that for your kids and grandkids, we can continue what we’re doing. Climate change of that scale will cause enormous resource wars, over water, arable land, and massive population displacements. We’re not talking about ten thousand people. We’re not talking about ten million people, we’re talking about hundreds of millions to billions of people being flooded out, permanently.

As Dr. Chu explains in the above video, the optimal way to reduce greenhouse emissions is to waste less energy, by investing in energy efficiency. He demolished the myth that we can’t reduce our use of energy without reducing our wealth by offering numerous counterexamples, or, in his scientist’s jargon, “existence proofs.” Applause broke out when he described how companies, after claiming efficiency gains and lowered costs were impossible, “miraculously” achieved them once they “had to assign the jobs from the lobbyists to the engineers.”

Chu continued by discussing what he has done to develop “new technologies to transform the landscape.” He discussed the Helios Project, the research initiative Berkeley Lab launched for breakthrough renewable energy and efficiency technology. In addition to research into energy conservation, Berkeley Lab researchers are pursuing nanotech photovoltaics, microbial and cellulosic biofuels, and chemical photosynthesis.

Dr. Chu concluded his address with a reminder why this challenge is so important:

I will leave you with this final image. This is – I was an undergraduate when this picture was taken by Apollo 8 – and it shows the moon and the Earth’s rise. A beautiful planet, a desolate moon. And focus on the fact that there’s nowhere else to go.

In the late 1970s, a series of studies was produced that surveyed America’s energy situation, including the landmark book “Energy in America’s Future” by scholars at Resources for the Future. Thirty years later, this symposium will provide a retrospective assessment of the 1970s experience in order to extract lessons for current policy. In what ways is the past a prologue? Which projections materialized and which policy concerns proved justified? Which did not? With what confidence or humility should this retrospective inform current visions of our energy future, given the emerging challenges of energy security and global climate change?

A distinguished group of academics and policymakers will draw on their extensive experience with U.S. energy policy to put the current energy landscape into historical perspective. Panelists include:

• Professor John Deutch (MIT)
• Robert Fri (former RFF President)
• Professor William Hogan (Harvard University)
• Milton Russell (Emeritus – University of Tennessee)
• Phil Sharp (RFF President)

Note: Registration for this event is closed. We invite you to view the live webcast available via this page on October 29th

Registration and continental breakfast will begin at 8:30 a.m.

Resources for the Future 1616P Street, NW First Floor Conference Center Washington, DC 20036

10/29/2008 at 09:00AM

David Goldwyn, president of Goldwyn International Strategies LLC and chair of GEEI, will lead this forum “The Energy Economy in Transition: Mega Trends for the Year Ahead.”

• Scott Barrett, director of the SAIS International Policy Program, will discuss “Prospects for a New Carbon Regime”
• Michelle Billig, senior director of political risk at PIRA Energy Group and member of GEEI’s advisory board, will discuss “Political Risks on the Rise”
• Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank and a member of GEEI’s advisory board, will discuss “New Dynamics in the Markets.”

Sponsored by the SAIS Global Energy and Environment Initiative.

For more information and to RSVP, contact 202.663.5786 or [email protected].

Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Kenney Auditorium 1740 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C.

10/27/2008 at 12:00PM

From the Wonk Room.

A major new study of the success of California’s green economy by economist David Roland-Holst finds that “California’s energy-efficiency policies created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007, while eliminating fewer than 25,000.” Today, California’s per-capita electricity demand is 40 percent below the national average:

Total electricity use, per capita, 1960-2001

Instead of household income being lost to the capital intensive energy sector, Californians have enjoyed the benefits of their wages being plowed into job creating sectors, such that “induced job growth has contributed approximately $45 billion to the California economy since 1972.”

Energy Efficiency, Innovation, and Job Creation in California, by David Roland-Holst, an economist at the Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley, is the first study of how the savings from California’s energy efficiency standards affected its economy through “expenditure shifting” away from the energy sector. The author explains:

When consumers shift one dollar of demand from electricity to groceries, for example, one dollar is removed from a relatively simple, capital intensive supply chain dominated by electric power generation and carbon fuel delivery. When the dollar goes to groceries, it animates much more job intensive expenditure chains including retailers, wholesalers, food processors, transport, and farming. Moreover, a larger proportion of these supply chains (and particularly services that are the dominant part of expenditure) resides within the state, capturing more job creation from Californians for California. Moreover, the state reduced its energy import dependence, while directing a greater percent of its consumption to in-state economic activities.

Join USCHPA for a strategy session featuring policymakers, practitioners, financiers and pundits discussing the future of clean energy technologies and offering guidance on ways to maximize the role of clean heat and power as a solution to climate change.

Tentative Agenda

7:00 AM – 8:00 AM

• Continental Breakfast

8:00 AM

• Welcome Back, Jessica Bridges, Executive Director, USCHPA

8:00 AM – 9:00 AM

• Future Market Opportunities for Energy Efficiency

Session Leader: Paul Thomsen, USCHPA Vice Chairman and Director of Policy and Business Development, Ormat Technologies This session will address the future of clean heat and power from the C-level perspective. Where are the big opportunities? Will increasing climate change sensitivities, carbon reduction initiatives, and fuel prices align to create the perfect opportunity for energy efficient technologies? If so, what do CEOs need and want from Wall Street?

9:00 AM – 10:00 AM

• Financial Forecast for Clean Heat and Power

Session Leader: Justin Rathke, Director, Policy and Business Development, Capstone Turbine Corporation

Policymakers, industry, and the general public are all talking carbon reduction; what’s the financial impact? How is industry reacting to, and where does Wall Street stand on a potential U.S. carbon trading regime? This session will focus on industry trends for clean heat and power from an investor perspective.

10:00 AM – 10:15 AM

• Break

10:15 AM – 11:15 AM

• International Perspectives on CHP: How to Lead Not Follow

Session Leader: Richard Brent, Government Affairs, Solar Turbines, Inc The U.S. could learn a thing or two about combined heat and power (CHP) deployment from our peers on the world stage. Panelists in this session will focus on best practices and lessons learned from international leaders in the deployment of CHP, and recommend strategies for U.S. industry and policymakers to follow to realize the levels of CHP success achieved in other countries.

11:15 AM – 12:00 PM

• Closing Remarks – Moving Forward

Paul Thomsen, USCHPA Vice Chairman and Director of Policy and Business Development, Ormat Technologies

12:00 Noon

• Adjourn

DoubleTree Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia

10/02/2008 at 07:00AM

At Climate Progress, Joe Romm reviews the full text of the draft “Gang of Ten” energy legislation, now unofficially co-sponsored by ten Democrats and ten Republicans. The original ten senators are conservative and industry-friendly. Highlights of Romm’s review:

• Title II makes clear that the “consumer tax credits for advanced vehicles” is focused on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), see Section 202 (page 17). The tax credit is “$2,500, plus $400 for each kilowatt hour of traction battery capacity in excess of 4 kilowatt hours” with a cap at $7,500. A midsized PHEV might consume 0.3 to 0.4 kilowatt-hours per mile when it runs on electricity (yes, Toyota may well do better than that, but I doubt GM will).

  So a PHEV20 (one with a 20-mile range running only on electricity) might have a battery capacity 7 kwh, and get a $3700 tax credit. The Chevy Volt is supposed to be 40-mile electric range and get about $6500.

• Section 254 (page 114) has a geothermal heat pump tax credit up to $2000 and Section 282 (page 168) has a 2-year accelerated depreciation period for geothermal systems.

• Title IV, Subtitle B “Coal-to-Liquid” (page 191) is a tad confusing, but it doesn’t look to me like it’s going to jumpstart the industry, since it requires carbon capture and storage and requires lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from liquid coal to be no greater than that from conventional petroleum — a very high bar to jump.

• Subtitle C “Nuclear Power” (page 203) has a bad provision that says the Secretary of Energy “shall begin construction of a spent fuel recycling research and development facility not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.” Recycling is of course a euphemism for reprocessing.

• Subtitle D “Tax Provisions” (page 218) has a short section on enhanced oil recovery that I think is the worst provision in the bill.

Download the full draft.

According to E&E News, Democratic leadership plans to unveil an “all of the above” energy package today or tomorrow which likely has the following components:

• Expansion of OCS leasing to include areas off the coasts of the Carolinas, Virginia and Georgia, and possibly the eastern Gulf of Mexico as well. A bipartisan Senate plan known informally as the “Gang of 10” proposal would allow drilling in these regions no closer than 50 miles from shore. But House lawmakers and aides did not say how close to shore their plan would allow drilling.
• New revenues from oil companies. A Democratic leadership aide said the bill may include provisions to ensure payment of royalties from late-1990s deepwater Gulf of Mexico leases that currently allow royalty waivers regardless of energy prices. The absence of price-based limits on these royalty waivers could cost the Treasury as much as $14.7 billion over 25 years, according to the Government Accountability Office. The bill may also include the repeal of the Section 199 tax deduction for major oil companies. This plan, past versions of which have also frozen the deduction at 6 percent for non-majors, raises roughly $13.6 billion over a decade, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June.
• A so-called renewable electricity standard that requires utilities to supply escalating amounts of power from sources like wind and geothermal power. The House Democrats plan to include a standard of 15 percent by 2020, an aide said, akin to a measure the House approved last year that did not survive negotiations with the Senate. The plan allows roughly a fourth of the standard to be met with efficiency measures.
• Extension of renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits.

E&E also reports that Pelosi indicated “the energy bill might include support for automakers’ retooling to make more efficient vehicles.”

This could also be part of an economic stimulus package being prepared or the continuing resolution to extend government spending beyond the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year, she said.

From the Wonk Room.

President Bush exploited this morning’s press briefing on the “follow-up efforts” to Hurricane Gustav to attack Congress about lifting the offshore drilling moratorium. Stating that “what happens after the storm passes is as important as what happens prior to the storm arriving,” he made the declaration that “our discussion here today is about energy.” Bush wasn’t referring to the 1.4 million Louisianans who have lost power due to the storm’s destructive force, and chose not to mention the 102 deaths caused by Gustav. Instead, he went on the attack:

I know that Congress has been on recess for a while, but this issue hasn’t gone away. And, uh, this storm should not cause members of Congress say well, we don’t need to address our energy independence. It ought to cause the Congress to step up their need to address our dependence on foreign oil. And one place to do so is to give us a chance to explore in environmentally friendly ways on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Watch it:

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough were both floored by Bush’s decision “to use another hurricane in Louisiana to promote offshore drilling at this point,” after he “performed so poorly during Hurricane Katrina.”

Bush’s tasteless politicization of an ongoing civil emergency repeated tired right-wing talking points. As Van Jones told the Wonk Room last week, Bush is selling false solutions and more pollution:

Let’s be very clear. Number one: There’s no such thing as American oil any more. These are multinational corporations. If you let multinational corporations drill all this oil, they’re going to sell it to the highest bidder, whether it’s China, or India, it doesn’t matter. Why would we throw away America’s beauty chasing the lost drops of oil, so multinational corporations can sell it to India and China?

And people also got to remember, we didn’t stop this as an environmental issue. We didn’t stop offshore drilling for the duckies and the fishies. We stopped it because coastline communities were suffering. Because the property owners, the children who live in those coastline communities – not when there were oil spills – but every day, when your child goes out to swim, he comes back covered in oil, you have to use gasoline to get the oil off your child. That was happening coast to coast

Transcript:

Moderator: Ray Suarez

Introduction: Three Carbon Sources

• Robert A. Hefner III
• Dick Kelly
• Steven Leer
• Andrew Liveris
• Fred Palmer

Topic Expansion: Addressing the Economic Constraints

• William S. Becker
• Carol Browner
• Jerome Ringo
• Tim Wirth

Topic Expansion : Challenges and Opportunities

• D. James Baker
• Rep. Richard Gephardt
• Kevin Knobloch
• David Lester
• Sen. Claire McCaskill
• Michael Northrop
• Randy Udall

Space Theatre, Denver Performing Arts Complex, Denver, CO

08/26/2008 at 10:00AM

On Saturday, Senate Republicans successfully filibustered the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act (S. 3186), a bill which would have provided an additional $2.5 billion in funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), nearly double its current funding.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a cosponsor of the bill, issued this statement:

“At a time when oil companies are raking in record profits, the stubbornness of those who stood in the way of helping people in desperate need is incomprehensible to me. It is an outrage. The American people do not want to see the most vulnerable among us held hostage by the Senate Republican leaders.”

The National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association has projected that nationwide, the average cost of heating a home this winter will total about $1,114 – 14.6 percent more than last year.

Republican senators Coleman (Minn.), Collins (Maine), Smith (Ore.), and Snowe (Maine) voted with the 45 Democrats and Independents in attendance in favor of the bill. Coleman, Collins, and Smith are up for reelection this year (and are from northern states).

Senators not voting: Allard (R-Col.), Bond (R-Mo.), Bunning (R-Ken.), Burr (R-N.C.), Dole (R-N.C.), Graham (R-S.C.), Harkin (D-Iowa), Inhofe (R-Okla.), Inouye (D-Haw.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Kennedy (D-Mass.), McCain (R-Ariz.), Murray (D-Wash.), Obama (D-Ill.), and Warner (R-Va.).