Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Email This Story
Share This Story
Reader Comments (37)
Image Gallery (1)
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
Last Friday the U.S. House of Representatives, in an unusual move, extended the final week of its session into Saturday in order to finish debate on vital legislation before recessing for the summer. The outstanding business included two crucial bills affecting renewable energy development in the U.S.
"A 15 percent federal standard brings even more support from diverse regions of the country, further demonstrating the broad support for establishing the first ever federal standard of this kind."
-- Representative Tom Udall, Democrat, New Mexico
The bills, HR969 and HR2776, had been slated for debate in the final week of the session but were in danger of being elbowed out by the sheer pressure of other business, including health care, ethics and agriculture. HR969 is designed to create a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electricity production, while HR2776 will extend through 2012 the tax credit for the production of electricity from renewable resources.
These bills, amendments to the larger Clean Energy Bill passed in June, are considered by many observers and industry experts to be vital to kick-starting the growth of clean energy production. The final vote tally on the overall bill was 241-172.
In an effort to garner broad support for HR969 legislators recently modified the language of the bill, which originally specified that utilities would have to provide 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2020; this target figure has now been reduced to 15%.
"A 15% federal standard brings even more support from diverse regions of the country, further demonstrating the broad support for establishing the first ever federal standard of this kind," said Representative Tom Udall (D-NM), co-sponsor of the bill.
The RPS legislation was further modified toward the end of last week to split the 15% requirement into two parts: at least 11% for renewable sources, and a maximum of 4% for energy efficiency. This latter figure imposes a quantifiable responsibility on utilities to help users of electricity, particularly large industrial customers, to use it more efficiently.
Only 26 Republicans voted for the overall bill. Ralph Hall, a Texan Republican, complained of a war being waged against fossil fuel energy. "I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry," he said.
Utilities and other business interests were also opposed to the RPS legislation, arguing that it would raise electricity prices in parts of the country with poor wind resources. Rep. Udall disagreed, noting that half the states already have a renewable energy standard in place.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who insisted that these measures be passed before the House recessed, was uncompromising in her comments, saying that "energy independence is a national security issue, an environmental and health issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue. This bill will send our energy dollars to Middle America and coast to coast, not the Middle East. This bill lays out specific steps the Administration should take for the U.S. to resume a constructive role as the global leader in combating global warming."
With the Senate version of the legislation already complete (but lacking an RPS or solar tax credit provisions), passage in the House leads to a conference committee stage in the fall and possible final passage of a reconciled bill in late October or early November. That bill may also contain language mandating greater fuel efficiency in motor vehicles and increased use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline.
The Bush Administration, however, was reported last week to be threatening a veto of the Energy Bill.
Marissa Padilla, press secretary to Rep. Udall, expressed her disappointment at the prospect of a veto.
"When there is such strong bipartisan and popular support for a bill, and such a need today for clean energy solutions, it would be terrible for the Administration to simply maintain the status quo," said Padilla.
Marchant Wentworth of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that a presidential veto would be a retrograde step. "But the bill is very popular with the people, and we're optimistic that it will survive a veto," he said.
If enacted into law, the RPS will be 2.75 percent by 2010, gradually increasing thereafter to meet the 2020 goal. Suppliers can meet these requirements by purchasing credits from other entities who have obtained credits by producing renewable energy. It also allows utilities to bank credits for three years, and to borrow credits from up to three years in the future.
Chris Stimpson is the executive campaigner and activist for the Solar Nation advocacy group solar-nation.org. In addition he serves on the Board of Directors of Clean Power Now.
$500 Billion? Yeah right.... Try over a trillion. There are hundreds of billions not publicly accounted for hidden in deferred maintenance. Basically, we have run our equipment into the ground. Just wait for the inevitable equipment bills coming down the pipe... It really makes me sick!!!!!!
Hundreds of billions that could have been spent directing our country and the entire world to a cleaner future.... Well... let's not give up! We need to pull together and demand that renewable energy and increased efficiency is essential to moving our country forward.
Well put Carolyn. At this time Citizenre is not a reality and it is unfortunate so many people believe the hype. However, there are many real companies working hard to make solar affordable.
Long term financing through Power Purchase Agreements is available for commercial applications, but residential PPAs are still developing.
Join together, write congress, and let's direct our country onto the right path!
How 'bout $500 Billion dollars (and counting) wasted in Iraq. Now there's an oil subsidy that makes Solar subsidies look like pocket change.
The best thing that could happen for Renewable energies and the ENTIRE US population (not just the Oil patch folks) and their energy woes, would be for Bush to leave office, today.
Your home does consume a fair amt. of power. You would need approx 1,000 sq ft of panels to offset virtually all of your electrical bill. I agree that some homes aren't feasible to install solar due to trees, roof configurations, and other challenges.
Currently in CA, the additional charge to fund solar legislation is a fraction of 1%. On your bill their is a public purpose charge that is approx 1%. That charge covers much more than just solar: recycling programs for old equipment, conservation education classes for the public, energy efficiency rebates. In my opinion, that 1% is the best return on investment a bill payer could spend to help deter from massive energy price increases in the future for all.
If you want to complain, what about the charge paid for nuclear decommissioning? How about the health costs of murcury poising in our oceans caused by the burning of coal?
Cool, Bigger Welfare checks for solar people.
I have been stalling on installation of a solar system to offset the 2200 kwh ($400 plus taxes, fees, alterternative envergy and recycling programs makes it $520 - Thanky you California) I blow thru every month. If they get the subsidies/welfare check high enough, I might take the plunge and stick everyone else with my bill. I am a nice guy, why should I pay my power when I can dump it on to someone else?
My original plan to cut my electrical usage by 50% failed, the city wouldn't let me put in a second meter and thereby reduce my power hog tax of $.39 per kwh. by splitting my bill between two meters.
My problem is that to install a large enough system (80 kwh per day although I need only 50 kwh per day in winter) I am really going to have to some remodellling and kill a half dozen trees on the South and West side of my land. I hate to do it, but
Anyone know off the top of their head how much square footage I will need for such a system?
Mr. Berry,
The missing piece to your understanding of solar technology and it's associated costs is not the required square footage for your project. In fact, it doesn't sound like solar is for you iat all f it is only a backup plan for your two meter scam. If scams are your preference, maybe you ought to look into coal to liquid technologies.
John
Mr Berry,
Why do you think it would be ok to use a second meter as a loophole for your energy gluttony, but not ok to use a solar power subsidy that has been voted for by the people of California? Are you ok with the Trillions of welfare dollars given to the fossil fuel industry? It might help if you just remember that if there were no subsidies for any type of energy, renewables would win the competition.
Jerry Caldwell
Calvino, I understand and completely agree with your frustration. Two things need to happen simultaneously for strong positive change. First, renewables need to become efficient and wise financially without subsidies. Over time, if Gov't incentives disappear from renewable industries, and financial viability still exists, it will be a no-brainer for people to drive the market and make change. Second, taxes on oil/coal or other forms of repealing oil subsidies (much more $$ than new clean industry, does that make sense?) will continue to increase the price of these fossil fuels, thus creating urgency and opportunity for other industries and consumers. This may be automobile manufacturers imporving even further MPG, battery tech, electric options, etc., or American people realizing that if oil wasn't subsidized heavily we'd be paying $10-13 per gallon.
If Gore does not run, which is apparently the situation, it could be interesting to see an "Energy Czar" position return to office. Much like First Lady's have focused solely on one issue, this position can help consolidate and guide the future of american energy.
Neither of these energy bills recently passed by the House of Reps should be party line issues. Encouraging investor-owned utilities to increase their renewable energy portfolio, and taxing polluting, expensive, non-renewable finite oil to help investing in clean energy for the future should not be either Democratic or Republican. The wealthiest country in the world, with all our technology, should have the ability to power itself with clean renewable energy. The reasons to support these bills far surpasses any objection. Energy independence, environmental concern, securing lower energy costs for the future, adding strength to our economy in the form of strong domestic manufacturing; these are all issues the voting constituents of both Republican and Democrat politicians support.
Does anyone know how many congressmen voted Nea on these two bills that are not involved in the oil or coal industries? This includes campaign contributions, former career/affiliation, or large investment. I think those figures might be quite telling as to who, or what, is disproportionately controlling our once-strong Democracy.
Sorry, one more note. These votes were almost split among party lines. What, exactly, is the Republican agenda to vote "NO" on renewable energy? What is their reason? I don't get it. "I voted 'no' on funding renewable energy because I think Oil and Gas are our future." Huh? Someone who supports a Nay vote on these, please explain why - I'm seriously interested in the views of "the other side".
Thanks,
California, and now Oregon, have a 50% renewable energy tax credit. Arizona offered a limited time 50% rebate on Solar PV installations. Your state may do the same. With an offer like that, Solar PV is a good investment today. My 5.2KW system cost me $25K to install, so costs me about .14/KWh, while APS charges .085/KWh. But that is today. I expect grid electricity to triple within 5 years.
We can't rely on the government to supply our energy for us. Start at home. Provide your own energy. Anyone who drives a $50K car, but doesn't have their own Solar PV system should be seriously reconsidering their priorities.
BTW, here is a picture of mine: http://www.zapsys.com/solarpanels.jpg
This is a good first step and I would support it and an override of a veto if necessary. I believe more should be added to solar and more investment tax credits for the ordinary citezen to look at renewables.
Joe R
mlynn smith:
True net-metering would have the meter spinning both forwards and backwards at the same rate. Some state net-metering laws say that when the meter passes "zero" (actually the point of the previous reading) anything beyond that wouldbe forfeited. That makes sense. Up to that point, electricity generated by one's system constitutes a refund or a reimbursement, but beyond that it would be a sale, with tax and reporting consequences. (See dsireusa.org)
I see representative Moran of Kansas voted Nay on both proposals. He has lost my vote. I don't understand why he would vote no, I am assuming lobbyists got to him.
Kansas does have a fairly potent oil and gas lobby although it is getting harder to find new reserves of the stuff anymore. Since oil passed $60 a bbl I dont remember when I have seen so many drilling rigs running around.
By YJ Draiman
Our concern for future generations (R3)Rainwater harvesting and the utilization of grey-water is a must these days.
As the world population is increasing and modernizing. The utilization of our natural resources such as water is becoming scarcer and more in demand.
In order to conserve, we must utilize rainwater, and grey-water. This will also reduce water and sewer cost.
There are many techniques today which are not expensive and can be accomplished with little effort. All you need is to be concerned about the future and take action to minimize your impact on the depletion of natural resources.
We should also make it our utmost concern to make our home and or business energy efficient, and implement water conservation methods.
Builders should be required by building code to design and build structures that are energy efficient and conserve on water and other natural resources. Reduce waste and utilize recycled materials.
All citizens of the world should implement actionable conservation methods and living responsibly by contributing to the solution of sustainability.YJ Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325 – 8/6/2007.
PS.
SAVE ON ENERGY COSTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
A growing number of people are striving to make their homes more energy-efficient, and it’s no wonder: Conserving energy saves homeowners money on gas and electric bills and contributes to a healthy environment. It can also make a home more comfortable.
GREEN BUILDING - The goal of green building is to reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the environment and the people in them.
RADIANT BARRIER - Radiant barrier is installed in buildings to minimize heat gain or loss, reducing the amount of energy needed for cooling and heating.
Recent technological improvements in building elements and construction techniques, and heating, ventilation, and cooling systems, allow most modern energy saving ideas to be seamlessly integrated into any type of house design without sacrificing comfort, health, or aesthetics.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who insisted that these measures be passed before the House recessed, was uncompromising in her comments, saying that "energy independence is a national security issue, an environmental and health issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue. This bill will send our energy dollars to Middle America and coast to coast, not the Middle East.
This goes to show you our people running this country don't have a clu e about energy. We do not use OIL to generate but a tiny fraction of electricity in the USA and oil is use d to heat homes in a tiny fraction of homes as well. She needs to go back to Energy 101 school.
John
http://wwwBeUtilityFree.com
net metering is a nice concept. I am slightly ignorant on all the details. do the net meters have to spin back at exactly the same rate as they spin forward?
And if you get past zero do the energy companies have to pay you at the same rate they charge you. If not on either of those questions then it is probably best to pursue legislation in that area.
I currently use all renewables and am not hooked to a grid of any kind.
In Ontario, Canada, we adopted an increasingly common program known as a Feed-In-Tarriff (under the Standard Offer Program). The problem was that most PPAs (if not all) would go directly to large corporations that could build wind farms of the 100's of MW size, and therefore would be the most competitive for the government to approve (e.g., lowest $/kWh) - those companies were putting in wind farms with costs of 7 - 9 cents/kWh - the problem with that scheme was that the "little guy" could not compete. If I wanted to put a solar panel on my roof, or a small 10 kW wind turbine on my property, I could only net metre, i.e., run my metre backwards....well we all know money talks - saving money is great, but we would never get a cheque cut to us from the gov. The solution was to develop a standard interconnection contract, make it law that utilities much purchase power from people who have a certified renewable energy system (basically a metre and a grid-tie inverter). 100's of MW have now come online from small producers (some as small as 1.3 kW solar arrays), that are now able to compete with the big guys, feel good about themselves and what they are doing to help fight climate change, and, not go bankrupt just trying to do the right thing. This Tarrif will be coming to some US states, and has been adopted for years in places like Germany.
The chatter on this topic is fantastic.
Cheers -
Tom
We might as well leave the RPS issues to the States where things are already happening. A federal program means another bureaucracy of federal workers is needed to account for, inspect, audit and report results. With many States already onboard, we can probably make the 2.75 % in 2010 thru existing momentum. The idea of trading credits and banking/borrowing credits for up to 3 years is another toothless accounting misadventure-any results should be mandated at the micro level and this 'trading credits' nonsense should be eliminated. Luckily Greenland isn't going to melt overnight. A technical mindset is needed to address these issues, not politics. The younger generation is already sensitized to the problem and will demand results where we dally in rhetoric.
Actually, nothing is being deducted from the profits of the Oil industry by the recent action of the Democrats and a few like-minded Republicans. The billions of dollars slated to go to promoting renewables is going to come out of tax money that was going to go to the Oil industry to make it easier for them to bribe politicians and to advertise about what a wonderful job they are doing, and to keep making sure the CEO of Exxon gets his 1/2 billion dollars in welfare every year.
It is almost funny, the Republicans are calling this "Green Pork," but they forget that it is just "Gooey, Sticky, Oil Pork" that has been shifted over to something that might actually benefit our country, for a change.
Somebody tell Nancy Pelosi that Electricity consumes 210 Mn Barrels of Oil per year, meaning about 2% of consumption, meaning about 6% of all imports. Producing Energy via Renewables does NOT solve our dependance problem.
Somebody ask Nancy Pelosi why she caved in to John Dingell on MPG legislation. This was the low hanging fruit.
I am all in favor of RE - I manage a couple of funds in the sector. But I am opposed to demagogue Politicians spending our tax money where they know it does not make sense - like Solar or CO2. They should call it like it is: JOB CREATION. Go to any REPP report, it right there: $200Bn for $200GW for 1Mn jobs. Check out Solar, it's amazing.
If you don't want to go through the numbers yourselves, just google either my name or Capital Max, my firm. I welcome your comments.
I asked Representative Anna Eshoo directly last week, who would be on the conference committee to reconcile the House & Senate bills. She said that would be determined in September after the August recess. I am hoping the RPS will clear this committee and make it's way to the Presidents desk. I will be gather photos of average everday citizens holding a poster saying "15% RPS by 2020". I plan to send those photos to each of the conference committee members. Next week I will be at an Alternative Energy event with my "solar trailer" at San Lorenzo High School. I'm hoping to get a group photo with the students holding a 15% RPS Poster or Banner. I'm thinking that if enough High Schools around the country did the same, we might have a shot at getting the RPS enacted into law.
If I told you there was a "quiet energy revolution", would you oppose or support it?
Galen Swain
Previous Article
