Green Power

Greening of the Slopes

Weird weather and global warming are claiming a place at the top of the nation's political agenda these days. But while policymakers debate what to do about them, the ski industry already has adjusted its sails. Sugar Bowl, Alpine Meadows, Heavenly, Boreal and Soda Springs are among about two dozen resorts across the country claiming to be "100 percent wind powered." But don't look for any new-age wind turbines churning on Sierra ridge tops. The electricity making the lights shine and the lifts turn is only indirectly green, purchased with renewable energy credits known as green tags. Sugar Bowl was the first resort in the nation, in 2005, to offset 100 percent of its energy use with wind power, sometimes generated several states away. This year, a majority of snow-sports resorts in California are mitigating at least part of their fossil-fuel consumption through carbon-offset programs. They are part of an environmental movement that is snowballing across the ski industry as changing weather patterns threaten to melt mountain economies along with the snowfall that sustains them.

California's low-altitude Sierra resorts are especially at risk. "A variety of studies show that average springtime temperatures in the Sierra have increased as much as four degrees in the past 50 years," said Bob Roberts, executive director of the California Ski Industry Association. "They're saying, essentially, that here's the evidence, folks. And we (the ski industry) are not happy sitting back saying, well, it's cyclical, it's going to happen. We think California can be a leader in mitigating this issue." The state's ski industry "got religion" about the need to act in 2002 with passage of AB 1493, a bill mandating cuts in car and truck emissions, Roberts said. More recent legislation setting caps on greenhouse gases tied to global warming is the most stringent in the nation.

Other forces are at work, too. In 1998, after eco-saboteurs torched $12 million worth of property at Vail in Colorado, a shocked industry took stock of its environmental practices. In 2000, the National Ski Areas Association drew a green line in the snow by adopting an environmental charter, known as Sustainable Slopes, geared to foster sound conservation practices nationwide. About 185 of its 326 member resorts have signed on. Meanwhile, the effects of what Roberts terms "erratic and unusual weather" have become topic No. 1 in the industry, and renewable energy credits have emerged as one the most popular ways to take an environmental stand. Resorts using green-tag energy still pay regular rates to receive power from the nation's electrical grid. But they also pay a premium to renewable energy producers whose wind farms pump energy back into the system. The idea is to create a broader, more visible market for renewable energy. Vail Corp., Heavenly's parent company, positioned itself at the forefront of the movement this season with the decision to offset 100 percent of its energy use at five mountain resorts. Company officials say its purchase of 152,000 megawatt-hours of wind energy--the equivalent of taking 18,000 cars off the road--makes Vail the second-largest wind-power purchaser in the nation. The vendor, Boulder, Colo.-based Renewable Choice Energy, draws its power from wind farms in Colorado and Nebraska.  

Alpine Meadows and its sister Powdr Corp. resorts, Boreal and Soda Springs, also took the 100-percent wind-power plunge this season. Mountain resorts, with their hundreds of acres of open space, may appear at first glance to be relatively low-level polluters. But diesel-powered grooming fleets, water-sucking snowmaking systems and watershed damage caused by logging to create new runs and build new lifts all take an environmental toll. So does aggressive real- estate development at the base areas. Equally detrimental to the Tahoe environment are emissions produced by the cars that clog the highways leading from the Bay Area to the mountains each weekend. Environmental groups laud the resorts' move toward wind power, but criticize most for failing to mitigate their environmental impact in other ways. The Colorado-based Ski Area Citizens Coalition is one group keeping tabs. Its annual environmental scorecard rates resorts throughout the West in areas such as preserving undisturbed lands from development, protecting wetlands, preserving water quality, recycling and use of renewable energy.

This year's report gives Alpine Meadows and Sierra-at-Tahoe an "A" and lists both among the top 10 most environmentally friendly resorts in the West. At the other end of the spectrum is Kirkwood, whose "F" is derived mostly from issues related to real-estate development at the ski mountain's base. Resorts are awakening to the fact that their demographic--people who ski--are increasingly environmentally conscious, and that responsible stewardship is good for our communities and good for their bottom lines, said Autumn Bernstein, land use coordinator for the Sierra Nevada Alliance, an umbrella organization for 80 California environmental groups. "But what we've found is that there's this trend nationwide, not specific to California, that the more green energy a resort buys, the more likely it is to be invading old-grown habitat or wilderness areas."  In other words, Bernstein said: "Green energy doesn't necessarily equate to green skiing."

Resorts counter with a growing list of measures taken to lighten their footprints and mitigate damage already done. Officials at Heavenly, Squaw Valley USA, Kirkwood and Alpine Meadows say they invest heavily in conservation measures the public doesn't see. These include creating wetlands, restoring streambeds, planting trees and using new technology to make grooming and snowmaking equipment more energy-efficient. Kirkwood is alone among Tahoe's major resorts in not going the green-tag energy route. That's not because it wouldn't like to, but because it can't, says CEO David Likins. "We're not connected to the regional power grid, so 100 percent of our energy consumption is tied to the burning of fossil fuels. So anything we can do in terms of conserving resources ends up being significant," he said.

In the past two years, Likins said, Kirkwood has cut its energy consumption 25 percent to 30 percent by installing next-generation engines in its power plant, replacing old snowmaking guns, improving insulation in its buildings and going to fluorescent lighting.  "At this elevation, above 8,000 feet, a lot of alternative energy solutions just don't work," he said, citing natural gas turbines as an example. "On-site wind power, which seemingly would be a good solution, requires a fairly consistent, relatively low-wind availability. And in our case, we tend to have either no wind or 100-mph-plus wind."  Large-scale solar-power generation won't work either, Likins said, because Kirkwood's location in a box canyon means many areas are in deep shade by 2 or 3 p.m. Small-scale solar production is possible, and one new program at Kirkwood encourages homebuyers to "build green" by offering to buy back excess energy generated on-site, which can be pumped into Kirkwood's power grid. Source:  Scripps-McClatchy Western Service, By JANET FULLWOOD, Sacramento Bee, 2/5/2007.

Cities from Bellingham to Olympia Sign Agreements with Puget Sound Energy to Go Green

Puget Sound Energy, which serves more than one million electric customers in Washington state today announced that the company's sales of green power are steadily increasing. Effective Jan. 1, 2007, PSE's green power electricity purchases by customers and communities increased by almost 30 percent thanks to recently signed agreements with cities and other government entities from Bellingham to Olympia.

"The city of Bellingham, city of Olympia, LOTT (Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County) Alliance, and Whatcom County have all signed agreements with Puget Sound Energy to purchase green power to support the development of clean, renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest," said Cal Shirley, PSE's vice president of Energy Efficiency Services. "Collectively, they will be purchasing more than 53 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of green power this year--equivalent to the electricity used by about 4,400 households."

All four government entities will qualify for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Green Power Partnership Program's Leadership Club. Bellingham is the largest local government buying 100 percent green power in the United States and the first local government on the EPA's Top 10 Local Government Partners list to go 100 percent green. "Scientific data clearly indicate that global warming will affect the lives of Bellingham residents in the future," said Bellingham Mayor Tim Douglas. "Sea elevation changes and protecting our drinking water supply are just two examples of the challenges that lie ahead. We need to take thoughtful, deliberate steps to help reduce our impacts on our planet. Purchasing green power from Puget Sound Energy is one of those steps."

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, PSE's Green Power Program is one of the top 10 Green Power Programs in the country. In 2006, more than 17,000 PSE business and residential customers participated in the program by voluntarily paying more per month to go green. In addition to the voluntary Green Power Program, PSE has developed its own renewable-energy facilities, specifically two large wind farms in Washington state with a combined 400 megawatts of power-generating capacity--the equivalent of 125,000 households. A 2002 Washington state law requires all electric utilities in the state to offer their customers the option of purchasing green power. PSE residential customers participate in the voluntary Green Power Program by purchasing a minimum of 200 kWh of electricity at an extra cost of $4 on their monthly bills. The additional cost to businesses and the local government entities varies based on their participation level.

For more information on PSE's Green Power Program or other energy efficiency programs, please visit PSE's Web site or call a PSE Energy Advisor at 1-800-562-1482. Source: Puget Sound Energy, 2/5/2007 via Energy Central, 2/6/2007.

Barclays Goes Green With Biggest Renewable Energy Purchase

In a bid to help the environment and reduce the carbon intensity of its operations, Barclays has confirmed its biggest ever purchase of renewable energy and, as a result, will reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 125,000 tonnes per year. As of April 2007, 50 percent of Barclays UK electricity consumption will be generated from renewable sources, compared to a previous 3 percent. Barclays' UK offices will all be powered by renewable energy. Under the terms of the contract, Barclays will purchase about 300GWh of renewable energy per annum from EDF Energy for the next three years. "This three-year contract with EDF Energy is an important milestone which will help us to significantly reduce our carbon footprint," commented Andrew Flett, head of environmental management at Barclays. "However, the greenest form of energy is the energy you don't use and working to reduce our overall energy consumption remains our priority."  Barclays' commitment to go green, as part of its Barclays Climate Action Program, will see the banking group pay an additional GBP2.50 to GBP3.50 for every 1MWh of non-renewable energy used, to offset the carbon dioxide emitted. Source: By Julia Chan, 2/05/2007.

Offset Your Environmental Footprint While Skiing    

Extreme temperatures, shorter winter seasons and a dwindling snowpack. This experience in Telluride seems to support the theory of global warming, the ugly consequence of greenhouse gases being dumped into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels for energy. In its most extreme, the effects of global warming paint a sorry picture for life on the planet as we know it. On a smaller scale, it makes the future of the ski industry seem especially bleak. Rather than surrendering to doomsday prophesies of future winters without snow, the Telluride Ski Resort has begun taking steps toward minimizing its own environmental footprint. Earlier this season, Telski announced it would purchase enough renewable energy to offset the electricity used to run lift 4 for the entire ski season. Now the resort is encouraging individuals to offset their own non-renewable energy usage by purchasing green tags with their lift tickets.

Green tags are a part of the SkiGreen program, a project of the Bonneville Environmental Foundation. BEF is a nonprofit organization with the mission of supporting the development of clean, sustainable and domestic renewable energy across North America. Each $2 SkiGreen Mini-Green Tag represents 100 kilowatt-hours of renewable energy generation--the equivalent of approximately 150 miles driven in a car. When guests purchase a portion of a green tag with each lift pass for $2, 100 percent of the proceeds support the development of wind energy. Participants in the program also receive SkiGreen stickers and a coupon for a Clif Bar. "We believe it is a good step toward providing awareness and providing a mechanism to contribute to alternative energy initiatives," said Jeff Proteau, senior vice president of resort operations.  

Since green tags went on sale last Wednesday, Telski's Director of Guest Services Elizabeth Howe reported that close to 20 percent of the company's first allotment of green tags were sold on the first day. "I feel that most skiers and snowboarders are concerned about the environment, and when given the opportunity are more than willing to act on their values," Howe said.

"Telluride Ski Resort's leadership in environmental programs such as SkiGreen funds new renewable energy on the nation's power grids and educates the public about green power options," said Patrick Nye, Director of Sales for BEF and the SkiGreen program.

The Bonneville Environmental Foundation was established in 1998 to restore watershed ecosystems and further the development and use of new renewable energy resources. Through revenues generated from the sales of green power products such as green tags, BEF funds projects that restore damaged watersheds and support new renewable energy products from solar, wind and biomass. As a member of the National Ski Area Association's Sustainable Slopes initiative for more than four years, BEF pioneered the sale of green tags at resorts as a way to help ski areas become climate neutral. BEF's SkiGreen program adds another dimension to Telski's drive to become a more environmentally conscious company. The company recently put biodegradable silverware in its restaurants and created a more dedicated recycling program.

Later this winter Telski plans to invite local students to participate in on-mountain environmental presentations. Since all local students are required to perform a number of service-learning hours during the school year, Howe is creating a valuable way for students to fulfill their requirements. Stationed at various locations on the mountain, participating students will share information with resort guests about Telski's different environmental programs as well as local environmental matters. Such programs typify the resort's "grassroots" drive toward becoming more environmentally conscious, Howe said. "It's nice to be able to make an impact in a good way."  Source: By Martinique Davis, 2/5/2007.

For more information: http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/index.shtml

Renewable Energy Technologies

An Assessment of Geothermal Resource Development Needs in the Western United States

Near-term potential--the West's geothermal resource base is "more extensive than most people believe," according to a new report by Dan Fleischmann of the GEA. "The unidentified resource base is a significant near-term target of opportunity with up to 150,000MW," concludes the extensive study of geothermal power potential in the West. Source: GEO, 2/5/2007.

News from AWEA-Annual Global Wind Market Statistics

American Wind Energy Association is distributing the annual GWEC news release on world installation figures and market statistics. The global wind energy industry installed 15,197 megawatts in 2006, taking the total installed wind energy capacity to 74,223 MW, up from 59,091 MW in 2005, according to GWEC.  

The full release, including statistics for more than 70 countries, is posted on the AWEA Web site.  Source: Christine Real de Azua , Assistant Director of Communications, American Wind Energy Association, 2/6/2007.

Purdue Researchers and Defense Life Sciences Develop Trash-Fueled Portable Generator (R&D)

Scientists at Purdue University have developed a portable generator that uses trash as its' primary fuel source. The tactical biorefinery was designed for the U.S. Army, but could also be used in emergency civilian situations. About the size of a small moving van, the diesel generator can process several types of refuse, including paper, plastic, Styrofoam, cardboard, woodchips and food waste. During recent tests of the prototype it produced approximately 90 percent more energy than it consumed, said Jerry Warner of Defense Life Sciences LLC, a private company working with Purdue researchers on the project. (Source: Purdue University News, Feb. 01, '07)  For more information, contact Michael Ladisch, Purdue University at 765-494-7022, or Jerry Warner, Defense Life Sciences, at 703-448-0440. Source: ep Overviews Daily Report, 1/6/2007.

High School to 'Flick Switch' on Solar Power

Students will "flick the switch" Tuesday to start the flow of sun-produced energy at Conley-Caraballo High School in Hayward, which is part of the New Haven Unified School District. Pacific Gas and Electric Company reports it will be the first primarily solar-powered school in Alameda County. According to PG&E, the school district has installed 600 solar panels on the roofs of Conley-Caraballo and they'll be part of a system that will generate about 80 percent of the school's energy needs. Although other Alameda County schools have installed solar elements, PG&E says Conley-Caraballo is the first where a solar system is meeting such a high percentage of the energy needs.

The project, which was designed and installed by 3rd Rock Systems & Technologies of Burlingame, costs about $840,000, according to Enrique Palacios, executive director of operations for New Haven Unified. With grants and a rebate--including a $263,087 solar rebate from PG&E--the cost to the district will be about $440,000, he said. Palacios said the system will produce about $40,000 worth of energy per year, meaning the district will recoup its costs in 10 to 12 years. The system has a life expectancy of approximately 25 years. Elliot Jaramillo of 3rd Rock Systems said New Haven will serve as a model for other school districts in implementing renewable energy alternatives that will reduce dependence on foreign energy resources, protect the environment, improve air quality and reduce energy costs.

The system at Conley-Caraballo will double as a teaching tool, with interactive "learning modules" designed to help educate students, teachers and the community about the benefits of renewable energy technologies, Jaramillo said. The $11 million facility is being paid for with money raised by Measure A, a $120 million facilities bond passed by district voters in 2003, and with state matching funds. The new generator will be turned on at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday at Conley-Caraballo High School at 541 Blanche St. in Hayward.  Source: Jeff Shuttleworth, 2/05/07.

Practical Instruments Targets the Rooftop With Three New Solar Installers

Practical Instruments, a provider of high-performance concentrating solar panels, today announced new partnerships with three Southern California-based installers of solar power systems: Energy Options, Permacity Corporation and Advanced Solar Electric. The three represent the first wave of authorized resellers and installers for Heliotube, Practical Instruments' flagship concentrating solar panel. "When considering a solar solution, 90 percent of a customer's decision is based on cost savings; a lower price is what everybody wants," said Bruce Hatchett, president of Energy Options. "That said, the growing movement towards performance-based incentives, which allow owners to get credit for hours in which their solar systems exceed their needs is becoming more appealing to customers in the know. Heliotube is able to absorb and convert energy from the sun over a longer period of time than traditional solar panels. We see this as distinct advantage for our customer base."

As additional states begin to follow California's lead in transitioning from capacity-based to performance-based solar incentives, commercial and industrial users are well poised to reap financial benefits from coupling their large rooftops with high performance solar producers such as Practical Instruments' Heliotube. Based on solar concentrator technology, Heliotube integrates a patented low-profile tracking technology into the standard flat panel form factor traditionally used by solar installers. Though it requires less silicon and is thereby less expensive than conventional solar panels, Heliotube produces more watts, a faster payback and a higher return on investment to commercial and industrial users of solar power. Source:  PRNewswire, 2/6/07.

Students Strike Blow to Push Green Power

Calvin students will erect a wind turbine on campus this spring to study renewable energy options, thanks to a $5,000 state grant matched by the college. Grand Valley State University may follow suit. The university is spending $18,000 to study whether a wind turbine can help power its campus in Allendale Township. The colleges are headed in the right direction, according to energy goals announced last week by Gov. Jennifer Granholm. She wants the percentage of Michigan's electricity coming from wind and other renewable resources to triple by 2015.

But opening minds to wind power may take time, Calvin students found out during the permit process to locate their turbine at 1161 East Paris Ave. SE in Kentwood. Students had to appeal to get a height variance to allow a turbine up to 60 feet, instead of Kentwood's 15-foot limit for accessory structures. The college received a one-year permit for the turbine on 142-acre tract of woodland and athletic fields. The nearest home is more than 300 yards away.

Calvin senior Jordan Beekhuis has worked in Canada for two summers with a company that's planning to open a 10-megawatt wind farm in Ontario. There, hundreds of residents flocked to town hall meetings to urge the company to finish the project faster, he noted. At a recent Kentwood Zoning Board meeting, some neighbors expressed concern about the turbine's noise and disruption to wildlife. "Here, people were scared," said Beekhuis, a native of St. Catharines, Ontario. "They don't know if it's going to hurt (the environment)."  

The turbine will be fenced in and its three blades have a maximum span of 13 feet, much smaller than models used out West, college administrators said. The noise registers at levels similar to background noise in a restaurant. After it's hoisted into place in April or May, the turbine will generate two kilowatts to provide energy for some lighting and computers in Calvin's nature center building, the Vincent and Helen Bunker Interpretive Center.

The building also has solar power through a 20-kilowatt photovoltaic system. But the turbine also has symbolic power, educating the public as well as students, said Henry DeVries, Calvin's vice-president for administration. "People need to know it's there and so we want it to be visible," he said. Positioning also was based on westerly wind conditions and proximity to the Consumers Energy grid, he said.  

Grand Valley instructors are using their year-long study to show how much energy they could gather by using one or two wind turbines, said Tim Thimmesch, assistant director of facility services. Students then would figure out whether wind power is feasible on campus, where a turbine could be placed and what impact it would have. The university already uses solar energy in several buildings, burns fuel oil when gas prices sky-rocket and is working toward conserving water. Last year the university's costs for water, gas and electricity last year were $8.5 million, he said. It spent $500,000 on energy conservation. Source: By Nardy Baeza Bickel, The Grand Rapids Press, 02/05/07.

For more information on Renewable Resources go to: http://www.repartners.org

Outreach, Education, Reports & Studies

Carbon Taxes vs. Emissions Trading: What's the Difference, and Which is Better?

There is a growing debate between two competing climate change policy instruments ? carbon taxes and emissions trading. Along with a suite of other "flexibility mechanisms," emissions trading among industrialized and transitional countries (former Soviet bloc) was included in the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change under Article 17 (formerly 16bis) and has thus been the subject of much international discussion since December. Although an international emissions trading system does not necessarily preclude the use of carbon taxes (domestically or internationally), the two are commonly seen as competing policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gases. This analysis attempts to clarify the two policy approaches and the respective advantages of each.

Carbon taxes, and all environmental taxes, are "priced-based" policy instruments. Taxes increase the prices of certain goods and services, thereby decreasing the quantity demanded. This is called the "price effect." Tradable permits, or emissions trading, is considered a "quantity-based" environmental policy instrument. Although both policy approaches are "market-based," they operate differently--carbon taxes fix the marginal cost for carbon emissions and allow quantities emitted to adjust, while tradable permits fix the total amount of carbon emitted and allow price levels to fluctuate according to market forces.

Under an emissions trading system, the quantity of emissions is fixed (often called a "cap") and the right to emit becomes a tradable commodity. The cap (say 10,000 tons of carbon) is divided into transferable units (10,000 permits of 1 ton of carbon each). Permits are often referred to as "GHG units," "quotas" or "allowances." To be in compliance, actors participating in the system must hold a number of permits greater or equal to their actual emissions level. Once permits are allocated (by auction, sale or free allocation) to the actors participating in the system, they are then tradable. This enables emissions reductions to take place where least costly.

Carbon taxes are simply direct payments to government (collection body), based on the carbon content of the fuel being consumed. Given that the primary objective of the abatement policy is to lower carbon dioxide emissions, carbon taxes make sense economically and environmentally because they tax the externality (carbon) directly. Coal generates the greatest amount of carbon emissions and is therefore taxed in greater proportion than oil and natural gas, which have lower carbon concentrations (Coal contains .03 tons of carbon per million Btu of energy, while oil and natural gas contain only .024 and .016 tons respectively).

Which is Better? There is no simple yes or no answer, and the policies are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Several important advantages and drawbacks of the respective policies are outlined below.

The Case for Emissions Trading. A well-functioning emissions trading system allows emissions reductions to take place wherever abatement costs are lowest, regardless of international borders. Since costs associated with climate change (e.g. coastal flooding, increasing incidence of violent storms, crop loss, etc.) have no correlation with the origin of carbon emissions, the rationale for this policy approach is clear. If emissions reductions are cheaper to make in Poland than in France, emissions should be reduced first in the former where costs are lower. Emissions trading has the advantage of fixing a certain environmental outcome--the aggregate emissions levels are fixed, and companies/countries pay the market rate for the rights to pollute. This also makes emissions trading more conducive to international environmental agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, because specific emissions reduction levels can be agreed upon more easily than tax rates or policy instruments, which may vary in appropriateness and applicability between states.

Emissions trading is more appealing to private industry. By decreasing emissions, firms can actually profit by selling their excess greenhouse gas allowances. Creating such a market for pollution could potentially drive emissions reductions below targets. In general, transferring resources between private entities is more appealing than transfers to government. Emissions trading is better equipped than taxes to deal with all six GHGs included in the Kyoto Protocol and sinks (e.g. trees which absorb and store carbon) in one comprehensive strategy. Each gas has a "greenhouse gas potential" (GWP, based on carbon dioxide). Thus firms emitting more than one GHG have more flexibility in making reductions. Permits adjust automatically for inflation and external price shocks, while taxes do not. For example, the US has already experienced an extended period of stable greenhouse gas emissions levels from 1972 to 1985 because of high oil prices. Taxes would need to be designed to adjust for such external shocks.

The Case for Carbon Taxes. A carbon tax would offer a broader scope for emissions reductions. Trading systems can only be implemented among private firms or countries ? not individual consumers (transaction costs would be prohibitively high if commuters needed permits to fill up their car with gas). Carbon taxes extend to all carbon-based fuel consumption, including gasoline, home heating oil and aviation fuels. Trading systems may not be able to reach parts of the transportation and service sectors which could account for 30-50 percent of emissions. A system of tradable permits entails significant transaction costs, which include: search costs, such as fees paid to brokers or exchange institutions to find trading partners; negotiating costs; approval costs, such as delays or fees incurred during the approval process; and insurance costs. Conversely, taxes involve little transaction cost, over all stages of their lifetime. Carbon taxes have dynamic efficiency advantages that trading lacks because taxes offer a permanent incentive to reduce emissions. Technological and procedural changes, and subsequent technology diffusion, will lead to reductions in permit price (i.e. since emissions goals will be easier to meet, there will be a decrease in permit demand, and hence, a decrease in permit price). Trading systems may not be able self-adjust in response to rapid change, and thus provide the permanent incentive of a tax system to reduce emissions. In short, emissions trading must have some method of removing permits from the system or other method of ratcheting-up permit prices.

Taxes are not susceptible to strategic behavior by firms or non-governmental organizations which may harm the contractual environment of the market. Non-governmental organizations or even private individuals that object to the concept of purchasing the "right to pollute" may purchase large numbers of permits to drive up costs of CO2 abatement. Likewise firms may hoard permits, driving up the prices for competitors. Emissions trading proposals are highly complicated and technical, unlike taxes which are an extremely familiar instrument to policymakers. Many technical issues would need to be resolved before trading could begin, including treatment of sinks, different GHGs, monitoring, enforcement, etc. Ongoing costs are also low for tax systems because of the lack of monitoring and enforcement requirements. Emissions trading may prevent meaningful domestic reductions from taking place. If the global climate system is to be stabilized, emissions reductions should take place sooner, rather than later, in the countries most responsible for the problem. This concern relates to profound equity issues among developed, developing and transitional economies. Carbon taxes earn revenue, which can be "recycled" back into the economy by reducing taxes on income, labor and/or capital investment. This is often referred to as a "revenue neutral" tax and may be part of a broader program of "environmental tax reform" which attempts to shift the tax burden from "goods" like labor, to "bads" like pollution. Evidence indicates that there can be profound employment, distributional and political benefits to such an approach. Permit systems have the potential to earn revenue, but only if permits are auctioned.

The Politics:  Who likes which policy, and why? United States is the strongest proponent of emissions trading and fought hard to include trading in the Kyoto Protocol. The reasons are straightforward. Relative to other industrialized countries, the US is energy inefficient and has high per capita carbon dioxide emissions levels. Thus carbon taxes would penalize the US relative to other, less fossil fuel dependent nations. US industry is also strongly against any taxation measures to achieve GHG reductions. Trading would allow US firms to purchase emissions allowances from other countries, and avoid domestic reductions.

The European Union has traditionally been in favor of strong coordinated policies and measures, such as energy/carbon taxes, among countries. Because the EU is already relatively energy efficient (improvements have been made steadily since the late 1980s, through energy deregulation, taxes and agreements with industrial sectors), carbon taxes would be less of a burden than in the US. In Kyoto, the EU was against emissions trading, but was unable to overcome US support for trading. Therefore, EU efforts have been channeled into developing effective rules and guidelines for a trading system.

The Russian Federation and the Ukraine are major supporters of emissions trading, and would stand to gain financially. Their emissions reduction targets are 0 percent reductions by 2008-2012 based on 1990 levels (i.e. to remain at 1990 levels through 2012). However, because of the economic collapse of the former Soviet bloc, and the closure of inefficient power plants, these countries are already 30 percent below 1990 levels. If they were allocated trading permits (based on their emissions target), they would be able to immediately flood the market and receive major cash inflows.

Developing countries (known as G77/China in UNFCCC negotiations) are extremely cautious of emissions trading, and view it primarily as a "loophole" that the US and Japan can use to avoid their domestic responsibility. They are in favor of rules and guidelines that ensure equitable allocation of allowances and monitoring provisions. Currently, trading is being discussed only as a means for Annex 1 (industrialized and transitional countries), since developing countries do not have binding emissions reduction targets. However, if the system were to be extended globally in the future, developing countries would demand that permit allocations be based on population, rather than historic national emissions levels. This position is indicative of the strong equity concerns held by developing countries. Developing countries favor the principle of carbon taxes--as long as they are levied on rich countries and not poor ones. Source: By Kevin Baumert, 4/17/1998.

NWCC Transmission Workgroup

Wind and other renewable resources may be affected differently than conventional generation by new electric industry rules because of such inherent characteristics as their location dependence, intermittency, and low capacity factor. NWCC's publications offer an overview of transmission pricing and scheduling issues, plus detailed discussion of specific issues relevant to wind projects. Five wind-related transmission issues were identified and prioritized for additional study: the effect of bidding protocols on wind's market participation opportunities, given intermittent and locational characteristics of wind resource; impact of access fee "pancaking"; the impact of ancillary service requirements; energy-based access charges vs. "pay-for-what-you-use" tariff approach; and, the likelihood of secondary market in transmission and possible niche for wind projects. Source: NWCC, 2/5/2007.

EPRI Report Guides Electric Utilities on R&D Strategies

The Electric Power Research Institute has released a new analysis to guide strategic research and development investments under four plausible scenarios facing the North American electric utility industry in the next 20 years. The scenarios are various combinations of high fuel costs and carbon constraints--high gas prices, high emissions prices; low emissions prices; low gas prices, low emissions prices; and, low gas prices, high emissions prices. With increased attention focused on global climate change issues, one possible scenario, for example, is high emissions costs and higher fuel costs. Under this scenario, the priority R&D targets would include enhancing nuclear energy generation, renewable energy, energy storage and increasing efficiency of the electricity infrastructure from generation plants, transmission and distribution delivery systems through to industrial processes and customer based end-use devices.

The report identifies critical technology needs in seven areas: power generation, electric energy storage, environmental controls, power delivery, end use, power and fuel markets, and markets. It then maps the technology requirements to the above the plausible scenarios in the electric utility sector. "This report serves as a guide for electric utilities, regulators, manufacturers and other key stakeholders when they consider their RD&D objectives and funding priorities," said Robert Schainker, the report's principal author. "Our analysis details the current status of technology and identifies the gaps, which is highly valuable when utilities consider their RD&D options in a carbon-constrained operating environment."

EPRI conducted a series of workshops with stakeholders that included utilities, universities, state and federal governments, to identify the likely R&D requirements. While the report does not predict the future, it considers alternative futures and the appropriate R&D technology gaps that address the technical challenges associated with the alternative futures. In order to strategically direct R&D funding, utilities responding to this possible scenario should sponsor research, development and deployment (RD&D) work, paying particular attention to streamlining the regulatory regime for building next generation nuclear generation plants, enhancing the efficiency of wind and solar systems, demonstrating new energy storage options and working with manufacturers to increase the efficiency of end-use devices, such as advanced lighting, high efficiency air conditioning and industrial and commercial electric motors. Source: EPRI, 2/6/2007.

Reducing Future Energy Burdens

Climate change impacts, increasing heating and cooling costs, and over-dependence on petroleum and other fossil fuels all mandate an urgent need for improved energy use and more alternative energy choices in the U.S. While more than 300 cities have taken action to address climate change, more communities need to take appropriate steps now to help reduce future energy burdens.

The American Planning Association and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute are embarking on a three-year research and education project promoting clean and efficient energy strategies for communities. The goal is to encourage improved energy efficiency and increased use of alternative energy technologies in communities, helping to address the serious challenges of climate change and to save taxpayer money and boost local economies. "Planners are in the most appropriate position to start guiding change in how communities comprehensively think about and use energy," said Megan S. Lewis, aicp, APA senior research associate and project manager. "For planners to lead this change, they must have access to current resources and information."  

The first year of the project will bring together some of the country's foremost experts in energy and planning to discuss how energy best practices can be integrated into planning decisions at the community level. These experts, in conjunction with APA and EESI's extensive network of resources and people, will contribute to an Internet-based database of best practices. Presentations, symposia and other outreach efforts will disseminate research findings throughout the project. Information will be developed into a best practices manual, and subsequent years will involve creating and delivering a training program and making policy recommendations to federal, state, and local officials.

The need for such a resource was evident from a 2005 member survey conducted by APA and EESI. Survey findings showed that while planners are overwhelmingly interested in energy issues, they have difficulty implementing energy solutions due to a lack of information, training, tools, and technical support. "Communities and planners have numerous options to consider when it comes to achieving efficient energy use and implementing clean energy technology," said Carol Werner, Executive Director, EESI. "This project is an opportunity to educate planners on the many interesting and exciting options available today that can address multiple goals, including greenhouse gas reduction, for our communities." 

Funding for the project's first year is provided by the Surdna Foundation, the George Gund Foundation and APA's Environment, Natural Resources and Energy Division. For more information, contact Roberta Rewers, APA, 312-786-6395; or Shefali Ranganathan, EESI, 202-662-1883;  Source: Roberta Rewers, American Planning Association, 2/5/2007.

Last Week Saw Two Major Announcements Regarding Action on Global Warming

One was the release of the latest assessment on climate change science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The New York Times described the IPCC report as "a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet," with its conclusion that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver for the rise in global temperature since 1950. The principal human activity contributing to global warming is, of course, the extraction and use of fossil fuels, including coal, oil and natural gas.

The second announcement last week did not garner as much attention, but perhaps it should have. While many scientific organizations continue to focus on assessing the scope of the problems associated with global warming, others have moved on to focus on the solutions. One such example is the publication last week of a significant report by the American Solar Energy Society, entitled Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.

The ASES report describes in a highly engaging and readable form the potential carbon emissions reductions from employing energy efficiency and renewable energy by 2030. The report includes separate sections on energy efficiency, including energy in-building and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, as well as sections on renewable energy options such as concentrating solar power, photovoltaics, wind power, biomass energy, biofuels and geothermal power. It concluded that energy efficiency and renewable energy together can provide the U.S. with its share of the 60 to 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions needed from industrial countries to limit the increase in temperature to 1 degree C (about 1.8 degrees F), and to reduce substantially the risk of unprecedented warming and disastrous consequences.

Global warming is only one of the reasons to support the transition to a clean, renewable energy future--a compelling case can also be made on the basis of economic development, energy security or other environmental benefits. But it's a good enough reason in its own right, and a reason to act sooner--that is to say, immediately--to enable a future that is more stable and secure, more affluent and egalitarian, more environmentally benign and healthier.

Find out what you can do to reduce your own carbon footprint. Source: Bonneville Environmental Foundation, 2/5/2007.

Financial Firms Detail Climate Change Risks, Opportunities.

Two leading financial institutions, UBS Wealth Management and Lehman Brothers, released reports detailing how companies and individuals might be affected by global warming and what steps they can take to offset the risks.

The UBS report, "Climate Change: Beyond Whether," breaks down sector-by-sector into detailed key investment opportunities and risks for the individual investors. Lehman Brothers' report, "The Business of Climate Change," warns that companies that do not respond quickly and effectively to changes in the physical and economic environments will face extinction. "The pace of a firm's adaptation to climate change is likely to prove to be another of the forces that will influence whether, over the next several years, any given firm survives and prospers; or withers and, quite possibly, dies," the report says.

Klaus Wellershoff and Kurt Reiman of UBS said of their report, "Whether or not you agree with the view that human activity is influencing the climate system is largely irrelevant to the investment thesis. What is important is that numerous policies to combat the threat of global warming are converging to influence people's behavior, alter the risk profile of various businesses, and improve the investment outlook for others."  

The UBS report found that investors who seek to incorporate climate change risks and opportunities into their portfolios have several options, including:

• Equity-related strategies include underweighting sectors, industries and companies that are highly carbon-intensive and have little potential to adapt to new technologies;
• Investment in companies exposed to renewable and low-carbon energy production and energy efficiency;
• Investment in theme funds focusing specifically on climate-change mitigation; Socially responsible investment funds and indices that follow one of three approaches: one that includes only the best companies, one that excludes laggards in the field and one that focuses on the highest improvement potential

Lehman Brothers' John Llewellyn, the report's author, told Bloomberg News that "climate change is a slow but powerful force which will shape the economic landscape inexorably." He added that companies should hear the message that they should "take it seriously: try to think through carefully, slowly and rationally what it means for the activity you're engaged in." 

The UBS report explains that winners and losers from climate change are not always obvious, but that industries whose operations depend on climate conditions have a high level of physical exposure, as do sectors whose operations would be interrupted by extreme weather events. Some examples of the most at-risk sectors include agriculture, fisheries, forestry, water utilities, and water-intensive operations, but also tourism, healthcare, insurance, and operations sensitive to storms, such as offshore oil drilling.

Some risks companies face from future climate change events include heightened regulation, increased impairment of physical property, loss of revenues and erosion of reputation, individually or in combination. But the report makes clear that companies and industries most at risk of negative effects from global warming are also best positioned to benefit from changing regulations that may arise. Two broad categories of opportunities are detailed in the UBS report: products and processes that deliver improved energy efficiency, and development of renewable/low-carbon energy sources. Source GreenBiz, 2/2/2007.

Implementing Wind Energy & Transmission in the West Newsletter

The National Wind Coordinating Committee is pleased to share its first newsletter, Implementing Wind Energy & Transmission in the West, an information source on transmission-related wind energy happenings in the Western U.S. and corresponding NWCC Western Transmission Leadership Group activities. Written in cooperation with the Western Governors' Association, the newsletter will be distributed on a quarterly basis via email and is also online. Source: NWCC, 2/7/2007.

Refocus Weekly

The February 2007 issue of Refocus Weekly, from Refocus, the international renewable energy magazine, is now available online. Source: Refocus Weekly, 2/7/2007.

For more information on Educational Resources go to: http://www.repartners.org

News from Washington

U.S. Budget Requests $24.26 Billion US for DOE (Legislation)

The Bush administration has asked Congress for a total of $24.26 billion US for the Energy Department's 2008 budget request.  

Funding includes:  

• Coal Research Initiative would receive $385,000,000 US as part of a plan to spend $2 billion US over a decade on building low-emission coal-fired power plants. This money includes $108,000,000 US for FutureGen, a zero-emissions coal plant that would store greenhouse gases in underground reservoirs and also manufacture hydrogen fuel;
• Advanced Energy Initiative, which promotes renewable energy technologies such as biomass, would receive $2.7 billion US;
• The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would receive $1.24 billion US;
• Biomass would receive $113,000,000 US of $713,000,000 US requested for Science Programs, and;
• Solar America Initiative would receive $148,000,000 US with a  goal of making solar photovoltaic technology competitive with conventional electricity by 2015.

(Reuters, Feb. 05, '07)  Source: ep Overviews Daily Report, 2/7/2007.

For more information on legislative activities go to: http://www.repartners.org

State Activities, Marketing & Market Research

Lodi Solar Homes & Businesses Tour

On Saturday, March 10, 2007, the City of Lodi, Calif., Electric Utility Department will host the first ever 'Lodi Solar Homes & Businesses Tour.'  The event is free and open to the first 80 people who call to sign up. During the two-hour tour, which will commence from Lodi's Municipal Service Center at 8:45 a.m. on March 10, tour participants will have the opportunity to view eight solar installations around the Lodi community. Two of these sites are commercial solar installations. Tour participants will also have the opportunity to ask property owners specific questions regarding each solar site. For more information regarding the 'Lodi Solar Homes & Businesses Tour,' please call Lodi Electric Utility at 209-333-6815. Source: Rob Lechner, City of Lodi Electric Utility, 2/1/2007.

Idaho Explores Geothermal Potential

The recent extension of the federal production tax credit for renewable energy generation could help make Idaho a hot bed for geothermal development. The state, which currently does not generate any electricity from commercial geothermal power plants, has the potential to yield 5 million megawatt hours of geothermal energy a year, according to the Energy Foundation's latest "Renewable Energy Atlas of the West."  The state's potential for geothermal electric power development is comparable to California and Nevada, which together produce over 2,700 megawatts of electricity from geothermal plants, according to the Geothermal Energy Association.

Some companies are already tapping into the opportunities that many experts agree are stewing below Idaho's soil. Yet others are hesitant to look too far forward, due to unknown certainties about the continued renewal of the PTC. Idaho Power Co., the state's largest utility, set a goal in its 2004 Integrated Resource Plan to develop 100 MW of geothermal power to help meet its future power needs.

U.S. Geothermal Inc., a Boise-based alternative energy company, has already signed a 20-year power purchase agreement to provide Idaho Power with 10 MW monthly upon completion of its $40 million geothermal power plant in Raft River, Idaho. Institutional investors in the company include Goldman Sachs & Co. and Winslow Green Growth Funds. U.S. Geothermal plans to finish phase two of the plant, designed to generate an additional 26 MW, by 2009.

The PTC mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is the driving force behind a recent surge in geothermal development throughout the country, says GEA's executive director Karl Gawell. The 1.9 cents-per-kWh tax credit, which was recently extended until Dec. 31, 2008, applies to electricity generated by certain renewable energy resources, including geothermal, solar, wind, landfill gas and hydropower. Geothermal is considered a renewable energy source because it does not consume any fuel or produce significant emissions. But investors are still reluctant to fund projects that can't be completed by the PTC's expiration date, Gawell says.

Half of the country's geothermal energy production occurs on federal land, much of it in California and Nevada, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior. To encourage further geothermal energy development on federal lands, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne last summer proposed rules that would require more competitive leasing for geothermal resources on nearly all federal lands designated for this type of development. The proposed rules would also share $4 million in current royalties with counties where geothermal production occurs. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management expects to finalize the proposed rules by April, according to BLM spokesman Matt Spangler.

Over 50 percent of Idaho's land is federally owned, according to the U.S. General Services Administration. But Gerald Fleischman, an engineer for Idaho's Department of Water Resources' Energy Division, says the proposed BLM policy does not encourage companies to invest in geothermal exploration on federal land. "No one can afford to invest the cost of exploration if the area will be put up for competitive leasing after that entity has proven something about the geothermal resource there," he says. "The BLM's policy on leasing land for wind energy development is very different. In wind, it is all non-competitive, first-come, first-served leasing. And wind is a far easier resource to prove than is geothermal. If anything, there is even more reason for geothermal to be leased non-competitively than there is for wind." 

Idaho does not currently have a renewable portfolio standard requiring utilities to supply a percentage of electricity from renewable energy. Both Washington and Montana have an RPS, and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) is developing one. While Idaho does have an energy plan, Fleischman says the current state legislature does not favor an RPS.

Today's geothermal plants produce less than half of 1 percent of the nation's electricity, but backers say the potential for geothermal development rivals that of wind and solar. Electricity generation using geothermal resources is expected to grow at a rate averaging over 7 percent annually through 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In contrast, the agency estimates wind and solar are growing at rate of 10 and 9 percent, respectively, each year. An estimated 61 new geothermal energy projects are now under development throughout the country, which could produce over 2,000 MW of electricity annually, according to GEA. This would almost double installed geothermal power capacity to over 5,000 MW, producing 18 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually.

Yet the geothermal industry recently took a hard hit when the federal Office of Management and Budget in its FY 2007 budget cut funding for geothermal power research and development. The $23 million that DOE previously spent on geothermal research and development is slated for other renewable energy technologies such as biofuels. "OMB made a false assumption that this is a mature technology," Gawell says.

The House is recommending that $5 million be restored in the DOE's budget for geothermal research and development, while the Senate is recommending that all $23 million be restored. A final appropriations bill is expected to be approved in Congress by Feb. 1.  Source: by Becky Brun, 1/31/2007.

Emergence of Renewable Portfolio Standards Across the Country

Andrew Kolchins and Ned Stainthorpe recently wrote an article for Natural Gas & Electricity magazine on the emergence of renewable portfolio standards across the country. The critical question is whether this country will be able to meet the growing demand created by RPSs and the ever-expanding national voluntary market. Their article explores underlying issues with market expansion and recommendations for creating viable and efficient REC trading programs. Source: Environmental Markets, 2/5/2007.

For more information on marketing and research go to: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/

Grants, RFPs & Other Funding News

DOE SBIR/STTR Phase II

The U.S. Department of Energy invites all DOE Small Business Innovation Research Program/Small Business Technology Transfer Program Phase I Awardees from FY06 to submit Phase II grant applications. At the end of Phase II, it is intended that the small business grantee would be in a position to pursue commercial applications of the R&D. In many cases, Phase II results in a prototype product or a working process that can be demonstrated to a potential investor or customer. $80 million expected to be available, up to 110 awards anticipated. Responses due 4/13/07. For more info, contact Larry James. Refer to Sol# DE-PS02-07ER07-17 (Grants.gov 1/29/07). Source: Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership, Inc., 2/6/2007.

Renewable Energy Certificates -- Michigan

Detroit Edison requests proposals to purchase Renewable Energy Certificates associated with MWhs of energy produced from qualifying renewable electric generating facilities located within the state of Michigan that are eligible for Green-e certification. Proposals due 3/16/07. For more info, contact Bruce Hravatic. Source: Green Power Network, 2/2/07.

Cornell Uses $10 Million Grant to Develop Bio-fuels Research

Cornell professor of biological and environmental engineering Larry Walker will use a $10 million grant from the Empire State Development Corp. to upgrade Cornell's industrial biotechnology laboratories. "The future development, success and sustainability of the US ethanol industry hinges on developing and converting perennial grasses, woody biomass and cellulosic biomass to ethanol," Walker said. Walker will also serve as official adviser to a new biomass-to-ethanol demonstration facility in Rochester, NY. Read more. Source: EIN Renewable Energy Today, 2/5/2007.

LADWP Calls for Proposals to Build $176 Million in Green Power

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is seeking proposals for 2,200 gigawatt-hours of energy per year-worth approximately $176 million annually-from "green power" resources such as solar, wind, and geothermal power. A pre-proposal conference for prospective bidders is scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 13 at 9 a.m. at LADWP's John Ferraro Building headquarters, A-Level Auditorium, 111 N. Hope St., Los Angeles. "This is an incredible opportunity for the renewable energy industry to present strong, viable proposals that will foster the development of clean, sustainable energy for the City of Los Angeles for many generations to come," Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said.

Proposals are due April 10 at 2 p.m. The RFP is aimed at boosting the City of Los Angeles' renewable energy sales to 20 percent of the energy supplied to customers by 2010. The additional 2,200 GWh of renewable energy would increase L.A.'s total renewables to 15 percent from its current 6 percent. "We hope to be deluged with wide-ranging proposals that not only will provide the City with renewable energy but also open up new markets for innovation and opportunity," said H. David Nahai, president of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners that oversees LADWP, the nation's largest municipal utility.  

The RFP opens the door to vendors to provide renewable energy projects. As stated in the RFP, LADWP will give preference to proposals that offer immediate facility ownership or to long-term purchase agreements that have an ownership option. Additionally, LADWP is targeting proposals for renewable energy resources that would be constructed on LADWP-owned land located in the Salton Sea area of California. The Department owns about 5,800 acres of land in the Salton Sea, which has fertile opportunities for solar and geothermal power.

The RFP also calls for the development of solar projects in the state's high desert areas, including Mojave, California City, Barstow and Victorville. These areas are desirable because of their close proximity to several LADWP electrical interconnection points, providing greater opportunity and more flexibility to connect to the LADWP transmission system. Eligible renewable resources include wind, biomass (defined as organic material), solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, digester and landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal and tidal current, fuel cells using renewable fuels and other renewable energy resources. Contact Carol Tucker at 213-367-1815. Source: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2/6/2007.

Formore information on funding solicitations go to: http://www.repartners.org/grants.htm