Hugh Price • September 22, 2010
In New Haven, W.Va., the Mountaineer Power Plant is using a complicated chemical process to capture about 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide it produces. The gas is cooled to a liquid at a pressure of about 95 atmospheres and pumped 2,375 meters down to a sandstone formation, where it is meant to remain indefinitely. The objective is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere from the coal burning at the plant.
This certainly seems to be doing it the hard way. Extracting just this 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide from the plant’s flue requires a $100 million investment, and whether the gas will remain underground or bubble to the surface is in question.
Fortunately, there is a way to capture and store excess carbon from the atmosphere that is cheap, efficient and environmentally friendly. It relies on two technologies that have been in use for more than 8,000 years: agriculture and the garbage heap.
Some basics: Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it to sugars and other organic compounds. Some of this carbon is burned by the plant, and the rest is used to increase the plant’s mass. If the plant or its components are eaten by an animal, some of that carbon will be burned by the animal, with the remainder used to increase the animal’s mass. When the plant or animal dies, the remains are generally consumed by bacteria, which burn some of the carbon and use the remainder to create more bacteria.
When this process is in equilibrium, living things return as much carbon to the atmosphere as plants take out of it. And the carbon dioxide generated by these organic processes is exactly the same as the carbon dioxide released by burning coal or oil.
With an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is reasonable to ask, “Where are the plants?” Why hasn’t the Earth’s vegetation grown larger and faster to absorb the additional carbon dioxide? The answer is that it probably has. Some of the 20th century’s improvement in crop yields may be due to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, eventually those plants die or are eaten, returning their carbon to the atmosphere. To remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the plant material has to be prevented from decomposing.
Any gardener knows that compost heaps must be turned regularly. Without access to oxygen, bacteria cannot break down plant material. The principle can be harnessed for carbon capture: All that is necessary is to pile the plants high enough, and the carbon at the bottom will stay put indefinitely. After all, this is how all that coal and oil formed in the first place.
Piles of plant material are not like ordinary landfills, of course. There is no need to worry about toxins leaching into the water supply. No elaborate liner or monitoring is required. Plant material need not be transported to distant sites or pumped underground but can be piled up where it grows. It is not even necessary to cover the heap with soil.
The most obvious target for such a technique is agricultural waste. Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions in 2006 were estimated at about 28 billion metric tons, of which the United States was responsible for 5.8 billion. That represents about 1.6 billion tons of carbon.
In 2009, the combined U.S. production of corn, wheat and soybeans was 487 million metric tons. That production measures the usable part of the plants. It is reasonable to believe that there is at least as much material in unused stalks and leaves. If just this material were stored rather than burned or plowed under, it could compensate for almost a quarter of the U.S. carbon footprint. The Mountaineer Power Plant could match the captured carbon of its high-tech approach by piling up the plant waste from 12,000 acres of farmland, at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Other land could be managed to maximize carbon capture. There are millions of acres of woodlands in North America where trees are grown for paper and lumber. Can leaves, bark and branches that are now discarded or burned be piled up instead? Is it more beneficial to recycle paper or to collect it?
Instead of trying to manufacture ethanol from switchgrass, would it be more effective to burn oil and bury the switchgrass? We sometimes pay farmers not to grow crops to sustain prices; should we pay them to grow otherwise useless crops and stockpile them?
The biggest problem with this approach may be that it’s so low-tech. No green-technology subsidies are required, so there may not be a natural constituency for it.
On the other hand, environmentalists should love it. What could be greener than growing plants? And for those concerned about the economy, this approach provides a low-cost method of reducing the country’s carbon footprint without increasing the cost of energy. It is also reversible. If current concerns about carbon dioxide concentrations turn out to be unwarranted, the stockpiled material will be readily available for use. What could be simpler?
Friday, 24 September 2010
Pressure mounting for Rajendra Pachauri to resign as IPCC head
Pressure is mounting for Rajendra Pachauri to resign as head of the UN climate change panel over fears that his increasingly troubled tenure is hampering efforts to halt global warming.
By Heidi Blake
Published: 9:21AM BST 23 Sep 2010
The Indian chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been dogged by controversy since he was forced to admit a serious error in a landmark report arguing the case for man-made global warming earlier this year.
Climate sceptics have long been vocal critics of Dr Pachauri, but environmentalists and politicians have now joined a chorus of voices calling for his resignation after eight years in the job. An independent report last month recommended chairmen of the IPCC should serve for no longer than six years.
Dr Pachauri's standing was badly damaged earlier this year when it emerged that the claim in a 2007 report by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 was a mistake.
The former railways engineer has admitted the error dealt a grave blow to the credibility of the IPCC, which was set up to sift through scientific research and produce the most authoritative reports for the UN.
Tim Yeo, chairman of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, joined calls for his resignation this morning.
"I’m afraid I think Dr Pachauri should resign. Firstly he personally has lost credibility, particularly in relation to his claim about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the next 30 years," he told the BBC.
He added: "It’s vital that this body is led by someone whose academic and intellectual credentials are unquestioned and I’m afraid that can no longer be said of him."
The Indian government has swung its full support behind Dr Pachauri, but many of the chairman's former allies now believe that he should resign in order to avert a clash between India and the IPCC.
The BBC reported that Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the eminent British climatologist, is among those who now believe that Dr Pachauri has no alternative but to step down.
Greenpeace said in February that Dr Pachauri's resignation and the installation of a new leader would restore confidence in the IPCC.
A damning report into the running of the UN climate change panel by the independent InterAcademy Council recommend last month that the chairman should serve only one six-year-term at a time and called for checks on conflicts of interest by board members.
The review did not comment specifically on Dr Pachauri's tenure but the one-term recommendation would force the current chairman's out of office if accepted, as he is already serving his second term.
Dr Pachauri has also come under scrutiny because of his other role leading The Energy Research Institute (Teri), a think tank promoting sustainable development.
Questions have been raised about "conflicts of interest", with some arguing that Dr Pachauri had a vested interest in proving climate change by business dealings with carbon trading companies. However he was cleared on any financial wrongdoing recently by an independent review.
The 70-year-old has also hit the headlines for ‘steamy novels’ he penned while travelling the world in his demanding job.
By Heidi Blake
Published: 9:21AM BST 23 Sep 2010
The Indian chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been dogged by controversy since he was forced to admit a serious error in a landmark report arguing the case for man-made global warming earlier this year.
Climate sceptics have long been vocal critics of Dr Pachauri, but environmentalists and politicians have now joined a chorus of voices calling for his resignation after eight years in the job. An independent report last month recommended chairmen of the IPCC should serve for no longer than six years.
Dr Pachauri's standing was badly damaged earlier this year when it emerged that the claim in a 2007 report by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 was a mistake.
The former railways engineer has admitted the error dealt a grave blow to the credibility of the IPCC, which was set up to sift through scientific research and produce the most authoritative reports for the UN.
Tim Yeo, chairman of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, joined calls for his resignation this morning.
"I’m afraid I think Dr Pachauri should resign. Firstly he personally has lost credibility, particularly in relation to his claim about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the next 30 years," he told the BBC.
He added: "It’s vital that this body is led by someone whose academic and intellectual credentials are unquestioned and I’m afraid that can no longer be said of him."
The Indian government has swung its full support behind Dr Pachauri, but many of the chairman's former allies now believe that he should resign in order to avert a clash between India and the IPCC.
The BBC reported that Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the eminent British climatologist, is among those who now believe that Dr Pachauri has no alternative but to step down.
Greenpeace said in February that Dr Pachauri's resignation and the installation of a new leader would restore confidence in the IPCC.
A damning report into the running of the UN climate change panel by the independent InterAcademy Council recommend last month that the chairman should serve only one six-year-term at a time and called for checks on conflicts of interest by board members.
The review did not comment specifically on Dr Pachauri's tenure but the one-term recommendation would force the current chairman's out of office if accepted, as he is already serving his second term.
Dr Pachauri has also come under scrutiny because of his other role leading The Energy Research Institute (Teri), a think tank promoting sustainable development.
Questions have been raised about "conflicts of interest", with some arguing that Dr Pachauri had a vested interest in proving climate change by business dealings with carbon trading companies. However he was cleared on any financial wrongdoing recently by an independent review.
The 70-year-old has also hit the headlines for ‘steamy novels’ he penned while travelling the world in his demanding job.
Biggest offshore wind farm takes UK's capacity to 5GW
By Sarah Arnott
Friday, 24 September 2010
The world's biggest offshore wind farm opened in Thanet, seven miles off the Kent coast, yesterday.
The £780m scheme, built in two years by Sweden's Vattenfall, consists of a hundred 115-metre turbines spread over 35 sq km and can generate enough power for 200,000 homes.
The Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, said at the official opening of the site: "We are an island nation and I firmly believe we should be harnessing our wind, wave and tidal resources to the maximum."
The 300 megawatts of electricity produced by the Thanet wind farm – plus the expansion of the Crystal Rig onshore wind farm in the Scottish Borders – takes Britain's total installed wind power capacity to more than 5 gigawatts for the first time.
Wind power is now powering almost three million homes, according to the industry group RenewableUK. And delivery is accelerating as the industry expands: the turbines generating the fifth gigawatt have been installed within the last year.
Massive offshore installations such as that at Thanet are crucial if the UK is to meet green targets for 15 per cent of all energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. RenewableUK's chief executive, Maria McCaffery, said: "Five gigawatts is an important milestone because it takes us within reach of our 2020 targets, while proving that each successive gigawatt takes less and less time to deploy."
But the cost of offshore wind farms, and the relative immaturity of the industry, continue to pose a challenge to investors. Arnaud Bouille, at Ernst & Young, said: "To ensure long-term success, capital needs to be deployed at scale to projects that deliver attractive commercial returns and economic growth."
Friday, 24 September 2010
The world's biggest offshore wind farm opened in Thanet, seven miles off the Kent coast, yesterday.
The £780m scheme, built in two years by Sweden's Vattenfall, consists of a hundred 115-metre turbines spread over 35 sq km and can generate enough power for 200,000 homes.
The Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, said at the official opening of the site: "We are an island nation and I firmly believe we should be harnessing our wind, wave and tidal resources to the maximum."
The 300 megawatts of electricity produced by the Thanet wind farm – plus the expansion of the Crystal Rig onshore wind farm in the Scottish Borders – takes Britain's total installed wind power capacity to more than 5 gigawatts for the first time.
Wind power is now powering almost three million homes, according to the industry group RenewableUK. And delivery is accelerating as the industry expands: the turbines generating the fifth gigawatt have been installed within the last year.
Massive offshore installations such as that at Thanet are crucial if the UK is to meet green targets for 15 per cent of all energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. RenewableUK's chief executive, Maria McCaffery, said: "Five gigawatts is an important milestone because it takes us within reach of our 2020 targets, while proving that each successive gigawatt takes less and less time to deploy."
But the cost of offshore wind farms, and the relative immaturity of the industry, continue to pose a challenge to investors. Arnaud Bouille, at Ernst & Young, said: "To ensure long-term success, capital needs to be deployed at scale to projects that deliver attractive commercial returns and economic growth."
GOP Lawmakers Sought Energy Stimulus Funds
By Louise Radnofsky
Opposition to the Obama administration’s economic-stimulus package didn’t stop at least 24 congressional Republicans from lobbying the Department of Energy on behalf of companies and constituents who wanted stimulus contracts and grants from it.
Reps. Jo Bonner of Alabama, Dan Lungren of California, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman of Colorado, Lynn Westmoreland, Jack Kingston and Nathan Deal of Georgia, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Fred Upton, Vernon Ehlers, Thaddeus McCotter, Candice Miller and Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Jim Jordan and Michael Turner of Ohio, Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Phil Roe and Zach Wamp of Tennessee and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington along with Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee and Bob Bennett of Utah wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and top Energy Department officials asking them to consider particular recipients for stimulus dollars in 2009.
The Wall Street Journal requested the letters through the Freedom of Information Act last fall, but only received a response from the department this week.
The Energy Department is distributing around $48 billion in stimulus money, for projects such as modernizing the electric grid, advanced energy research, renewable energy and advanced battery manufacturing.
The letters from the GOP lawmakers frequently describe the merits of particular energy projects or companies. Many of the names of the companies were redacted by the Energy Department, making it impossible to tell how many of the the projects have received funding.
The WSJ previously reported that more than a dozen Republican lawmakers had supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service. Among them were Reps. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Sue Myrick of North Carolina and Jean Schmidt of Ohio and Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Richard Shelby of Alabama.
Lawmakers of both parties routinely send letters in support of federal funding for projects in their constituencies. Some Republican lawmakers have deliberately avoided sending requests for stimulus dollars because of their opposition to the bill, others have previously said that they are simply performing a service for their constituents and that they have a right to a share of the spending once it has been agreed upon.
A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) declined to comment.
Democrats have accused Republicans of hypocrisy, highlighting instances where party leaders have described the package as a failure and called for its cancellation.
Opposition to the Obama administration’s economic-stimulus package didn’t stop at least 24 congressional Republicans from lobbying the Department of Energy on behalf of companies and constituents who wanted stimulus contracts and grants from it.
Reps. Jo Bonner of Alabama, Dan Lungren of California, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman of Colorado, Lynn Westmoreland, Jack Kingston and Nathan Deal of Georgia, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Fred Upton, Vernon Ehlers, Thaddeus McCotter, Candice Miller and Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Jim Jordan and Michael Turner of Ohio, Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Phil Roe and Zach Wamp of Tennessee and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington along with Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee and Bob Bennett of Utah wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and top Energy Department officials asking them to consider particular recipients for stimulus dollars in 2009.
The Wall Street Journal requested the letters through the Freedom of Information Act last fall, but only received a response from the department this week.
The Energy Department is distributing around $48 billion in stimulus money, for projects such as modernizing the electric grid, advanced energy research, renewable energy and advanced battery manufacturing.
The letters from the GOP lawmakers frequently describe the merits of particular energy projects or companies. Many of the names of the companies were redacted by the Energy Department, making it impossible to tell how many of the the projects have received funding.
The WSJ previously reported that more than a dozen Republican lawmakers had supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service. Among them were Reps. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Sue Myrick of North Carolina and Jean Schmidt of Ohio and Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Richard Shelby of Alabama.
Lawmakers of both parties routinely send letters in support of federal funding for projects in their constituencies. Some Republican lawmakers have deliberately avoided sending requests for stimulus dollars because of their opposition to the bill, others have previously said that they are simply performing a service for their constituents and that they have a right to a share of the spending once it has been agreed upon.
A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) declined to comment.
Democrats have accused Republicans of hypocrisy, highlighting instances where party leaders have described the package as a failure and called for its cancellation.
California Toughens Energy Standards
SAN FRANCISCO—The state with some of the nation's most ambitious clean energy standards went even further Thursday: Regulators approved new regulations requiring utilities to draw a third of their power from alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal in 10 years.
California already is pushing utilities to reach a 20-percent-renewable standard by next year, which has been a struggle to accomplish. Toughening the rules could prompt regulators across the country to do the same, but some consumers fret that they will end up paying for the changes in the form of higher utility bills.
"To the extent that prices do become unreasonably elevated, there must be a safety valve to protect retail customers," said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney at The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group.
At a time when nearly one-eighth of the state's work force is jobless, some want California to dial back, not bolster, its leading-edge air pollution rules. A November ballot measure bankrolled by Texas oil companies would delay the state's landmark 2006 global warming law until the unemployment rate falls dramatically.
Advocates of the proposed utility standards plan say it will usher in "green" jobs and save rate payers money in the long run by decreasing dependence on fossil fuels.
"This standard is going to further diversify and secure our energy supply while also growing California's leading green technology market, which will lead to cost savings for consumers," Mary D. Nichols, chairman of the board considering the new rules, said in a statement after the vote.
Some clean-air advocates gave tepid support for the regulation but said it is filled with loopholes that would allow utilities to circumvent clean-energy upgrades.
Regulators say California now gets nearly 14 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, excluding large hydroelectric plants and nuclear power, which do not count toward either the proposed or the existing standards.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he favors raising the state's renewable mandate to 33 percent to help the state comply with the 2006 global warming law, which seeks to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The California Legislature failed to vote by the end of its session on a bill that would have adopted the 33 percent standard. The California Air Resources board took up the issue Thursday. Rules set by the board are more easily undone than laws approved by the Legislature, and its requirements would need to be adopted within a year by a state legal office that reviews new regulations.
Laura Wisland, a clean energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said her group wants a 33 percent standard, but not this one.
She said the air board's plan would actually slow clean technology investment because it allows utilities to meet the entire 33 percent by purchasing "renewable energy credits" rather than actually using renewable energy to supply their customers. The credits would represent renewable power that was generated at facilities outside California and never ends up in the state.
"California doesn't get any power for that (energy credit) purchase, so we get no greenhouse gas reduction benefits, no air quality improvements and no clean jobs," Wisland said. "But the utilities still have to provide electricity for customers, and that could still come from fossil fuels."
Under current law, utilities are not authorized to use any renewable energy credits to satisfy the 20-percent targets. All the energy must be produced in California or in another state connected to its power grid.
The air board said it will consider placing a cap on renewable energy credits as the regulation's language is finalized in coming weeks.
One of the state's three large, investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas&Electric Co., said it is committed "to working to achieve the 20 percent and 33 percent targets."
The company, which has more than 6 million customers in central and northern California, has struggled to meet the 20 percent goals in the set time frame, but says it has made substantial progress. PG&E has contracts for renewable energy deliveries representing more than 20 percent of its future needs, but many of those projects are not yet producing energy, said Cynthia Pollard, a company spokeswoman.
Utilities face fines for failing to meet the goals but can seek extensions.
Cindy Montanez of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power applauded the regulation and said the utility is moving quickly to increase its renewable energy. "We want to see real emission reductions and real jobs created. We think this is a smart way forward," she said.
Consumer advocates warned that the proposal did too little to protect utility customers from fluctuating energy costs. Young said there are no cost caps in the current plan, but added that officials will be able to add them later if they are needed.
In a state with a 12.4-percent unemployment rate and heated contests for governor and senator, the debate over whether a renewable electricity standard will create or kill jobs has been fierce.
California voters will have a big say in the future of the state's efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions when they vote Nov. 2 on Proposition 23. The measure would delay the global warming law until California's unemployment falls to 5.5 percent and stays there for a year. The proposition would not affect the renewable energy standards, legal experts said.
Congress considered imposing a national renewable electricity mandate in the latest energy bill, but the idea was nixed amid heavy opposition from utilities. Senate Democrats hope to pass a bill after the midterm elections that would mandate utilities get 15 percent of their energy from such sources by 2021.
Renewable energy projects are under way across the West, though many are years from being able to deliver power to energy-hungry cities. On Thursday, the California Energy Commission approved plans to build a massive solar energy plant in the Mojave Desert that could generate enough power for about 140,000 California homes.
Hawaii has a 40 percent renewable energy requirement, but has given its utilities until 2030 to meet the standard.
California already is pushing utilities to reach a 20-percent-renewable standard by next year, which has been a struggle to accomplish. Toughening the rules could prompt regulators across the country to do the same, but some consumers fret that they will end up paying for the changes in the form of higher utility bills.
"To the extent that prices do become unreasonably elevated, there must be a safety valve to protect retail customers," said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney at The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group.
At a time when nearly one-eighth of the state's work force is jobless, some want California to dial back, not bolster, its leading-edge air pollution rules. A November ballot measure bankrolled by Texas oil companies would delay the state's landmark 2006 global warming law until the unemployment rate falls dramatically.
Advocates of the proposed utility standards plan say it will usher in "green" jobs and save rate payers money in the long run by decreasing dependence on fossil fuels.
"This standard is going to further diversify and secure our energy supply while also growing California's leading green technology market, which will lead to cost savings for consumers," Mary D. Nichols, chairman of the board considering the new rules, said in a statement after the vote.
Some clean-air advocates gave tepid support for the regulation but said it is filled with loopholes that would allow utilities to circumvent clean-energy upgrades.
Regulators say California now gets nearly 14 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, excluding large hydroelectric plants and nuclear power, which do not count toward either the proposed or the existing standards.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he favors raising the state's renewable mandate to 33 percent to help the state comply with the 2006 global warming law, which seeks to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The California Legislature failed to vote by the end of its session on a bill that would have adopted the 33 percent standard. The California Air Resources board took up the issue Thursday. Rules set by the board are more easily undone than laws approved by the Legislature, and its requirements would need to be adopted within a year by a state legal office that reviews new regulations.
Laura Wisland, a clean energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said her group wants a 33 percent standard, but not this one.
She said the air board's plan would actually slow clean technology investment because it allows utilities to meet the entire 33 percent by purchasing "renewable energy credits" rather than actually using renewable energy to supply their customers. The credits would represent renewable power that was generated at facilities outside California and never ends up in the state.
"California doesn't get any power for that (energy credit) purchase, so we get no greenhouse gas reduction benefits, no air quality improvements and no clean jobs," Wisland said. "But the utilities still have to provide electricity for customers, and that could still come from fossil fuels."
Under current law, utilities are not authorized to use any renewable energy credits to satisfy the 20-percent targets. All the energy must be produced in California or in another state connected to its power grid.
The air board said it will consider placing a cap on renewable energy credits as the regulation's language is finalized in coming weeks.
One of the state's three large, investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas&Electric Co., said it is committed "to working to achieve the 20 percent and 33 percent targets."
The company, which has more than 6 million customers in central and northern California, has struggled to meet the 20 percent goals in the set time frame, but says it has made substantial progress. PG&E has contracts for renewable energy deliveries representing more than 20 percent of its future needs, but many of those projects are not yet producing energy, said Cynthia Pollard, a company spokeswoman.
Utilities face fines for failing to meet the goals but can seek extensions.
Cindy Montanez of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power applauded the regulation and said the utility is moving quickly to increase its renewable energy. "We want to see real emission reductions and real jobs created. We think this is a smart way forward," she said.
Consumer advocates warned that the proposal did too little to protect utility customers from fluctuating energy costs. Young said there are no cost caps in the current plan, but added that officials will be able to add them later if they are needed.
In a state with a 12.4-percent unemployment rate and heated contests for governor and senator, the debate over whether a renewable electricity standard will create or kill jobs has been fierce.
California voters will have a big say in the future of the state's efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions when they vote Nov. 2 on Proposition 23. The measure would delay the global warming law until California's unemployment falls to 5.5 percent and stays there for a year. The proposition would not affect the renewable energy standards, legal experts said.
Congress considered imposing a national renewable electricity mandate in the latest energy bill, but the idea was nixed amid heavy opposition from utilities. Senate Democrats hope to pass a bill after the midterm elections that would mandate utilities get 15 percent of their energy from such sources by 2021.
Renewable energy projects are under way across the West, though many are years from being able to deliver power to energy-hungry cities. On Thursday, the California Energy Commission approved plans to build a massive solar energy plant in the Mojave Desert that could generate enough power for about 140,000 California homes.
Hawaii has a 40 percent renewable energy requirement, but has given its utilities until 2030 to meet the standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
