24 February 2011
Climate loans made up 30% of the European Investment Bank’s (EIB’s) lending in the EU last year, with the development bank financing €20.5 billion ($28.2 billion) of projects involving renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable transport, forestry, innovation and climate adaptation.
This was up from €16 billion of climate loans in 2009, the EIB said yesterday, releasing its annual lending report.
Sustainable transport projects took the largest slice of the pie, with €7.9 billion, or nearly 40%. Another €6 billion went to financing renewable energy projects and €2 billion to energy efficiency projects. By contrast, the EIB loaned €440 million to coal and lignite power projects and €1.3 billion to natural gas power projects.
“We have succeeded in our mission to support recovery in Europe by financing projects that stimulate growth, innovation and jobs, and we are very proud of our record volume on climate action projects,” said Philippe Maystadt, president of the EIB. “Building a better and more sustainable future is the driving force behind everything we do.”
The UK’s giant offshore wind project, the London Array, received the largest single ‘climate action’ loan last year, for €842 million.
Although the EIB’s primary mandate is development within the EU, it financed €2 billion of climate action projects elsewhere in the world last year and expects to increase this financing in the next three years. This ranges from large pots of money distributed via local financial institutions, such as €500 million for climate change mitigation projects in China, to smaller deals, such as a €79 million loan to Iberdrola for construction of a wind farm in Oaxaca, Mexico.
Funding for the bank’s energy sustainability facility – which allows it to make loans to projects outside the EU in 'investment grade' countries – has been increased by €1.5 billion to €4.5 billion and the European Parliament and Council are in discussions over a €2 billion climate mandate, also to be spent outside the EU.
To meet the bank’s criteria for a ‘climate action project’, a project must meet the EIB’s criteria on carbon dioxide reductions, sequestration or energy efficiency. Projects where climate adaptation accounts for at least 50% of the total cost can also qualify.
In total, the bank lent €72 billion in 2010 to 460 projects, of which €9 billion was spent outside the EU. The EIB also published a detailed breakdown of the projects it financed during the year. It made a net profit of €2.1 billion.
Jess McCabe
Monday, 28 February 2011
Buy Now, Pay Later
New financing programs help homes and businesses become more energy-efficient—without shelling out big money upfront
By LIAM PLEVEN
Champions of energy efficiency argue that upgrading homes and businesses saves billions in the long run.
But who will pay for it now?
The upfront cost of energy efficiency can be a stumbling block to more efficient lighting, insulation, air conditioning and other equipment. Entrepreneurs, utilities and governments are experimenting fervently with financing arrangements that attempt to show property owners that some energy upgrades are not only feasible but economically smart.
Currently, 221 energy-efficiency loan programs are offered in 48 states by utilities and federal, state and local governments, according to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency , funded by the Department of Energy. Meanwhile, utilities and start-up companies are expanding financing programs and rolling out their own new models.
Here's a look at some of the methods being tried nationwide:
Efficiency-Services Agreements
For some commercial building owners, the problem isn't finding the money to pay for upgrades—it's losing the opportunity to use that cash for their core business.
Metrus Energy Inc. is road-testing a new vehicle, known as an efficiency-services agreement, that gets around that issue. For the life of the deal, Metrus owns the new energy-efficiency equipment, not the building owner.
Metrus, a San Francisco energy-efficiency company started in 2009, has struck two such deals in the past year with BAE Systems PLC, for facilities BAE owns in New Hampshire and New York. Metrus pays particular attention to big-ticket items, such as boilers and furnaces.
Under the agreements, BAE continues to pay the utility bills. But as the facilities become more energy-efficient and the bills shrink, BAE will pay Metrus an upwards-sliding fee slightly less than the energy savings.
"It becomes very much like their utility bill," Bob Hinkle, Metrus's founder and chief executive, says of the impact on building owners.
Metrus contracts with a third party to install the equipment; in the BAE buildings, its partner has been Siemens AG, the German electrical services giant. And Siemens promises to pay Metrus if the energy savings don't materialize as expected.
The deals are in their infancy, but the annual energy savings at BAE's Merrimack, N.H., facility are projected to exceed one million kilowatt-hours—reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by an equivalent of taking 137 cars off the road for a year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Other companies are rolling out similar deals. Green Campus Partners LLC, has four projects under development, says Jim Thoma, a managing director.
Managed Energy-Services Agreements
In a similar type of deal, an energy-efficiency company pays a building owner's energy bill and charges the owner a fee pegged to current energy use. The company pays to upgrade or retrofit the building itself, and if the utility bills go down, it pockets the difference.
The building owners don't share directly in the energy savings during the deals, which typically last for 10 years. But they still can come out ahead.
"The upside for the deal is that we have new equipment," says Roger Waesche, chief operating officer for Corporate Office Properties Trust, a real-estate investment trust based in Columbia, Md., that has signed deals involving 24 of its roughly 200 buildings. New equipment means better service for tenants, he says. Plus, after the deal expires, the savings can flow directly to the owner.
The company has struck its deals with Transcend Equity Development Corp., which pioneered the structure. So far, Transcend has put about $30 million into roughly 30 projects, according to Steve Gossett Jr., the company's vice president.
Mr. Gossett says Transcend has cut Corporate Office Properties Trust's energy use by 25% in the buildings under contract, and eliminated 6,000 tons of carbon-dioxide emissions—about the equivalent of burning more than 612,000 gallons of gasoline.
On-Bill Financing
For some businesses, the main hurdle to energy-efficiency upgrades is the risk that the work won't pay for itself.
Thus, some utilities try to sell customers on the benefits of borrowing: The companies include the monthly loan payment on the utility bill, and structure the loan so that the energy savings are often more than enough to cover the payments.
United Illuminating Co., a utility serving New Haven and Bridgeport, Conn., started such a program for commercial customers in the 1990s. The utility makes hundreds of loans a year, and has deals with close to 10,000 customers so far—about one-third of its commercial base. United focuses on commercial customers in part because it's relatively simple to save significant energy and money with lighting, which businesses tend to have lots of, says Michael West, a spokesman for UIL Holdings Corp., the parent of United Illuminating. But the company is planning a residential program in the spring.
San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas Co.—both owned by San Diego-based Sempra Energy—have followed United's example. They have made $13 million in loans to fund efficiency upgrades for close to 600 commercial and government customers since late 2006. According to the company, the upgrades have saved an estimated 45 million kilowatt-hours—equivalent to eliminating carbon-dioxide emissions from nearly 4,000 homes for a year.
The Sempra utilities structure their loans to make the payments equal to or below what customers save in energy use. Loan payments are included on regular monthly bills.
The utilities charge no interest on the loans, which can range as high as $100,000 for commercial buildings and $1 million for state facilities, says Mark Gaines, director of customer programs for the utilities. But they manage to benefit, too. The program helps them meet California's energy-efficiency targets. Moreover, Mr. Gaines says, the utilities can charge more to customers who don't make the upgrades.
On-bill financing is still relatively uncommon in the residential market, says a December report from the National Home Performance Council, which found that of 126 programs offering comprehensive retrofit programs for homeowners, only seven offered on-bill financing.
Municipal Programs
For years, homeowners paid for energy-efficiency improvements by using local-government funding collectively known as Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE, loans.
Loan repayments were attached to property tax bills, thus ensuring repayment even if the borrower were to sell the property. By September 2009, 17 states had PACE programs, according to a February 2010 report by an arm of the California Clean Energy Fund.
Many PACE programs came under a cloud last summer because they often use liens that give local governments priority in getting repaid. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan banks, said in July that PACE loans with priority liens over outstanding mortgages "present significant risk to lenders." Fannie and Freddie, government-sponsored entities that purchase mortgages from private lenders, said they would stop buying new mortgages with first-lien PACE loans.
But not all municipal loan programs operate the same way, so some have been largely unaffected. The state of Maine plans to start making loans soon under a new PACE program that will feature loans secured by a subordinate lien.
Also, through a Federal Housing Administration pilot program called PowerSaver, homeowners with qualifying credit soon will be able to borrow up to $25,000 to finance selected energy-related improvements.
Mr. Pleven is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in New York. He can be reached at liam.pleven@wsj.com.
By LIAM PLEVEN
Champions of energy efficiency argue that upgrading homes and businesses saves billions in the long run.
But who will pay for it now?
The upfront cost of energy efficiency can be a stumbling block to more efficient lighting, insulation, air conditioning and other equipment. Entrepreneurs, utilities and governments are experimenting fervently with financing arrangements that attempt to show property owners that some energy upgrades are not only feasible but economically smart.
Currently, 221 energy-efficiency loan programs are offered in 48 states by utilities and federal, state and local governments, according to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency , funded by the Department of Energy. Meanwhile, utilities and start-up companies are expanding financing programs and rolling out their own new models.
Here's a look at some of the methods being tried nationwide:
Efficiency-Services Agreements
For some commercial building owners, the problem isn't finding the money to pay for upgrades—it's losing the opportunity to use that cash for their core business.
Metrus Energy Inc. is road-testing a new vehicle, known as an efficiency-services agreement, that gets around that issue. For the life of the deal, Metrus owns the new energy-efficiency equipment, not the building owner.
Metrus, a San Francisco energy-efficiency company started in 2009, has struck two such deals in the past year with BAE Systems PLC, for facilities BAE owns in New Hampshire and New York. Metrus pays particular attention to big-ticket items, such as boilers and furnaces.
Under the agreements, BAE continues to pay the utility bills. But as the facilities become more energy-efficient and the bills shrink, BAE will pay Metrus an upwards-sliding fee slightly less than the energy savings.
"It becomes very much like their utility bill," Bob Hinkle, Metrus's founder and chief executive, says of the impact on building owners.
Metrus contracts with a third party to install the equipment; in the BAE buildings, its partner has been Siemens AG, the German electrical services giant. And Siemens promises to pay Metrus if the energy savings don't materialize as expected.
The deals are in their infancy, but the annual energy savings at BAE's Merrimack, N.H., facility are projected to exceed one million kilowatt-hours—reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by an equivalent of taking 137 cars off the road for a year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Other companies are rolling out similar deals. Green Campus Partners LLC, has four projects under development, says Jim Thoma, a managing director.
Managed Energy-Services Agreements
In a similar type of deal, an energy-efficiency company pays a building owner's energy bill and charges the owner a fee pegged to current energy use. The company pays to upgrade or retrofit the building itself, and if the utility bills go down, it pockets the difference.
The building owners don't share directly in the energy savings during the deals, which typically last for 10 years. But they still can come out ahead.
"The upside for the deal is that we have new equipment," says Roger Waesche, chief operating officer for Corporate Office Properties Trust, a real-estate investment trust based in Columbia, Md., that has signed deals involving 24 of its roughly 200 buildings. New equipment means better service for tenants, he says. Plus, after the deal expires, the savings can flow directly to the owner.
The company has struck its deals with Transcend Equity Development Corp., which pioneered the structure. So far, Transcend has put about $30 million into roughly 30 projects, according to Steve Gossett Jr., the company's vice president.
Mr. Gossett says Transcend has cut Corporate Office Properties Trust's energy use by 25% in the buildings under contract, and eliminated 6,000 tons of carbon-dioxide emissions—about the equivalent of burning more than 612,000 gallons of gasoline.
On-Bill Financing
For some businesses, the main hurdle to energy-efficiency upgrades is the risk that the work won't pay for itself.
Thus, some utilities try to sell customers on the benefits of borrowing: The companies include the monthly loan payment on the utility bill, and structure the loan so that the energy savings are often more than enough to cover the payments.
United Illuminating Co., a utility serving New Haven and Bridgeport, Conn., started such a program for commercial customers in the 1990s. The utility makes hundreds of loans a year, and has deals with close to 10,000 customers so far—about one-third of its commercial base. United focuses on commercial customers in part because it's relatively simple to save significant energy and money with lighting, which businesses tend to have lots of, says Michael West, a spokesman for UIL Holdings Corp., the parent of United Illuminating. But the company is planning a residential program in the spring.
San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas Co.—both owned by San Diego-based Sempra Energy—have followed United's example. They have made $13 million in loans to fund efficiency upgrades for close to 600 commercial and government customers since late 2006. According to the company, the upgrades have saved an estimated 45 million kilowatt-hours—equivalent to eliminating carbon-dioxide emissions from nearly 4,000 homes for a year.
The Sempra utilities structure their loans to make the payments equal to or below what customers save in energy use. Loan payments are included on regular monthly bills.
The utilities charge no interest on the loans, which can range as high as $100,000 for commercial buildings and $1 million for state facilities, says Mark Gaines, director of customer programs for the utilities. But they manage to benefit, too. The program helps them meet California's energy-efficiency targets. Moreover, Mr. Gaines says, the utilities can charge more to customers who don't make the upgrades.
On-bill financing is still relatively uncommon in the residential market, says a December report from the National Home Performance Council, which found that of 126 programs offering comprehensive retrofit programs for homeowners, only seven offered on-bill financing.
Municipal Programs
For years, homeowners paid for energy-efficiency improvements by using local-government funding collectively known as Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE, loans.
Loan repayments were attached to property tax bills, thus ensuring repayment even if the borrower were to sell the property. By September 2009, 17 states had PACE programs, according to a February 2010 report by an arm of the California Clean Energy Fund.
Many PACE programs came under a cloud last summer because they often use liens that give local governments priority in getting repaid. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan banks, said in July that PACE loans with priority liens over outstanding mortgages "present significant risk to lenders." Fannie and Freddie, government-sponsored entities that purchase mortgages from private lenders, said they would stop buying new mortgages with first-lien PACE loans.
But not all municipal loan programs operate the same way, so some have been largely unaffected. The state of Maine plans to start making loans soon under a new PACE program that will feature loans secured by a subordinate lien.
Also, through a Federal Housing Administration pilot program called PowerSaver, homeowners with qualifying credit soon will be able to borrow up to $25,000 to finance selected energy-related improvements.
Mr. Pleven is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in New York. He can be reached at liam.pleven@wsj.com.
Kentucky split between coal past and clean energy future
SolveClimate: Kentucky's bashing of the US Environmental Protection Agency and almost complete reliance on coal is overshadowing its efforts to pursue cleaner energy
Maria Gallucci for SolveClimate guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 February 2011 15.31 GMT
Kentucky is heading toward its energy future paddling in opposite directions. Some lawmakers want to boost the use of alternative energies, especially biomass, to diversify its fuel mix. But coal remains the backbone of its manufacturing-driven economy, and others are determined to keep it that way.
The political dynamic playing out in Kentucky offers a local window into the larger national energy dilemma. The state is seeking the benefits of a clean economy, but coal is still the source of 92 percent of its electricity and brings in $3.5 billion in export revenue.
Currently, state legislators are deliberating three bills to spur economic growth and rein in soaring electricity rates. One would foster clean energy development. The others would shelter the coal industry from Obama administration regulations on greenhouse gases that opponents say would kill industrial jobs.
While it's true that Kentucky cheap coal has long attracted manufacturing industry — which currently employs 213,000 people in the automotive, steel and aluminum sectors — new figures suggest times are changing.
Electricity rates have risen 41 percent on average over the last five years, delivering a blow to the state's big industries. Kentucky's cheap energy has become less of a competitive advantage.
Manufacturing jobs have fallen 30 percent in the last decade, hitting the one-third of Kentuckians who live in low-income housing the hardest.
At the same time, the state's smaller mines have become more expensive to operate, and newer machine-intensive technologies have cut back on manpower. As a result, coal mining jobs in Kentucky have fallen from 50,000 positions in 1979 to 18,000 today, according to the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED).
Today, mining accounts for one percent of total non-farm employment in the state.
"The price of coal — to mine it, generate it and to try to manage the waste — is getting more expensive," said Elizabeth Crowe, director of the Kentucky Environmental Foundation. "Meanwhile, the number of jobs created through clean renewable energy like wind, solar and hydro are really [rising] in some of our neighboring states" but not in Kentucky.
Government Overreach 'Costing Us Jobs'
However, many legislators from both parties would disagree with the suggestion that coal can't power a jobs engine.
In the Senate, the Natural Resources and Energy Committee approved a largely symbolic measure on Feb. 17 to make Kentucky a "sanctuary state" for the coal industry by exempting mines and power plants from "the overreaching regulatory power" of the EPA.
Under the bill, the state's Energy and Environment Cabinet would go so far as to issue permits to coal mines previously denied by the EPA because of concerns over water pollution.
"As the overreaching EPA impact settles in on us, it's costing us jobs, it's putting us in a very perilous situation," said Chairman Sen. Brandon Smith, a Republican from the coal-mining town of Hazard, and the bill's sponsor.
That same day, the committee's House counterpart approved a bill that would exempt Kentucky mines which produce coal for the state's use — not for export — from federal Clean Water Act requirements. The legislators contend they are protecting states' rights.
But such pro-coal views are being met with growing citizen opposition.
Earlier this month, Wendell Berry, the Kentucky author and poet, occupied the governor's office with 13 others for four days to protest government support of coal, while 1,000 protesters held a demonstration against mountaintop removal mining at the state Capitol.
EPA Bashing 'Temporary Diversion'
Len Peters, secretary of the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, told SolveClimate News that the pro-coal lawmakers introduced the bills as a way to show EPA their displeasure, and have even acknowledged that the state would lose substantial federal Clean Air Act funding if they're passed.
Peters said the bills are merely a "temporary diversion" from Gov. Steven Beshear's long-term goals to diversify the state energy supply, which includes a seven-point strategy to get 25 percent of Kentucky's energy demand from energy efficiency, renewable energy and biofuels by 2025.
The proposed Clean Energy Opportunity Act on the House floor, or H.B. 239, would take the Democratic governor's initiatives even further.
Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, a Democrat from Louisville, introduced the bill earlier this month to establish a renewable and efficiency portfolio standard (REPS) for the state.
Under the mandatory standard, renewable sources would account for 12.5 percent of utility retail sales by 2021, and utilities would achieve annual efficiency savings of up to 10.25 percent of retail sales in that period by reducing demand from manufacturers, businesses and homes.
Jason Bailey, research and policy director for MACED, said that the House measure would take the first steps needed for a green energy transition.
MACED is part of the Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance (KySEA), an organization of 30 businesses, nonprofit organizations and faith groups that drafted the bill.
First Signs of Green Manufacturing
"We've built an economy around cheap electricity from coal-fired power that is coming to an end," Bailey told SolveClimate News.
"What we're really talking about for the next 10 years is that we need to take the first steps to position ourselves for the next phase, where by all indications, because of technology and policies, clean energy alternatives will take off [nationwide]."
Bailey said the REPS could help attract clean technology industries in an otherwise pro-coal state.
"You see a real correlation between states that are friendly to renewable energy and the location of renewable energy component and system manufacturing," he said. "Manufacturers want a market for their products, and if Kentucky itself is not purchasing renewable energy systems, then it makes us less appealing. They want to go where the market is."
Kentucky is starting to encourage green manufacturing ahead of its renewable energy market. Last August, the state received $53.4 million in federal stimulus funds from the U.S. Department of Energy to distribute clean energy tax credits and grants.
Since then, the state finance authority has given Alternative Energies Kentucky Inc. preliminary approval for up to $390,000 in funding to build around 25,000 to 30,000 solar panels a year at its plant.
ZF Steering Systems LLC also received a $28.6-million tax credit to make electric power steering gears for vehicles that consume 90 percent less energy than traditional hydraulic gears. General Electric in Louisville received $11.3 million of the same credit to make residential-scale heat pump clothes dryers, which use half the energy of standard dryers.
Defining Renewables: Are Biomass, Coal Clean?
Not surprisingly, state officials and green groups differ in defining how to develop actual renewable energy sources in Kentucky.
The governor has assembled a biomass task force and expects the industry to account for more than half of renewable energy production by 2025. The task force estimates that biomass production could reach 25 million tons annually, or $3.4 billion in net output, and create about 14,000 jobs in rural communities.
Earlier this year, the state finance authority awarded preliminary approval for up to $15 million in state tax credits to EcoPower LLC. A planned 58.5-megawatt biomass power generating facility is expected to operate in 2013.
But whether burning tree parts for electricity should even qualify as clean renewable power remains up for debate in the United States. Conservationists say that biomass combustion produces more CO2 than burning fossil fuels, while the industry claims it's carbon neutral. For its part, the EPA is still considering both sides.
Also disheartening to environmental groups is that coal would still make up more than 60 percent of the state's electricity portfolio under the governor's plan — though "clean coal" technologies would be implemented at 50 percent of coal-based facilities in the next 15 years to offset the harmful greenhouse gases emitted by the plants.
An additional 15 percent of energy would come from nuclear power and natural gas, with biomass, hydropower and other renewables rounding off the top.
Peters noted that carbon capture and storage (CCS) techniques are largely experimental for coal-fired plants and could take decades to carry out, while the biomass task force is still developing strategies for sustainable agricultural and forestry practices.
Crowe of the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, which is also a KySEA member, told SolveClimate News that the state should instead bolster its utility-scale wind and solar energy industries, as those renewable sources don't require burning crops or proliferate coal practices that destroy the environment or pose health risks to Kentuckians.
With No Wind, Negawatts are 'Paramount'
Kentucky might not compare to California in terms of solar radiation, she continued, but it averages about as much solar radiation as New Jersey, a state with the second-most grid-connected solar capacity nationwide, at 127 megawatts. Kentucky has less than 0.1 megawatts in installed solar power.
Wind energy, on the other hand, poses a real challenge to the Bluegrass State.
Kentucky could potentially install about 61 megawatts in wind capacity, and only 0.01 percent of its land is considered a windy land area, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Neighboring states like Ohio have the potential to install 55,000 megawatts of wind power with 10.3 percent of land available for wind, while Indiana could install 148,000 megawatts and is one-third windy land area.
Both groups agree that energy efficiency measures are paramount to picking away at Kentucky's dependency on coal-fired electricity.
Industrial energy use in the state is nearly double the national average, and residents consume more energy per-capita than in almost any other state, according the energy cabinet.
Peters said Kentucky had allotted $5 million in federal stimulus funds to hire energy managers in school districts statewide to retrofit and weatherize older buildings, install solar panels and minimize energy use so that savings can be poured into school curricula.
According to the House clean energy bill, lower-income Kentuckians spend $1 of every $5 on home energy costs due to older housing and inefficient heating and cooling systems.
Crowe said: "Most people understand the problem it poses to society – it's less money for everything else that they need."
• This article was changed on 25 February to reflect the wind capacity figures were potential installations, not actual installations
Maria Gallucci for SolveClimate guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 February 2011 15.31 GMT
Kentucky is heading toward its energy future paddling in opposite directions. Some lawmakers want to boost the use of alternative energies, especially biomass, to diversify its fuel mix. But coal remains the backbone of its manufacturing-driven economy, and others are determined to keep it that way.
The political dynamic playing out in Kentucky offers a local window into the larger national energy dilemma. The state is seeking the benefits of a clean economy, but coal is still the source of 92 percent of its electricity and brings in $3.5 billion in export revenue.
Currently, state legislators are deliberating three bills to spur economic growth and rein in soaring electricity rates. One would foster clean energy development. The others would shelter the coal industry from Obama administration regulations on greenhouse gases that opponents say would kill industrial jobs.
While it's true that Kentucky cheap coal has long attracted manufacturing industry — which currently employs 213,000 people in the automotive, steel and aluminum sectors — new figures suggest times are changing.
Electricity rates have risen 41 percent on average over the last five years, delivering a blow to the state's big industries. Kentucky's cheap energy has become less of a competitive advantage.
Manufacturing jobs have fallen 30 percent in the last decade, hitting the one-third of Kentuckians who live in low-income housing the hardest.
At the same time, the state's smaller mines have become more expensive to operate, and newer machine-intensive technologies have cut back on manpower. As a result, coal mining jobs in Kentucky have fallen from 50,000 positions in 1979 to 18,000 today, according to the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED).
Today, mining accounts for one percent of total non-farm employment in the state.
"The price of coal — to mine it, generate it and to try to manage the waste — is getting more expensive," said Elizabeth Crowe, director of the Kentucky Environmental Foundation. "Meanwhile, the number of jobs created through clean renewable energy like wind, solar and hydro are really [rising] in some of our neighboring states" but not in Kentucky.
Government Overreach 'Costing Us Jobs'
However, many legislators from both parties would disagree with the suggestion that coal can't power a jobs engine.
In the Senate, the Natural Resources and Energy Committee approved a largely symbolic measure on Feb. 17 to make Kentucky a "sanctuary state" for the coal industry by exempting mines and power plants from "the overreaching regulatory power" of the EPA.
Under the bill, the state's Energy and Environment Cabinet would go so far as to issue permits to coal mines previously denied by the EPA because of concerns over water pollution.
"As the overreaching EPA impact settles in on us, it's costing us jobs, it's putting us in a very perilous situation," said Chairman Sen. Brandon Smith, a Republican from the coal-mining town of Hazard, and the bill's sponsor.
That same day, the committee's House counterpart approved a bill that would exempt Kentucky mines which produce coal for the state's use — not for export — from federal Clean Water Act requirements. The legislators contend they are protecting states' rights.
But such pro-coal views are being met with growing citizen opposition.
Earlier this month, Wendell Berry, the Kentucky author and poet, occupied the governor's office with 13 others for four days to protest government support of coal, while 1,000 protesters held a demonstration against mountaintop removal mining at the state Capitol.
EPA Bashing 'Temporary Diversion'
Len Peters, secretary of the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, told SolveClimate News that the pro-coal lawmakers introduced the bills as a way to show EPA their displeasure, and have even acknowledged that the state would lose substantial federal Clean Air Act funding if they're passed.
Peters said the bills are merely a "temporary diversion" from Gov. Steven Beshear's long-term goals to diversify the state energy supply, which includes a seven-point strategy to get 25 percent of Kentucky's energy demand from energy efficiency, renewable energy and biofuels by 2025.
The proposed Clean Energy Opportunity Act on the House floor, or H.B. 239, would take the Democratic governor's initiatives even further.
Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, a Democrat from Louisville, introduced the bill earlier this month to establish a renewable and efficiency portfolio standard (REPS) for the state.
Under the mandatory standard, renewable sources would account for 12.5 percent of utility retail sales by 2021, and utilities would achieve annual efficiency savings of up to 10.25 percent of retail sales in that period by reducing demand from manufacturers, businesses and homes.
Jason Bailey, research and policy director for MACED, said that the House measure would take the first steps needed for a green energy transition.
MACED is part of the Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance (KySEA), an organization of 30 businesses, nonprofit organizations and faith groups that drafted the bill.
First Signs of Green Manufacturing
"We've built an economy around cheap electricity from coal-fired power that is coming to an end," Bailey told SolveClimate News.
"What we're really talking about for the next 10 years is that we need to take the first steps to position ourselves for the next phase, where by all indications, because of technology and policies, clean energy alternatives will take off [nationwide]."
Bailey said the REPS could help attract clean technology industries in an otherwise pro-coal state.
"You see a real correlation between states that are friendly to renewable energy and the location of renewable energy component and system manufacturing," he said. "Manufacturers want a market for their products, and if Kentucky itself is not purchasing renewable energy systems, then it makes us less appealing. They want to go where the market is."
Kentucky is starting to encourage green manufacturing ahead of its renewable energy market. Last August, the state received $53.4 million in federal stimulus funds from the U.S. Department of Energy to distribute clean energy tax credits and grants.
Since then, the state finance authority has given Alternative Energies Kentucky Inc. preliminary approval for up to $390,000 in funding to build around 25,000 to 30,000 solar panels a year at its plant.
ZF Steering Systems LLC also received a $28.6-million tax credit to make electric power steering gears for vehicles that consume 90 percent less energy than traditional hydraulic gears. General Electric in Louisville received $11.3 million of the same credit to make residential-scale heat pump clothes dryers, which use half the energy of standard dryers.
Defining Renewables: Are Biomass, Coal Clean?
Not surprisingly, state officials and green groups differ in defining how to develop actual renewable energy sources in Kentucky.
The governor has assembled a biomass task force and expects the industry to account for more than half of renewable energy production by 2025. The task force estimates that biomass production could reach 25 million tons annually, or $3.4 billion in net output, and create about 14,000 jobs in rural communities.
Earlier this year, the state finance authority awarded preliminary approval for up to $15 million in state tax credits to EcoPower LLC. A planned 58.5-megawatt biomass power generating facility is expected to operate in 2013.
But whether burning tree parts for electricity should even qualify as clean renewable power remains up for debate in the United States. Conservationists say that biomass combustion produces more CO2 than burning fossil fuels, while the industry claims it's carbon neutral. For its part, the EPA is still considering both sides.
Also disheartening to environmental groups is that coal would still make up more than 60 percent of the state's electricity portfolio under the governor's plan — though "clean coal" technologies would be implemented at 50 percent of coal-based facilities in the next 15 years to offset the harmful greenhouse gases emitted by the plants.
An additional 15 percent of energy would come from nuclear power and natural gas, with biomass, hydropower and other renewables rounding off the top.
Peters noted that carbon capture and storage (CCS) techniques are largely experimental for coal-fired plants and could take decades to carry out, while the biomass task force is still developing strategies for sustainable agricultural and forestry practices.
Crowe of the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, which is also a KySEA member, told SolveClimate News that the state should instead bolster its utility-scale wind and solar energy industries, as those renewable sources don't require burning crops or proliferate coal practices that destroy the environment or pose health risks to Kentuckians.
With No Wind, Negawatts are 'Paramount'
Kentucky might not compare to California in terms of solar radiation, she continued, but it averages about as much solar radiation as New Jersey, a state with the second-most grid-connected solar capacity nationwide, at 127 megawatts. Kentucky has less than 0.1 megawatts in installed solar power.
Wind energy, on the other hand, poses a real challenge to the Bluegrass State.
Kentucky could potentially install about 61 megawatts in wind capacity, and only 0.01 percent of its land is considered a windy land area, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Neighboring states like Ohio have the potential to install 55,000 megawatts of wind power with 10.3 percent of land available for wind, while Indiana could install 148,000 megawatts and is one-third windy land area.
Both groups agree that energy efficiency measures are paramount to picking away at Kentucky's dependency on coal-fired electricity.
Industrial energy use in the state is nearly double the national average, and residents consume more energy per-capita than in almost any other state, according the energy cabinet.
Peters said Kentucky had allotted $5 million in federal stimulus funds to hire energy managers in school districts statewide to retrofit and weatherize older buildings, install solar panels and minimize energy use so that savings can be poured into school curricula.
According to the House clean energy bill, lower-income Kentuckians spend $1 of every $5 on home energy costs due to older housing and inefficient heating and cooling systems.
Crowe said: "Most people understand the problem it poses to society – it's less money for everything else that they need."
• This article was changed on 25 February to reflect the wind capacity figures were potential installations, not actual installations
UK firm develops way to store hydrogen
Cella Energy used nanotechnology to develop microbeads that can trap hydrogen and release it when heated
One of the biggest stumbling blocks on the road to hydrogen power has long been the difficulty in storing the fuel. Hydrogen atoms are so small that they can slip between the spaces in molecules of other materials, and the gas can be a hazard if it escapes.
But a cheap and practical way of storing hydrogen has been developed by a British company. Cella Energy used nanotechnology to develop microbeads – about the size of a grain of sand – that can trap hydrogen and release it when heated. The energy can then be used safely to power vehicles – drivers could simply top up with microbeads on filling station forecourts. What's more, the beads are not just for hydrogen vehicles - they also work in standard combustion engines, in which they can be used as an additive to help the petrol burn more cleanly, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Cella's invention, developed at its lab in Oxford, was in the limelight on Tuesday after the company scooped this year's Springboard award from Shell.
Stephen Voller, chief executive, said the prize was "a great boost [that] will give us real credibility in the eyes of customers and potential investors alike". Cella received £40,000 from Shell, which the company will use to scale up its technology to an industrial scale.
Second place in the awards went to VPhase, a Chester-based company, for a voltage optimisation product for households. This works on the basis that standard voltage is variable, meaning some devices are using more energy than they need to run. So installing the device should result in instant savings on electricity bills.
Among the runners-up and regional winners from the 200 small businesses that entered were Ashwoods Automotive, with a product that lengthens the life of electric car batteries, and Naked Energy, with a solar panel that generates both electricity and hot water in cool climates.
The Springboard awards have been running since 2005, in which time 53 companies have shared more than £2m.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks on the road to hydrogen power has long been the difficulty in storing the fuel. Hydrogen atoms are so small that they can slip between the spaces in molecules of other materials, and the gas can be a hazard if it escapes.
But a cheap and practical way of storing hydrogen has been developed by a British company. Cella Energy used nanotechnology to develop microbeads – about the size of a grain of sand – that can trap hydrogen and release it when heated. The energy can then be used safely to power vehicles – drivers could simply top up with microbeads on filling station forecourts. What's more, the beads are not just for hydrogen vehicles - they also work in standard combustion engines, in which they can be used as an additive to help the petrol burn more cleanly, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Cella's invention, developed at its lab in Oxford, was in the limelight on Tuesday after the company scooped this year's Springboard award from Shell.
Stephen Voller, chief executive, said the prize was "a great boost [that] will give us real credibility in the eyes of customers and potential investors alike". Cella received £40,000 from Shell, which the company will use to scale up its technology to an industrial scale.
Second place in the awards went to VPhase, a Chester-based company, for a voltage optimisation product for households. This works on the basis that standard voltage is variable, meaning some devices are using more energy than they need to run. So installing the device should result in instant savings on electricity bills.
Among the runners-up and regional winners from the 200 small businesses that entered were Ashwoods Automotive, with a product that lengthens the life of electric car batteries, and Naked Energy, with a solar panel that generates both electricity and hot water in cool climates.
The Springboard awards have been running since 2005, in which time 53 companies have shared more than £2m.
Rising oil prices should be a catalyst for decarbonisation
The quicker we can move to a post-oil society, the better for the environment, the global economy and for democracy
I write this from the Green party's spring conference in Cardiff, where events in Libya and throughout the Middle East are providing a deeply worrying backdrop to policy discussions and debates.
Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed an incredible wave of grassroots protest across the Middle East, which has sent shockwaves across the geopolitical landscape. We've seen courageous people rising up against the repressive leaders who have failed to respond to the economic, political and social challenges of the day – and to offer their citizens a more positive future.
And what support or encouragement has our prime minister offered to those bravely struggling for democracy and the rule of law? When I first saw him on TV in Tahrir Square, I genuinely thought for a moment that David Cameron was there to express solidarity with the pro-democracy movement. Then I realised the horrifying reality: he was there in the Middle East, at a time of such violence and chaos, with a delegation of arms traders, to sell more arms.
As well as recognising the importance of an ethical foreign policy, Greens also understand that, deep at the heart of most major conflicts – between countries or within them – is a tug-of-war over primary access to the natural resources which power our global economy.
And we know that, where dire poverty and inequality collides with increasingly scarce resources and ecological instability, the tug-of-war becomes ever more intense – and the consequences for populations ever more severe.
In a fascinating article in the Lebanese Daily Star last week, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, highlighted the fact that economic want, environmental crisis and inequality were as crucial as political repression in sparking the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions.
And he is right that just changing governments in those, and other, Middle Eastern countries mired in crisis will not make the economic and ecological problems disappear.
The Arab world accounts for 6.3% of the world's population but only 1.4% of its renewable fresh water. Rapid population growth has demanded a huge expansion in industrialised agriculture, which in turn has driven ever increasing water consumption.
The World Bank has predicted that, over the coming decades, the availability of fresh water in the region will halve. Competition to control water is already playing a key role in regional geopolitical and local ethnic tensions as demand increases.
Add to this the effects of climate change and rising global average temperatures, and you have an environmental and economic crisis of potentially catastrophic proportions.
Thanks to our dangerous dependency on oil, the situation in the Middle East is of paramount concern to national governments and global economic actors as turmoil in Libya and elsewhere escalates.
In the UK, we are in the age of dependency on foreign oil. We currently import 8% of our oil, but by 2020, it's predicted to be 50%. Our economy is already hugely vulnerable to instability. Three out of five last recessions were the result of oil price spikes arising from geopolitical upheavals.
So the news that oil prices have surged to $120 (£75) a barrel as a result of tensions in Libya, with the International Energy Agency warning that surging oil prices could pull the rug out from under global economic recovery, should act as a loud rallying cry for more urgent decarbonisation.
Whether it is via a managed transition or by painful last-minute shock as oil stocks are depleted, the UK will and must decrease its dependence on oil. On a positive note, this could mean a new politics in which foreign policy is no longer about propping up unsavoury regimes to protect oil interests.
What's clear is that the quicker we can move to a post-oil society, the better for the environment, the global economy and for democracy.
Public bodies bill - the coalition at its most dangerous and dishonest
The fierce public debate over the government's proposed forest sell-off not only forced the coalition into its most embarrassing U-turn yet - it also shone a bright light on a particularly insidious piece of this government's legislative agenda: the public bodies bill.
This bill, which is going through the Lords as we speak, essentially gives the government the power to destroy public bodies specifically designed to hold it to account - without even consulting with parliament.
Naturally the coalition has couched this brazen attempt to dodge democracy for its own gain in the langauge of "giving power back to the people" and "increasing the accountability of public services". In tabloid terms, it's a logical continutation of the Tories' "bonfire of the quangos" rhetoric.
In fact, this bill will shrink the level of accountability and allow central government to do whatever it pleases, at mere whim and without debate, to the very bodies put in place to prevent ministers from abusing their power.
In among the complex clauses and schedules, you can find the words which give this government the power – without the agreement of parliament – to scrap the Forestry Commission, the Climate Change Committee, the Environment Agency, Natural England and others.
How are we supposed to hold ministers to account in this "greenest government ever" if all the independent watchdogs which monitor environmental policy have been abolished or disempowered?
Though the government will do all it can to convince you otherwise, the bill is an affront to our democratic processes – with worrying consequences for environmental regulation.
Brighton cycle lanes
There has been much talk in my Brighton Pavilion constituency this week about the decision by Conservative-led Brighton and Hove council to remove our cycle highway - at the cost of £1.1m.
The plans to scrap one of the most effective tools we have to encourage more people to cycle and improve road safety for cyclists make a mockery of the council's transport policy - and threatens progress towards a greener local transport system.
If the council goes ahead with this baffling proposal, perhaps it should hand back the Transport Authority of the Year award given only last year for improvements that have seen cycling in the city increase significantly?
The plans have been rightly met with anger and frustration by local people who value our reputation as a cycling friendly city - and I will be doing what I can to persuade the council to reconsider.
I write this from the Green party's spring conference in Cardiff, where events in Libya and throughout the Middle East are providing a deeply worrying backdrop to policy discussions and debates.
Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed an incredible wave of grassroots protest across the Middle East, which has sent shockwaves across the geopolitical landscape. We've seen courageous people rising up against the repressive leaders who have failed to respond to the economic, political and social challenges of the day – and to offer their citizens a more positive future.
And what support or encouragement has our prime minister offered to those bravely struggling for democracy and the rule of law? When I first saw him on TV in Tahrir Square, I genuinely thought for a moment that David Cameron was there to express solidarity with the pro-democracy movement. Then I realised the horrifying reality: he was there in the Middle East, at a time of such violence and chaos, with a delegation of arms traders, to sell more arms.
As well as recognising the importance of an ethical foreign policy, Greens also understand that, deep at the heart of most major conflicts – between countries or within them – is a tug-of-war over primary access to the natural resources which power our global economy.
And we know that, where dire poverty and inequality collides with increasingly scarce resources and ecological instability, the tug-of-war becomes ever more intense – and the consequences for populations ever more severe.
In a fascinating article in the Lebanese Daily Star last week, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, highlighted the fact that economic want, environmental crisis and inequality were as crucial as political repression in sparking the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions.
And he is right that just changing governments in those, and other, Middle Eastern countries mired in crisis will not make the economic and ecological problems disappear.
The Arab world accounts for 6.3% of the world's population but only 1.4% of its renewable fresh water. Rapid population growth has demanded a huge expansion in industrialised agriculture, which in turn has driven ever increasing water consumption.
The World Bank has predicted that, over the coming decades, the availability of fresh water in the region will halve. Competition to control water is already playing a key role in regional geopolitical and local ethnic tensions as demand increases.
Add to this the effects of climate change and rising global average temperatures, and you have an environmental and economic crisis of potentially catastrophic proportions.
Thanks to our dangerous dependency on oil, the situation in the Middle East is of paramount concern to national governments and global economic actors as turmoil in Libya and elsewhere escalates.
In the UK, we are in the age of dependency on foreign oil. We currently import 8% of our oil, but by 2020, it's predicted to be 50%. Our economy is already hugely vulnerable to instability. Three out of five last recessions were the result of oil price spikes arising from geopolitical upheavals.
So the news that oil prices have surged to $120 (£75) a barrel as a result of tensions in Libya, with the International Energy Agency warning that surging oil prices could pull the rug out from under global economic recovery, should act as a loud rallying cry for more urgent decarbonisation.
Whether it is via a managed transition or by painful last-minute shock as oil stocks are depleted, the UK will and must decrease its dependence on oil. On a positive note, this could mean a new politics in which foreign policy is no longer about propping up unsavoury regimes to protect oil interests.
What's clear is that the quicker we can move to a post-oil society, the better for the environment, the global economy and for democracy.
Public bodies bill - the coalition at its most dangerous and dishonest
The fierce public debate over the government's proposed forest sell-off not only forced the coalition into its most embarrassing U-turn yet - it also shone a bright light on a particularly insidious piece of this government's legislative agenda: the public bodies bill.
This bill, which is going through the Lords as we speak, essentially gives the government the power to destroy public bodies specifically designed to hold it to account - without even consulting with parliament.
Naturally the coalition has couched this brazen attempt to dodge democracy for its own gain in the langauge of "giving power back to the people" and "increasing the accountability of public services". In tabloid terms, it's a logical continutation of the Tories' "bonfire of the quangos" rhetoric.
In fact, this bill will shrink the level of accountability and allow central government to do whatever it pleases, at mere whim and without debate, to the very bodies put in place to prevent ministers from abusing their power.
In among the complex clauses and schedules, you can find the words which give this government the power – without the agreement of parliament – to scrap the Forestry Commission, the Climate Change Committee, the Environment Agency, Natural England and others.
How are we supposed to hold ministers to account in this "greenest government ever" if all the independent watchdogs which monitor environmental policy have been abolished or disempowered?
Though the government will do all it can to convince you otherwise, the bill is an affront to our democratic processes – with worrying consequences for environmental regulation.
Brighton cycle lanes
There has been much talk in my Brighton Pavilion constituency this week about the decision by Conservative-led Brighton and Hove council to remove our cycle highway - at the cost of £1.1m.
The plans to scrap one of the most effective tools we have to encourage more people to cycle and improve road safety for cyclists make a mockery of the council's transport policy - and threatens progress towards a greener local transport system.
If the council goes ahead with this baffling proposal, perhaps it should hand back the Transport Authority of the Year award given only last year for improvements that have seen cycling in the city increase significantly?
The plans have been rightly met with anger and frustration by local people who value our reputation as a cycling friendly city - and I will be doing what I can to persuade the council to reconsider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
