CO2-Belching Ohio Going Green

Nearly forty years ago, Ohio’s “chocolate-brown, oily” Cuyahoga River burned. But today, the state is stepping out in front on renewable energy usage. Now that’s what I call progress.

From Gristmill:

Ohio gets 87 percent of its electricity from coal (and the rest is mostly nukes), putting it in the upper echelon of coal-using states in the nation (No. 2 behind Texas, to be precise).

And that, friends, is about to change, because yesterday the Ohio Legislature passed a renewable energy standard requiring utilities to provide 12.5 percent of Ohio’s electricity from clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar by 2025. This bill has a solar-specific requirement that will result in about 594 MW of solar in the Buckeye State. Not too shabby!

Live in Ohio? Click here to ask Gov. Strickland to sign the bill into law.

CO2-Belching Ohio Going Green

Nearly forty years ago, Ohio’s “chocolate-brown, oily” Cuyahoga River burned. But today, the state is stepping out in front on renewable energy usage. Now that’s what I call progress.

From Gristmill:

Ohio gets 87 percent of its electricity from coal (and the rest is mostly nukes), putting it in the upper echelon of coal-using states in the nation (No. 2 behind Texas, to be precise).

And that, friends, is about to change, because yesterday the Ohio Legislature passed a renewable energy standard requiring utilities to provide 12.5 percent of Ohio’s electricity from clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar by 2025. This bill has a solar-specific requirement that will result in about 594 MW of solar in the Buckeye State. Not too shabby!

Live in Ohio? Click here to ask Gov. Strickland to sign the bill into law.

States Rule on Renewables

The states are taking the lead on capping greenhouse gas emissions–but that’s not the only way in which they’re leaving the feds in the dust.

Lacking a federal renewable fuels standards, many states have passed legislation requiring utilities to produce a certain percentage of their electricity from carbon-free sources.

These laws are generating renewable energy business across the country. For example, California requires its utilities to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. In response, state utilities like Sempra Energy plan to fund solar and wind projects to reach these goals.

California’s not alone. The Washington Post reports:

California is one of 25 states that have adopted laws that require electric utilities to use more renewable resources, and that has sent utilities scrambling to line up wind and solar projects across the country. Electric utilities that have long relied on coal, nuclear energy and natural gas to power their generating plants are buying into biomass projects from Minnesota to Virginia, solar plants in the deserts of California and Arizona, and wind farms from Maine to West Texas. […]

“The whole question has changed,” said Jeffery Wolfe, chief executive of GroSolar, a Vermont solar installation firm. The new standards “are forcing the utilities to do things they wouldn’t do.”

According to a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, state renewable-electricity standards will lead to the addition of 60 gigawatts of renewable capacity by 2025, equal to 4.7 percent of projected U.S. electricity generation, or about 40 or 50 new nuclear power plants.

Of course, a federal standard is more ideal because it would allow states to steer clear of renewable energy projects that are better suited elsewhere:

Some executives lament the lack of a national policy because the patchwork of state regulations pushes investment away from some of the most economical wind and solar projects. …

In California, [Neil Schmale, president of Sempra Energy] said, a federal standard might allow utilities to link up with projects outside the state, including wind power in Texas or Wyoming, where wind blows stronger and steadier.

But until the White House changes hands, it looks like a hodge-podge of state standards will have to do.

States Rule on Renewables

The states are taking the lead on capping greenhouse gas emissions–but that’s not the only way in which they’re leaving the federal government in the dust.

Lacking a federal renewable fuels standards, many states have passed legislation requiring utilities to produce a certain percentage of their electricity from carbon-free sources.

These laws are generating renewable energy business across the country. For example, California requires its utilities to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. In response, state utilities like Sempra Energy plan to fund solar and wind projects to reach these goals.

California’s not alone. The Washington Post reports:

California is one of 25 states that have adopted laws that require electric utilities to use more renewable resources, and that has sent utilities scrambling to line up wind and solar projects across the country. Electric utilities that have long relied on coal, nuclear energy and natural gas to power their generating plants are buying into biomass projects from Minnesota to Virginia, solar plants in the deserts of California and Arizona, and wind farms from Maine to West Texas. […]

“The whole question has changed,” said Jeffery Wolfe, chief executive of GroSolar, a Vermont solar installation firm. The new standards “are forcing the utilities to do things they wouldn’t do.”

According to a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, state renewable-electricity standards will lead to the addition of 60 gigawatts of renewable capacity by 2025, equal to 4.7 percent of projected U.S. electricity generation, or about 40 or 50 new nuclear power plants.

Of course, a federal standard is more ideal because it would allow states to steer clear of renewable energy projects that are better suited elsewhere:

Some executives lament the lack of a national policy because the patchwork of state regulations pushes investment away from some of the most economical wind and solar projects. …

In California, [Neil Schmale, president of Sempra Energy] said, a federal standard might allow utilities to link up with projects outside the state, including wind power in Texas or Wyoming, where wind blows stronger and steadier.

But until the White House changes hands, it looks like a hodge-podge of state standards will have to do.

Candidates Talk Tough on Big Oil

The oil industry is an easy target, but it is refreshing to think our next president might take a different tone with Big Oil. Here’s Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania:

The president is too busy holding hands with the Saudis to care about American truck drivers who can’t afford to fill up their tank any longer.

Oh Snap! And from Obama:

[We] need a president who can stand up to Big Oil and big energy companies and say enough is enough.

Ok, enough rhetoric. Time to put some meat on those bones:

Clinton wants oil companies to contribute to a $50 billion fund to invest in alternative energy and for car manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency standards and for the government to tap into its emergency oil reserves.

Obama proposes a $150 billion investment over 10 years in clean energy and an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions over 40 years.

Big Oil Testifies Before House Committee

Big-time executives from ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips will testify on Capitol Hill today. Rep. Ed Markey will grill them about the reasoning behind their opposition to tax break rollbacks. The The Hill reports:

Oil executives return to the hot seat Tuesday as a House panel examines rising gasoline prices and the industry’s opposition to efforts to repeal $18 billion in tax breaks. The new money would be used to pay for the development of renewable energy.

For the industry’s critics, the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing Tuesday is another indication of the industry’s waning clout on Capitol Hill, as was the House vote earlier this year that repealed tax breaks the industry now receives. […]

[House panel spokesman Eben] Burnham-Snyder indicated the hearing would press the executives on their efforts to kill the House bill. “What we are trying to learn is which of these oil companies continue to defend the tax breaks.”

Rep. Markey discussed the hearing on CBS’ The Early Show. “We have to move beyond this oil economy,” he said. “We have to move to a renewable energy economy. … We can never get out of this trap as long as the oil companies want to hold us hostage to this old agenda.” Watch video of the interview here:

Unfortunately, The Hill also reported some bad news for the renewable energy industry. It looks like Sens. Baucus and Grassley may work to extend renewable energy tax credits for only one year:

Sean Garren, a clean energy associate at Environment America, said Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman and ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, were considering extending breaks for the wind and solar industries and for energy efficiency programs to just one year.

That would take the bill’s costs down to as low as $3 billion, which may mean Democrats wouldn’t need the oil industry’s tax breaks as a “pay-for.”

While advocates for the tax credits admit they may have to wait until 2009 to get a longer extension, some legislators aren’t giving up:

Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) were writing a bill that would provide multi-year tax credits to the renewable energy industry.

I wish them luck.

NYT: ‘The Senate Shills for Big Oil’

The New York Times editorial page takes the U.S. Senate to task today for blocking renewable energy tax incentives from last year’s energy bill. But, as the editorial points out, the Senate “now has a chance to redeem itself” by passing the House renewable energy tax credit bill. Read the whole thing, it’s great.

The Times digs up a doozy of a quote from President Bush, who a few years ago argued against the same tax incentives he’s now defending:

If those arguments aren’t enough, we offer the Senate some words from President Bush. In a 2005 address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Mr. Bush spoke forcefully of the need for an energy strategy that looked to the long term and emphasized conservation and renewable fuels.

Of the oil and gas industry, he said pointedly: “I will tell you with $55 oil we don’t need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent.”

The question for Mr. Bush and the Senate is clear: If that was true at $55 a barrel, why isn’t it even more valid and urgent at $100 a barrel?

That’s a good question that senators will have to answer soon.

NYT: ‘The Senate Shills for Big Oil’

The New York Times editorial page takes the U.S. Senate to task today for blocking renewable energy tax incentives from last year’s energy bill. But, as the editorial points out, the Senate “now has a chance to redeem itself” by passing the House renewable energy tax credit bill. Read the whole thing, it’s great.

The Times digs up a doozy of a quote from President Bush, who a few years ago argued against the same tax incentives he’s now defending:

If those arguments aren’t enough, we offer the Senate some words from President Bush. In a 2005 address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Mr. Bush spoke forcefully of the need for an energy strategy that looked to the long term and emphasized conservation and renewable fuels.

Of the oil and gas industry, he said pointedly: “I will tell you with $55 oil we don’t need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent.”

The question for Mr. Bush and the Senate is clear: If that was true at $55 a barrel, why isn’t it even more valid and urgent at $100 a barrel?

That’s a good question that senators will have to answer soon.

Big Oil’s Laughable Tax Break Spin

Democrats are looking to pass a $16 billion package of renewable energy tax credits, and they intend to pay for it by getting rid of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

They want to pass this legislation quickly, for good reason:

Renewable energy industry officials say the window is closing quickly and stress that those expiring credits need to get extended early this year to give certainty to investors.

But a likely Senate Republican filibuster and presidential veto stand in the way.

And not surprisingly, Big Oil is prepared to lobby against these tax changes.

Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said, “We will lobby vociferously against any of these types of proposals.” And it looks like they’ll be using this sort of spin:

The oil industry argues that a tax increase for their companies hurts consumers and investors as lawmakers try to stave off a recession.

Let’s do some simple math.

Congress wants to take away somewhere in the range of $15 billion worth of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry as a whole.

But the Big Five oil companies– BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell—pulled in an estimated $120 billion in profits just last year. (ExxonMobil alone made $41 billion, becoming the most profitable company in American history for the second year in a row.)

In effect, they’re arguing that by reinvesting a small portion of these mammoth profits into alternative energy, Congress would hurt the economy.

How they can make this argument as families struggle to pay for the gas and heating oil these companies supply is beyond laughable.

Big Oil’s Laughable Tax Break Spin

Democrats are looking to pass a $16 billion package of renewable energy tax credits, and they intend to pay for it by getting rid of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

They want to pass this legislation quickly, for good reason:

Renewable energy industry officials say the window is closing quickly and stress that those expiring credits need to get extended early this year to give certainty to investors.

But a likely Senate Republican filibuster and presidential veto stand in the way.

And not surprisingly, Big Oil is prepared to lobby against these tax changes.

Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said, “We will lobby vociferously against any of these types of proposals.” And it looks like they’ll be using this sort of spin:

The oil industry argues that a tax increase for their companies hurts consumers and investors as lawmakers try to stave off a recession.

Let’s do some simple math.

Congress wants to take away somewhere in the range of $15 billion worth of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry as a whole.

But the Big Five oil companies– BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell—pulled in an estimated $120 billion in profits just last year. (ExxonMobil alone made $41 billion, becoming the most profitable company in American history for the second year in a row.)

In effect, they’re arguing that by reinvesting a small portion of these mammoth profits into alternative energy, Congress would hurt the economy.

How they can make this argument as families struggle to pay for the gas and heating oil these companies supply is beyond laughable.