Smart grid skepticism derails Baltimore plan
Maryland Public Service Commission highlighted the political resistance smart-metering advocates must overcome when it shot down proposals for compulsory smart metering submitted by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE).
Smart grids are essential for the Obama administration’s and power industry’s plan to meet rising electricity demand while integrating more renewable generation into the grid.
Creating flexibility on the demand side to match increased intermittency in supply is the only way to maintain reliability without having to build enormous amounts of expensive back-up gas-fired generating capacity and disfigure the landscape by installing thousands of miles of transmission lines.
BGE’s initiative has already been approved by the U.S. Department of Energy to receive $200 million of federal funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the centrepiece of the Obama administration’s stimulus package. It is one of the largest grants for electricity infrastructure made under the act. Of the total, $136 million would be spent on rolling out “advanced metering infrastructure” (AMI). SEMI-SMART GRID But BGE still needs approval from the state public service commission (PSC) for key elements of the system. The company’s proposals, as submitted to the commission, consist of three major components:
(1) Universal deployment of smart meters throughout BGE’s service territory, replacing or upgrading all existing customer electric and gas meters.
(2) Installing a related two-way communication network between the power utility, the smart meter and the premise.
(3) Implementing a mandatory “Smart Energy Pricing” (SEP) schedule for all residential electric customers. The SEP schedule would vary electricity rates during the peak months from June to September based on the time of day and time of week.
States see pushback against carbon trading
– John Kemp is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own —
Efforts to implement cap-and-trade programs at state level are faltering, just as policymakers in Washington are struggling to generate enough support to put in place a comprehensive national system.
Recent setbacks in California and Arizona point to growing headwinds against the policy. As cap-and-trade loses momentum and becomes embroiled in bigger political disputes about the size and role of government, opponents are becoming emboldened to try to block the policy completely.
Carbon market supporters have repeatedly expressed the hope that state and regional initiatives can provide at least a temporary substitute as hopes for a national program have dimmed in the wake of last year’s failed summit in Copenhagen and a string of election defeats that have thrown the progressive wing of the Democratic Party onto the defensive.
But the same factors that undermined support for a nationwide program, especially concern about the near-term costs and adverse impact on employment when the economy is only just starting to recover from deep recession, are dimming enthusiasm at state level as well.
In trade policy, policymakers and analysts talk about “bicycling theory”: you have to keep pressing forward with new liberalizing measures or risk forfeiting the gains already made as the process loses momentum and support falls away.
Progress is on the march but it can feel a bit scary.
Don’t let Valero slow down California by stall AB 32.
Go to Ellabakercenter.org/stopvalero
Why step back and progree feels so good.
Emissions bill overhauled to secure votes
– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –
Prominent U.S. senators are set to substantially re-write climate legislation in a bid to secure the 60 votes needed for passage before Congress is engulfed by the mid-term election campaign.
According to well-sourced media reports that emerged at the weekend from conversations with aides engaged in the process:
(1) The single economy-wide cap-and-trade programme proposed by the American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454) could be ditched in favour of sector-specific programmes for utilities, transportation and manufacturing. Utilities would be covered by an allowance trading system. Motor fuels would be subject to something like a tax. Energy-intensive manufacturers would eventually be covered by a trading programme but with a delayed start date.
(2) Free allocations of allowances to power and gas utilities to cushion the impact on household bills could be abandoned in favour of full auctioning, with revenues rebated directly to households. Proposals could resemble the cap and refund system advocated by Senators Maria Cantwell (D, Washington) and Susan Collins (R, Maine) (S 2877). They would also be consistent with the rebate approach recommended by California’s Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee (EAAC) for the state’s own cap and trade scheme.
The modifications would substantially re-write the main climate bill (S 1733) sponsored by Senator John Kerry (D, Massachusetts) which has been endorsed by the administration and received cautious support from Senators Joseph Lieberman (I, Connecticut) and Lindsey Graham (R, South Carolina).
This had little or no chance of passing before the fraud from East Anglia, the IPCC, and other sources came to light. With us still in a recession, and with public support flailing, it is highly unlikely any of this will pass in the short term. Obama’s window of opportunity has closed.
http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=10123
Peak demand leaves refineries idle
– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –
U.S. refiners have emerged as the biggest losers from the previous surge in oil and push for cleaner energy. The industry’s brief golden age has swiftly given way to a prolonged dark period of adjustment and decline.
What went wrong? Like other sectors, refiners have been hit by the cyclical downturn, which has cut trade volumes and the related demand for transport fuels such as aviation fuel and marine diesel especially hard.
But cyclical factors are compounding a structural decline in consumption that began around 2007 and has continued through the recession, as high prices and legislative responses force greater conservation and a shift towards biofuels.
Even as the economy recovers, U.S. consumption of petroleum-derived gasoline and distillate fuels is unlikely to exceed the record set in 2007. The resulting “demand peak” has left up to 10 percent of total U.S. refining capacity (around 1.8 million barrels per day) surplus to requirements.
FALLING UTILISATION RATES
No new refineries have been built on greenfield sites since the 1970s because permitting regulations are so strict. But there has been substantial brownfield growth at existing sites as well as increases in potential throughput as a result of debottlenecking and improvements in operations and maintenance.
Very interesting article. I recall at the height of the recent oil price move (i.e. with oil > $100 barrel) I suggested that this spike would see the greatest fall in oil prices within the next 10 years and that I wouldn’t be surprised to see oil at $5 a barrel by 2017. The drive down in prices would be generated fuel efficiencies and new technology advances.
In light of these efficiencies and the new fuel cell release from Bloom energy what do think might happen to the carbon markets ?
California tilts towards cap and refund
– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own —
California is set to auction all or almost all allowances under its emissions trading programme, and rebate up to 75 percent of the proceeds to households through a lump sum payment or reductions in income and sales taxes. The proposals, contained in a draft recommendation from the Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee (EAAC) to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), are in sharp contrast to the proposed federal programme, stalled in Congress, which would give away most permits to utilities and other energy intensive industries. Since California’s proposed programme is one of the most advanced, and would be the largest and most comprehensive in the country, with links to other states through the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), the decision gives significant impetus to proponents of the cap and refund approach, now emerging as a credible alternative in Congress. ADVISORY COMMITTEE MANDATE
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act 2006 (AB 32) requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. CARB has developed a “Scoping Plan” detailing how the state will achieve this using a mix of direct regulations and an over-arching cap and trade programme. In May 2009, CARB established an Advisory Committee, consisting of technical experts, to make recommendations on two key elements: (a) how to put allowances into circulation (via auctions, free distributions, or some combination of the two); and (b) how to allocate free allowances or the revenues from permit auctions.
In making recommendations, the Advisory Committee must take account of various statutory objectives, among them to “ensure no disproportionate impact on low-income communities” and design the regulations “in a manner that is equitable, seeks to minimise costs and maximise the total benefits to California”. The draft recommendations therefore carry weight as an expert opinion of which system best meets both equity and efficiency criteria.
ALLOCATING PERMITS BY AUCTION
The Committee reviewed a range of auction designs (single or multiple rounds, uniform or discriminating price) as well as mechanisms for free distributions (fixed allocations based on historical emissions, or allocations updated in line with changes in relative output).
Energy realism and a green recovery
– Jay R. Pryor is vice president of business development for Chevron. The views expressed are his own. —
The concept of a “green recovery” is a compelling topic of discussion at the World Economic Forum this week in Dailan, China. It stems from the United Nations Environment Program calling for investment of 1% of global GDP (nearly $750 billion) to promote a sustainable economic recovery.
A “green recovery” speaks to two of the most important issues of our time –- the efficient use of energy and the realistic understanding of energy’s role in the global economy. It’s a role that can help lift millions of people out of poverty, while addressing a healthier environment.
We all aspire to a more environmentally sound approach to energy, but to address these aspirations we need to be realistic about energy. Call it “energy realism.”
“Energy realism” is a commitment to a long-term view of the role of all forms of energy in our lives, and the need to be realistic about the true scale and complexity of the energy challenges that confront the global community.
Every day, the world uses, from all energy sources, the equivalent of 245 million barrels of oil. Eighty-five percent of the global economy is powered by oil, natural gas and coal, despite the enormous progress we’ve made toward alternative energy sources.
Worldwide, we use 50 percent more energy than we did only 20 years ago. And 20 years from now, demand will have risen by another 30 percent or so.
Pragmatism is an essential part of the future of energy in the western world and conservation needs to be at the forefront of energy government policy in regard to energy. We also need to deflate the inherent biases of eco-guiltists and their far-reaching influence over people that make decisions in the energy sectors of our nations. By using all of our sources of energy in s balanced manner we can limit our carbon footprint and find some form of energy independence.
President Obama’s three percent solution
– Jonathan R. Hoganson is the deputy executive director of the Technology CEO Council, a public policy advocacy group that includes the CEOs of Intel, HP, Dell, Applied Materials, EMC, Motorola, Micron Technology and IBM. He previously was the legislative director for Rep. Rahm Emanuel and policy director for the House Democratic Caucus. The views expressed are his own. –
A few years from now, when our economy has regained its stride, we may look back to a little-noticed announcement last Monday that spurred the resurgence. Amid swine-flu hysteria and First 100 Days hoopla, President Obama quietly announced a commitment to spending three percent of the U.S. GDP on science research and development.
This is a profoundly important step, but if we are to continue to lead the world, the United States must also develop a comprehensive policy to foster innovation. For too long, the United States has lived in a “next month” mindset when it came to our economy. This short-termitis has led to sub-prime lending, credit card debt and a general lack of long-term planning. And in no place has this been more evident than in the sciences.
For the past decade our spending on research and development has been anemic at best, and beginning in 2005, federal funding of academic research actually began to decline. This was happening at the same time our overseas competitors were increasing their commitment. For example, China has increased its R&D spending by an average of 17 percent each year in an effort to catch and surpass developed nations’ spending.
Currently, the United States ranks seventh among developed countries in R&D spending as a ratio of its GDP. Is that a recipe for continued economic and technology leadership?
There is, in fact, a direct correlation between R&D and scientific leadership. As the commitment to science ebbed, so did the U.S. share of worldwide patents and research articles in peer-reviewed journals. And R&D has been proven to catalyze economic growth and enable comparative advantage for developed companies and economies.
Now is the time to make technology and innovation a cornerstone. In the last three months we have made a good start, making broadband, health-care information technology and green tech key components of the stimulus package. The president has proposed a 10-year extension of the R&D tax credit to give businesses the incentive to continue to invest in cutting-edge technologies and products. By advancing these initiatives, we are developing the foundation of a national innovation strategy, but Congress must work with the president to advance a comprehensive strategy.
We do need research and development, but not at the government or college lab level. We need it where it is pointed toward a useful product or service. Just funding positions so someone can publish something moves at a snails pace. We need incentives for innovation and patents in order to recover from the serious production and brain drain on the country. We have serious environmental and energy problems and these cannot be solved by government research.
The green-collar economy
Van Jones is founding president of Green For All, and author of “The Green Collar Economy,” In this interview with PopTech! he describes a plan to create millions of new jobs that can’t be outsourced, wean the country off its dependence on foreign oil, and take bold steps to address the climate crisis.
If you want to be a decent civilized person, you need to learn how to clean after yourself and make choices that do not harm others. If you need a grand truckload of environmental catastrophe reasons to be decent, that means you are a bit oblivious of reality. I find it ridiculous to even attack science at this point. The fact that waste is so highly subsidized in the United States, and costs are hidden and passed to the consumer as environmental disasters, does not help either. I think that straightening up accountability and the real costs of pollution will help some catch up, but of course there is always a percentage that will be left behind. I hope it does not come down to be the entire country.
Green business and the conscience premium
Welch is the publisher and editorial director of Ogden Publications, home to Mother Earth News and Utne Reader. Any opinions expressed are his own.
Green business is arguably the most important marketing innovation of the century. And it’s here to stay.
When we talk about green business, we’re really talking about the provenance of the products and services we sell. A business is green if its creators take into account its impact on the environment, and on society. Like a historic work of art, a pair of running shoes now has a provenance – a chain of collaborators, stakeholders and events that led to its appearance in your closet.
Did the factory owner in Guatemala employ child labor? Are the materials carcinogenic? What about the environment downstream from the factory, is it threatened? Did the shipping company control the pollution from its freighters? Does the U.S. distributor pay a living wage?
Consumers care.
And because consumers care, businesses can charge a premium for conscience.
Take the green building sector for instance. People often mistakenly assume that the boom in green building technologies was driven by conscientious consumers. In fact, contractors and manufacturers largely invented green building, then introduced it to the consumer as a way of differentiating, and premium-pricing, new products and services.
Caravanning is a very popular vacation choice for many. Allowing holidaymakers the freedom of the road, whilst also providing a cost-effective holiday solution.
Camping and Caravan Club
http://campingandcaravanclub.com/