“Careful there. You’re going to ELECTROCUTE yourself!” That’s my mother, when I was about five, six, seven, eight, even nine.
I was playing with electricity. That’s what advocates of giant high-voltage transmission systems might be doing as well.
David Morris makes the point on Grist and Alternet: building transmission can create significant issues. Maybe it’s Pandora’s Grid.
We all love renewables, but we want clean energy, not renewables blended down with climate-changing conventional coal. In the East, as indicated by the Piedmont Environmental Council, energy efficiency could eliminate the need for new lines by reducing demand for coal power and opening up capacity for renewables. And PEC makes a good case that transmission proponents are greenwashing projects that in 2005-06 were needed for coal by saying today the lines are needed for renewables.
Here in the West, it’s similar. There are huge 1000-mile-plus renewable transmission proposals out there that proponents say will also need 50% fossil energy (half of it high-emitting conventional coal) in the preferred economic analysis.
California shut the door on huge proposals to ship coal in wind’s clothing by adopting a greenhouse gas performance standard in 2006 . Other states, not as concerned about global warming, might not be ready to take such an aggressive step. So, in addition to considering regional and national GHG performance standard options until we have strong cap and trade policy, we need other protections that prevent climate-changing conventional coal from expanding into new markets, potentially allowing big coal plants to run nearer full-capacity and sharply increasing the carbon impact of electric generation and use. (Notably, GHG performance standards can’t prevent electrons from going where they want, but it can control the sales and contracts affecting transmission capacity and timing.) Such protections would include:
Congress and federal agencies are thinking about transmission. President Obama’s recovery package includes new investment in the grid, and his Administration is more committed on climate and renewables than seemed possible just a few months ago. The energy bills coming forward soon could well contain transmission language. Transmission policy is no longer the exclusive province of utilities and regulatory commissions – it’s time for conservationists to get involved in the national transmissio agenda.
We’d best prepare for a substantive, thorough transmission dialogue. Transmission isn’t just a local concern. It must be sensitively sized and sited, and it can be the throughway for clean energy, a partner for energy efficiency, a gate closed to wider markets for high-emitting resources, and a way to help our nation off oil and onto electricity for much of our transportation.
Let’s not play with electricity – or transmission. This nation should improve the grid, make it smarter, and clean up its electricity supply. Transmission plays a central role. Doing it right is a huge task; doing it wrong, on the other hand, could be fast and easy.
]]>First – energy. The President isn’t just committed to renewable energy, he also talks about the fast, affordable, effective option of making our energy uses and buildings more efficient. He wants to increase renewable electricity generation quickly and connect it to our cars. This is meaningful in a region where transportation consumes more energy than any other sector, and where transportation energy demand has been growing much faster than any other sector. Given our bounteous supplies of wind, geothermal, and solar energy, you can see how the President is leading the West toward a true clean energy future.
Second – electricity transmission. The President wants renewable energy to revitalize our rural regions, and allow our cities and towns to power up a renewable future. That requires some new electric transmission infrastructure investment. He has already secured funding to get started on it. As advocates, we need to make sure that new transmission is sensitively sited, and constructed so that it increases renewable energy rather than opens new markets for high-emitting conventional coal generation. We must continue to advocate for efficiency and caution in energy use; even renewable energy development and transmission have significant impacts on water, habitat, and lands in the West
Third – climate protection. Most of this nation’s coal lies in the West, and if conventionally used it poses a latent threat to the atmosphere. Western states derive as much as 90% of their electricity from coal generation, which has twice the climate impact of equivalent natural gas generation. But the President is calling for quick, complete cap and trade legislation that would make conventional coal development prohibitively expensive, and a lesser choice compared to efficiency and renewables. He calls for “clean coal” investment but (if you hear his call for cap and trade legislation and a renewable energy future) interprets that phrase very differently from industry – he includes greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a clear signal to the coal industry that it’s time to work on specific, long-term solutions instead of continuing to battle climate protection and emissions reduction
In his recovery package the President has already secured funding for a signature issue – high-speed rail. You can imagine a future in which major western metro areas are connected by high-speed rail, reducing the carbon emissions associated with necessary travel across some of the West’s long distances.
In Lincoln’s time, his home state of Illinois was considered western. Not so today. Many westerners supported President Obama’s election even though he is from Illinois and his opponent represents Arizona in the U.S. Senate – in fact a surprising number of western states either went for Obama or came close – but many also wondered if he would understand western issues and values, and support policy benefiting us. Tonight he wasn’t specific about the West, but he certainly staked out positions that bring more balance, more sustainable energy practices, and a brighter economic and environmental future back to the West. It’s a promise our congressional delegations, state legislatures, utilities commissions, and businesses can now pitch in to achieve.
]]>WBRT report: Let's go back and do what we did before.
I just listened to the WBRT (Western Business Roundtable) webinar about its new report on the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). Some quick reactions, while I spend a little more time reading the report itself.
Remember the price of gasoline last year, and the four or five years before that? The Western Business Roundtable apparently doesn't. Despite categorical, provable evidence from western states that energy efficiency saves money and that western renewables are cost-competitive, the WBRT predicts that a future based on renewable energy and energy efficiency will be too expensive. But the expensive option is the fossil option. Reducing our reliance on high-emitting fossil fuels will buffer consumers (low-income people especially) against punishing price swings that have already caused enormous economic pain, and against the high costs of global warming - drought, coastal erosion, catastrophic wildfire, agricultural and habitat impacts - that pose a significant threat to the western economy.
The WBRT says the Western Climate Initiative will poison the investment climate for fossil-based carbon-capture technologies. This isn't true. Every low-carbon option, from efficiency to renewables to carbon-capture, will be able to compete in a market-based cap and trade system. The market will be blind to the methods used to reduce emissions. By gradually ratcheting down on global warming emissions, the cap and trade system will discourage traditional high-emitting technologies and encourage new low-emitting options. Industry can participate in the most economically efficient manner. Competition among energy sources might not favor WBRT members, but it will definitely help consumers and businesses around the region.
The WBRT predicts electric reliability problems for the West if it grows its renewable energy base. Almost at the same moment that President Obama speaks about the promise of "smart grid" and renewable technologies (in Denver today), the WBRT backs away. The WBRT report raises reliability questions unrelated to renewable energy growth, instead pointing out that national sources say the western grid needs improvement. True, and these improvements can be made in the next decade to accommodate renewable energy growth as high-emitting resources are scaled back. In combination with efficiency, the West's geothermal/solar/wind mix can provide reliable, low-cost energy for the region's future - even with sharp growth in electric vehicle use in coming decades.
The West can lead on climate, helping Congress toward the goal of a national cap and trade program. The WBRT - whose members agree that national legislation would be better than a regional program - doesn't agree on what a national program should contain. For decades traditional energy providers denied the possibility of climate change. Today they won't agree on the details. The WCI helps Congress toward a needed national program by showing that the regions can act. Leadership matters, not only in reducing emissions and capturing the economic and jobs potential of renewable energy, but also in modeling the pathway to progress. Thanks, WCI!
]]>"Highly critical" is sharp terminology. I wonder if the WBRT is...
...highly critical of creating new jobs? Wind jobs now exceed coal jobs -- and coal provides 50% of the nation's energy while wind is around 5%. More jobs per unit of energy -- that's a good thought in today's economy. This nation's economic future lies in energy efficiency, bringing petrodollars home, and emissions reduction.
...highly critical of saving money? California's energy efficiency program has kept per capita energy consumption flat since 1975, while the rest of the U.S. increased 60%. That translates into a net savings of $56 billion for California consumers -- businesses, schools, households, hospitals -- from 1975 to 2005. Almost $2 billion per year!
...highly critical of hugely reducing health, wildfire, and energy costs by 2020? A University of Oregon team has just released reports on how the Western Climate Initiative saves large amounts of taxpayer and consumer money in several participating states (WA, OR, NM). See the New Mexico report here.
...highly critical of leading the new energy economy? In 2006 the Western Governors' Association projected/a> that western states could lead U.S. energy finance, technology, and innovation while producing world-class solar, wind and geothermal energy.
...highly critical of increasing productivity and growth in western states? A recent analysis of Montana's economic growth shows how renewables and efficiency contribute more to the state's economy than do traditional fossil energy industries.
...highly critical of protecting precious western water supplies? Scientists agree: the West is already experiencing serious climate change impacts. And drought, catastrophic wildfire, sea level rise are only more and more likely to increase. The cost of addressing these impacts will be far larger than the cost of modifying energy practices and reducing emissions.
Jobs, savings, economic leadership, water for our children's future -- these aren't talking points. They are bread and butter, meat and potatoes, opportunity and prosperity, security and public health. We can make electricity, profitably and plentifully, without clogging the atmosphere with carbon.
The West remains a place of optimism, beauty, and a future brighter than its past. In April, NRDC will issue a report indicating that the Western Climate Initiative improves the region's gross domestic product, making it a more efficient and self-reliant economy, less vulnerable to world energy price swings, and providing economic and environmental benefits throughout the region. Stay tuned. I'm 99% certain the WBRT will be more than "highly critical"!
]]>
Some might ascribe that rise to the shaky financial markets, to fear and anxiety about the global economy. Underlying that obvious connection, however, is the equally obvious fact that the United States and the world have become far too dependent on oil. Oil is the new gold. To investors it's safe harbor in an economic storm.
So the concept that the Western Climate Initiative (cap and trade framework announced today at http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/) could raise energy prices is 1) not very convincing in today's economy, with huge harmful energy price fluctuations occurring day-to-day, month-to-month, and year-to-year; and 2) improbable in light of economic analysis.
Economic analysis? In a penetrating and thorough economic analysis two years ago, commissioned by the British government, Sir Nicholas Stern showed that the costs of addressing global climate change were minute compared to the costs of climate change itself (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_summary.cfm). Impacts of converting to a lower-emissions economy, as a percentage of gross world product, were calculated in the low single digits over coming decades.
That global analysis was helpful. More pertinent to today's issuance of a regional emissions trading system by seven western states is the analysis of California's emissions global warming program recommendations, released last week by the California Air Resources Board (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/economic_analysis_supplement.pdf).
The main findings of the recent California analysis:
The California economic analysis is conservative. It "likely understates" the positive impact of emissions reduction because it can't adequately capture price risk. It can't predict sharp, unexpected costs of our current energy system like those experienced in the last five or six years, and most painfully in the past year, when the price of oil rose far beyond the high-price scenarios the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
In 2006 the California Public Utilities Commission found that energy efficiency efforts over the previous 20 years had produced enormous economic benefit for Californians, whose per capita electricity consumption has stayed level since about 1985 (while average U.S. consumption rose about 60%). All those new hot tubs, plasma TV's, and computers running all night? The system handled them, at lower cost. Customer savings with cost-effective energy efficiency, in 2006, were estimated at over $1 billion per year (ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/Egy_Efficiency/CalCleanEng-English-Aug2006.pdf). Being efficient isn't expensive; it's the highway to affordability. Under the WCI's new regional emissions cap and trade program, it will be the first place for cost savings throughout the economy.
Today Americans spend about $500 billion to import foreign oil. Using energy more efficiently and providing new alternatives will allow the western states to keep some of that money flowing in the regional economy. Providing low-emissions alternatives and creating efficiency also means we can avoid the most expensive schemes to produce more and more oil - heating shale, drilling in marginal geographies, forcing more and more oil out of expiring fields through tertiary recovery. Some of these higholy costly schemes make sense only in an economy that is too dependent on oil - and is ignoring viable, practical alternatives. WCI will mobilize efficiency and alternatives, creating competition and choice in the energy marketplace.
Of course there are other non-economic costs to today's energy system. Should we sacrifice the Rockies to a tight network of natural gas and oil fields and pipelines? Should we drill everywhere, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore, before converting to new energy sources? Should we continue creating conditions causing health problems like asthma in our cities and oilfield/refining communities? The list of human and environmental costs of not changing our energy systems is long and scary.
The Western Climate Initiative is a bold step forward - but it isn't a costly step. Conventional energy resources are already growing more and more expensive, and the WCI offers a route to a more affordable, profitable, inclusive, and sustainable energy future in the western United States.
]]>
First, it commits to a serious new climate protection goal: a 15% reduction in 2005 global warming pollution by 2020. More and faster might be better, but these are fast-growing states and they must start with turning their emissions trends around.
Second, the agreement brings together seven governors (and a number of Canadian premiers) from disparate states and political persuasions. Togetherness, of course, is not a result in itself. But achieving change is more likely when a larger, more diverse group of elected leaders work together. Has there been such a diverse band of climate protagonists anywhere else on earth? Utah, Arizona - very conservative states. California, Oregon, Washington - greenish-blue states. New Mexico, Montana - top producers of coal, oil and natural gas. Only when Russia joined the Kyoto Protocal several years ago has there previously been a similar meeting of strange bedfellows.
These states have all done state-level climate plans. Now they are taking their work to the regional level, and setting up a market-based system to control emissions and create economic conditions encouraging energy efficiency and new technologies. Unfortunately, the transition to a new energy economy isn't going to happen without this kind of mechanism. It takes some foresight and some courage for these governors and premiers to try tackling this problem together when they could have just pointed fingers at each other.
Some of these governors and premiers will have trouble getting buyin at home, from industry, from legislative and regulatory bodies. But they are stepping out instead of hiding behind the refrigerator.
Third, the WCI is a very encompassing proposal. The northeast states include about a third of the region's emissions in their trading system; the European Union includes about 40% of its members' emissions. The WCI will be the first to include transportation (in 2015, after a startup for other emitters such as electricity producers and oil and gas operations in 2012) and will include almost 90% of the region's emissions. This sets a good example for would-be emissions trading systems all over the world.
The WCI proposal is also encompassing just for the sheer size of the emissions footprint in the participating states and provinces. Taken together, these jurisdictions would constitute one of the world top six or seven economies.
There are criticisms of the WCI - it has a horribly low threshold for the percentage of permits that will be issued by allocation rather than sold at auction. This could allow some emitters actually to make a profit from their free permits which they could turn around and sell just by (for instance) deciding to shutter an old, dirty facility that was already destined for the dungheap. It would be a far better thing to require everyone to buy permits at the beginning rather than let government decide who should have one. The individual states can achieve these higher auction percentages, the way California's Public Utilities Commission recently proposed 100% auction of permits by 2016, creating revenue for consumer benefits and eliminating t he possibility of windfall profits for companies that might score unneeded emissions permits in a politically overseen free-permit allocation process.
The West is already experiencing some disturbing symptoms of global warming - heat, drought, wildfire. NRDC's excellent report on western climate impacts, Hotter and Drier, released in March '08 (http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/west/west.pdf), gives a science-based sense of what is happening and what we can expect in the West. It isn't a pretty picture. Imagine Denver feeling like the Chihuahuan Desert, Phoenix being ten or fifteen degrees hotter on a typical summer day. Imagine longer, hotter summers, with increased air conditioning demand. Imagine rivers flooding heavily in the spring as the snow season shortens and the snowmelt is compacted into a much shorter timeframe. Imagine rising sea levels and damage to coastal infrastructure (ports, levees, sewer plants, roads), like a slow-motion West Coast tsunami.
These are basic changes affecting our lifestyle and our environment that will affect everything we know about our western communities. In the Mountain West, where water already sets limits on activity, we will need to learn how to consume even less. Storage won't do the job, either. Longer summers will mean more evaporation, making surface water storage less and less practical.
Opponents of WCI who point to cost and science are wrong. The science is clear and peer-reviewed. It doesn't matter whether a political candidate or climate skeptic says he or she is not convinced about global warming, or whether they say there's no proof and a list of 30,000 scientists disagrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The world's leading climate experts - thousands of them - have done rigorous, conservative research and modeling over two decades, and they believe that global warming is happening, is accelerating, and is largely caused by human activity (mainly the combustion of fossil fuels, although warming itself will inevitably release vast amounts of methance from permafrost zones if we don't act to reduce emissions quickly). As for cost, our current model of procuring and distributing energy is obviously very expensive. In many cases, for everyday folks, it precludes consumer competition and choice (for instance, electric cars that could be operated at a small fraction of the cost and environmental impact of today's petroleum-based fleet). These changes are going to save money over time. And they will keep our dollars from turning into petrodollars overseas.
No one says the Western U.S. can solve the international climate crisis by itself. Instead, the West is protecting its own interests, and helping the nation achieve energy efficiency and self-sufficiency, by moving ahead with regional climate policy. Someday, there will be leadership in Washington to take note of the states' progress, and we will see a national program. Till that day dawns, the West is doing what it can.
]]>