Author Archives Laura Arnold

SiliconValley.com: Cleantech and elections: Will ‘green’ win? Will ballots end up in court? Whatever happened to online voting?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 06, 2012  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

I subscribe to an e-newsletter called, Good Morning Silicon Valley powered by the Mercury News. There is also another article about on-line voting in today's edition from SilconValley.com. Both articles provide food for thought. Enjoy!

Also please remember to vote today. In Indiana you are allowed to vote as long as you are in line before the polls close at 6:00 pm.

Visit this blog again for a post-mortem on today's election.

What are your predictions for the outcome of today's election?

Laura Ann Arnold

By Levi Sumagaysay

The outcome of today’s U.S. presidential election could mean plenty for green technology and jobs.

President Obama, who has pushed for green jobs, has fallen short of the number of positions he had pledged to create. (The goal was 5 million in 10 years, according to Bloomberg; a Brookings report found last year that less than 200,000 U.S. workers were employed in cleantech jobs in 2010.) Factors include foreign competition, cuts in government subsidies, different green-energy policies in states, and fallout from the high-profile bankruptcy of Solyndra.

The Fremont solar-panel maker, which received a $535 million government loan guarantee, flamed out last year. (See As sun sets on Solyndra, what’s the forecast for green industry?) The Solyndra name has become a bad word when used by those who oppose government subsidies for the green-energy industry, saying the costs are too high and the return on investment too takes too long. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, and other critics have attacked Obama over Solyndra’s bankruptcy.

An Obama win would keep the green efforts going. Among other things, Obama supports extending a wind-industry tax credit that could expire next year; Romney has said he does not. Other green-energy supporters question why: “Every form of energy has incentives. We’re up against 90 years of incentives for other forms of energy,” said Peter Kelley, spokesman for the American Wind Energy Association, according to the Associated Press. “Plenty of people consider tax credits a good, Republican way of fostering business.”

The AP story also says federal spending on renewable energy, which has become politically unpopular, will have dropped 75 percent by next year from a high of $44.3 billion reached in 2009. But the Washington Post points out that some of the government money that has gone to clean energy has been in the form of loans, which can be paid back, while the United States cannot get back the $2.8 billion in tax breaks it gives to oil and gas companies every year.

There have been signs of optimism for cleantech in the private sector. (See Quoted: on unicorns and clean-tech investing and Quoted: Fiery side up — on the state of the solar industry.) But continued government investment of any conseqeuence will be determined by who wins the White House.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTED

“It’s not difficult to imagine that these ballots will end up in court.”

Andrew Appel, computer science professor at Princeton University, on New Jersey letting citizens displaced by Hurricane Sandy vote by email (or fax). He and other experts see problems with a system that was hastily put together, which includes calling for a hard-copy follow-up to an emailed ballot. Among other things, experts are saying email is insecure, and — by design — the system that calls for comparing a hard copy to an email ballot throws anonymity out the window. “In 2012 it’s in the news that some corporations are pressuring their employees to vote in certain ways. The secret ballot is still critical to the functioning of democracy,” Appel writes. Meanwhile, in the age of online banking, payments and e-commerce, whatever happened to online voting? Still too risky, some say. “Voting over the Internet is rarely going to be the best choice. It’s very complicated, and you are asking for trouble. Would you connect your toaster to a high-tension power line?” said Ron Rivest, MIT professor and cryptography guru, according to MIT Technology Review.

Harris Poll Says Energy Policy More Influential than Environment on Presidential Candidate; Energy 77% to Environment 67%

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 05, 2012  /   Posted in 2012 General Election  /   No Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

I thought this Harris Poll presents some interesting information on the relative priorities of various issues in the Presidential Election tomorrow.

What do your customers and/or prospective customers tell you about why they are looking at renewable energy and distributed generation?

Laura Ann Arnold
Americans split on safety of many energy sources and viability of “fracking”

NEW YORK, N.Y. – October 29, 2012 – With the presidential campaign in its final days each candidate’s policies are under constant review.  While every individual American has his or her own set of priorities as to which policies contribute most to their support of one candidate over another, Americans as a whole seem to be placing higher importance on energy policy (with 77% rating it either very important or important) than on its frequent sparring partner, environmental policy (67%); in fact, among the policy areas tested, environmental
policy appears to be the least influential over Americans’ likely presidential choice.
This is not to say that environmental policy is unimportant to voters; rather, all policy types measured are considered either very important or important by strong majorities of Americans, and it is simply influencing a smaller majority than other policy areas; top influencers include economic/budget (88%), tax (86%), jobs (86) and healthcare (85%) policies.

To see some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,562 adults surveyed online between September 17 and 24, 2012 by Harris Interactive, DOWNLOAD HERE:

Harris Poll 60 - Energy Issues_10 29 12

Abound Solar Under Criminal Investigation by Colorado DA: Possible political agenda in this investigation?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 04, 2012  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   1 Comments
Dear Indiana DG Readers:
I just wanted to remind everyone that Abound Solar was  the thin film solar PV manufacturer that was planning to open a manufacturing operation in Tipton, IN at the site of the now defunct Getrag USA. [You can just enter "Abound Solar" in the Search box of this blog to review some of the history about the Abound Solar proposed Tipton, IN manufacturing site.] 
There numerous comments posted for this story including this:
Note that Ken Buck was the Republican candidate for one of Colorado's US Senate seats. He was defeated by Michael Bennet. Possible political agenda in this investigation?
To get a better understanding of this story, I strongly urge that you check out these comments and the additional information presented on this newest development concerning Abound Solar.
In order to effectively defend the solar energy industry, I think we need to educate ourselves about these type of developments. There are also a number of new developments concerning the bankruptcy filing of Solyndra that I hope to cover in this blog in the near future.
If there are other issues or developments that you think this blog should cover, please send them to me at: Laura.Arnold@IndianaDG.net.
Laura Ann Arnold
By Vince Font, Contributor October 30, 2012   |  27 Comments
Salt Lake City, UT -- In a re-election bid mired with questions about Benghazi, President Barack Obama can now officially add another hot-button issue to his plate: the recent bankruptcy of solar company Abound Solar, which has been called "Colorado's own Solyndra." A criminal investigation is now officially underway, headed up by the Weld County District Attorney's Office in Colorado, for what it calls "possible securities fraud, consumer fraud and financial misrepresentation."

Although an official press release issued by the office of Weld County DA Ken Buck indicated that “no one has been charged with a crime at this early point in the investigation,” the Investigations Unit of the district attorney’s office is probing allegations of securities fraud based on claims that Abound Solar knowingly misled investors about products the company knew were defective.

The second of three allegations claims that Abound Solar misled lenders when applying for a bridge loan that served to keep the company in operation until DOE loans had been received. The third alleges that Abound Solar may have perpetrated consumer fraud if officials within the company were aware their products were defective when they were sold to consumers.

In March, it was reported that Abound Solar had halted production of its first generation thin-film solar modules and would be “temporarily” laying off 180 workers from its Loveland, Colorado-based facility. In June, it was reported that the company would be closing down operations permanently and filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, just two years after receiving a $400 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy — $70 million of which had already been drawn. The company’s final closure resulted in the loss of an additional 125 jobs.

With the Presidential election now only days away, it remains to be seen how these latest developments will impact the public perception of President Obama’s efforts to fund green energy initiatives with taxpayer dollars. In a televised interview with KUSA’s Kyle Clark, Obama said, “These loans that are given out by the Department of Energy for clean energy have created jobs all across the country. Some of them have failed, but the vast majority of them are pushing us forward into a clean energy direction.”

Obama added, “These are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy. They have nothing to do with politics.” Since this statement, emails have surfaced on the website of CompleteColorado.com that point to a possible greater involvement by White House officials to ensure approval of DOE loans to Abound Solar.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has also begun its own probe of the issue. Initially, Abound Solar cited “aggressive pricing actions from Chinese solar panel companies” as the primary reason for its inability to gain a foothold in the market — however a letter of inquiry sent to Energy Secretary Steven Chu by three Republican congressmen pointed to recently published reports and public domain documents that may indicate “persistent technological problems” as the principal cause of the company’s downfall.

The Department of Energy has said that of the $70 million stimulus funds used by Abound Solar, approximately $40 million to $60 million will be picked up by taxpayers. Abound Solar also received an estimated $300 million in private investment funding.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg: A Vote for a President to Lead on Climate Change

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   November 01, 2012  /   Posted in 2012 General Election  /   1 Comments

Dear IndianaDG Readers:

I believe this endorsement by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the aftermath of Sandy places the issue of climate change front and center in the General Election next week--where it belongs. It seems a shame that it took a devastating event like Sandy to raise the profile of this important issue.

Laura Ann Arnold

Original article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html

By        Michael R. Bloomberg      Nov 1, 2012 2:55 PM ET

The devastation that Hurricane Sandybrought to New York City and much of the Northeast -- in lost lives, lost homes and lost business -- brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief.

The floods and fires that swept through our city left a path of destruction that will require years of recovery and rebuilding work. And in the short term, our subway system remains partially shut down, and many city residents and businesses still have no power. In just 14 months, two hurricanes have forced us to evacuate neighborhoods -- something our city government had never done before. If this is a trend, it is simply not sustainable.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Mayor Michael Bloomberg

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Photographer: Spencer T. Tucker

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be -- given this week’s devastation -- should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

Here in New York, our comprehensive sustainability plan --PlaNYC -- has helped allow us to cut our carbon footprint by 16 percent in just five years, which is the equivalent of eliminating the carbon footprint of a city twice the size ofSeattle. Through the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group -- a partnership among many of the world’s largest cities -- local governments are taking action where national governments are not.

Leadership Needed

But we can’t do it alone. We need leadership from the White House -- and over the past four years, President Barack Obamahas taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans a year.

Mitt Romney, too, has a history of tackling climate change. As governor of Massachusetts, he signed on to a regional cap-and-trade plan designed to reduce carbon emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels. “The benefits (of that plan) will be long-lasting and enormous -- benefits to our health, our economy, our quality of life, our very landscape. These are actions we can and must take now, if we are to have ‘no regrets’ when we transfer our temporary stewardship of this Earth to the next generation,” he wrote at the time.

He couldn’t have been more right. But since then, he has reversed course, abandoning the very cap-and-trade program he once supported. This issue is too important. We need determined leadership at the national level to move the nation and the world forward.

I believe Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, and he would bring valuable business experience to the Oval Office. He understands that America was built on the promise of equal opportunity, not equal results. In the past he has also taken sensible positions on immigration, illegal guns, abortion rights and health care. But he has reversed course on all of them, and is even running against the health-care model he signed into law in Massachusetts.

If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were running for president, I may well have voted for him because, like so many other independents, I have found the past four years to be, in a word, disappointing.

In 2008, Obama ran as a pragmatic problem-solver and consensus-builder. But as president, he devoted little time and effort to developing and sustaining a coalition of centrists, which doomed hope for any real progress on illegal guns, immigration, tax reform, job creation and deficit reduction. And rather than uniting the country around a message of shared sacrifice, he engaged in partisan attacks and has embraced a divisive populist agenda focused more on redistributing income than creating it.

Important Victories

Nevertheless, the president has achieved some important victories on issues that will help define our future. His Race to the Top education program -- much of which was opposed by the teachers’ unions, a traditional Democratic Party constituency --has helped drive badly needed reform across the country, giving local districts leverage to strengthen accountability in the classroom and expand charter schools. His health-care law -- for all its flaws -- will provide insurance coverage to people who need it most and save lives.

When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America.

One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.

One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of history.

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.

Of course, neither candidate has specified what hard decisions he will make to get our economy back on track while also balancing the budget. But in the end, what matters most isn’t the shape of any particular proposal; it’s the work that must be done to bring members of Congress together to achieve bipartisan solutions.

Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success while their parties were out of power in Congress -- and President Obama can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.

(Michael R. Bloomberg is mayor of New York and founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.)

To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board:view@bloomberg.net.

Court overturns regulators’ ruling on payments for Rockport (IN) coal-gas plant

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 30, 2012  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

UPDATE:  Link to Indiana Court of Appeals decision issued this morning-- http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10301201par.pdf

 

Original article: http://www.indystar.com/article/20121030/BUSINESS/121030048/Court-overturns-regulators-ruling-payments-Rockport-coal-gas-plant?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|IndyStar.com

2:51 PM, Oct 30, 2012   |

This coal gasification plant is being built in Edwardsport, while ground has yet to be broken on a similar plant in Rockport.  /  Courtesy Duke Energy

Written by Tony Cook

Related Links

An Indiana appeals court today reversed the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s approval of a controversial deal under which Indiana natural gas customers would be required to pay for energy from a planned coal-gas plant in Rockport.

In a 2-1 decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the Indiana Finance Authority’s contract with the plant’s developer, Indiana Gasification, went beyond what state lawmakers had authorized.

Specifically, the court ruled that the contract’s inclusion of industrial transportation customers in the definition of “retail end use customer” violated the authorizing legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2009.

The case stems from a challenge by opponents of the project, including Vectren Energy, several industrial companies, two smaller natural gas utilities, and three citizen’s groups. Those opponents argued that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission erred in approving the contract, under which the state must buy gas from the plant and sell it on the open market for a profit. If it can't, natural gas ratepayers must cover the loss on their monthly bills.

Officials with the Indiana Finance Authority, Indiana Gasification and Vectren were not immediately available for comment.

Call Star reporter Tony Cook at (317) 444-6081 and follow him at twitter.com/indystartony.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG