Author Archives Laura Arnold

Released: August 11, 2009

UTICA, New York - A majority of likely voters - 71% - favors the American Clean Energy and Security Act recently passed by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds (67%) believe Congress is either doing the right amount (22%) or should be doing more (45%) to address global warming, new Zogby International telephone poll shows. Just 28% believe that Congress is doing too much.

Respondents were read the following statement regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act:

"The House of Representatives recently passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would require electric power companies to generate 20 percent of their power from clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, by the year 2020. Also included is a global warming plan which would reduce greenhouse gases from sources like power plants and factories by 17 percent, and an energy efficiency plan which includes new appliance standards and building codes to conserve energy."

Favorable views for the bill were high among all age and income groups and even among Republicans, with 45% having a favorable view of the bill. Seventy-three percent of Independents and 89% of Democrats also took a favorable view of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

The survey finds that two-thirds (68%) of likely voters believe a new American energy policy will not result in job losses, with a majority believing such efforts could instead bring about job growth. Respondents were asked how "efforts to reduce global warming and promote clean energy" will impact American jobs, and more than half (51%) believe this would lead to new job creation, while another 17% believe these efforts will not affect American jobs. Twenty-nine percent feel efforts to promote clean energy will cost American jobs. Those who believe these environmental efforts will create new American jobs outnumbered those who disagreed in all age and income groups. Among self-described political independents, 53% agreed that new jobs will be created, and only 24% thought jobs would be lost.

When presented with arguments for and against the American Clean Energy and Security Act, including concerns about the impact of the legislation on energy prices, a majority (54%) believe the Senate should now take action, with two-fifths (41%) preferring that the Senate wait. Fifty-four percent believe the Senate should take action on the bill because "we need a new energy plan right now that invests in American, renewable energy sources like wind and solar, in order to create clean energy jobs, address global warming and reduce our dependency on foreign oil." Forty-one percent believe that the Senate should instead wait because "the House energy bill is a hidden tax that will cost thousands of dollars every year in increased energy prices, weaken our economy further, and cause America to lose jobs to China and other countries."

"Clearly, voters strongly favor the ideas outlined in the bill. Support for action on clean energy and energy efficiency was strong coming out of the election, and it is still strong today. Even when presented with the concerns some have raised about the potential costs associated with this legislation, most likely voters still want the Senate to act quickly to bring about a new energy plan for America," said Zogby International Research Analyst Sam Rodgers.
The Zogby International telephone survey of 1,005 likely voters was commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation and was conducted from July 31-August 4, 2009. The survey carries a margin of error of +/-3.2%.

The survey also shows 47% of likely voters would take a favorable view of their Congressperson if he or she voted in favor of the bill, while another 21% said it would make no difference in their opinion. Far fewer - 29% -- said they would view their Congressperson unfavorably if he or she voted in support of the bill.

Regarding Congressional action on global warming, a small majority of Republicans (54%) say Congress is doing too much, but a total of 42% say it should do more or is doing the right amount. Only 26% of political independents say Congress is doing too much, while two-thirds of Democrats (65%) want more Congressional action. More than 40% of every age group also wants more from Congress when it comes to taking action to combat global warming.

"Most voters would view their member of Congress more favorably or would not have their opinion impacted either way by a "yes" vote," said Rodgers. "This survey shows clear movement in favor of Congress taking greater action on global warming and most Americans believe this legislation would give a much-need boost to the American job market in this down economy."

For content, contact: Miles Grant, National Wildlife Federation Communications Manager, 202-797-6855 (w), 703-864-9599 (cell) or grantm@nwf.org

For methodology, contact: Stephanie DeVries, Corporate Communications and Research, Zogby International, 315-624-0200 ext. 273 or steph@zogby.com.
For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.cfm?ID=1410
(8/11/2009)

The Indiana Renewable Energy Association is hosting a webinar on Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts or Feed-in Tariffs as follows:

The following article was published on August 7, 2009, in the New York Times. According to the Indianapolis Star Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) has said he opposes the climate change bill the House passed in June. Both Sen. Bayh and Sen. Lugar are expected to be in Indiana during the August recess. The Senate is expected to resume work on the Senate version of an energy bill following the August recess.


Climate Bill Is Threatened by Senators

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/us/politics/07climate.html

By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — Ten moderate Senate Democrats from states dependent on coal and manufacturing sent a letter to President Obama on Thursday saying they would not support any climate change bill that did not protect American industries from competition from countries that did not impose similar restraints on climate-altering gases.

The letter warned that strong actions to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases would add to the cost of goods like steel, cement, paper and aluminum. Unless other countries adopt similar emission limits, the senators warned, jobs will migrate overseas and foreign manufacturers will have a decided cost advantage.

“As Congress considers energy and climate legislation,” the senators wrote, “it is important that such a bill include provisions to maintain a level playing field for American manufacturing.”

“It is essential that any clean energy legislation not only address the crisis of climate change, but include strong provisions to ensure the strength and viability of domestic manufacturing,” the letter said.

The 10 senators are seen as crucial undecided votes in the Senate debate on climate legislation. The House narrowly passed a climate bill in late June, but the Senate is moving slowly, in part because it is preoccupied with health care legislation.

The senators represent Midwestern and coal-producing states from which many of the 44 Democrats who voted against the measure in the House come from. Without their support, it is unlikely that the Senate can pass a major climate change bill.

The 10 senators were Evan Bayh of Indiana; Sherrod Brown of Ohio; Robert C. Byrd and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia; Bob Casey and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania; Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; Al Franken of Minnesota; and Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
They called for transition aid for energy-intensive manufacturers in the form of rebates on their energy costs; negotiation of a strong international agreement on emissions; programs to monitor emissions in other countries; and significant financing for clean energy technology.

The authors also proposed “border adjustments,” tariffs, on goods from countries that do not agree to an international program for carbon dioxide reductions. The House bill gives the president the power to impose such penalties on goods from countries that do not adhere to an international climate change regime.

“Climate change is a reality and the world cannot afford inaction,” the senators wrote. “However, we must not engage in a self-defeating effort that displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them and displaces U.S. jobs rather than bolstering them.”

In an interview shortly after the House vote, President Obama said he was concerned about the tariff provision of the House bill, calling it potentially protectionist.

August 3, 2009

House Will Get Another Shot at Feed-In Tariffs

By PHIL TAYLOR of Greenwire

With the Senate girding for a debate over sweeping legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur development of renewable electricity, two House Democrats are preparing a more limited bill with similar goals.

Reps. Jay Inslee of Washington and Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts are preparing a bill that would require utilities to purchase small-scale renewable energy from developers at rates equal to the cost of production plus a premium. The so-called feed-in tariffs proposal would set European-style guarantees for investors that many credit for a recent boom in solar energy in Germany.

"We have some brilliant Americans with brilliant business plans with brilliant technologies, but they don't have financing," Inslee said at a briefing last week on Capitol Hill. "The charm of the feed-in tariff is solid, take-it-to-the-bank security and confidence for the investing community."
Proponents say feed-in tariffs can be more effective than renewable-energy standards, such as the one included in the House climate bill by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, because they offer staggered rate incentives for each energy source based on current production costs. The initial rate that utilities would pay for solar energy, for example, would be higher than payments for less-expensive wind energy.

"The renewable-energy standard is good, and I'm a firm backer, but it has a weakness," Inslee said. "It's really only an incentive for the next-closest-to-competitive technology, frankly, which is wind right now."

The case for feed-in tariffs assumes that the cheapest renewable technology today won't necessarily be the cheapest technology in the future. Rate incentives that support many energy sources would create a race to become the next competitive alternative to fossil fuels or nuclear power, proponents say.

One widely cited model is Germany, which has become the world's largest market for photovoltaic systems and wind energy since passing its Renewable Energy Sources Act almost a decade ago. Germany more than doubled its national supply of renewable energy between 2000 and 2007 and was able to meet its 2010 target of 12.5 percent renewable electricity three years ahead of schedule.

"The Germans made a big and very important change," said former CIA Director James Woolsey, a panelist at last week's briefing and a partner in the "clean tech" division of investment group VantagePoint Venture Partners. "It's the reason that Germany -- a quarter of the size of the United States -- has six times as much solar."

There is a building in Munich, Woolsey said, that produces more solar energy on its rooftop than is produced in either Texas or Florida. The German boom in renewable energy -- driven in large part by the feed-in tariff -- generated 117,000 new jobs in the renewable power sector between 2004 and 2008, according to the German Environment Ministry.

Woolsey said feed-in tariffs could also improve national security by diversifying the United States' electricity production.

Today's electric grid relies on a sprawling network of transmission lines and centralized power plants that are vulnerable to attack, Woolsey said. Feed-in tariffs would expand the use of distributed generation like small wind and solar, helping reduce grid congestion and eliminating targets for terrorists.

"What we have today, with extremely high-voltage transmission lines and transformers sitting out behind cyclone fences next to highways, is vulnerable to physical attack; it is vulnerable to cyber attack," said Woolsey, adding that even amateur hackers can penetrate some off-the-shelf software programs that utilities use to monitor operations.

'Nightmares of PURPA'

Under a feed-in tariff proposal that Inslee sponsored last year, renewable energy developments of less than 20 megawatts would be given priority access to the grid and could sign 20-year contracts with utilities that guarantee a 10 percent rate of return. Rates would be tailored to fit the cost of production in different regions of the country and would be set by the Energy Department.

The "Renewable Energy Job and Security Act" would have paid for itself through an increase in consumer utility bills. The feed-in tariffs could also include built-in decreased payments to drive innovation and cost reduction over time.

Opponents of feed-in tariffs say their mandatory rate structures would raise electricity bills and would warp the free market as the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) did in the 1970s and '80s.

PURPA was meant to support the expanded use of renewable energy by requiring utilities to purchase power from non-utility producers at the "avoided cost" rate, or the amount the utility would have paid to generate the power on its own or to purchase it from another source.
"Thanks to PURPA, many customers were paying a higher price for electricity than what was selling on the open market," said David Owens, vice president of business operations at the Edison Electric Institute, at an April panel discussion at the Washington-based New America Foundation.

Owens argued against proposals to add a national feed-in tariff on top of a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse gases that includes a renewable energy standard. He said the national march toward renewable energy must happen at an evolutionary, not a revolutionary, pace if customers want to avoid being hit with excessive hikes in their utility bills.

"We have a range of options available to stimulate the development of renewables," Owens said.
"But I have difficulty if we seek to take another national approach that gives me the nightmares of PURPA."

Action by states, cities

In May, Vermont became the first state to pass feed-in tariffs for renewable energy, joining Ontario as the only state-level governments in North America to adopt such a policy.
The Vermont bill got a mixed response from lawmakers and was passed into law without the signature of Gov. Jim Douglas (R), who released a statement saying the bill "fails to recognize the current viability of renewable energy in a competitive setting and will needlessly increase costs to Vermont consumers."

Several other states -- including Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, California and South Dakota -- are considering their own versions of feed-in renewable energy tariffs.

"The feed-in tariff has proven to be the best way to get quick movement in renewable energy development and create a lot of jobs," said Indiana state Rep. Matt Pierce (D), who has introduced a feed-in tariff proposal.

While Inslee and Delahunt's proposal would award states that adopt rates set by DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, national feed-in tariffs have been criticized as an encroachment on states' rights to approve their own rates.

Gainesville, Fla., imposed the nation's first solar feed-in tariff in March, offering owners of new photovoltaic systems 32 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced over the next 20 years.
The Edison Electric Institute's Owens, who argued against a national feed-in tariff, said the policy might be better implemented at the local and regional level, instead of coming from Washington.

"The city of Gainesville has benefited immensely through job creation," Owens said, such as through the millions of dollars in solar investments many anticipate as a result of the financial certainty offered by the renewable contracts.

Meanwhile, South Dakota's Public Utilities Commission is taking public comments on policies to support more wind development through rates that would reflect utilities' avoided costs, falling short of incentives offered by full feed-in tariffs.

Michigan became the first state to consider European-style feed-in tariffs with state Rep. Kathleen Law's (D) "Renewable Energy Sources Act" in September 2007. Law's bill was presented later that year at a National Caucus of Environmental Legislators meeting and became the inspiration for similar proposals in Illinois, Rhode Island and Indiana.

"Indiana has been so far behind the eight ball on renewable energy," said Pierce, whose bill died in committee without a vote. He said one of the biggest challenges was that so many lawmakers are unfamiliar with feed-in tariffs.

"Some have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about," Pierce said. "They hear the word 'tariff' and they think I want to tax something. ... Tariff equals tax or trade barrier to them."

'Worst name in the business'

Woolsey referred to "feed-in tariff" as "the worst name in the business." Others complain the term conjures up the idea of levying taxes on imported cattle feed.
Some have proposed calling them "advanced renewable energy payments" or "renewable buybacks," but for now, lawmakers are stuck with "feed-in tariffs," which was drawn from the German word for "electricity feeding-in law."

Pierce said he is planning to introduce another feed-in tariff bill in the 2010 session, by which time he suspects several more cities will have passed or considered feed-in tariffs. Being able to point to proven models, he said, will be important to gaining lawmaker support.

Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.