Iowa Global Warming

Benjamin Julian, Environmental Law & Policy Center’s, Iowa intern; wrote a letter to the editor for the “Des Moines Register” and in the same week, on February 7th his LTE was published in the Sunday “opinion” page. Here is the letter

A New York Times Jan. 31 article, “China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy,” discussed how China is getting ahead of the curve when it comes to clean-energy production.

Though many would find this ridiculous – due to China’s history of environmental degradation and frenzied industrial development – the consequences are very real.

Now, more than ever, green jobs are moving overseas due to a concerted effort to stall clean-energy development in the United States.

In no way are President Barack Obama’s plans for clean energy perfect, but the United States is falling dangerously behind on creating a favorable market for renewable energy.

The ideological battle between Republicans and Democrats in Washington has severely hampered the nation’s ability to produce the next generation of infrastructure and energy. Instead, we have instances of Chinese companies contracting out to wind farm operations in Texas.

Of Iowa’s five major wind-turbine manufacturers, two are from Europe. When will America catch up when it comes to renewable energy?

By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY 

The number of clean-energy jobs in the U.S. would more than double by 2025 if the nation adopts a plan to get 25% of its electricity from renewable energy sources, says a report backed by energy firms.Nationwide, 274,000 jobs would be created in the wind, solar, hydropower, biomass and waste-to-energy industries by 2025 if a 25% standard is adopted, says research firm Navigant Consulting. Those sectors now support about 196,000 jobs.

Navigant did the study for the RES Alliance for Jobs, a consortium of renewable energy companies and others that recommends national renewable electricity targets of 12% in 2014 and 20% in 2020.

Unlike three dozen other countries, including China, the U.S. doesn’t have a national standard to drive use of renewable energy, although it’s being debated in Congress. President Obama has pushed for 25% renewables by 2025. Meanwhile, 30 states have renewable standards. Five have set goals.

But company executives say state standards are often unenforceable and lack the punch of a national standard that would more forcefully drive use of renewables. That would entice companies to put manufacturing and operations in the U.S. as opposed to other countries, they say.

“We’re building this industry right now,” says Don Furman, senior vice president of Iberdrola Renewables, a leading wind farm developer. “We’re really in a footrace with China and Europe to secure these jobs long term. When you create demand, you really create jobs.”

Losing jobs to China

Navigant’s research, based in part on interviews with dozens of energy firms and suppliers, found that every state would see job growth with a 25% standard.

The biggest winners include states already strong in wind power generation or manufacturing, including Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado. California, a leading solar state, would also be a big beneficiary.

The Southeast, meanwhile, would gain jobs in biomass, which includes turning wood and agricultural products into energy, Navigant says.

On the flip side, many states will lose clean-energy jobs if no national standard is passed, Navigant says. Texas, for one, could lose more than 2,500 jobs given its already big presence in wind and expiring tax credits for wind projects, Navigant says.

Without a strong national standard, Furman says, the U.S. wind industry could even lose jobs, especially to China. Last year, China became the No. 1 maker of wind turbine equipment. It’s also the No. 1 maker of solar cells for solar panels.

While the federal government pumped $150 million in stimulus funds into renewable energy, China is moving faster, Obama told governors Wednesday, while calling for more ethanol production and technology to limit pollution from coal.

Southeast raises concerns

A national electricity standard has faced opposition from Southeastern lawmakers, who fear that it’ll benefit states with big wind and good sun. Southeastern states are largely dependent on coal and nuclear power.

“We’re not opposed to renewables, but we’re of the opinion that states should come up with their own plans,” says David Wright, past president and current commissioner of the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. If the Southeast benefits from growth in biomass, he wonders if it’ll lose jobs if coal plants close.

Renewable energy also remains more expensive than coal. Mandates that drive up its use could result in higher energy prices, which could result in lost jobs, says Max Schulz, analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank.

“There’s no question that if you have a national standard, you’ll see an increase in green jobs,” Schulz says. “But you’ll also have harmful effects.”

 Full story here

Full story here

A window of opportunity is opening for solar power in the Midwest. The Environmental Law & Policy Center is working to ensure that we seize this opportunity promote solar power development that creates new jobs, spurs economic growth and helps to solve our global warming pollution problems.

Why the time is right to ramp up solar power in the Midwest:

• The economic outlook for solar power is the best it’s been in many years. Solar photovoltaic (PV) module prices have come down to historic lows and recent federal energy legislation and the economic stimulus package are making solar projects more affordable.

• Solar power can bring good returns on investment by meeting our needs during times of peak electrical demand. When we use higher than average amounts of energy, utilities need to buy power on the open market at very expensive rates. Peak demand happens during daylight hours and especially in the summer. Solar power matches up well with pricey peak demand times.

• Former industrial sites in the Midwest can be revitalized as solar power plants. These sites can house 10 – 20 MW projects, large enough to make economic sense and small enough to fit onto the grid. Locating solar plants on older industrial sites gives them unobstructed sunlight and low-cost access to the electrical grid.  The new 10 MW solar plant South Side of Chicago is a perfect example.

• In the current economic downturn, there are plenty of skilled workers looking for “green jobs” like installing solar systems.  Federal and state job creation grants, subsidies, credits and training programs for green jobs are all making it easier to hire workers. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is (re-) training new skilled solar installers at facilities in Illinois, Indiana and other states.

• State and federal policies are working to support solar power. For example, Illinois added a provision to the state’s renewable energy standard that will drive a market for 700-750 megawatts of solar power in the state by 2015.  Midwestern states are streamlining rules for connecting solar to the grid and creating net metering standards that will help solar generators get a good price for the power they generate. Expanding net metering policies to cover larger projects will boost 

solar even more.

People might think solar power only makes sense in places like Arizona and Nevada. But there are some good solar sites here in the Midwest. We’ve got better solar intensity here than both Germany and Japan, the world’s largest solar markets.

What we’re doing:

The right policies can extend this window of opportunity into the future. The Environmental Law & Policy Center and our colleagues are advocating for an earlier ramp up of solar power in Illinois’ renewable energy standard.  We are working on feed-in tariff models in Michigan and with colleagues in Iowa to improve the state’s net metering policies.  As Wisconsin considers boosting its Renewable Energy standard in 2010, there may also be opportunities to include solar provisions.  We have an opportunity to gain solar policy improvements as the unusually low prices and federal economic stimulus incentives drive significant solar development.

Watch ELPC’s Webinar on Solar Power in the Midwest

Watch ELPC Executive Director Howard Learner talk about Midwestern solar power at the nation’s largest urban solar plant in Chicago.

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The Pentagon released its Quadrennial Defense Review on Monday, a wide-ranging report laying out rising priorities for keeping the peace and, when needed, waging war. For the first time, the report — at the request of lawmakers — considered the significance of climate change for national security, both as a potential source of conflict and a factor in military operations. A core conclusion: Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. The report also describes a longstanding, and now intensifying, focus on cutting the use of fuels, which is a huge cost and a security concern on the battlefield. There’s yet another plea — particularly in light of expanding shipping activity in the Arctic Ocean — for ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, which despite support from a series of presidents faces persistent resistance from a small cluster of influential senators. Here’s the section on energy and climate: Crafting a Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future. Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt and alterations in river flows. Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States an overseas. In some nations, the military is the only institution with the capacity to respond to a large-scale natural disaster. Proactive engagement with these countries can help build their capability to respond to such events. Working closely with relevant U.S. departments and agencies, DoD has undertaken environmental security cooperative initiatives with foreign militaries that represent a nonthreatening way of building trust, sharing best practices on installations management and operations and developing response capacity. Second, DoD will need to adjust to the impacts of climate change on our facilities and military capabilities. The department already provides environmental stewardship at hundreds of DoD installations throughout the United States and around the world, working diligently to meet resource efficiency and sustainability goals as set by relevant laws and executive orders. Although the United States has significant capacity to adapt to climate change, it will pose challenges for civil society and DoD alike, particularly in light of the nation’s extensive coastal infrastructure. In 2008, the National Intelligence Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels. DoD’s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space. Consequently, the department must complete a comprehensive assessment of all installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on its missions and adapt as required. In this regard, DoD will work to foster efforts to assess, adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Domestically, the department will leverage the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, a joint effort among DoD, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, to develop climate change assessment tools. Abroad, the department will increase its investment in the Defense Environmental International Cooperation Program not only to promote cooperation on environmental security issues, but also to augment international adaptation efforts. The department will also speed innovative energy and conservation technologies from laboratories to military end users. The Environmental Security and Technology Certification Program uses military installations as a test bed to demonstrate and create a market for innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies coming out of the private sector and DoD and Department of Energy laboratories. Finally, the department is improving small-scale energy efficiency and renewable energy projects at military installations through our Energy Conservation Investment Program. The effect of changing climate on the department’s operating environment is evident in the maritime commons of the Arctic. The opening of the Arctic waters in the decades ahead which will permit seasonal commerce, and transit presents a unique opportunity to work collaboratively in multilateral forums to promote a balanced approach to improving human and environmental security in the region. In that effort, DoD must work with the Coast Guard and the department of Homeland Security to address gaps in Arctic communications, domain awareness, search and rescue, and environmental observation and forecasting capabilities to support both current and future planning and operations. To support cooperative engagement in the Arctic, DoD strongly supports accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As climate science advances, the department will regularly re-evaluate climate change risks and opportunities in order to develop policies and plans to manage its effects on the department’s operating environment, missions, and facilities. Managing the national security effects of climate change will require DoD to work collaboratively, through a whole-of-government approach, with both traditional allies and new partners. Energy security for the department means having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs. Energy efficiency can serve as a force multiplier, because it increases the range and endurance of forces in the field and can reduce the number of combat forces diverted to protect energy supply lines, which are vulnerable to both asymmetric and conventional attacks and disruptions. DoD must incorporate geostrategic and operational energy considerations into force planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes. To address these challenges, DoD will fully implement the statutory requirement for the energy efficiency Key Performance Parameter and fully burdened cost of fuel set forth in the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act. The department will also investigate alternative concepts for improving operational energy use, including the creation of an innovation fund administered by the new Director of Operational Energy to enable components to compete for funding on projects that advance integrated energy solutions. The department is increasing its use of renewable energy supplies and reducing energy demand to improve operational effectiveness, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate change initiatives, and protect the department from energy price fluctuations. The military departments have invested in noncarbon power sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy at domestic installations and in vehicles powered by alternative fuels, including hybrid power, electricity, hydrogen, and compressed national gas. Solving military challenges— through such innovations as more efficient generators, better batteries, lighter materials and tactically deployed energy sources—has the potential to yield spin-off technologies that benefit the civilian community as well. DoD will partner with academia, other U.S. agencies and international partners to research, develop, test, and evaluate new sustainable energy technologies. Indeed, the following examples demonstrate the broad range of Service energy innovations. By 2016, the Air Force will be postured to cost-competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel via an alternative fuel blend that is greener than conventional petroleum fuel. Further, Air Force testing and standard-setting in this arena paves the way for the much larger commercial aviation sector to follow. The Army is in the midst of a significant transformation of its fleet of 70,000 nontactical vehicles (NTVs), including the current deployment of more than 500 hybrids and the acquisition of 4,000 low-speed electric vehicles at domestic installations to help cut fossil fuel usage. The Army is also exploring ways to exploit the opportunities for renewable power generation to support operational needs: for instance, the Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System (REPPS). The Navy commissioned the USS Makin Island, its first electric-drive surface combatant, and tested an F/A-18 engine on camelina-based biofuel in 2009 — two key steps toward the vision of deploying a “green” carrier strike group using biofuel and nuclear power by 2016. The Marine Corps has created an Expeditionary Energy Office to address operational energy risk, and its Energy Assessment Team has identified ways to achieve efficiencies in today’s highly energy-intensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to reduce logistics and related force protection requirements. To address energy security while simultaneously enhancing mission assurance at domestic facilities, the department is focusing on making them more resilient. U.S. forces at home and abroad rely on support from installations in the United States. DoD will conduct a coordinated energy assessment, prioritize critical assets and promote investments in energy efficiency to ensure that critical installations are adequately prepared for prolonged outages caused by natural disasters, accidents, or attacks. At the same time, the department will also take steps to balance energy production and transmission with the requirement to preserve the test and training ranges and the operating areas that are needed to maintain readiness.

full story here

Massachusetts state officials on Friday announced new energy efficiency standards for utilities that aim to be the most ambitious in the nation.

The plan calls for a statewide reduction of 2.4 percent in electricity use and 1.15 percent in natural gas use annually for three years. The savings are to be achieved largely through $1.6 billion in incentives for utility customers who take certain steps to conserve energy, like insulating their houses or replacing conventional light bulbs with compact fluorescent ones.

The reductions were mandated by the Green Communities Act, passed by the state legislature in 2008. But the bill did not specify the reduction goals or how they were to be reached. The State Department of Public Utilities approved the specifics late Thursday.

Utilities, regulators and energy advocates haggled for months to reach the 2.4 percent annual reduction goal, a figure considered to be close to the upper limit of what can be achieved annually through such programs. The utilities’ success in reaching that goal will be measured in a way that accounts for outside factors like normal growth in the demand for electricity — which averages just under 2 percent a year — and the recession, which can decrease energy use.

“The Green Communities Act established energy efficiency as the Commonwealth’s ‘first fuel’ — what we look to first to power our homes and our economy,” Ian A. Bowles, the state’s secretary for energy and environmental affairs, said in a written statement.

“We are off and running,” Mr. Bowles said, “pulling out all the stops to cut energy waste, save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in buildings across Massachusetts.”

At the heart of the plan is a quadrupling of annual spending for consumer outreach and conservation incentive programs to about $600 million from $150 million. Money will be available to consumers for services like free energy audits, and rebates will be offered for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and air-conditioners.

Massachusetts officials say the state will surpass California in spending per person on conservation measures. It is assumed that the conservation initiatives will translate reliably into energy savings.

The nonprofit American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy ranked California No. 1 and Massachusetts No. 2 respectively in its 2009 survey of the most energy-efficient states. Steve Nadel, its executive director, said that while a switch in those rankings was not certain, it was likely.

“If Massachusetts does everything in the plan that was approved today,” Mr. Nadel said, “I’ll say there is a very good chance they will pass California in our score. We always like a little friendly competition between the states.”

Officials in Massachusetts said that the plan’s upfront cost of more than $1 billion would be covered partly through fees paid by consumers and partly through auctioning pollution allowances and through other revenue sources. Massachusetts auctions these allowances as part of the 10-state carbon trading system called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Under the system, states impose caps on the amounts of carbon dioxide that power plants can emit and hold an auction for emissions permits under those caps. Eighty percent of revenue from the auction in Massachusetts is intended to go into the efficiency program.

Consumers will eventually reap $6 billion in savings on their utility bills from the efficiency plan, even after accounting for the added fees, the officials predicted.

A study by Environment Northeast, a local advocacy group, estimated that putting the measures into effect would also create 25,000 jobs.

“The job creation and consumer savings will provide timely relief across the state, and carbon pollution will be slashed,” said Sam Krasnow, a lawyer with the organization who sits on the council that helped devise the plan.

Original story here

by Phillip Brasher pbrasher@dmreg.com

Washington, D.C. – Construction of wind farms surged in Iowa and nationwide in 2009 after Congress included new financial incentives for the industry in the economic stimulus bill.

Industry officials say construction should continue relatively strong this year with the incentives still in effect. They say that long-term growth will hinge in part on whether Congress enacts a mandate for renewable energy and clears the way for new long-distance transmission lines.

The industry grew by 39 percent last year, adding 9,922 megawatts of generation capacity to exceed 35,000 megawatts nationwide, the American Wind Energy Association said in a report being issued today. About 4,040 megawatts of that new capacity came on line in the last three months of the year.

Iowa, which held on to its ranking as the No. 2 wind power producer, added 534 turbines in 2009 that can produce 879 megawatts. The majority – 393 – of those turbines, with a capacity of 618 megawatts, went on line in the fourth quarter.

Construction of new wind farms stalled in early 2009 after the meltdown on Wall Street and the freeze in the credit markets. Investment banks traditionally financed new wind farms by purchasing wind-production tax credits to offset income and lower their tax bills. However, in 2009 that tax credit was of little use to banks that were struggling financially, so Congress stepped in and created a new tax credit for the developers themselves as part of the stimulus bill passed in 2009. Companies that can’t benefit from the 30 percent tax credit were given the option of getting an equivalent grant directly from the government.

“It was extraordinary the impact that lifeline had,” Denise Bode, CEO of the wind association, said of the new subsidy. “The industry was dead in the water” in early 2009, she said.

The new incentives had less of an impact on companies that make wind turbines, blades and other parts. The wind industry gained 1,500 to 2,000 jobs overall last year, but that was only because employment for the new wind farms offset a drop of as many as 2,000 jobs in manufacturing, according to the association.

Texas extended its lead over Iowa in wind power by adding 2,292 megawatts of capacity in 2009, boosting the state’s total to 9,410 megawatts.

California remained No. 3 with 2,794 megawatts but added just 277 megawatts in 2009.

Bode said construction nationwide should continue fairly strong in 2010 ahead of the expiration of the incentives, but she stopped short of predicting it could reach 2009’s level.

She also said the industry’s long-term growth, and particularly the future of turbine manufacturing, depend on whether Congress enacts a renewable electricity mandate. Such a policy, she said, “sends the right signal to these manufacturers who are saying, ‘Where do I put my next factory? Do I put it in China or the U.S.?’ ”

A leading transmission company in Iowa, ITC-Midwest, has 9,000 megawatts of requests pending for connecting proposed projects, two-thirds of which are in Iowa and most of the rest in Minnesota. The company expects about 400 to 700 megawatts of those projects to be connected this year. ITC-Midwest, which operates lines purchased from Alliant Energy, connected 716 megawatts of wind power in 2009.

“We haven’t seen any slowdown in requests moving forward,” said Doug Collins, executive director of ITC-Midwest.

Like Bode, the company believes additional action from Congress would help speed development of the wind industry in the long term.

A bill passed by the Senate Energy Committee in 2009 would require utilities to get up to 15 percent of their power from wind and other renewable sources by 2021. It would also give federal regulators authority to intervene in disputes among states over paying for and locating the new long-distance transmission lines that would carry power from wind farms to urban areas.

ITC-Midwest’s parent company has proposed a 3,000-mile network of transmission lines called the Green Power Express to carry power from as far west as the Dakotas to Illinois and possibly Indiana.

The renewable power bill was intended to be married to broader legislation, now stalled in the Senate, that would set up a cap-and-trade system for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Democratic leaders have not said whether they would take up the renewable power bill separately.

full story here

The Iowa ethanol industry plans to ask the legislature to pass a bill requiring that all motor gasoline in the state carry at least 10 percent ethanol.

Despite being the largest ethanol producer in the U.S., Iowa has never mandated ethanol use in gasoline sold within the state.

But Monte Shaw, executive vice president of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, noted that the percentage of fuel sold in Iowa with ethanol blended in has been stuck around 75 percent while the percentage of ethanol-blended gasoline now stands at 80 percent in the rest of the nation.

“Iowa is lagging behind the rest of the country in ethanol use,” Shaw said to the annual summit of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association.

Shaw estimated that the approximately 100 million gallons of ethanol now sold in Iowa would be increased to about 140 million gallons were a state mandate passed.

Iowa is the nation’s largest producer of ethanol, with about 3.2 billion gallons produced at its 39 ethanol production plants last year. The vast majority of the ethanol produced in the state is sent to the rest of the country.

Even so, Iowa has never mandated ethanol use within its own borders. The federal government has stair-step requirements for ethanol use, rising from 10.5 billion gallons last year to 12 billion gallons this year and eventually to 36 billion gallons after the year 2020.

Gov. Chet Culver told the annual meeting that an E10 blend mandate is a “step in the right direction.”

“This can make a statement about our commitment to biofuels and solidfy our position as a national leader in the green economy,” Culver said.

The legislative outlook for a state mandate is unclear. Last year the Iowa Senate approved a bill requiring all diesel fuel sold in the state contain 5 percent biodiesel, made primarily from soybean oil. But that bill failed to come up in the House.

Mona Bond, vice president for public affairs for the Iowa Petroleum Marketers Association said the group is “adamantly opposed” to an ethanol mandate.

State Representative Annette Sweeney (R.-Alden) said she has brought the matter up with the Republican caucus.

“I know there’s interest in the bill and there will be more once the case is made for how important the ethanol industry is to Iowa,” said Sweeney, who attended the renewable fuels summit Monday.

Sweeney, who farms in Hardin County, noted recent U.S. Department of Agriculture reports showing a surplus of more than 1.5 billion bushels of corn.

“Ethanol has been so important to Iowa’s corn growers, and there is a question now what to do with the surplus,” Sweeney said.

The ethanol industry is awaiting a final decision from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on approval to increase the allowable blend of ethanol in unleaded gasoline from the current 10 percent to 15 percent.

Such an increase is estimated to add another 7 billion gallons to the annual demand for ethanol.

Full Story here

How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on global warming

JEFF GOODELL

This was supposed to be the transformative moment on global warming, the tipping point when America proved to the world that capitalism has a conscience, that we take the fate of the planet seriously. According to the script, Congress would pass a landmark bill committing the U.S. to deep cuts in carbon emissions. President Obama would then arrive in Copenhagen for the international climate summit, armed with the moral and political capital he needed to challenge the rest of the world to do the same. After all, wasn’t this the kind of bold move the Norwegians were anticipating when they awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize?

As we now know, it didn’t work out that way. Obama arrived in Copenhagen last month without any legislation committing the U.S. to reduce carbon pollution. Instead of reaching agreement on how to stop cooking the planet, the summit devolved into bickering over who bears the most blame for turning up the heat. The world once again missed an opportunity to avert disaster — and the delay is likely to have deadly consequences. In recent years, we have moved from talking about the possibility of climate change to watching it unfold before our eyes. The Arctic is melting, wildfires are turning into infernos, warm-weather insects are devouring forests, droughts are getting longer and more lethal. And the more we learn about climate change, the more it becomes apparent how enormous the risks are. Just a few years ago, researchers estimated that sea levels would likely rise 17 inches by 2100. Now they believe it could be three feet or more — a cataclysmic shift that would doom many of the world’s cities, including London and New Orleans, and create tens of millions of climate refugees.

Our collective response to the emerging catastrophe verges on suicidal. World leaders have been talking about tackling climate change for nearly 20 years now — yet carbon emissions keep going up and up. “We are in a race against time,” says Rep. Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington who has fought for sharp reductions in planet-warming pollution. “Mother Nature isn’t sitting around waiting for us to get our political act together.” In fact, our failure to confront global warming is more than simply political incompetence. Over the past year, the corporations and special interests most responsible for climate change waged an all-out war to prevent Congress from cracking down on carbon pollution in time for Copenhagen. The oil and coal industries deployed an unprecedented army of lobbyists, spent millions on misleading studies and engaged in outright deception to derail climate legislation. “It was the most aggressive and corrupt lobbying campaign I’ve ever seen,” says Paul Begala, a veteran Democratic consultant.

Page 1 of 6  full story here

 PHILIP BRASHER • pbrasher@dmreg.com

 With a sweeping climate bill stalled in the Senate, attention could turn to a smaller measure that would boost usage of renewable electricity, a potential boost to Iowa’s wind industry.

The bill, passed by a Senate committee in June, would require that utilities increase their use of renewable power by up to 15 percent by 2021 and make it easier to build the interstate transmission lines needed for wind projects. The bill also includes provisions to increase the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances.

President Barack Obama has been pushing for more far-reaching legislation that would impose caps on greenhouse gas emissions by utilities, refiners and other industries. However, a bill similar to one that passed the House has gone nowhere in the Senate amid opposition from moderate Democrats.

“I’m not sure Democrats want to discuss that stuff during an election year,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia. But he said he does expect the Senate to consider a narrower bill that would include the renewable electricity mandate, which he supports.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insists that he’s going forward with the broader bill, which would include the renewable power provisions. But several others who have resisted the climate bill, including Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., have been pushing for the energy bill as an alternative.

The smaller bill, with the renewable power provisions, had bipartisan support in committee so it should be far easier to pass than the climate legislation, said Frank Maisano, an energy industry lobbyist. Democrats already have been struggling to pass health care reform.

“The fact that they’re going to struggle to find the votes for health care gives you even harder pause that they’re going to try again” with the climate legislation, Maisano said.

The smaller bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission legal authority to settle disputes among states that have stalled development of long-distance transmission lines. The panel needs increased authority to get lines built, said John Norris, an Iowan who is the commission’s newest member.

Environmentalists have mixed views about that bill. Their top priority is to put limits on greenhouse gas emissions, and the renewable power mandate isn’t as tough as some groups want. The bill also would open the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas exploration.

But the legislation doesn’t go far enough to reduce carbon emissions and create a long-term market for alternative energy, including Iowa’s wind power, said Nathaniel Baer, an energy specialist with the Iowa Environmental Council.

“We need a comprehensive piece of legislation that creates that long-term certainty that this is where the U.S. is headed for decades,” he said.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., is taking a similar stance. He “believes that just doing an energy bill doesn’t fully deliver a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” spokesman Grant Gustafson said.

The climate legislation would force utilities and other companies subject to the carbon caps to either reduce their emissions or buy credits on the market. Farmers could benefit from the legislation by undertaking carbon-saving measures, such as planting trees or reducing tillage, that would qualify for credits they could sell to companies that need them.

However, many farm groups are fighting the legislation because of the potential impact on land use and energy costs. An Agriculture Department study released in December gave opponents of the legislation fresh ammunition because of its estimate that as many as 59 million acres of cropland could be converted to forests as result of the legislation.

The prospect for such a shift in land “scares me. I think it should scare anyone involved in farming,” said Craig Hill, vice president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation.

The legislation also has run into opposition from some utilities, including MidAmerican Energy, who claim it would drive up electricity prices. MidAmerican has not endorsed the smaller bill but supports that approach, a spokesman said.

The Environmental Protection Agency is threatening to impose limits of its own on greenhouse gas emissions, a move intended to prod Congress to pass a climate bill. The top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, is planning to force the Senate to vote on stripping the agency of its authority over carbon emissions, at least temporarily.

Energy analyst Kevin Book said he expected such a measure to fail because Democrats will be reluctant to defy their party’s leadership this early in the year.

full story here

Board will ask the EPA to mandate protective liners, groundwater monitoring at disposal sites

Jason Hancock- The Iowa Independent

The Iowa Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) voted unanimously Tuesday to draft a letter urging strict federal regulation of coal combustion waste.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency originally promised to release draft regulations on coal ash disposal by the end of 2009, and in doing so, open the rules up for public comment. That deadline was pushed back indefinitely last month following revelations of differences between the EPA and White House officials. And as The Iowa Independent reported in December, a potential loophole in those guidelines — designating coal ash as a hazardous material if it’s kept wet and non-hazardous if it’s moved to a dry landfill — has many worried that the federal rules won’t adequately deal with the issues in Iowa.

Last month Cedar Rapids-based environmental law center Plains Justice, along with Washington, D.C.,-based Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice, called on the EPC to publicly support federal regulations designating all coal ash as a hazardous waste. The EPC, a nine-member board charged with advising the state on environmental policy, has agreed and will demand federal regulators craft new rules that address the public health risks associated with current disposal practices.

“Recent delays in EPA action is of concern to the EPC and we felt that it is important to let EPA know that the commission feels that new rules are necessary and important to assure protection of public health and the environment in Iowa,” said Susan Heathcote, a member of the EPC.

In Iowa, there are four coal ash disposal sites that are considered dry landfills and have received state waivers allowing them to accept ash without protective liners to prevent toxins such as mercury, zinc, lead, arsenic and selenium from leeching into groundwater. The sites are also not required to test groundwater to see if the pollution is already taking place.

An EPA report released last year found the cancer risk to be 1 in 2,000 from exposure to arsenic in drinking water for residents living near unlined landfills containing coal ash and coal refuse, which is 500 times the level usually regarded as safe by current federal regulations.

Gov. Chet Culver and legislative leaders have said that once the EPA releases draft rules the state will determine whether to work on its own regulations. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources began drafting tougher coal ash regulations in 2008 before opposition from site owners and coal-burning businesses, along with uncertainty about what regulations the federal government may eventually impose, caused the effort to stall.

Heathcote said the EPC also considered updating the state’s coal ash disposal rules last year, but that effort was abandoned based on the original promise from the EPA to issue its own rules by year’s end.

“Since Iowa would need to comply with any new federal requirements for coal ash disposal, and since the and the time-frame for federal action was relatively short, the DNR staff recommended, and the EPC agreed, to postpone action on state rules until we saw what EPA would propose in the federal rules,” she said

Full story here