Such a neat, thoughtful article (editorial, actually) that I thought we’d reprint it in full. It’s very long so I hid part of it behind a cut - just hit the link at the bottom of the entry to read the rest.

The original entry also has lots of links to resources that aren’t going to make the transition to this reprint, so go back and check them out if you are interested.

Reprinted in full from USAToday:

Green, meet God
The secular environmental movement sees an opportunity in the world of religion. Is this a marriage made in heaven?

By Henry G. Brinton

The greening of religion, although long overdue, is really a quite natural phenomenon. The texts of many faiths, indeed most, at some point reference the stewardship of this earth. More surprising is that today, secular environmental groups are seizing the opportunity to reach out to faith communities.

A Sierra Club report highlights faith-based environmental initiatives in all 50 states “spiritually motivated grassroots efforts to protect the planet.” One line leaps off the page: “Lasting social change rarely takes place without the active engagement of communities of faith.” Indeed. Think of the U.S. civil rights movement, Solidarity in Poland and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. Social change does not stick without the glue of religion.

But as these two movements one based on the love of God, the other on the love of the earth intersect, we should celebrate the initiative while remaining aware of the challenges and inevitable spats that await this quite remarkable marriage.

All on board

For centuries, the biblical command to “have dominion” over the earth was seen as a divine endorsement of environmental exploitation. But a radical shift has occurred, and most people of faith now support efforts to be good stewards of natural resources.

The Pew Forum’s Religious Landscape Survey, released earlier this year, revealed widespread support for stricter environmental laws and regulations among Jews (77%), Buddhists (75%), Muslims (69%) and Hindus (67%), as well as members of mainline Protestant churches (64%), Catholic churches (60%) and evangelical ones (54%).

“Creation care” is the growing movement that has become a rallying cry among religious people who are concerned about the earth. In just the past few years, this nation has witnessed an explosion of environmental activity at the grass-roots level.

“We now have 5,000 congregations that are responding to climate change by cutting carbon emissions,” says Gretchen Killion of Interfaith Power and Light, a San Francisco-based group active in 28 states. It helps churches and religious organizations lower their energy consumption. “Many of our members have installed solar panels, and three or four even have geothermal,” Killion says.

The world needs this broad-based, interfaith movement one that offers practical environmental benefits and draws together people of diverse theologies. Catholics are working with Native Americans to preserve land and water; Muslims are making links between urban communities and sustainable farms; and Protestant churches are joining interfaith coalitions and “greening” their congregations by modifying buildings, installing compact fluorescent lamps, using conservation landscaping and purchasing organic, fair-trade coffee.

Though religions are sometimes scorned for dividing people and illuminating differences, the unifying goal of preserving the planet could do just the opposite: bring people of faiths together. Creation care can be “a great bridge-builder between evangelicals and mainline Christians,” says Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals. Although evangelicals have traditionally distrusted environmentalists, who tend to be political liberals, stewardship of the earth is not a left-wing concept. After all, observes Cizik, “Aren’t conservatives supposed to be conservers?”

But is the marriage of the secular environmental movement and the faith-based one even necessary? Actually, it’s essential. The international community has settled on the dangers of global warming and has decided to act to literally change the world. We’ve reached a critical point at which unity is required if this movement is to succeed. Just as in any successful political campaign, you need a good ground game. There is no better ground game in the USA than the thousands of churches, synagogues and mosques that dot our landscape from coast to coast. But are religious people ready to walk down this aisle?

Lyndsay Moseley of the Sierra Club believes so. She has been working for several years to develop partnerships with people who have faith-based, moral or spiritual reasons for protecting the planet. Raised in a deeply religious and politically conservative home in eastern Tennessee, Moseley encountered a low-income community outside Knoxville where the water supply had been contaminated by the illegal dumping of lead, arsenic, diesel fuel and PCBs. She joined a coalition that demanded clean water for the neighborhood, and in the course of that successful effort, Moseley “began to understand that God’s call to care for creation is the same as God’s call to love our neighbors.”

Diverse faiths, converging interests

Trust, intersecting values and a willingness to work together. These are the key ingredients that Moseley believes are necessary to build a meaningful alliance between the Sierra Club and people of faith. But even supporters urge caution.

Cizik tells me that “evangelicals need to find their own voice before partnerships are established,” because they don’t want to be seen as “an appendage of the environmental movement.” Though this suspicion and distrust among evangelicals is clearly a hurdle, it is one that can be cleared, as megachurch pastor and author Rick Warren has plainly illustrated.

One doesn’t even have to be a global warming doomsday prophet to see the wisdom of greening the planet. Jack Graham, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, says he is unsure about the main causes of global warming, but he strongly believes that Christians should not abuse the earth. He recently led his 27,000-member Texas church through an energy audit that led to changes in consumption, resulting in savings of $1.1 million in one year not to mention the environmental benefits achieved through the members’ efforts.

Other faith groups want to make sure that their distinctive mission is not diluted by environmental partnerships. Green mustn’t overshadow God.

“We hear regularly from secular groups who want to partner with us,” says Killion of Interfaith Power and Light. “These groups have important information to share, and we need it to do our work. However, we strive to be theologically based and not to be an environmental organization.” Killion wants the message of her organization to remain faith-based, rooted in the mandate to care for creation that is found in most mainstream religions. “We want to engage communities of faith who traditionally don’t like the environmental community,” she says.

So the environmentalists of the world want to save the planet, and the various faiths that share this planet want the same thing. Good. Yet in reaching out to those of us rooted in faith, the Sierra Clubs of the world must work within our religious traditions to ensure that these efforts enrich, rather than undermine, religion.

Patience will be the friend of these environmental groups as they court the affections of the large and politically powerful community of believers now committed to caring for God’s creation. Our planet wasn’t polluted in a day, and it won’t be cleaned up that quickly either.

Henry G. Brinton is pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia and author of Balancing Acts: Obligation, Liberation, and Contemporary Christian Conflicts.

New federal transmission legislation to be proposed (Sen. Dorgan’s Office). I think I originally clipped this from Climateer but never got around to posting it, whoops sorry!. U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (ND) is proposing the transmission part of the Pickens plan, to create a national electric transmission grid and a major expansion of wind and solar energy.

“I will introduce part of the Pickens plan in the U.S. Senate calling for the building of a nationwide electric transmission superhighway. It will allow our country to maximize the potential to produce vast wind energy in the heartland from Texas to North Dakota. And it will allow us to develop solar energy from the southwest to California. We can put that electric energy on the transmission superhighway and move it to where it is needed in our country. By maximizing our production and use of renewable energy here at home, we will reduce our need for imported oil.”

Transmission grid and success of climate policy forever intertwined (NAWindpower). Not necessarily news to us here in Kansas, currently ground zero for cutting edge wind and transmission line discussions, but - NERC just came out with a report on this linkage. Quotable:

“We are concerned that when viewed from a continent-wide perspective, current climate initiatives do not adequately address key reliability objectives, particularly the need for a strong and robust transmission system,” says Rick Sergel, president and CEO of NERC. “As we consider our energy future, it becomes increasingly clear that our success in reducing carbon emissions and realizing energy independence will hinge on our ability to provide reliable, clean, electricity where and when it is needed.”

The report says that the existing bulk transmission network is inadequate to reliably deliver power from new renewable resources to demand centers. Innovative planning and operational mechanisms will be needed as states and provinces attempt to deliver clean energy over already heavily loaded transmission lines to meet renewable portfolio standard requirements.

In addition, managing growing demand will be critical to meeting both climate and reliability goals, making demand-side resources a critical component of the resource mix. Dispatchable demand response will be particularly important as it adds needed system flexibility and supports the integration of new variable generation such as wind power.

A neat looking report than I have been meaning to summarize for WEEKS but just haven’t had the time (and probably won’t, so I’m just going to toss it out to the collective mind)- from policy think tank Newrules.org (bigtime community self-reliance organization), a report on community energy systems, like distributed generation and community wind. Quotable:

Harnessing renewable energy can dramatically improve the economic prospects of many rural areas. But new rules are needed to maximize the economic and social benefits from these new industries, policies that go beyond more, to demanding better. Current federal incentives largely enable a highly centralized and absentee owned renewable energy industry concentrated in relatively few states.

The federal government, states, and rural communities should redesign these policies to encourage a highly decentralized and dispersed renewable energy industry that is significantly locally owned. Doing so would multiply the number of rural areas that benefit from burgeoning renewable energy industries, and would create a sustainable asset whose wealth and revenue will largely remain in revived local communities and regions.

This report examines the current impact of renewable energy on rural communities and identifies existing and potential policies that could dramatically expand the economic benefit this new sector can bring to these communities.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Over the last year in Kansas, I have heard one sentiment again and again: Climate change is a global problem – it requires a global response.

Well, reporting from the Governors’ Global Climate Summit, I have great news: the globe is responding!

Checking in to the conference, I was handed a translation headset. Next to me, someone asked, “Do I really need this?” To which the cheerful response came: “Do you speak Mandarin, Hindi, Portuguese, Spanish, and Bahasa Indonesia?” We did not – we took the headsets.

Here to discuss goals (they all have them!), programs (ditto), successes and lessons from their efforts are governors from the fastest-developing nations in the world, including Mexico, Brazil, India, Indonesia – all of whom are dramatically less prosperous than the United States and are acting decisively to manage their climate risk.

Also here are Ministers of Environment from Canadian provinces, numerous representatives of the European Union and, crucially, the Director General, Department of Climate Change, National Development Reform Commission from the People’s Republic of China.

Food for thought:

China: 600 million Chinese are expected to move from the countryside to cities by 2030. Two times the entire U.S. population will need new places to live and work in a mere twenty years. So, China is devising and finding ways to enforce energy efficient building standards, to build efficient mass transportation and further lower vehicle carbon intensity (already significantly lower than the U.S.), to dramatically increase the efficiency of their traditional power generation and add massive new renewable capacity. They have begun a massive national ghg inventory so that they can measure their reductions.

Mexico: Mexico’s voluntary registry of greenhouse gases covers fourteen industries and 80% of emissions. Soon greenhouse gases will be added to the mandatory Toxic Release Registry. Mexico has a National Special Plan for Climate Change, and the President has made climate action a priority. Mexico’s representative here said “We can achieve lower carbon intensity very soon, very cost effectively.”

President-elect Obama: in a video made for this conference, said “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.” He called for a national cap-and-trade system that will “establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050.” His closing: “I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”

Kansans, have no fear of acting alone. Put to rest your worries about industry migrating to countries who are not managing their carbon risk – there will soon be virtually nowhere to go.

Here, amid unfamiliar languages and determined leaders, I have witnessed the dawn of a new day. We’ll see it soon in Kansas. This day inspires new thinking, real innovation, and cheerful determination – and it ushers in a new, sustained prosperity.

Henry Ford – a good, practical, visionary Midwesterner – is fabled to have said, “If I had asked the people what they wanted, they would have said they wanted a faster horse.”

Let’s embrace a new vision and, together, let’s get to work!

We can safely say that the following represents quite a shift in the federal position on climate change. Pres. Elect Obama spoke yesterday via video to a governors conference convened by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Analysis of the speech, reprinted in full from the NYTimes:

Obama Affirms Climate Change Goals
By JOHN M. BRODER

President-elect Barack Obama, in strongly-worded remarks to a gathering of governors and foreign officials on Tuesday, said he had no intention of softening or delaying his aggressive targets for reducing emissions that cause the warming of the planet.

Speaking by video to a climate conference in Los Angeles, Mr. Obama repeated his campaign vow to reduce climate-altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies.

“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Mr. Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”

Some industry leaders and members of Congress have suggested that Mr. Obama’s climate proposal would impose too great a cost on an already-stressed economy — having the same effects as a tax on coal, oil and natural gas — and should await the end of the current downturn. A bill similar to Mr. Obama’s plan failed to clear the Senate earlier this year, largely because of concerns about its impact on the economy.

Mr. Obama rejected that view, saying that his plan would reduce oil imports, create jobs in energy conservation and renewable sources of energy, and reverse the warming of the atmosphere.

“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process,” Mr. Obama said.

State officials and environmental advocates were cheered that Mr. Obama choose to address climate change as only the second major policy area he has discussed as president-elect. In a press conference and television interview last week he said that his first priority as president will be to revitalize the economy.

The bipartisan summit meeting was convened by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, who has been a leader in state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases, even when it meant confronting the Bush administration over its more hesitant approach. Attendees included the governors of Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin and Kansas, who have also been in the forefront of actions at the state level to act in the absence of a national climate change plan. Officials from 22 other states, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, India and Indonesia, as well as United Nations aides and environmentalists, also are taking part in the two-day meeting.

Mr. Schwarzenegger announced the meeting in September in part to signal to Washington and the two presidential candidates that the states were serious about moving forward with climate legislation with or without Washington’s blessing.

California enacted a sweeping climate bill in 2007 that would have, among other things, imposed strict mileage and emissions standards on all cars and trucks sold in the state. More than a dozen other states adopted the standards, but they were struck down by the Bush administration last December on the ground that the states did not have the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

“When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said in opening the conference, “so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could.”

Mr. Obama said that although he would not attend a U.N.-sponsored meeting on climate change next month, he has asked members of Congress who are going to report back to him on what the United States can do to reassert leadership on global climate policy.

He also told the state officials: “When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”

Governor Jim Doyle, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles that he had been frustrated by what he said was the Bush administration’s timid approach to climate issues. And he said that despite the current economic crisis, it was important to begin long-term efforts to address global warming.

“I think we all wish the economy was a lot better, but I feel very strongly that we can’t back away from progress we’ve made on really important things like climate change,” Mr. Doyle said. “I’m looking forward to having a federal government and a president who will provide real leadership and bring the United States into the world on this issue.”

I say third suit because I think -I think - there is also at least one ongoing suit in state court, as well as one in the state administrative appeals system (which could end up in state court). But I have truly lost track so don’t take it from me.

The following was filed in federal district court in KCK on Monday (again - I think). Sunflower’s legal claim is that the denial of the air permit violated their civil rights. Reprinted in full from the LJWorld:

Sunflower Electric sues state leaders
Company claims Sebelius and others just wanted to advance their careers

Topeka — Claiming its civil rights have been violated, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. wants a federal court to overturn decisions by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and clear the way for construction of two coal-powered electric plants in southwest Kansas.

In a lawsuit filed in Kansas City, Kan., Hays-based Sunflower Electric accused Sebelius, Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson and Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby of trying to advance their political aspirations by rejecting Sunflower’s permits for the coal-burning plants near its existing facility in Holcomb.

The officials want to “further their individual political fortunes by catering to the environmental lobby that opposes the Holcomb Expansion Project and to increase their chances of being elected or appointed to some state or national office, all at the expense of Sunflower’s constitutional rights and the rule of law in Kansas,” Sunflower’s lawsuit claims.

Sunflower is seeking a court order that would prohibit the Sebelius administration from blocking the $3.6 billion project. No hearing date has been set before U.S. District Court Judge Eric Melgren.

The company claims Sebelius’ rejection of the plants based on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming was “nothing more than a pretext” and violated the constitutional requirement of equal protection.

“Indeed, since defendants denied Sunflower a permit, they have granted hundreds of permits to other CO2 emitters and continue to allow pre-existing similarly situated CO2 emitters to operate freely,” the lawsuit states.

Sebelius said she hadn’t seen the lawsuit, and declined to comment on it. She was headed to Beverly Hills, Calif., to co-chair a meeting of worldwide officials on global warming. The meeting was set up by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Sebelius has opposed the plants, citing the project’s annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, and the fact that the project would mostly serve out-of-state customers.

Sunflower has already been fighting to gain the permits through an administrative appeals process, the state court system and the Legislature.

During the last legislative session, lawmakers approved bills requiring construction of the plants, but Sebelius vetoed the measures and supporters of the plants came up just short of gaining the necessary two-thirds majorities to overturn the governor.

In the lawsuit, Sunflower warned that if it doesn’t obtain the permits to construct the plants soon “the cost of construction may well increase to the point that the project cannot be financed at all.”

If there were no project, Sunflower argued, its customers would suffer.

“In denying the air permit, the administration has discriminated against 400,000 Kansans and over 1.5 million citizens from other states who will be forced to pay the price of this decision for decades to come through higher electric rates,” Earl Watkins, Sunflower’s president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. “We believe we have an obligation to act on behalf of the people we serve and to correct this wrong.”

Bruce Niles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, defended Sebelius’ actions.

“It is clear that with this lawsuit, the coal industry hopes to take away states’ rights to take action on global warming,” Niles said. “The writing is on the wall. Clean energy is where the future of America is, and that clean energy can be the engine of our economic and climate recovery. States should be free to pursue that clean energy future, and not be bullied for doing so.”

In a sworn statement, Watkins said the company has already spent $1.4 million in fees to lawyers and consultants to prepare for the permits and $1.1 million in legal fees and expenses to appeal the denial of the permits.

Sunflower said it filed the lawsuit in Kansas City, Kan., because that was more convenient for its law firm, which is based in Kansas City, Mo.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

I don’t wake up very fast. Normally. Some emails, though, do have that power.

So. There aren’t any news reports out on this suit yet, although I imagine that will soon change. But we do have a copy of the complaint, if you would like to download it here. (25 pages, .pdf)

Someone asked me the total of cases this makes re the Kansas coal controversy, and I have to confess that I have lost track. And then you start counting plaintiffs and intervenors and administrative appeals and state court and now federal district court….

I know, I know. The total number is still less than ten fingers, so it shouldn’t be this hard. But someone else is going to have to tell me.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Reprinted in full from Harris News:

Ruling’s effect on Sunflower plans unclear

By Chris Green

TOPEKA — Some opponents of a plan to build two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas said Friday that a new federal ruling could create a further hurdle for the stalled project.

Critics of the utility’s $3.6 billion expansion plans hailed a decision from an Environmental Protection Agency appeals board that blocked — for now — a federal permit for the Bonanza coal plant in Utah.

In making its ruling on Thursday, the appeals panel said the EPA’s Denver office must explain why it declined to limit carbon dioxide emissions in issuing a permit for the plant, which is on an Indian reservation.

State and national environmentalists said the move seems to signal that CO2 emissions of all new coal plant projects now will be considered when federal or state officials decide whether they should receive permits.

Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for Kansas Sierra Club, said the decision would put Sunflower’s plans for new coal plants on shakier footing.

“It’s our belief that this is just one more reason why Sunflower and its partners should not be moving forward with a multi-billion dollar project with increasing financial and regulatory uncertainty,” Cole said.

However, a spokeswoman for Sunflower Electric Power Corp. couldn’t say Friday whether the ruling would have have any effect on the utility’s Holcomb expansion project.

“We constantly evaluate the political and economic conditions that may affect our project,” Sunflower spokeswoman Cindy Hertel said. “Our environmental personnel have not had the opportunity to review the decision regarding the Utah coal plant as to whether or not it will impact us.”

Hertel said the Hays-based, nonprofit utility, made up of six rural electric cooperatives it provides power to, would continue to pursue the project as long as it remained in the best interest of Kansas rate payers.

A spokesman for Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado, the largest partner in the expansion project, could not be reached for comment. Tri-State plans to purchase power from one of the $3.6 billion project’s two generators and is paying development fees to Sunflower.

Permits on hold

Sunflower’s construction plans have been on hold since last year, when Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby blocked air-quality permits for the project over concerns about the plants’ CO2 emissions.

Bremby said he couldn’t ignore mounting evidence that the plants would emit 11 million tons of CO2 each year that would contribute to global warming.

But Sunflower and its supporters argue that they followed all existing laws in pursuing the permits and that Bremby overstepped his bounds in blocking them. They point out that there are no existing state or federal limits on the greenhouse gas.

The utility and its partners are pursuing a legal challenge to overturn Bremby’s decision, which could wind up before the Kansas Supreme Court early next year.

Legislative supporters could also make another run at clearing the way for the plants when they reconvene in January, after being thwarted by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ vetoes this past spring.

A spokesman for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment declined to comment on the EPA appeals board ruling. KDHE spokesman Mike Heideman said the agency couldn’t comment because of Sunflower’s pending legal challenge of the agency’s permitting decision.

But Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s national coal campaign, said he believes that Thursday’s EPA decision decreases the odds that Sunflower’s project will ever receive permits.

Not a blow?

State officials must follow the EPA’s rules in awarding permits, Nilles said. Under the new ruling, he said he doesn’t believe Sunflower could win permit approval until state officials have given the project’s potential CO2 emissions additional consideration.

He said he also believes that the board’s move paves the way for President-elect Barack Obama to immediately limit CO2 emissions through Clean Air Act — without any additional action from Congress.

“It has an immediate and nationwide impact and really lays the groundwork for even more action on global warming on day one of the Obama Administration,” Nilles said.

But an industry group that backs expanded use of coal power counters that environmentalists may be reading way too much into one decision.

Joe Lucas, a spokesman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the ruling only shows how difficult it is to site new electric generators these days. He said that’s because of continued uncertainty about how greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated.

He said that coal plants elsewhere are still receiving permits, including one in Arkansas earlier this month.

“I know there will be people who will try to spin this as a blow against coal that it is not,” Lucas said.

Nancy Jackson, executive director of The Land Institute’s Climate and Energy Project, said the supporters of new coal-fired generation may view the Utah decision as largely irrelevant.

She said, from their point of view, the EPA has again taken a pass on limiting CO2. But opponents see a victory in the decision, one that “presses pause” on all new coal plants, she said.

“We all know carbon dioxide will soon be regulated,” Jackson said. “The Bonanza decision is a significant and decisive step in that direction.”

From the New York Times -

The major problem with wind as a power source is that it doesn’t blow all the time. To remedy that, Texas is spending $30 million a year to bolster its back-up power, in a change to the electricity grid that began on Nov. 1.

Depending on the weather conditions and time of day, wind can provide a significant proportion of Texas power – as much as 16 percent at one point in the past week, according to Dan Jones, an independent market monitor for the Texas grid. Wind farms are sprouting so quickly in the western part of the state that Texas’s grid managers decided that they needed extra back-up power to cover shortfalls when the wind stops blowing.

Adding to the sense of urgency, Texas nearly experienced wind-related blackouts in February.

Back-up power sources are always in place to handle minute-to-minute fluctuations in power supply and demand. Some power plants — usually gas plants — stand ready to deliver power at a moment’s notice as needs arise. These plants are responding not just to variations in wind, but to any unexpected uptick or downtick in demand or supply — say, when thousands of people suddenly turn on their air-conditioning at 2 p.m.

Beyond mitigating these minute-to-minute fluctuations, power systems generally maintain a number of back-up plants that are a bit slower to kick in — it takes about 30 minutes or so — but which really form the primary line of defense against blackouts.

In Texas, these back-up plants — typically natural gas plants — are often needed three to five days a month, according to Mr. Jones. It’s at this level of defense where Texas grid managers recently decided that they needed added capacity to account for wind’s variability and its significant place in the state’s power portfolio.

The requirements now call for some of these plants to be available at night, when demand is usually at its lowest. Why? Because nighttime is when the west Texas winds blow the strongest, and thus the risk is greater if the wind dies down. The new rules also require more of this reserve to be available during the daytime.

(Other, rarely used lines of defense against a statewide blackout include switching off the power to certain large users, in accordance with prior agreements, or — in an emergency — shutting off power to certain neighborhoods.)

Adding extra back-up power is only one of several ways that Texas is handling the influx of wind power into its grid. Grid managers are improving their methods for forecasting the wind day to day, said Mr. Jones. They are also trying to figure out ways to ease the strain caused by the rapid, significant changes in the wind, which unlike other supply sources, can very suddenly ramp up or die down.

More transmission lines are also sorely needed. In Texas (as well as in other states), turbines are sometimes forced to shut down on windy days, because there are not enough lines to carry the power they produce to the cities that need it.

Although Texas is far ahead in wind power, with 30 percent of the nation’s installed capacity, grid operators elsewhere in the country will be watching the changes there and improving their own abilities to integrate wind. The New York grid operator, for example, is also introducing better wind-forecasting techniques.

The original story also contains a monthly cost breakdown.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Download it here. (Light reading was a joke, BTW. Although it’s only 66 pages - which considering what it is, ain’t much.)

Clipped in from the newsletter of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE):

November 13, 2008
WHAT TO EXPECT: ENERGY EFFICIENCY, THE NEW ADMINISTRATION, AND THE NEW CONGRESS

The election is over. President-elect Obama’s transition team has already started its work, and in Congress, new leadership will be elected. What can we expect from the new Administration and a new Congress on energy efficiency policy? Probably quite a bit, since Obama emphasized energy (principally energy efficiency and renewable energy) as one of his key issues (along with the economy, health care, and education). There will also be a lot of interest in energy efficiency from Congress, given expanded Democratic majorities in general and some of the newly-elected Senators in particular (e.g., Tom and Mark Udall, both of whom were very active efficiency supporters when they were in the House). While many Republicans support energy efficiency, probably a higher proportion of Democrats think government should do more to support efficiency. On the other hand, all major legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate, which means that moderate Republicans, such as new Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking-Member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and moderate Democrats have to be on board.

In terms of new legislation, ACEEE expects energy efficiency to come up in three major places—an economic stimulus bill, energy legislation, and climate change legislation.

Given the state of our economy, an economic stimulus bill is the next order of business. Congress may well pass such a bill in November or December, even before the new President and Congress are sworn in, but if not then, probably in the first month of the new Congress. There could also be two bills, one in the waning days of 2008, and one in early 2009. Such bill(s) will include many provisions, such as extension of jobless benefits and perhaps some tax rebate checks. But there’s a reasonable chance that energy efficiency investments will be included, such as extra funds for the low-income weatherization program, funds to upgrade schools and municipal buildings, a green jobs program, and perhaps some type of residential retrofit program, to create jobs and reduce the burden of energy costs on families.

Next up is likely to be an energy bill. The last Congress came close to passing a renewable portfolio standard, and there’s a very good chance one will be enacted in the next year. President-elect Obama’s energy platform calls for an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS), ramping up to 15% savings by 2020, and such a provision will likely be considered. Other potential items for an energy bill include extensions of various energy efficiency and renewable energy tax credits (Congress extended many of these until only the end of 2009), a provision addressing off-shore oil drilling, additional work on clean coal (e.g., House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chair Rick Boucher, D-Virginia, has a major bill in this area), and investments in a green economy (Obama has called for an investment of $15 billion annually for ten years).

Finally, there is climate change legislation. There are many complex issues involved and we would not expect legislation to pass until 2010 or 2011, but a lot of work on such bills will take place in 2009, with bills quite possibly moving out of committee and perhaps even getting debated on the House or Senate floor. Such a bill is likely to be a cap and trade bill, calling for an 80% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 (a target that Obama and many Congressional leaders have endorsed). Efficiency is likely to play a significant role since bills advanced by committee leadership in both the House and Senate have significant energy efficiency provisions designed to both reduce emissions and to keep the costs of addressing climate change in check.

Looking to the even longer term, Obama has called for building the green economy as a centerpiece of our economic strategy with investments in basic research, technology demonstration, commercial market deployment, and job training. Targeted areas include advanced vehicles and biofuels, and a smart electric grid. He has also called for:

* weatherizing one million low-income homes a year
* accelerating development of appliance and equipment efficiency standards
* increasing the energy savings in building codes (including grants to states that are early adopters)
* improving the efficiency of federal facilities
* assisting states and municipalities to build green buildings
* increasing vehicle fuel economy standards.

In addition, he wants to expand support for smart growth initiatives and public transit, and support for states that adopt policies to decouple utility profits from utility sales. He also wants to play a leadership role in helping to shape a new global climate change framework. How much of this will see the light of day remains to be seen, particularly given the current state of the economy and burgeoning federal budget deficits. But some of these can be done administratively and/or without spending a lot of money. With energy fairly high on the agenda in the 2008 campaign, significant Congressional action is likely, although exactly what will be in specific bills will only gradually become clear over time.

ACEEE plans to be heavily involved in each of these efforts.

FYI. Kansas ranks 38 out of 50 states on ACEEE’s 2008 Energy Efficiency State Scorecard. Oops.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org