New news in Kansas wind development (Hays Daily News). Six very wind-rich Kansas counties are talking about grouping together in some sort of compact to promote wind development (Trego, Wallace, Sherman, Thomas, Gove and Logan). In part, their approach will be to develop and control the infrastructure needed to get wind resources to market.
Imagine if during the last century, farmers’ co-ops had been able to build and control at least some of the railroads. Pretty cool, huh? Wind is a new resource, with new development patterns, and new social and economic organizations have the chance evolve as a result. Built on old ones, of course.
Kansans win EnergyStar awards. Emporia students build an EnergyStar rated home (Emporia Gazette), and the Koch Industries office building in Wichita wins national EnergyStar award (Wichita Eagle).
Midwest floods show signs of global warming. (Reuters) Quotable: “Floods like those that inundated the U.S. Midwest are supposed to occur once every 500 years but this is the second since 1993, suggesting flawed forecasts that do not take global warming into account, conservation experts said on Tuesday. “Although no single weather event can be attributed to global warming, it’s critical to understand that a warming climate is supplying the very conditions that fuel these kinds of weather events,” said Amanda Staudt, a climate scientist with the National Wildlife Federation.”
Earth-friendly fuels station opens in Lawrence (LJWorld). The EPA, local dignitaries (politicians), Maril’s biodiesel-obsessed husband, and hundreds more turned out for the grand opening of the new Zarco station in Lawrence. Pretty cool place. Currently only one of its kind in the nation - here in KS! We’re so cool.
Some Suzlon wind turbine blades cracking (WSJournal Environmental Capital blog). Whoops. Evidently in their quick ramp up to get their blades to the US wind market, Suzlon did not do adequate testing for the U.S. grid, or for our gusty winds. The manufacturer is reinforcing the blades and making repairs.
Creation care (USA Today). 67% of Americans say they care about the environment because it is God’s creation.
Wind and transmission in OK. Update on wind farms proposals and transmission line development in neighboring Oklahoma (Enid News). Lots of information about Lenexa-based Trade Winds, the corporation that owns the Lincoln County wind farm along I-70 in Kansas - for a photo essay on that wind farm (by CEP’s Jason), see here.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: China and wind, reprocessing fuel rods from nuclear plants, biofuels and the food crisis, etc.
April 29, 2008
China setting bonkers targets with wind. (Yes - bonkers is a technical term.) From the WSJ Env Capital blog, China is raising its wind power goal from 30 gigawatts to 100 gigawatts by 2020. How much is 100 gigawatts? The equivalent of 100 nuclear plants, or more generation capacity than in all of France.
What does this mean for Midwesterners? (1) For those purchasing wind turbines, you now will have even more international competition, and (2) for those producing wind turbines, you will have more markets.
Don’t forget the nukes. During this recent legislative session, even Kansas experienced a resurgence in the nuclear debate - one that would have gotten a lot more attention if it hadn’t had to compete with coal.
During the nuclear discussions that did occur, reprocessing spent fuel rods got a lot of attention. Good idea? Bad idea? Impossible? Too expensive to even contemplate? A gimme to terrorists who can use the resulting plutonium for dirty bombs? A great way to let future generations and technology solve the spent fuel and radioactive waste issue?
Opinions differed. Also from the WSJ Environmental Capital blog, more research on the topic.
Biofuels and the food crisis. A combination of factors has led to the current world food crisis - according to one measure, “market prices of cereals, dairy produce, meat, sugar and oils, was 57 percent higher in March 2008 than a year earlier” - and the recent explosion of corn-based biofuels is part of the problem (Reuters). Another part of the problem is higher fuel prices. Without fuel, farmers can’t farm as much acreage, so they grow less.
The situation: High demand - populations in the developing world are even growing. Limited supply - there’s less food to feed them. Result - food prices increase, and many people go hungry.
When people are hungry, they often riot. At the very least, they’re not very happy with their governments. Unhappy populations experience high incidences of civil unrest. Civil unrest contributes to international upheaval, even terrorism.
Biofuels originally promised to increase the energy security of the United States. Instead, they have become caught up in a cycle that is undermining it. How do alternative fuels disentangle themselves from this cycle? How much can we safely mix our sources of food and fuel?
TBD.
Anglican minister on climate change. Via NPR. Quotable: “It is not about, if we pray hard enough to God, he will end climate change. Yes, we should pray to God. We should also get off our backsides, get out there, and do something about it.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Update: water shortages and their complications, farmers’ costs of doing business, and a little coal
March 24, 2008
Snow flurry! On Easter. Up at MH’s house in Jefferson County. Didn’t last long, didn’t stick, but still got our attention. Along those lines, the Midwest is experiencing some weird weather beyond its usual - watch out for flooding, folks (AP/ Yahoo). One meteorologist described the problem as in part due to a “jet stream on steroids.” Lot of moisture currently cycling all around us.
Speaking of moisture. Climate change adds another dimension to ongoing global concerns about water shortages. A lack of water doesn’t just mean fewer drops to drink, it also means less water for agriculture, industry, power generation, transportation, etc. (CSMonitor). According to one UN official:
“While I’m always cautious about ‘water wars,’ certainly the potential for water to become a trigger for more tension and, where there’s already conflict, to exacerbate conflict, is another issue that’s not hypothetical.”
Right now, the world is also depending on water more than ever before, to help us make the transition from fossil fuels. Producing ethanol, for example, takes a lot of water (and a lot of power, for that matter). Quotable:
The water required for an alternate fuel vehicle to travel a certain distance can be up to 100 times that required for a gas-powered vehicle. This extra water use stems from the irrigation of crops like corn that are turned into ethanol, or in the production of the electricity for recharging hybrids.
Careful of the disconnect. There’s been a lot in the news lately about the high prices of commodities like corn and wheat.
Unless I’ve missed it, though, I don’t think there’s been as much coverage of this fact: that while farmers are getting record prices for some crops, they are also paying record prices for diesel fuel, insecticides, etc. According to Liberal Online (Liberal, KS):
In some instances, diesel fuel has increased approximately 68 percent. Gas and propane are up nearly 54 percent. Fertilizer has jumped 99 percent and potash tops them all at 125 percent….
The ever increasing cost of fuel impacts the Thomas County producer’s bottom line. His farm has been in the family for four generations. While cropping inputs are increasing all the time, corn, wheat, milk and other commodities are trading at record highs, too. Wheat prices are up approximately 116 percent, corn is up 30 percent, soybeans 93 percent and milk 18 percent.
While these prices for crops have surged during the past year, they haven’t gone up as high as the prices for inputs necessary to run the farm.
While catching up on family this Easter weekend, I heard exactly this same story, but about extended family down in the Reno County area. Sure, they’re getting good prices for the crops - but they are getting killed on the inputs of fuel, fertilizer, etc. Apparently the cost of RoundUp has gone up by a factor of five. And while the commodity prices will probably fall sometime, those input prices typically don’t.
When I read the bit in the Liberal article about the farmer switching his irrigation engines over from diesel fuel to electricity because of cost (and knowing that the price of bought electricity is probably about to increase, too) - I thought to myself:
This is one of the reasons why Kansas needs net metering. We need to do everything possible to allow our farmers and businesspeople the option to install their own wind turbines, to produce some of their own power and help hedge against these rising prices. (For CEP testimony before the legislature on one of this session’s failed net metering bills, click here. For the NREL legislative briefing on net metering, click here.)
In case you haven’t yet had it with coal talk - we hear a lot about the high prices of oil, but coal prices are skyrocketing as well. According to the Washington Post, “world consumption of coal has grown 30 percent in the past six years, twice as much as any other energy source. About two-thirds of the fuel supplies electricity plants, and just under a third heads to industrial users, mostly steel and concrete makers.” China is burning more than the U.S., Europe, and Japan all combined, and is now a net importer of coal. The price of coal is shooting up all over the globe.
Sure, there’s lots of coal left in the ground - however, coal is a very infrastructure-intense commodity. (I’m not sure if I said that right, but I don’t know how else to put it.) Coal comes with a lot of overhead - mines, railroads, heavy industrial equipment, etc. Countries with coal reserves aren’t always able to get it out of the ground cheaply, so they import it from countries who can. Even though in the U.S. coal plants are apparently on the outs at this moment, U.S. coal suppliers like Peabody are making increased profits from exports.
There’s another rub - construction costs for new coal-fired plants. As Karen Dillon explores for the KC Star, the costs have recently gone through the roof. One source is quoted as saying that over the past four years, the cost of building a power plant has gone up 30 percent.
Favorite headline of last week. (only now I don’t remember where I saw it) - “Regulatory uncertainty killed the dinosaurs.” I think the person who originally wrote the headline, though, meant it as a parody of Secretary Bremby’s decision and the Governor’s veto - which is not the sense in which it made me laugh.
But hey, on some level, we both thought it was funny. Surely that’s a start.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Why am I here, when this bill (that passed the House with a very high margin) just got folded into the Holcomb/ energy bill that is now on its way to the governor?
A couple of reasons. One, energy efficiency is a very important strategy in creating energy policy for Kansas. CEP likes to keep track of what folks have to say about important energy policies. Two, there is a chance - who knows what size of a chance - that the governor will veto that bill, it will not be overridden, and thus this original bill is still a live and happening thing.
As always, it could be an interesting meeting - or it could be much, much less interesting. However, there is other stuff on the docket as well. I will just summarize that.
The committee is here. Chairman Emler, Vice-Chair Apple, and Senators Taddiken, Lee, Pine, Francisco, and Reitz
News update
February 27, 2008
Working from home in rural Jefferson County at the moment. Sun is shining. Birds are singing. Ice on the lake is popping and spalling in weird underwater echoes as the sun hits the east side, while the west side is still cool and in shadow. Dogs are outside barking hysterically at my poor neighbor.
If I can figure out/ find out when the next conference committee meeting is on the Holcomb/ energy bill is today, we may have live blogging from Topeka later. If not, tomorrow holds a special treat - the KCC has decided to host a round table on nuclear power !!! (.pdf) I guess we weren’t having enough fun with coal. The event goes all day, so don’t expect live blogging, but I will take notes and post them later. Seriously, I am excited - very interesting speakers lined up.
For now, the news.
Cargill has canceled a proposed $200 million ethanol plant outside of Topeka due to the high price of corn (TCJournal). Christian denominations gathered for a “creation care summit,” a term popularized by evangelical Rev. Richard Cizik (Christian Post). Cizik spoke at the event, calling global warming “an offense against God,” and saying that “America needs our biblical outrage. We as a nation will face a judgment from God if we don’t do this.”
The wind industry is facing a shortage of qualified workers due to the enormous increase in demand (Seattle Times). Go, Cloud County Community College, and other Kansas community colleges who are developing wind technician training programs! The country needs you. Kansas needs you, too, to help spur rural economic development opportunities.
The following is not news to any of us, probably, but the USA Today has caught on that wind development is contingent on construction of new transmission lines, and that the grid in windy areas of the country is horribly congested. Why do I mention it, then…? Because I have a crazy fringe theory. The story supports my belief that the transmission issues in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, etc., are going to draw more and more national attention as pressure mounts to develop renewables. There is also a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (I think that’s the date) that allows the federal government eminent domain to build transmission in corridors of “national interest.”
My fringe theory: Either we develop more transmission, fast, or within a decade or so we could face the federal government perhaps deciding to do it for us.
But I could also be crazy.
NPR produced a harrowing story about the history of a yellow fever outbreak in Memphis in 1878. Yellow fever is one of the many diseases spread by mosquitoes. Long spells of hot weather provide a longer breeding season for these insects. Such spells are one of the many risks posed by climate change, which mainstream scientists agree is affected by human actions, such as burning fossil fuels.
Editorial. Randy Schofield of the Wichita Eagle whacks the pro-Holcomb folks on one hand for misrepresenting “regulatory uncertainty” (the Holcomb plant is the only air quality permit KDHE has ever denied, and regulatory uncertainty about greenhouse gases and carbon regulation on the national scene created that unique situation). On the other hand, he points out that in the aftermath of the decision, Governor Sebelius and Sec. Bremby haven’t been open enough about how they are developing GHG regulations. (Don’t get mad at me, I just offer a synopsis). Quotable:
Granted, there are legitimate concerns — we share them — about where state and federal carbon regulation is heading.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Bremby have been far too quiet about how the Holcomb decision fits into larger efforts to reshape the state’s energy policy in light of looming federal carbon regulation and growing uncertainty about the economic viability of coal plants.
They need to move this dialogue forward more aggressively and show business leaders and lawmakers where they’re heading.
All the same, there’s no cause for panic. Bremby has made clear that his decision should be seen as limited and narrowly crafted to the energy sector.
One permit denial out of thousands does not add up to regulatory anarchy.
A guest editorial in the KCStar points out that all of the Kansas’ electricity picture is affected by the decision to put a coal plant, in the face of future carbon regulation structures such as cap and trade. Quotable:
If southwest Kansas goes with coal, then the rest of the state will have to make up the difference by assuming the burden and cost of developing new resources…. With (Sunflower Electric’s) coal plants employing newer technology, Kansas would be forced to achieve reductions at other utility plants, such as Westar, Kansas City Power & Light and BPU.
The necessary emission reductions may not be feasible on older plants, forcing them to invest in expensive alternative solutions. Our exposure is substantial because these utilities rely heavily on coal.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
news updates
February 11, 2008
Morning, all. Yawn! Monday. That says it all.
Above all, do not forget that famed polar explorer Will Steger is speaking on global warming in Hutch tonight, and Overland Park tomorrow night. Even if I weren’t a CEP employee and of course deeply fascinated by the topic, my husband would drag me there come heck or high water. A for real explorer? Cool.
Biofuels. Since the biofuels studies came out in Science last week, my In box has been overflowing with emails on the topic (Washington Post). The issue: it seems that when you add in the indirect costs of currently produced biofuels - ie, plowing up grasslands and burning down forests to get additional land - globally speaking, this generation of biofuels is not so green after all. We would actually produce more carbon than we would save by burning fewer fossil fuels. Quotable:
One study — written by a group of researchers from Princeton University, Woods Hole Research Center and Iowa State University along with an agriculture consultant — concluded that over 30 years, use of traditional corn-based ethanol would produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as regular gasoline. Another analysis, written by a Nature Conservancy scientist along with University of Minnesota researchers, found that converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas or grasslands in Southeast Asia and Latin America to produce biofuels will increase global warming pollution for decades, if not centuries.
Here is a short comment on the issue from the venerable Scientific American: “So biofuels might actually exacerbate the problem they’re meant to solve. Something to think about as we move forward on producing ecofriendly fuels. As one of the scientists put it, we should make sure our cure isn’t worse than the disease.”
Sierra Club Kansas has posted some more information on Sunflower’s proposed algae reactors.
And up over on Waterkeeper (or Riverkeeper, to those of us in the Midwest) - the D.C. circuit court declared the EPA’s mercury rule illegal (also see this story from the NYTimes). This is relevant for many reasons, but especially in terms of mercury emissions from coal plants.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
news update from the weekend - biofuels, water worries, and Peabody Coal does something interesting
January 28, 2008
Water use and food and energy production - these three spheres are forever intertwined in our economy. And our ecology. (Note the common prefix: eco-. Think about it for a moment…)
People with brains think about these connections a lot. Last week, a bunch of international power brokers with enormous pull in the financial sphere did so at the annual Davos gathering in Switzerland. I ended up in OKC last week, not Switzerland, but from the news coverage, it sounds like a fair number of economic forecasters at Davos found themselves very concerned about a coming perfect storm - existing water shortages, the possibility of increased water shortages from climate change, increased use of water for biofuels cultivation and production, recent poor crops and food shortages (and riots as a result), and the increased use of staple food crops for biofuels (AFP).
If it were a recipe for a cake, I sure wouldn’t make it. Or eat it, if someone else did. That intersection of factors sounds like a potential world of hurt to me.
This next one made me say - hmm! Coal giant Peabody Coal is evidently investing in technologies that promise to convert dirty coal to comparatively less carbon-intense natural gas - also known as coal gasification (Greentech). On one hand - hello. And yay. Just when you think no one is listening about upcoming carbon regulation and the need to adjust our energy economy… On the other hand, oh yeah, where does the dirty stuff go after they remove it? (Not to mention, putting any more carbon into the atmosphere at all is pretty problematic.) Quotable:
But there’s still some question about what to do with the unwanted elements. While a market for mercury already exists, the viability of sequestering carbon and pumping it into the ground still is unproven. Peabody, which said it is pursuing coal-to-gas projects to help build energy security and ease reliance on expensive natural-gas imports, also is working on carbon capture and storage.
And as to where CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies get us - they’re great ideas, and over the next twenty years or so, some of them will hopefully pan out. However, that also gets us right back to water. Lots of CCS technologies use a great deal of water, and when they release it afterwards, there is some pollution and sedimentation involved. Farm run-off, existing energy uses of water, other forms of pollution - it makes you wonder when the burden that our water carries will get to be too much. And imagine how all this might play out in a world where water becomes more scarce and more valuable, like oil.
Just to get a little perspective from surrounding Midwestern states - some news out of Iowa. They are leaps and bounds ahead of Kansas in terms of climate change policies (yes, those crazy Iowans. Such nutty radicals. They’re getting as bad as California) so this next point is a little advanced for us. However: If not carried out correctly, carbon regulation (which is expected to occur as one policy strategy for mitigating climate change) could have have an especially severe impact on those less fortunate, because more of their limited budgets will go to cover basic needs such as gas and electricity. States need to make sure that their carbon-cutting climate policies don’t hurt low-income families (DesMoines Register).
Finally, to answer a few concerned emails - sorry I was out of commission for a few days last week! I clearly need to learn better how to use the web function on my phone, so I can post when I am on the road. Or I need to let people know that I am going to be on the road. Of course, this makes some folks happy, not sad 
but, we can’t please everyone.
I must say - it is certainly no hardship to drive down to OKC and back. Lots of good classic country music stations. The one downside was that I drove down and back in one day - so I missed the Flint Hills both ways, in the dark before dawn, and the dark after dusk. That part made me sad. This might sound crazy, but winter is one of my favorite seasons in Kansas, and I find the Flint Hills especially beautiful this time of year.
I guess it is a little crazy. But since I’m from here, it also doesn’t matter.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
the possible future of carbon regulation in Kansas
January 22, 2008
CEP’s Community Energy Forum in Salina went very well last night. (There is another in Overland Park tonight, and another in Topeka tomorrow - see CEP press release for details.)
CEP invited analysts from energy consulting firm Synapse Energy to the forum, and they had some interesting things to say. If you’d like to see the .pdf of the powerpoint presentation by David Schlissel and Ezra Hausman, please click here (.pdf, 1.3 MB)
From the Harris News coverage, some quotables:
Synapse senior consultant David Schlissel said federal limits on coal plants’ carbon emissions are “more than likely” in the near future.
“A proposal before Congress right now would mandate steep reductions of 50 to 80 percent in CO2 emissions,” Schlissel said. “The adoption of these federal regulations will mean substantial costs for new power plants that are coal- or gas-fired. Coal, of course, is the most carbon intensive.”
Synapse has developed a forecast of expected costs related to carbon emissions for power plants and other businesses.
If the regulatory cost, for instance, becomes $20 per ton each year, companies such as Sunflower that emit 12 million tons annually will have to purchase allowances of at least $240 million.
Part of Sunflower’s response that I found interesting - they again mentioned the potential of their bioenergy project (which is not contained in their proposal) as a partial offset to some of the problems with the proposed coal plant.
A while back, an argument you heard a lot was that Kansas wind power couldn’t be developed without transmission lines for coal power, and that turned out not to be the case. Now the coal cart is getting hitched to biofuels - but there’s a lot of lower cost ways to produce biofuels, with a lot more proven technology.
Also re renewables - on one hand, renewables are booming right now. On the other hand… that could all go south pretty quick (or at least take a significant detour) if the federal government does not renew the production tax credits for wind and solar. The renewal of these credits did not make it through the highly contentious battle over the energy bill, and the initiative is now up again before Congress (CSMonitor).
-– Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy issues? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
biofuels
January 11, 2008
Super-important report on the sustainability of biofuels, just out yesterday from the Ecological Society of America. Quotable from the press release:
“Current grain-based ethanol production systems damage soil and water resources in the U.S. and are only profitable in the context of tax breaks and tariffs,” says ESA. “Future systems based on a combination of cellulosic materials and grain could be equally degrading to the environment, with potentially little carbon savings, unless steps are taken now that incorporate principles of ecological sustainability.”
At a community forum between Douglas County KS voters and their legislators, energy issues dominated the discussion. More speculation about whether all issues in the upcoming legislative session will be held hostage to those legislators who want to push the Holcomb coal plants through and remove powers from KDHE, which denied the air quality permits for the proposed plants (LJWorld).
The Topeka Farm Show featured green energy this year (Topeka Capital-Journal). I sighed longingly when I read about the geothermal systems. Also, via the CEP network (you know who you are, and thank you) a really neato article about digital tools that can help you conserve energy (NYTimes).
Last, an interesting review of Energy Autonomy, a book I’ve been dying to read - that pause is there, actually, because I just had a brief moment of hysterical laughter. Read a book! When am I going to have time to do that? Okay, better now. But the review is tiding me over for now. Read it; it’s good.
Remember that I am biased, however, in favor of anything that uses the word “decentralized.” And since I like that word so much maybe I didn’t read the review as critically after I saw that. Sorry, it’s a human nature thing. We all have our hot buttons or happy buttons that, when pushed, usually turn off our brains.
(read the review anyway!!)
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy issues in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
morning harvest of energy news
December 21, 2007
Economic development and renewables: Sunflower Wind company relocates in Reno County (KAKE Channel 10). Smart of them, Reno County is a great location. The Reno County Grow Coalition invited CEP to organize a community forum on wind in Hutchinson last August – it was attended by 200 citizens and sparked an active, 40-member wind working group. One of the group’s goals is to increase the county’s long-term energy security by developing renewables.
(And totally full disclosure - my Dad is from Sterling and I love it there).
Also, on the jobs front, North Dakota State is offering a two year associates’ degree in biofuels technology (EthanolProducer.com) With the energy legislation that passed earlier this week mandating an major increase in biofuels production, there will indeed be more jobs in that field.
St.Louis-based Solar Night Industries gets some play over on Sustainablog - SNI has developed a web-based Modern Energy Plan to help homeowners and businesses figure out what renewable energy system will work best for their needs and location. Haven’t tried it; sounds cool; always remember that CEP does not endorse any .com it might link to; just for a counterpoint remember findsolar.com; also remember Home Power magazine rocks and has ads from many different suppliers and covers solar, wind, and hydro.
This next is of course not interesting to Midwesterners in a practical sense, but I thought it was cool - FERC licenses its first wave power plant in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Washington state (Reuters). I just like wave power. I like the idea of it. It seems soothing. Electricity that can make you go ahhhhhhhhhhh…
Now - what sort of environmental impacts does wave power have on marine wildlife? That, I don’t know. All technologies do have impact… that impact is best judged on the basis of life cycle analysis, and relative to the costs of fossil fuels… in this job, I seem to type that sentence endlessly.
But I also think people get it.
And last, generally for dorks (yay, dorks) a an nice overview of biodegradable plastics (CSMonitor). Why is this article getting play on a blog/website about climate and energy? Because most of our plastics today are made from materials derived from petrochemicals, which in turn come primarly from imported oil. Importing oil is highly risky to the nation’s energy security, not to mention the greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on climate change - and then, plastics have disastrous environmental impacts. For many reasons, researchers are seeking other alternatives.
Of course, bioplastics too have an ecological footprint, and in some ways, they aren’t yet all that sustainable. (Ie, “degradable plastic” can be a relative term). Quotable:
“There is a widespread confusion that all [bioplastics] are made from renewable resources and that all of them are biodegradable,” says BPI’s Mojo. “Not all plastics made from renewable resources are biodegradable, and not all that are biodegradable are based on natural resources.”
Also, add in there the consequences of developing bioplastics from food crops - at the same time we are developing biofuels from food crops - and you have a potentially gigantic yikes.
new energy legislation
December 20, 2007
President Bush signed a new energy bill into law. Some folks like it, some don’t, and how it all breaks down might surprise you just a little. Energy and environment are proving to be issues that have the capacity to blur the categories of “usual suspects,” and get some folks to cross party lines. (However limited and marginal that crossing might be.)
A (probably incomplete) summary:
What the bill did:
- Increased CAFE standards (fuel efficiency standards) to 35 mpg by 2020 (a looong way off). This will raise the nation’s fuel efficiency by 40% - from where it was, though, which really wasn’t great.
- Increases biofuels production (right now, that means corn-based ethanol) to 36 billion gallons per year
- Phases out incandescent lightbulbs (which waste 90% of the electricity they use in heat rather than light) which means we will all be buying more CFLs
- increases energy efficiency standards for appliances such as refrigerators, TVs, etc.
What the bill didn’t do:
- Didn’t renew tax credits for renewable energies such as wind and solar. big uh-oh. big!
- Didn’t reduce the colossal subsidies for oil and gas
- Didn’t implement a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
Read More
Bush signs broad energy bill, NYTimes
Energy law leaves out wind, solar tax credits, NPR
New biofuel mandate boon for corn farmers, NPR
House sends president an energy bill to sign, Wash Post
