2011 was a year of much political chest thumping but not much progress on the significant issues. Subsidies for wind energy are among the many unanswered questions and are likely victims of the challenging budget decisions. The industry has grown used to generous subsidies for wind generated electricity. The current subsides are going to expire at the end of 2012 without any guarantee they will be renewed. This leaves the market in an uncertain state.

Along with the government subsidies that provide wind energy producers 2.2cents per kWh, many states have passed renewable energy mandates which required that a certain amount of electricity come from renewable sources. The nascent wind industry has grown a lot recently thanks in large part to innovative insight and support by both state and federal governments. To add to the excitement, wind researchers have produced renewable electricity as cost efficiently as others produce it now from non-renewable sources.

All sources of renewable energy (including solar power and hydro, for example) are in jeopardy of further decline due to the nation’s foreboding economic outlook. It is imperative for wind technology to continue to lower production costs in order to be an important part of the U.S. electricity portfolio moving forward. The bottom line in free markets is invariably cost.

Wind generated electricity has several benefits. Wind provides clean and endless electricity. To survive, the wind industry must effectively combine environmental cleanliness with low cost. In a future with reduced government subsidies and less pressure for renewable energy mandates because of cost concerns, it has to be able to compete on cost to remain viable. In the wind industry’s favor is the fact that fossil fueled power has continually risen over time in cost. If renewables continue to go down in price the two will ultimately intersect.

However, one fossil fuel – natural gas – has made strong advancements in cost. This provides a formidable challenge for the alternative energy industry. Since 2008, new natural gas drilling technology advancements have triggered a dramatic decline in electricity rates in Texas. Texas, along with a number of other states, gets a significant percentage of its power from natural gas plants. Because of this, the wind industry faces a huge cost challenge for the near future.

A major complaint about wind energy is that it doesn’t produce electricity consistently and predictably. After all, simply building wind turbines doesn’t guarantee that the wind will blow to turn them. The result of idle equipment is zero electricity production. Because there are no effective technologies to control the wind, there is no good way to calculate just how much electricity will be generated at any given moment from a particular wind turbine. If the wind industry can develop technologies that first stores the overflow of electricity produced when the wind is active and then steadily supplies it to consumers, then renewable wind energy will grow in future importance. There are many interesting technologies on the horizon for solving this issue, but today none of them are at a stage where they could be implemented on a large-scale and to great effect.

Article by Devon Bass who has been active in the energy markets for 16 years, first as a trader then as a consultant.

He is the founder of Vault Energy Solutions and the Texas Chamber of Commerce Energy Association.

Related posts:

• Will the Japanese Wind Tower Be the Future of Wind Power?
• New Jersey to Take Lead in Offshore Wind Energy?
• Home-Grown Wind Power Takes Root
• Japanese Wind Farms Keep Spinning In The Wake Of Fukushima
• Additional Wind Generators to Arise Alongside Lake Erie

Protecting the electric system from cyber threats and ensuring its resilience are vital to our national security and economic well-being.  This is exactly why cybersecurity is one of four key themes in the White House’s Policy Framework for a 21st Century Grid. For obvious reasons, the private sector shares our interest in a safe and secure electric grid. The Administration has benefited from working closely with industry, including to develop the Roadmap to Achieve Energy Delivery Systems Cybersecurity, released by the Department of Energy last September.

To continue that close cooperation, last week Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Poneman and I, along with senior officials from Department of Homeland Security, hosted industry leaders to discuss a new initiative to further protect the electric grid from cyber risks. This initiative — the Electric Sector Cybersecurity Risk Maturity Model Pilot — is a new White House initiative led by the Department of Energy, in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security, to develop a model to help us identify how secure the electric grid is from cyber threats and test that model with participating utilities. Gaining knowledge about strengths and remaining gaps across the grid will better inform investment planning and research and development, and enhance our public-private partnership efforts.

I was encouraged to see an impressive number of electric sector leaders participating and sharing their views with us. Their high level of interest in this new effort reaffirmed for me that these stakeholders share our desire to better understand the strengths and remaining gaps across the sector, so that together we can continue to take concrete steps to protect the electric grid from cyber threats.

We look forward to continued cooperation with our partners in industry to ensure this initiative builds on industry efforts and becomes a meaningful tool to create a modern, secure electric grid that carries us through the 21st century.

Related posts:

• U.S. Unveils Programs to Modernize Electric Grid System
• Smart Grid Still Vulnerable to Cyber-Attack
• Stimulus Update: Smart Grid Funding Guidelines Released
• Vehicle to Grid Storage and the Future of Electric Vehicles
• Data Center Virtualization: Cloud Computing – Ease Up on Security to Keep Carbon Under Check?

This week, CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley joined Mayor Jeri Muoio in West Palm Beach to tour Northboro Elementary School – a recently modernized LEED Gold certified school that’s gaining attention as a model for smart investment in sustainability. Northboro is a great example of how investing in modernization helps schools direct money to their classrooms instead of to their energy bills. The elementary school has saved more than 16 percent in energy costs — enough to pay for at least one teacher each year — through upgrades including advanced lighting and ventilation systems.

Schools spend more than $6 billion annually on their energy bills — more than they spend on computers and textbooks combined. The average public school building in the United States is more than 40 years old, and many struggle with old, inefficient, or broken heating and cooling systems and a host of other challenges, from crumbling roofs to outdated textbooks. As the President said:

“We can’t expect American kids to do their best in places that are falling apart. This is America. Every kid deserves a great school — and we can give it to them.”

That’s why, in the American Jobs Act, the President proposed a $25 billion investment in school infrastructure to modernize at least 35,000 public schools across the country. The funds would provide for a range of emergency repair and renovation projects, energy efficiency upgrades, asbestos abatement and removal, new science and computer labs, and internet-ready classrooms – and put 16,000 Americans back to work making those upgrades.

Modernizing our schools makes sense for American students, and makes sense for schools’ bottom lines. Northboro Elementary is a clear example of how this investment would create jobs, improve classrooms, and bring our schools into the 21st century.

Taryn Tuss is Acting Communications Director at the White House Council on Environmental Quality

Related posts:

• Time for a More Efficient Florida
• 10 Common Misconceptions About Residential Solar
• Governor Cuomo Gets Serious about Solar
• Cost of Solar Power in Italy Could Soon Rival Coal-Generated Power
• Two More Desert Solar Power Projects Approved in California

According to KPMG’s Cleantech Report Card, British Columbia (BC) may be the third largest cleantech cluster worldwide. The Canadian province has had a carbon tax since 2008 and its government became carbon-neutral in 2010. BC sits on enormous natural gas reserves, and its hydro-enabled energy prices are low. So what will drive cleantech adoption?

For a major breakthrough, a two-pronged approach is needed:

• Implementation of a planned cap-and-trade system, a favorable investment climate, strong R&D and incubation, and low corporate taxes
• Strong public demand supported by lifestyle branding for green buildings, low-emission transportation, waste-to-energy conversion, and a sustainability-oriented consumer mindset

Despite a favorable cleantech climate in Canada (the government’s posture not withstanding) the public’s concern with climate change is decreasing and adoption of new consumer paradigms is slow. Examples are NIMBY resistance to incineration and the current smart metering backlash against BC Hydro.

In Europe, cleantech, such as new garbage collection methodologies and WtE conversion had to be successfully sold to an initially skeptical public using massive public awareness campaigns. That process continues to be both consumer-driven and top-down.

While 83% of US shoppers now make some form of green choice (Natural Marketing Institute), they need to both see the benefits and feel that a sustainable lifestyle aligns with personal values.

For broad acceptance, cleantech has to offer tangible value. It has to be cost-competitive, supported by credible claims, and become an integral part of the normal lifestyle by a large part of the population.

In today’s disorienting culture, consumers search for safety, meaning and values. While tribes, sectarianism, brands, and niche lifestyles are flourishing, much of the public is looking for “the right thing to do”. This is where values marketing comes in.
In order to succeed, green products need to primarily provide a cost benefit, since this continues to be the number one consumer driver. It should also be easy to use, “cool” to engage with, and desirable for one’s personal brand image. Not surprisingly, the Toyota Prius is not bought primarily for its fuel efficiency, but often more for personal prestige and lifestyle reasons.

Successful products are 50% content and 50% packaging/design, as Apple has proven time and again. Businesses and service providers need to do a better “packaging” job by using lifestyle and values-based, “eco advantage” branding free of green-washing.

Global cleantech venture capital funding has grown 23% in Q311 and BC offers many opportunities. In order for these to grow into mainstream services and brands, businesses need to not only innovate, but also successfully market and leverage their innovation into consumer and financial good will.

Investing in green branding strategies not only manages down-side risks, but builds significant public trust. This will translate to the bottom line and grow into a brand asset value that can be significantly higher than a company’s IP.

Article by Stephan Burckhardt, a cleantech, high-tech brand and marketing consultant based in British Columbia.

photo: bott.richard

Related posts:

• US-Canadian HVDC Transmission
• Growth of Wood Pellet Industry Driven by Clean-Energy Demand in Europe
• Top Ten Highlights of Cleantech Vancouver, BC Canada
• British Columbia Approves 19 Green Power Projects
• Green Power in Ontario Inspires British Columbia

It was a rough year for Congress. The Republican and Democrats, the House and Senate — no one could seem to agree.

Unless we are talking about green buildings.

In June, I reported on the Department of Defense Reauthorization bill that passed the House of Representatives. In the legislation, the Department of Defense was banned from pursuing LEED Gold or Platinum certification.

But would the Senate agree to a similar LEED ban?

As reported by Lloyd Alter at Treehugger, the Senate passed the House bill with an Amendment that did not mention LEED. Thus, the Senate passed the House’s LEED ban for DoD projects. You can review the messy details at Thomas.gov.

Here is the actual text of the LEED ban:

What is the intent behind the LEED ban? Is Congress concerned about the financial outlay for LEED certification? Or is Congress trying to reign in the design and construction of plush government buildings?

In fact, the intent of the LEED ban stems from a much more contested issue — the wood wars. One member of Congress explained that he supported the DoD LEED ban because he believes LEED inaccurately evaluates wood products:

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., helped lead the effort to place the language into the appropriations bill on grounds that the Pentagon needed to think more about building products’ green qualities over the course of their entire life–from the moment a product’s raw materials are extracted from the earth to when that product’s components are tossed out or, even better, recycled. This notion, called “life-cycle analysis,” has been gaining much momentum in the green building community. And on this front, some groups–including the Green Building Initiative program, a rival to USGBC’s LEED–have embraced life-cycle analysis.

“As the Department of Defense works to improve energy efficiency, it is important that its building standards be based on sound science and incorporate due process in their development and implementation,” Wicker said in a statement. “Standards should take into consideration the full life cycle of wood products, including the environmental benefits provided by our domestic reforestation programs. After completing this study, the Department of Defense should use credible standards that more accurately assess U.S. wood products.”

After reading that quote, I couldn’t help but think of the fateful vote this past year when USGBC members shot down a LEED credit that would have recognized alternative wood certifications. Under the existing LEED rating system, points are only allocated for wood products certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

I don’t think I can overstate how important this LEED ban is for future green building policy. For example, the Navy was the first federal agency to adopt LEED certification when it did so in 2000. The Navy will have to rewrite its current LEED policies (or submit waivers for every project):

The Navy continues to aggressively pursue sustainable development; in May 2011, the Secretary of the Navy announced that all Department of the Navy Military Construction (MILCON) projects will be built to LEED Gold standards. For FY11 and FY12, applicable MILCON projects shall achieve sustainable design and construction equivalent to or above LEED Gold, with certain exceptions. For FY 13 and later, applicable MILCON projects will be required to achieve sustainable design and construction equivalent to, or above, LEED Gold.

The DoD could certainly decide to continue pursuing LEED Gold and Platinum certifications. But will DoD officials fight for LEED certification while other military programs are facing substantial cuts? This legislation will likely have a chilling effect not only on DoD green building projects but also on other federal agencies. Congress has clearly expressed an intent to not support LEED Gold and Platinum projects. Don’t be surprised to see agencies adopting the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) in lieu of LEED certification.

Do you think federal officials will be willing to ask for LEED waivers?

Article by Chris Cheatham, appearing courtesy Green Building Law Update.

Green Building Law Update is published to inform the construction and design industries about green building risks and legal developments. Launched in 2008, the website has served as a forum to discuss green building litigation, regulations, policy and trends.

Related posts:

• Congress Requires Department of Defense to Perform Cost Benefit Analysis
• Energy Programs Brace for Deep Spending Cuts After Debt Deal
• LEED “Pledge” to Replace LEED Bond
• Star Architect Gehry: ‘A lot of LEED Is Given for Bogus Stuff’
• Summer Reading for Green Building

Bill Moore, editor of EVWorld.com has written a splendid article on the failure of certain of the early electric vehicle companies, in which he points out:

Breaking into the automotive business can be relatively easy; making a success of it is pretty damned near impossible, regardless of what type of propulsion system you favor: ICE-age or otherwise; and it’s especially tough if you decide to go electric. Beyond this, the reasons for individual failures are myriad and multiple: right product, wrong time, wrong product; wrong time, etc. Management missteps, unrealistic investor expectations and impatience, government responsiveness, inept marketing, unanticipated technical setbacks, product shortcomings, public resistance to change: the list is long.

I don’t dispute any of this, but let’s look at the subject from a “big picture” perspective. As a country, we’re still married to fossil fuels, and we’re doing essentially nothing about it In particular, we have no energy policy. Hell, we’re about to build an oil pipeline, the Keystone XL, right through the middle of the continent, one that may be unnecessary and that even some oil companies think is overpriced.

At the same time, we don’t have an iota of horsepower in Congress examining the big ideas. If I (or you) were there, we’d be saying:

Here’s a list of major reasons (I’ve left out the minor ones) to phase out fossil fuels aggressively:

• National security / terrorism

• Health / lung disease

• Global climate change, ocean acidification and other ecological disasters

• Skyrocketing / crippling debt

• War which we can’t afford, and leave countless dead and wounded

• Peak oil, coupled with burgeoning urban/consumer populations globally

You can argue about the relative importance of each of these, but for my money, we’ve spent enough time arguing about this garbage already. Now the time has come for action, and we’re going to take it, regardless of what the oil companies say. We have a responsibility at this time and place in history, and by God, we’re going to live up to it.

Gullible guy that I am, I still believe that someone in a position of power will ask me to draft a plan that phases fossil fuels out forcibly over the next 25 years, and eliminates them completely by 2050. As always, I’ll be happy to serve.

Related posts:

• Insight into Dell’s Sustainability Initiatives
• With oil at $65 will renewables lose steam?
• What is the Downside to Environmentalism?
• India May Make CSR Spending Mandatory
• Big Oil’s Collective Responsibility

Geoff Cutmore, Squawk Box anchor for CNBC and host of Energy Opportunities highlights the thoughts of some of the key voices in energy innovation.

With a growing global population, growth in energy use is inevitable. Experts are grappling for the best way to manage resources, often adopting new technologies to increase the production of low carbon fuel sources. This is no easy task and something that is one of the principal challenges being discussed on Energy Opportunities, a global brainstorm to explore the energy options of the future.

Sachs on bringing sustainable energy to the developing world
In building for a sustainable future, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Economist and Director of the Earth Institute, Columbia University recently argued that there is no development without electricity. He noted that well over a billion people worldwide have no access to electricity and that until they do, they won’t be able to access high living standards or sustained economic growth.

Sachs finds energy solutions for the world a vast challenge – mainly because we need energy supplies that are secure, but also environmentally safe and low in carbon emissions. This transition to a low carbon economy for the world means the mobilization of new technologies and new kinds of energy sources.

Sachs does however note that there is a clear opportunity for developing countries to build systems that generate electricity from scratch in an environmentally friendly manner. Again, this is by no means an easy proposition. Mobilizing technology, re-thinking systems, global financing and social policies that bridge the gap between the rich and the poor are all pieces of a complex mix. But the puzzle needs to be solved, because it is crucial to global development.

Bazerman on clearing the hurdles to innovation
Innovation will play a key role in improving the world’s approach to energy, but as Max Bazerman, Professor at Harvard University and the Harvard Business School, recently pointed out there are many psychological barriers to action in this area. Scientists and policy makers have come up with great ideas to improve energy efficiency; Bazerman notes three problems in the way of progress :

1. Research demonstrates that people far too often focus their attentions on short term considerations, despite contentions that they want to leave the world in a good condition for future generations.
2. We interpret events in a self-serving manner that leads us to expect others to do more to solve energy problems. For example, emerging nations blame the west for its excessive energy consumption; while the US government blames China and India for failing to adopt smarter energy innovations
3. Positive illusions lead us to think that energy problems don’t exist or are not severe enough for us to action. In other words we stick our heads in the sand. These illusions are responsible for reducing the quality of the decision making in how to innovate and improve the situation through new technologies.

This calls for us to recognize and overcome barriers to action and encourage leaders to remove these challenges so that the fundamental changes can be made to the way we approach energy technology.

Lomborg on innovating the price of green technologies
The price of innovation is another key concern. With politicians incentivised to meet minimum emission targets, Bjørn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, has recently pointed out that we could be wasting large sums of money on reducing carbon emissions by only a few tonnes rather than preparing for a truly low carbon future. A small number of solar panels and wind turbines may be a step in the right direction, but do not provide a full response to how sustainable clean energy solutions can be properly applied.

Innovating the price of green technology would help prevent this from continuing. The best way to make this happen is to stop investment in ineffective policies that have been followed for the past twenty years and look at allocating more resource into scientific research that breed game changing solutions.

Understanding the barriers to innovation
There is clearly an opportunity to innovate the way energy production and consumption is managed. However the first step in making new sustainable, low carbon alternatives a reality is understanding the very barriers that are preventing innovative solutions from being adopted on a widespread basis.

Related posts:

• Dispatches from Ontario: Water Is the Next Big Environmental Issue
• Our Latest Open Innovation Ecosystem: Energy.Data.Gov
• Entrepreneur Creates Energy Efficient Air Conditioner to Help Consumers Save Money
• New Innovation System Urged for Developing Renewable Energy
• The 8th Wharton Energy Conference: “Energy’s Future: Bridging the Gap”

The Production Tax Credit may not be America’s best policy tool for incentivizing clean energy development, but it’s what we’ve got — and it must be renewed

There are three letters on the minds of those in America’s renewable energy sector: PTC. The acronym stands for Production Tax Credit, a critical tax incentive that is set to expire in 2012 unless Congress takes action. Considering the PTC’s on-again, off-again status over the years — and that on matters concerning clean energy investments, Congressional Republicans seem more focused on investigating the loan guarantees issued to the solar manufacturer Solyndra, which went bankrupt in September — the proponents of renewable energy are rightfully concerned.

The PTC is the main financial assistance vehicle that renewable energy investors and developers receive from the federal government, amounting to 2.2 cents per kWh over the first 10-year period that an approved facility is in operation. The wind industry in particular relies heavily on this credit, which has been critical in driving the sector’s growth over the past seven years.[1] IHS Emerging Energy Research, an independent advisory firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says that without the PTC, wind installations could plummet from a forecasted annual peak of 10.5 GW in 2012 to 1.5 GW in 2013.[2]

A Bipartisan Bill to Extend PTC
On November 2, representatives Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) introduced the bill H.R. 3307, The American Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Extension Act of 2011, to extend the PTC.[3] But even though it has bipartisan support and would extend the federal tax credit through 2016 for installations of wind, solar and hydro, its fate is unclear. The credit has been in existence in various forms since the Energy Policy Act of 1992, but Congress has regularly flip-flopped between renewing and retiring it.

On Tuesday, 23 governors sent Congress a joint letter crafted by the Governors Wind Energy Coalition, urging both houses to “promptly pass a multi-year extension of the wind tax credit,” noting that “without policy certainty, investors, developers, and manufacturers will move projects and jobs elsewhere.” The governors also noted, “Like the oil and gas industries — which enjoy substantial tax credits that have not expired in nearly 100 years — wind energy, a domestic source of energy, needs a predictable policy for sustained economic growth and innovation.”[4]

Always Up in the Air: The Boom-Bust Cylce
“The wind industry is facing the recurrence of the boom-bust cycle it saw in previous years when the PTC was allowed to expire,” said Peter Kelley, Vice President of Public Affairs at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), in an email. “In the years following expiration, installations dropped by between 73 and 93 percent, resulting in significant job losses.” He said that layoffs have already started and that the total job losses incurred by a lapse in the PTC would be in the thousands. The AWEA has launched a petition that American citizens can sign to urge their representative to co-sponsor the bill.

Opponents of the PTC argue that this seesaw cycle leads to a concentration of production at the end of the fiscal year, and provides little forecasting stability for developers. “Boom and bust development is no way to run a business and is certainly no way to create a dynamic and healthy renewable energy industry,” writes Paul Gipe, author of Wind Energy Basics: A Guide to Home- and Community-scale Wind Energy Systems. “Companies expand then contract, hiring and then firing in an oft-repeated cycle. When developers have been bitten by the gold fever, impacts on the environment and on nearby communities take a back seat to getting projects ‘in the ground.’”[6]

The Door is Closing, The PTC Should be Extended
Still, Kelley pointed out that the PTC helps to maintain low electricity rates, encourages clean energy project development, helps the wind industry reduce power cost by more than 90 percent, provides energy for the equivalent of 10 million homes and spurs economic development in every state, providing work at over 400 American manufacturing facilities.

In the end, the PTC may not be the ultimate federal policy tool for incentivizing investments in renewable energy, but it’s the tool that is right in front of us. And considering that Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney chooses to fly in the face of science and utter things like, “We don’t know what’s causing climate change,”[7] it’s imperative to keep alive those federal incentives that help transition the United States to a low carbon economy while we still can.

Perhaps a more substantive national discussion about global warming and our energy infrastructure will happen before it’s to late, but as Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), recently said, “the door is closing quickly.”[8] Birol’s warning came as the IEA released the most comprehensive analysis of global energy infrastructure, finding that the world is headed for irreversible climate change within five years if mankind continues to build fossil fuel infrastructure.[9]

“Delaying action is a false economy,” according to an IEA statement issued on November 9 in London. “For every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”[10] Congress should take the IEA report into consideration and pass a four-year extension of the PTC. Hopefully a little more wind in America’s energy infrastructure will keep that door open a little bit longer.

Article by Reynard Loki a Justmeans staff writer, appearing courtesy 3BL Media.

Related posts:

• US Wind Energy Suffers in 2010, Cost-Competitive with Natural Gas in 2011
• New Website Asks For Support For Wind Power Jobs
• Wind Industry Makes $10 Billion Case for Tax Credit
• Can We Reach 100% Renewable Power by 2030?
• France to Have 3,000 MW of Offshore Wind by 2015

Contrary to common belief that nothing is really happening in green building at the Congressional level these days, I provide the following two counterexamples.

 An amendment to the Senate Appropriations Bill for Energy and Water introduced by Senators Wicker (R-MS), Boozman (R-AR), and Inhofe (R-OK) would essentially eliminate the use of LEED and Energy Star for DOE green building programs.  According to the NRDC:  

This rider would prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from using strong green building energy rating standards. The amendment limits DOE to using only green building standards that are developed and approved in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) rules. Such a requirement would effectively limit DOE to using only the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and Green Globes building standards.The amendment would disallow the use of many other strong rating systems, including LEED, EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager, and EPA Energy Star Homes, which have substantially increased the number of environmentally-friendly buildings in our country.
 

In other news, Rep. Charles J. Fleischmann [R-TN-3] introduced a bill yesterday in the House H.R.3441 to repeal the Department of Energy’s home weatherization assistance program.  The DOE weatherization assistance program provides funding to states to weatherize the homes of low income households to make them more energy efficient.  According to the WAP website:

During the past 33 years, WAP has provided weatherization services to more than 6.4 million low-income households. Families receiving weatherization services see their annual energy bills reduced by an average of about $437, depending on fuel prices.  

According to a recent release from the National Association for State Community Services Programs, the WAP received $5b in funding from ARRA, which weatherized 534,208 low-income houses through August 2011. This made the WAP seventh out of approximately 200 federal programs funded by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) in jobs created or retained, with 14,090 jobs  for the third quarter beginning July 1 and ending September 30, 2011.

The bill is not yet available from the GPO, but it can be followed on Thomas through this link. 

Related posts:

• Obama Calls for Energy Bill, But No Mention of Cap and Trade
• Where is Cap & Trade Legislation Now?
• China Introduces a Unified Grid Feed-in Tariff for Solar Power
• Obama to Keep Pushing for Climate Bill
• Obama’s Chief Science Advisor Warns Congress Over Carbon Emissions

Editor’s Note: This blog introduces readers to Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President and CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group.

As one of the largest electricity generators in the U.S., we, at Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), believe that EPA’s air pollutant regulations should be viewed as an opportunity to modernize the nation’s electric power infrastructure. PSEG has been a long-time advocate of these Clean Air Act regulations and has put its money where its mouth is, investing over one and a half billion dollars in improvements to its coal-fired plants. These regulations will not only improve air quality for our nation’s citizens, but will also create jobs and an active marketplace for emissions trading.

Frankly, action is long overdue. The air pollutant regulations proposed by EPA are in response to the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of two rules (the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule) originally proposed by the Bush Administration. Thus, these regulations do not come out of the blue. The regulatory process for regulating toxic air emissions commenced over two decades ago, and the court concluded CAIR was “fundamentally flawed” in 2008.

For our part at PSEG, we believed it made good business sense to be proactive in positioning our generation fleet to meet what the rules would require.  During the past five years, we have invested more than $2 billion to replace inefficient, older generating units and upgrade our existing facilities in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. These air quality standards are achievable with the appropriate investment. For example, nearly 60 percent of all coal-fired boilers that submitted data to EPA are currently achieving the Utility Toxics Rule’s proposed mercury standards. Existing pollution control technologies have demonstrated their mettle, and they need to be further deployed throughout the nation.

Our experience shows that it is possible to clean the air, create jobs, and power the economy at the same time. For example, our New Jersey coal plants with their various pollution-control systems have been able to reduce, by over 90 percent, emissions of mercury, acid gases and soot. Installing the systems created approximately 1,600 construction jobs and enabled us to add dozens of full-time positions. We are proud of these results and proud to have facilities that are among the cleanest coal stations in America.

Reliability is a critical consideration at all times in the electric power industry. We believe our industry is capable of meeting these clean air rules while maintaining electric system reliability. The U.S. bulk power system, at an aggregate level, has adequate spare capacity to absorb potential retirements. Many of the uncontrolled units, which are most likely to retire, are smaller, inefficient units and companies are already making retirement decisions independent of the Utility Toxics Rule due to fundamental economics. Moreover, the electric industry has a proven track record of adding additional generating capacity and transmission solutions when and where needed and of coordinating effectively to address reliability concerns.

The Clean Air Act gives affected sources three years from the issuance of the final rules to comply with the regulations. Further, if there are isolated reliability issues in areas of heavy demand as a result of implementing the air regulations affecting the electric sector, existing risk management procedures under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Power Act, and other statutes already provide EPA, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the President with tools to address unforeseen impacts on electric system reliability on an individual basis.

Simply put, the time is overdue to implement the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Doing so will help provide much needed certainty to invest in capital-intensive projects such as power plants that operate for 40 years or longer. Having these regulations in place will make it clear what the energy industry needs to do. In contrast, any significant delay for these rules will only perpetuate uncertainty where clarity is needed. The time for action is now.

Ralph Izzo is Chairman, President and CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group

Photo: Mario’s planet

Article appearing courtesy White House Blog.

Related posts:

• How Many Jobs are Truly Created in a “Green Economy?”
• The Energy of Entrepreneurs
• Celeb Campaign Pushes Clean Energy Economy
• The Glass is More than Half Full: Impact of Clean Technology on Job Creation
• Film Industry Meets Ontario’s Solar Economy