The Hawaii Solar Energy Association has issued a note welcoming the decision by state regulators to reject a proposal by Hawaiian Electric Co. to require solar companies to install expensive remote monitoring systems for small solar photovoltaic systems.

“The Public Utilities Commission’s ruling helps clear the path for households and businesses that want to invest in Hawai‘i’s clean energy future,” said Jeff Mikulina, Executive Director of the Blue Planet Foundation, a Hawaii nonprofit committed to ending the use of fossil fuels. “By rejecting unnecessary new costs and hassles for clean power, this decision moves Hawaii a step closer to energy independence.”

There’s concern among solar energy companies that utilities could curtail the amount of solar power generated from panels and raise costs for customers.

Inside ClimateNews has an in-depth article about the issue, which also affects California. The point of contention is a rule whereby distributed energy (such as rooftop PV solar power) needs to undergo a bureaucratic review once it reaches 15 per cent of peak demand on a local circuit. Solar advocates in California and Hawaii, which pushed for the threshold a decade ago, now feel it is too low and the costs involved too high.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• Hawaii Celebrates Alternative Energy Achievement
• Update on SDG&E’s Special Charge for Solar Customers
• Green Law: Supreme Court Decision on Wastewater Dumping
• Green Business Blog Carnival Week 10
• Maine Moves To Reduce Oil Consumption

Having served in the military, I’m intimately aware of the role that energy plays in our ability to defend and uphold our national security. This became apparent to me in many ways during my time in the field, to the safety of my unit who ran fuel supply convoys in theater and the dangers we faced in carrying our duties, to hearing about the economic struggles of my relatives and friends back home to afford gas to drive and heat their homes. We understand, perhaps better than anyone, that our pursuit of energy independence and national security are closely linked.

I also know the struggles faced by many Veterans once they leave the service and try to find quality work. Last year for example, the unemployment rate for veterans who served after September 11th was 11.5% compared to 9.4% unemployment amongst non-veterans. Potential employers don’t always understand the value and experience that Veterans can bring to the workforce. And in some cases, it’s difficult for Veterans to express how the jobs we were trained to do in the military are transferable to jobs on the outside. Veterans have the skills, knowledge, leadership and professionalism to excel in any number of fields – including the energy sector. We simply need a bridge to join the wider workforce and contribute to the jobs of the future.

This week, Secretary Chu joined the Edison Electric Institute and the Center for Energy Workforce Development as they announced a new program that will help bridge that divide and increase opportunities for Veterans in the energy sector. “Troops to Energy Jobs” brings together public, non-profit and private sector partners in a pilot program that will provide transitional career training and counseling to help Veterans enter the workforce and get jobs in the energy industry.

A partnership program like “Troops to Energy Jobs” is a great first step in the direction of helping solve the critical problem of Veterans unemployment in this country. The program will be managed by the Center for Energy Workforce Development, a non-profit group of electric, natural gas and nuclear utility companies. The Energy Department will contribute to this partnership through the National Training Education Resource Center (NTER), a virtual campus that can offer interactive training for people online. After training, Veterans can be matched and then enter jobs related to their training with private sector employers who value the skills and experience we bring to the workforce. “Troops to Energy Jobs” is launching as a pilot program and its sponsors hope to be able to expand it to the entire energy industry.

As a proud Veteran and new employee at Energy, I know how much this effort means to those who have served and are eager to continue their contribution to our national security. I look forward to following the stories of Veterans as they go through the program and begin to translate their military skills in to energy sector achievements.

Article by Steve Dunwoody, Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Energy and an Iraq War Veteran.

Related posts:

• Training Veterans for the Clean Energy Economy
• Powering the Military with Game-Changing Solar Tech
• Fastest Growing Industry in the U.S. – Solar Energy
• France Announces Massive Investment in Cleantech
• New Energy for America – And New Jobs

Three years after unveiling his plan for U.S. energy independence, which won praise from environmentalists for its reliance on wind power, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens is back with a proposal to convert the U.S. trucking fleet to natural gas. But as his new plan gains traction, questions arise over how green it really is.

Remember the Pickens Plan?

Three years ago, with a flurry of national publicity, billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens outlined his vision of how to help wean the U.S. off imported oil. The crux of the plan was to build a massive, $1 trillion network of wind farms stretching from Texas to North Dakota, which would replace domestic natural gas used to generate electricity. The excess natural gas would then be used to power millions of American trucks and cars, thus freeing the U.S. from the shackles of OPEC oil.

Even some environmentalists swooned over the Pickens Plan, with Carl Pope, then executive director of the Sierra Club, saying, “To put it plainly, T. Boone Pickens is out to save America.”

Within a year, however, the wind-power scheme was all but dead, and soon Pickens – and his multimillion-dollar ad campaign – had largely faded from the airwaves.

Now, however, Pickens and his plan are back, although the Texan’s new version is a good deal less green, considerably more dependent on controversial methods of extracting natural gas, and focused tightly on a single immediate goal: converting 8 million of the U.S.’s largest trucks, including its 18-wheel, tractor-trailer rigs, from diesel fuel to compressed natural gas.

In the past two weeks, Pickens and his plan have gotten a boost from none other than President Obama, who in a March 30 speech on energy security praised Pickens’ goal of expanding the use of natural gas in the nation’s transportation sector and called on members of Congress to support legislation that would increase the extraction and use of natural gas “in a safe, environmentally sound way.”

Last Thursday, at Pickens’ urging, a bipartisan group of 76 members of the House of Representatives introduced a bill that would provide tax credits of up to $64,000 per truck or vehicle to convert the nation’s large trucks and corporate and government fleets to compressed natural gas. Pickens predicted that the bill would receive more than 300 votes in the House and could pass as early as May, before moving to the U.S. Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has voiced support for Pickens’ new plan. The nation’s truckers are keeping a close eye on the legislation, saying much would depend on the size of the tax credit. Pickens repeatedly points out that recent events, including soaring oil prices and instability in the Middle East, have considerably strengthened his case for turning to natural gas as a way of breaking U.S. addiction to foreign oil.

With momentum building for the Pickens Plan, Part 2, the question is whether it is good for the nation’s energy security, good for the environment, or just good for T. Boone Pickens. Some transportation and energy experts say that the new Pickens plan indeed has merit and — with a significant caveat — is worthy of support. But other energy experts and environmentalists say it is a misguided attempt to impose a single “silver bullet” solution on the transportation sector and commits the U.S. to a long-term embrace of fossil fuels.

It was probably inevitable that Pickens would not remain the darling of environmentalists.

“It was a big disappointment when T. Boone Pickens walked away from the wind side of his plan,” said David Friedman, research director for the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “He kept saying that this wasn’t about private interests, it was about the nation and the world. But to dump the part that actually had the greatest potential to cut global warming and pollution and help create new jobs in the U.S., in favor of the piece that really does most benefit his bottom line, was a disappointment.”

Although many environmentalists heaped accolades on Pickens when he announced his plan in 2008, it was probably inevitable he would not remain the darling of the environmental movement for long. At heart, Pickens is an oil and gas man whose fortune and business interests are grounded in fossil fuels. As a founder of Mesa Petroleum, he made billions in the oil business, starting in the 1950s. Today, he heads BP Capital, which invests in the oil, gas, and energy sectors.

In a recent meeting with reporters at Yale University, Pickens made it clear that he remains an enthusiastic booster of hydrocarbons, that he doesn’t foresee a transition to renewable energy anytime soon, that he isn’t convinced about human-caused global warming, and that he certainly doesn’t believe that hydrofracking — a controversial practice that extracts natural gas from shale — poses any serious environmental risks.

“You’re stuck with hydrocarbons — come on, get real,” Pickens, the 82-year-old Oklahoma native blessed with a silver tongue and a self-deprecatory, down-home charm, told the reporters. “I’ve been in meetings before where somebody says, ‘I want to cut out all coal-fired plants and go to wind.’ What are you talking about? I mean you’d run the price of electricity 10 times what it is [now]. Realistically you’ve got to use coal and you’ve got to use oil and, no, I don’t approach it from an environmental standpoint. But my record is good on the environment.”

When I asked Pickens whether human activity is causing the planet to warm, he replied, “I’m not saying that we’ve gone that far, but I’m saying we have caused some problems… I think we screwed around with the thing. I don’t know what we’ve impacted, but I’ve seen enough that I believe that we have messed up some things.”

At heart, his plan was not about going green, but about breaking our addiction to imported oil.

Pickens’ proposal has struck a sympathetic chord across the political spectrum, for reasons of both economic and national security. At heart, his plan was never about going green, it was about breaking our addiction to imported oil, and as far as Pickens is concerned, anything that helps end that addiction – natural gas, wind, solar, corn ethanol — is okay by him. “Anything American, I’m for,” Pickens told a large and enthusiastic crowd at Yale University Law School last month.

He said his plan to help jump-start the nation’s wind energy industry fell victim to a simple economic truth: with the growing exploitation of natural gas reserves trapped in underground shale formations, natural gas prices have fallen to the point where wind power is not economically competitive, especially considering the cost of connecting wind farms to the national electricity grid. In 2009, Pickens put on hold his own plans to create a giant wind farm in West Texas, and he is now in the process of selling roughly 250 turbines from his proposed project to other North American wind farms.

Pickens has now shifted his hopes of ending America’s dependence on foreign oil — at least in the next several decades — to the country’s abundant natural gas supplies. His arithmetic is simple. He argues that if a concerted effort is made to shift America’s 8 million tractor-trailers and large trucks from diesel to cheaper compressed natural gas (CNG), the U.S. can largely end its dependence on OPEC oil within a decade. (He refers to OPEC as “the enemy,” since Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries have channeled money to Islamic fundamentalists.) By converting government and business fleet vehicles, and even some cars, to natural gas, Pickens says the country can begin to reduce oil imports from non-OPEC countries. “If we miss this opportunity,” he told the Yale audience, “all of us will go down in history as the dumbest crowd that ever came around.”

The House bill introduced last week would cost the U.S. treasury roughly $3 billion to $4 billion in tax credits for converting millions of trucks to natural gas, Pickens said, contending that the shift to CNG trucks and a national CNG fueling infrastructure would be a powerful engine of job creation. Pickens also is urging Obama to issue an executive order mandating that in the future all new federal vehicles run on domestic energy supplies, which Pickens says would further speed the transition to natural gas vehicles.

Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, said he supported Pickens’ plan and the government tax credits. “Should have done it ages ago,” Smil said in an email interview.

Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the nonprofit government watchdog group, Public Citizen, said that even though Pickens is promoting an energy program that would be “enormously beneficial to his fortune,” the plan to convert the nation’s heavy trucks to compressed natural gas has some merit. Large tractor-trailers are too heavy to be powered by electric engines, and natural gas does burn more cleanly than diesel fuel, Slocum said.

The problem is that much of the natural gas Pickens is counting on would come from fracking.

The problem, said Slocum, is that much of the natural gas Pickens is counting on to power the U.S. trucking industry will come from the hydro-fracturing, or fracking, of shales — a process in which a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals is forced at high pressure deep underground to free natural gas trapped in shale formations. An increasing number of reports by the media and state regulators indicate that fracking, if poorly done, can contaminate water supplies.

Slocum said the only way the government should support the conversion of heavy trucks to compressed natural gas is if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency begins to strictly regulate fracking under the Clean Water Act; fracking was exempted from the act under legislation passed in 2005 during the administration of George W. Bush. Federal oversight is particularly important, Slocum said, because state environmental agencies are overwhelmed trying to monitor pollution emanating from the fracking boom sweeping much of the U.S.

“I think natural gas has huge advantages if extracted in clean ways, and that is going to entail federal regulation,” Slocum said. “The national security issue of importing 65 percent of our oil is significant. But so are issues of drinking water contamination in a large number of states.”

In his Yale speech, Pickens said that water pollution from fracking is “not an issue” because the shale deposits are far below aquifers. “I do not know of any problems with freshwater aquifers being damaged by hydrofracking,” Pickens said.

Other transportation experts chiefly object to Pickens’ latest plan because it uses government policies to promote a specific technology, rather than leveling the marketplace to enable a host of potentially effective transportation and energy technologies to emerge.

“In general, I do not look fondly upon these technology winner-picking adventures that have been, and continue to be, a hallmark of America’s failed energy policy,” John M. DeCicco, of the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment, said. “The U.S. transportation energy market is way too huge to create a business case for anything through taxpayer subsidies.” Citing the synthetic fuel initiative of the Carter administration and other U.S. policies, DeCicco added, “How many times does the country have to get it wrong before realizing that such approaches don’t work?”

Friedman of the Union Concerned Scientists agrees with DeCicco that trying to pick a “flavor of the month” in transportation fuels, such as compressed natural gas, is unwise. The better course, he said, is to use natural gas to generate electricity, since new combined-cycle gas turbines at power plants are more than twice as efficient at converting natural gas to energy as a truck or car engine running on compressed natural gas. That electricity could then be used for electric vehicles or to power fuel cells for hydrogen cars.

The fundamental problem, Friedman said, is that Pickens’ plan ultimately represents a “stranded investment,” pumping many billions of dollars into a compressed natural gas technology that will eventually be phased out in favor of more sustainable, long-term transportation alternatives: electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, biofuel- or algae-powered vehicles, or a new technology altogether. For now, he said, a better approach would be to pass tax credits that would reward the trucking industry for reducing emissions, either through designing more efficient trailers, developing hybrid trucks, or improving the efficiency of diesel engines.

Pickens has heard these criticisms before, and as far as the former wildcatter is concerned, it’s time to quit talking and start acting. “With the Mideast in turmoil, you go to sleep at night and you don’t know what you’re going to get in the morning,” he said. “The solution is to get on your own resources.”

Related posts:

• Pickens to Obama: think big
• T. Boone Pickens – greedy capitalist or caring environmentalist?
• China Trumps T. Boone Pickens’ Wind Power Project With 20 Gigawatt Farm
• Pickens Plan & Energy Policy Act Challenged By Earthjustice Suit
• US Treasury Releases ARRA Guidelines on Grants in Lieu of Tax Credits

With plans like New Energy for America looming on the horizon, the Green-collar job market shows potential for exponential growth. According to the Green Jobs Report (pdf) released by the US Mayors office, researchers estimate that there is the potential for 4.2 million green jobs to be created over the next 30 years.

But despite the estimated growth for job creation, in 2010 between 47 and 67 percent of firms employing workers in the solar energy market report that they have difficulty finding applicants that meet their hiring expectations (pdf); and solar energy is only one of the sectors in which there are expected to be an increasing number of job openings. Wind, geothermal, biomass and water power firms are also expected to experience an economic boom in the coming years.

Obama’s comprehensive New Energy plan calls for 10 percent of U.S. electricity to come from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. ACORE published a report (pdf) stating that potentially up to 635 GW of new electricity could be generated by 2025 through the use of renewable energy, and according to the U.S. Department of Energy, at least 425 GW of power will be needed for electricity alone in the year 2020. This presents great potential for the increased use of renewable energy to power America and a great need for workers to produce this power.

So how does the government plan to help fill these potential jobs with qualified workers? One way is through the implementation of programs put in place by the U.S. Department of Labor giving initiatives to firms offering training programs focused specifically on educating Green workers. The Secretary of Labor, Hilda L. Solis recently stated that “the Department of Labor has awarded over $440 million in grants to help communities across the country spur economic recovery and begin the process towards energy independence and security and we are continuing our investment in workers by awarding $190 million in State Energy Sector Partnership and training grants.” Organizations such as the Women’s Bureau, the Veterans Employment and Training Services and the Office of Disability Employment Policy are already putting their grants to use in line with the Department of Labor’s green2gold campaign. This not only translates to new jobs for properly trained individuals, but also new jobs for the professionals doing the training.

Related posts:

• Now Is Not the Time to Wave the White Flag on Clean Energy Jobs
• Wind Energy Investment in America’s Heartland
• The ‘America’s Next Top Energy Innovator’ Challenge Begins Today
• The Energy of Entrepreneurs
• At the Intersection of Conservation and the Economy: Jobs

Cape Wind signs 28-year offshore wind energy lease.

It’s officially official. After eight years of scoping, studying, permitting, legislating and legal wrangling, the United States today cemented its first-ever lease for an offshore wind farm on the Outer Continental Shelf.

At the inaugural North American Offshore Wind Conference & Exhibition in Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. Secretary Ken Salazar and Cape Wind Associates, LLC, signed the nation’s first lease for commercial offshore wind energy development on the OCS.

“The signing of this lease sends an important market signal to the offshore wind industry that the United States is ready to move forward and that Cape Wind will be the first of many offshore wind projects in this country,” said Jim Gordon, President of Cape Wind.

The 468-megawatt Cape Wind project, which won final approval in April, will have an average output of 182 megawatts, or 75 percent of the electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Island combined.

“We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work building America’s first offshore wind farm that will create hundreds of jobs, increase our energy independence and promote a healthier and more hopeful energy future,” Gordon said.

The lease authorizes Cape Wind to construct the 130 turbine offshore wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, and to operate the facility for a period of 28 years. The company will be paying a lease fee ranging from 2 percent to 7 percent during production.

“Under the leadership of President of Obama, the renewable energy world is opening a new frontier,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in his keynote address at the conference before signing the Cape Wind lease.

Last month the U.S. Department of Energy unveiled a draft plan that calls for the U.S. to install 54,000 megawatts of offshore wind power capacity by the year 2030, which would require more than 100 Cape Wind-sized projects.

“If we fully pursue our potential for wind energy on land and offshore, wind can generate as much as 20 percent of our electricity by 2030 and create a quarter-million jobs in the process,” Secretary Salazar said.

Salazar cited Cape Wind as a pioneer for offshore wind energy development in the U.S. and went on to explain how the long regulatory and permitting battle to approve the wind farm helped pave the way for a new streamlined permitting process for renewable energy on public lands. And just yesterday, the Department of the Interior approved the first two projects from this fast-track process.

The two large-scale solar projects in California are the first to be approved on public lands and together they will generate over 700 megawatts of power, and are among the world’s largest solar power plants.

In the coming weeks and months, the Department of the Interior has plans to finalize several major wind, solar, geothermal, and transmission energy projects in western states.

The goal is to get them reviewed by the end of 2010, when they can take advantage of the incentives made available by the Recovery Act.

“The renewable energy potential on America’s public lands is staggering,” Secretary Salazar said.

Article by Timothy B. Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• U.S. Offshore Wind Could Provide 20 Percent of Electricity by 2030
• New Obama Administration Rule Paves Way for Offshore Wind Power
• New Jersey to Take Lead in Offshore Wind Energy?
• Standing Up Renewable Energy on America’s Lands and Oceans
• U.S. Commits $50.5 Million to Promote Offshore Wind Industry

EENews (subscription required) reported yesterday that the organization “CO2 Is Green,” a front organization for energy companies, published a particularly rabble rousing ad in today’s Washington Post.

Because describing it is so much less satisfying, I reprint the ad in full here (you can see an image of the ad here):

The Kerry-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill will drive the USA away from cheap efficient energy and permanently increase your cost of electricity, transportation fuel, and food.

Cap and Trade proponents are buying support from industries on Wall Street with various corporate giveaways as he did with the very expensive Health Care Bill. Do not let this happen again with the Kerry-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill.

If you are interested in who CO2 green is, according to EENews:

Spokesman H. Leighton Steward sits on the board of directors of EOG Resources Inc., an oil and natural gas development company. He also is an honorary director at the industry trade group American Petroleum Institute, according to a biography on EOG’s website…CO2 is Green is bankrolled by Corbin J. Robinson, chief executive of and leading shareholder in Natural Resource Partners, a Houston-based owner of coal resources.

According to Mother Jones:

Natural Resource Partners is also a member of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), the scandal-plagued coal front group currently under investigation for its role in the forged letters sent to members of Congress criticizing the House climate bill.

What I am particularly amused by is the imaginary cabal of Wall Street bankers and the Obama administration against the unlikely pairing of energy companies and the common man. Last I checked (which was today), EOG Resources is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. In their 2009 annual report, this scrappy upstart champion of the little guy stated:

For the three, five and 10-year periods ended December 31, 2009, EOG’s stock appreciation was 56 percent, 173 percent and 1,008 percent, respectively, significantly exceeding the performance of the S&P 500 Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Index for these three periods.

EOG’s persistence in managing costs and maximizing reserve recoveries has resulted in superior returns, year after year. Our average ROCE(2) for the 10-year period ended December 31, 2009 was 18 percent. EOG’s outperformance on stockholder returns and ROCE validates its long-term organic growth strategy.

That’s right–for the past 10 years, stock of EOG has increased 1,008 percent.So Wall Street’s profits are…EOG profits.

Moreover, let’s take a brief look at the proposition that “Our economy will never recover if Obama’s attack on this industry succeeds.” Does this mean that the economy cannot afford even a slight reduction in EOG’s 1,008 percent stock price increase? Let’s play my favorite statistical game. If we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by half, which in turn reduces EOG’s profits by half, their stock will only have gained in value 504% over the last five years.

This doomsday conclusion also assumes that there will be a massive negative economic impact of weaning off fossil fuels, which evidence indicates is not the case.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of cap & trade to each American household on a net economywide basis would be…wait for it…

On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion or about $175 per household.

But we will never recover from this increase. To put it in perspective, $175 is less than the cost of an Amazon Kindle or about the cost of a subscription to cable, cell phone and internet access (cable is $71 and internet access about $45 and cell phone about $73) for a month.

Related posts:

• Open for Questions: Energy and Climate Legislation with Heather Zichal
• Obama to Keep Pushing for Climate Bill
• Emerging Economies Among the Most Vulnerable to Climate Change, Report Says
• A Great Carbon Dioxide Burp
• How Fixing the Filibuster Will Help Fix Climate Change

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama outlined a strategy to boost biofuels production on Wednesday, seeking to nudge the country toward energy independence while balancing the environmental costs of grain-based motor fuels.

The move is part of the administration’s effort to gain more votes for a climate bill stalled in the Senate that will seek to boost production of clean, low-carbon energy and help the country reduce its dependence on imported fossil fuels.

The climate bill faces further hurdles after the election last month in Massachusetts that gave Republicans a Senate seat long held by Democrats, depriving the president’s party of 60 votes that could overcome procedural hurdles.

The biofuels strategy, which also aims to boost jobs as the country faces double-digit unemployment, is laid out in a report by the Biofuels Interagency Working Group, a body the president established to help spur investment in biofuels and make the industry more environmentally friendly.

The goal is straightforward: getting the country on track to meet a congressional goal of producing 36 billion gallons (136 billion liters) of biofuels a year by 2022.

“This is a substantial goal, but one that the U.S. can meet or beat. However, past performance and business as usual will not get us there,” the report said.

The United States is far away from its target now, currently producing 12 billion gallons per year, mostly from corn ethanol.

The report offers solutions that would iron out problems in getting ethanol from producers in the U.S. Midwest to consumers near the coasts.

Such snags include filling stations that have been slow to adopt pumps to distribute a fuel blend that is mostly ethanol, called E85, and a lack of dedicated pipelines for biofuels.

In addition, loan guarantees for ethanol plants could be targeted more effectively to support new biofuels plants, the report said.

Obama and members of his cabinet are scheduled to meet with a handful of state governors to discuss energy policy on Wednesday.

Energy Revamp

The president is pushing for the United States to overhaul its energy habits by switching to less-polluting fuels and reducing its dependence on foreign oil.

The departments of agriculture and energy and the Environmental Protection Agency will work together to create a regional supply chain to make sure all parts of the country will make biofuels markets more robust, the report said.

Coinciding with Obama’s announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency also could issue new rules on measuring carbon dioxide emissions from biofuels such as ethanol.

Under a 2007 energy law, ethanol made from corn must emit less CO2 than gasoline over the life cycle of the fuel, from production to being burned. Cellulosic fuels, made from crop waste and the woody bits of nonfood crops, would have to be even cleaner.

The struggling biofuels industry is concerned that the Obama administration will move too quickly away from ethanol, which is mostly made from corn, to more difficult techniques using wood chips and other biomass.

Obama’s push for ethanol could also shore up his support in farm states, where ethanol helps support demand for corn.

The president may touch on other energy policies, such as technology for capturing and storing carbon emissions, during the meeting with governors.

Since his State of the Union address last week, the president has embraced a range of fuel alternatives, including nuclear and clean coal technology, to help win support of some wavering Democrats in coal states and Republicans.

Some expect that Obama will seek to add the energy initiatives to a climate change bill to win broad bipartisan support for legislation to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The biofuels working group was asked to develop a strategy to increase biofuels production, investment in the industry, and the use of “flex fuel” cars, which can run on either gasoline or fuel that is mostly ethanol.

Biofuels are mostly made from corn and other grains, while companies are beginning to make advanced cellulosic fuels from organic matter such as wood, and crop and animal waste.

Critics do not see them as the perfect replacement to high-polluting fossil fuels, however.

Environmentalists and some scientists say production of U.S. biofuels from corn and other grains can drive out production of other crops, prompting farmers in other countries to burn down forests and clear land to grow those crops — creating new sources of CO2, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

Article by Jeff Mason and Timothy Gardner, editing by Eric Walsh; appearing courtesy of Reuters

Related posts:

• Obama Backs CO2 Storage, Biofuels in Bid for Energy Policy
• Investing in Advanced Biofuels to Create Jobs
• How Many Jobs are Truly Created in a “Green Economy?”
• President-Elect Obama – CleanTech has a significant role in the economic recovery plan
• Celeb Campaign Pushes Clean Energy Economy

In October 2009, Skyline Solar announced that the company will employ an auto-manufacturing supplier, Cosma International, to manufacture and assemble large portions of its High Gain Solar (HGS) system. Over the past few years, we’ve seen other endeavors meant to stimulate the automobile manufacturing industry while accelerating energy independence. For example, the Cash for Clunkers program, encouraged new purchases of fuel-efficient cars, a way to reduce carbon emissions while stimulating the auto industry.

Another example, the V Vehicles plant in Louisiana, shows how existing factories can be used to generate renewable energy products: An out of operation auto plant in Monroe, Louisiana, will now be used to produce electric vehicles, providing about 1,400 local jobs.

Sustainability and scalability hand in hand

There are many benefits that can come from the mutually-beneficial relationship between the emerging green economy and the existing U.S manufacturing infrastructure. For Skyline, the benefits were simple: A greener, quicker and cheaper way to bring its HGS system to market.

As the U.S. moves full force toward renewable energy, we need to consider not only the products we use, but the manufacturing process behind the products. But building new solar manufacturing facilities is not the ideal ‘green’ method, especially when fully-developed plants are sitting idle across the country.

On top of the environmental concerns, utilizing existing plants can help move the process forward much quicker and with less capital. Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), for example, are complex and expensive bureaucratic processes often taking several years to complete. Alternatively, if companies use existing facilities and technology which have already been approved for manufacturing, we can move to production much quicker.

Germany as an example

Many European nations rapidly adopted solar energy by creating aggressive incentive programs. However, Germany was the only country that went the extra step and also sought to maintain and grow manufacturing jobs within its borders while other countries stop at tax incentives. Germany provided businesses with an aggressive 50-percent subsidy for companies that manufactured solar products domestically. Through this ambitious program, the German government promoted and maintained healthy manufacturing and engineering jobs.

While the U.S. has done a great job to promote solar adoption, it needs to put legislation in place to level the playing field between U.S. and overseas manufacturers. For example, when Chinese manufacturers can provide the same technology at the fraction of the cost, U.S. installers really have no choice, particularly in this economic climate.

A lesson we’ve all learned from the renewable energy movement is that being sustainable and being economical are one in the same. The auto industry presents a unique opportunity to the U.S. – a trained workforce and a wealth of underutilized facilities.

Author Bob MacDonald, CEO of Skyline Solar, is a solar industry veteran. Bob has worked closely with policy makers and helped draft legislation he believes can promote solar adoption while resuscitating the auto manufacturing industry.

[photo credit: kevindooley]

Related posts:

• Going Further with America’s Auto Industry
• LA Auto Show Crowns 2011 Green Car of the Year
• Cash for Clunkers Omits Ethanol Option & Downside of Recycling
• Toward a Generation of Green Vehicles: 60 MPG is Next Step
• China Readies 10 Million EV Parking Spots by 2020

Some projects are just too big to let the private sector handle them alone. Updating our aging one-way system of centralized power production to a smart grid is one of those projects. Left mostly to its own initiative, the energy industry has done very little in technology innovation during the past fifty years to make the grid more efficient and to accommodate distributed power production.

The need is so clear that even a group that supports limited government agrees that building a smart grid that conserves energy, integrates renewables, and diminishes peak power requires the guiding hand of the federal government.

The Lexington Institute has published a paper that neatly summarizes the smart grid challenges, and concludes that “Just as the grid of today required presidential initiative, the smart grid will take a high-level policy push, too.” The public policy research group, which says it “actively opposes the unnecessary intrusion of the federal government into the commerce and culture of the nation,” adds that “Smart grid will most likely require federal, state and local government incentives” and that “Policy action is worthwhile to move promising technologies closer to full adoption.”

The “Moving Forward on Smart Grid” report cites the Rural Electrification Project of the 1930’s as a success story where the federal government helped to bring electricity to farms.

The Lexington Institute’s seemingly contradictory position on government intervention is understandable given its energy independence/security and climate concerns. And the logic is sound. The demand for energy is likely to increase by 40 percent by 2030, and the choice is to either greatly increase efficiency while adding renewable power, or to plan on building hundreds more coal and nuclear power plants.

Utilities, whose business model has traditionally been to increase revenue by selling more power, will not change behaviors without federal incentives. Many utilities are in the midst of rollouts of thousands of smart meters to enable commercial and residential customers to manage their energy consumption. Federal grants, such as the Recovery Act funds, are enabling energy efficiency projects. For example, the Mississippi Development Authority, in partnership with smart grid company, SmartSynch, is installing smart meters at 1,500 state-run public facilities.

Also instrumental in prompting utility action are the investment tax credits and loan guarantees. Loan guarantees for energy efficiency make fiscal sense because the loans can be repaid through savings. One option would be to allow utilities to provide smart meters to customers, and instead of permanent rate hikes, have temporary rate increases that wouldn’t raise customer’s monthly bills above present levels as long as the expected reduction in consumption is met. Then, after the equipment is paid off, rates can be lowered.

Also, to get hundreds of power producers and sellers to design equipment that will work together requires federally mandated standards, and that process is already underway.

Appearing courtesy of Matter Network.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• China to Pass U.S. in Smart Grid Investment in 2010, Study Says
• Siemens Promotes Smart Grid Technology Innovation Contest
• U.S. Unveils Programs to Modernize Electric Grid System
• Smart Meters: To Know is to Love
• The Networked Grid — A Greentech Media Conference on the Smart Grid

In my first post of this series I described the US Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System, and how individuals looking for a clean tech career should consider LEED AP certification to broaden and document their understanding of sustainability issues, and to stand out among otherwise equally-qualified candidates.

LEED provides sustainable design guidelines and a point-based rating system for various compliance levels including Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. With demand soaring for LEED-based solutions, a growing market opportunity clearly exists for individuals who can help design, build, commission and operate resource-efficient facilities and communities. Only you can determine if LEED AP certification is in your best interest or relevant for a clean tech career. But I can attest to thinking more broadly about RE, EE, environmental and worker productivity issues having started this journey.

For example, as a commercial property owner I’m now much more aware of the responsibility I have to manage stormwater runoff from my roof as it can add significant and unnecessary cost to the municipal water treatment process; and now I’m thinking of ways to capture and reuse stormwater to minimize potable water use in the building. If you think about it, do you really need drinking-quality water to flush toilets or irrigate landscape?

Points can be earned for each element, with 21-26 total points needed for ‘LEED Certified’ status, and 42-57 points for a Platinum rating. Of the LEED facility categories, I have chosen to take the Commercial Interiors certification exam, which addresses the following elements:

• Sustainable Sites 
• Energy & Atmosphere
• Water Efficiency
• Materials & Resources
• Indoor Environmental Quality
• Innovation in Design 

Today, let me focus on the first of these elements – Sustainable Sites.

Location is everything
In retail as in real estate, location is everything – and it’s no different when trying to achieve LEED certification. Up to 7 total points can be earned for Sustainable Site elements (plus 1-3 bonus points for “other quantifiable environmental performance characteristics”, which must come from having a really clever architect and creative project manager prepare the extensive submission paperwork).

The highest possible individual point score awarded is, ironically, for simply locating your project in an existing LEED-certified building (3 points). With only about 1,800 buildings currently LEED-certified, and another 7,400 estimated to be registered for certification in 2008, it’s unlikely a company will find an existing LEED-certified building with sufficient space available to meet its needs.

If a LEED-certified building is not available, a project can earn up to 3 points through a combination of the following:

1. redeveloping a Brownfield site,
2. reducing stormwater runoff by 50% or more (roof gardens and ‘pervious’ parking lots are common methods used, asphalt parking lots are the worst with nearly 100% stormwater runoff and a huge heat island effect as well),
3. filtering stormwater runoff (via bioswales or constructed wetlands),
4. reducing the heat island effect (heat radiated from your roof, building or parking lot)
5. reducing light pollution (uplighting is a real no-no; therefore, the Luxor hotel casino in Las Vegas must be the worst example of uplighting ever as it can even be seen from space),
6. reducing or eliminating potable water used for irrigation (note – you may find yourself calculating your ‘landscape coefficient’ and thinking about ‘evapotranspiration’ as a result),
7. reducing potable water use by at least 20% (two common approaches are dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals — not as gross as they sound),
8. generating at least 5% of the building’s total energy use through on-site renewable energy systems (sadly, you get ½ point for generating 5%, and 1 point for generating 10% or more of your energy needs; if you generate 100% of your energy needs you still only get 1 point)

One point can also be earned for high ‘development density’ by selecting a location within ½ mile of at least 10 basic services (bank, church, convenience store, etc.). Another three points can be earned by being close to public transportation, providing bicycle storage and changing rooms, and by aggressively discouraging single-occupancy vehicle use (e.g., providing no more than the bare minimum number of parking spaces per local zoning ordinances).

A great (not perfect) process
Many folks find fault with the current LEED rating system, primarily because they feel that LEED does not weigh RE/EE heavily enough. While I agree that energy issues can and should play a more prominent role in the rating system, I think most criticism of LEED misses the point. LEED was not designed to achieve energy independence – it was designed to guide the development and retrofit of high-performing buildings, with energy just one element of the overall sustainability equation. Furthermore, the LEED process continues to evolve rapidly. It was just overhauled for 2009 and is likely to continue to change to meet our collective understanding of, and need for, high-performing and sustainable buildings and communities.

What I appreciate the most about the LEED AP certification process is the holistic, systems-level perspective it provides. Renewable energy generation, waste/trash, water use, environmental impact, indoor air quality, worker productivity…. all of these elements are integrated and balanced in a LEED-certified project. An appreciation for this inter-relationship can make you a more knowledgeable and marketable CleanTechie.

Related posts:

• The Networked Grid — A Greentech Media Conference on the Smart Grid
• LEEDing the way to a Green Collar Job, Vol. III (the Exam)
• TreeHugger asks readers to vote for CleanTechies as “Best Business Blog”
• Separation and Simplification Give Intematix LEDs an Edge
• Primus Energy Storage Tech Goes With the Flow