Category Archives: climate change

Unknown's avatar

Who’s afraid of a Carbon Rule?

by
Climate activists urge action to curb carbon emissions at a demonstration in Richmond, Virginia. Photo by Josh Lopez, courtesy of the Sierra Club.

Climate activists urge action to curb carbon emissions at a demonstration in Richmond, Virginia. Photo by Josh Lopez, courtesy of the Sierra Club.

When I was a law student working at the U.S. EPA in the ‘80s, we sued a company that had been polluting a Maine river for years. Back then, EPA calculated penalties based on the amount of money a polluter saved by ignoring the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The idea was to take away the economic benefit of pollution so that companies would make out better by installing treatment systems than by imposing their toxic waste on the community.

Not surprisingly, the company’s lawyers tried to prevent their client from having to pay a penalty for all those years it had been dumping pollution into the river. But their reasoning was interesting. Faced with the lawsuit, the company overhauled its industrial process and eliminated most of its waste products, which turned out to be a money-saving move. Thus, said the lawyers, the company hadn’t gained any competitive advantage by polluting the river; it had actually lost money doing so. Really, they’d have made a lot more money if we’d forced them to clean up their act sooner.

Needless to say, the argument didn’t fly, and the company paid a fine. But its experience turns out to have been a common one. When it comes to environmental regulation, industry screams that the sky is falling, but then it gets to work to solve the problem, and frequently ends up stronger than ever.

This is one reason to be skeptical of ad campaigns from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Mining Association trying to convince the public that the EPA’s new regulations on carbon pollution from power plants, to be announced on June 2, will destroy the American economy. They’ve cried wolf so many times they have lost all credibility.

And in case you are of a generous nature and inclined to forgive previous false alarms, it’s worth noting that the National Mining Association campaign earned the maximum four Pinocchios from the Washington Post fact-checker—meaning, it’s a pack of lies. The EPA has been scarcely kinder in its analysis of the Chamber’s campaign, and the economist Paul Krugman says the Chamber’s own numbers actually prove compliance with the carbon rule will be cheap.

At least we can understand the American Mining Association’s fabricating facts. These are coal mining companies, after all; of course they are opposed to limits on carbon! They’re like the tobacco companies fighting limits on smoking. In fact, they’re in a worse position, because a good many smokers say they like tobacco, whereas nobody who isn’t making money from it likes coal.

But we can’t cut the Chamber the same kind of slack. There is little reason to fear the economy will suffer by continuing the gradual phase-out of coal that is already underway. No one was building new coal plants anyway; they are too expensive compared to natural gas plants and wind farms. The old, dirty, but fully amortized coal plants will gradually be retired, and good riddance. We have paid dearly for that “cheap” power in health care for asthma and heart disease, in premature deaths, and in babies born with neurological damage from mercury in their mothers’ bodies.

Nor does the Chamber’s anti-carbon rule stance accurately reflect the opinions of the energy sector as a whole. Even those electric utilities that once relied heavily on coal have proven to be fickle friends. Many of them have already said they can live with a carbon rule that lets them swap fuel sources.

And while coal declines, other energy industries are growing and flourishing. The breathtaking pace of advances in wind, solar and battery technologies make it clear that the age of fossil fuels will end in this century. There will be winners and losers, as there always are in a free market, but the new energy economy offers so many opportunities for American companies and workers that one wishes the fear-mongers at the Chamber would stretch their necks out of their bunker far enough to see the horizon.

As for society in general, we have seldom seen a limit on pollution that didn’t make us collectively better off, and carbon will be no exception. It is always easier and cheaper to stop pollution at its source than to clean it up later or pay for the damage. That will be true here in spades, where the damage includes hotter summers, more crop losses, more disease, more destructive storms, and whole communities swamped by rising sea levels. These are already happening, and they affect both our health and our wallets. Failing to limit carbon condemns us all to economic decline and slow self-destruction.

Surely, all we have to fear about the EPA’s upcoming carbon rule is that it might not be strong enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unknown's avatar

Dominion won’t explain ties to anti-clean energy “bill mill” ALEC

by

Dominion Resources, the parent of Dominion Virginia Power, held its shareholder meeting today in Cleveland, Ohio. Unhappy Dominion shareholders have introduced many resolutions over the years seeking to reform aspects of the company’s business practices, from buying mountaintop-removal-mined coal to exposing investors to risks from climate disruption. Although Dominion routinely challenges the resolutions, seeking to keep them off the ballot, this year half a dozen resolutions made it through the legal obstacle course to be voted on. One of the resolutions, submitted by the New York State Common Retirement Fund, called on Dominion to disclose its financial support for the secretive American Legislative Exchange Council, which works to defeat and roll back renewable energy and climate initiatives across the country. The resolution prompted guest blogger Seth Heald, in Cleveland today for the shareholder meeting, to offer this commentary.  

Dominion's coal-fired Chesterfield Power Station, on the James River, has been driving climate change since 1952. Photo credit Ed Brown, Wikimedia Commons.

Dominion’s coal-fired Chesterfield Power Station, on the James River, has been driving climate change since 1952. Photo credit Ed Brown, Wikimedia Commons.

In the past week or so communities across Virginia staged Earth Day festivals and other events to raise environmental awareness and support environmental protection. Virginia’s largest electric utility, Dominion Virginia Power, had tables or booths at a number of these events, touting the company’s environmental record.

The utility’s parent corporation—Dominion Resources, Inc.—attempts to defend the company’s environmental practices on its website. Chief environmental officer Pamela F. Faggert explains “[e]nvironmental awareness is the responsibility of each Dominion employee. It is woven into the fabric of our culture ….”

What you won’t find on Dominion’s website or in its Earth Day handouts is any mention of its work to undermine environmental protections through its financial contributions to the American Legislative Exchange Council, widely known as “ALEC.” ALEC has been described as “a corporate bill mill.” It brings together corporations and state legislators and comes up with “model legislation” for the legislators to introduce back home. Sometimes state legislatures pitch in with their own additional financial support. A report on ALEC’s influence in Virginia, issued by the group Progress VA, states that between 2001 and 2010, Virginia spent over $230,000 of taxpayers’ money to send legislators to ALEC conferences “to meet with corporate lobbyists behind closed doors.” The report notes that more than 50 bills drawn from ALEC sources have been introduced in the Virginia General Assembly in recent years.

ALEC gained notoriety recently because of its sponsorship of “stand your ground” laws, such as the one in Florida connected to the Trayvon Martin shooting death. According to The Guardian, more than 60 corporations withdrew from ALEC after that connection was publicized.

ALEC’s proposed energy and environmental legislation reliably favors corporate polluters’ interests over the environment. An ALEC model resolution intended to stymie efforts to address climate change expressed the goal of “prohibiting EPA by any means necessary from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, including if necessary defunding EPA greenhouse gas regulatory activities.” As reported in the Virginian-Pilot, a Virginia delegate introduced this resolution in the House of Delegates after it was presented to him by the coal industry. A different ALEC resolution called for opposition to “all Federal and state efforts to establish a carbon tax on fuels for electricity and transportation.” A list of ALEC model legislation is available at http://www.alecexposed.org/.

The nonprofit watchdog Center for Media and Democracy reports that Dominion Resources has participated on ALEC’s energy, environment and agriculture task force. A 2010 “roster” of people on that task force (obtained by the group Common Cause and posted online) includes Dominion executive Robert Blue, who currently is Dominion Virginia Power’s president. Blue and other Dominion executives served alongside Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute—an extremist group notorious for its support of climate-science denial and comparing those who “still believe” in climate science to mass murderers.

Also on ALEC’s environment task force roster serving alongside Dominion executives were representatives of the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Companies Public Sector LLC (affiliated with Koch Industries and the Koch brothers), the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (a coal-industry group that lobbies against carbon-emission restrictions), and the Koch-backed right-wing, anti-environment group Americans for Prosperity.

ALEC has been linked to sponsorship of recent efforts to block or roll back state legislation that promotes renewable energy. ALEC has also backed efforts to water down laws requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals, and efforts to block federal regulation of toxic coal-ash storage sites. (Federal regulation, had there been any, might have served to prevent the recent Duke Energy coal-ash spill in North Carolina, which flowed downstream into Danville, Virginia.)

You simply can’t square these anti-environment positions with Dominion’s professed corporate culture of environmental awareness, supposedly woven into the company’s very fabric. No wonder Dominion keeps quiet about its ALEC involvement.

At Dominion’s May 7 shareholder meeting I asked the company’s chairman and CEO, Thomas Farrell, II, why Dominion participates in ALEC and what the company gets from that participation. Farrell clearly didn’t want to say much. His entire answer was “We see value in it and that’s why we participate.”

EPA records reveal that Dominion is the largest emitter of carbon-dioxide pollution in Virginia. Meanwhile Virginia’s Hampton Roads area, where many Dominion customers live, is one of the most vulnerable places in the nation to harm from climate change caused by carbon emissions. Virginia continues to suffer from the recent Duke Energy spill of toxic coal ash into the Dan River.

ALEC’s efforts to block environmental protections harm all Virginians, indeed all Americans. The people of Virginia—Dominion’s customers—should press Dominion to work to reduce its carbon emissions sharply rather than waxing poetic about its environmental “culture” while quietly supporting groups like ALEC that seek to block efforts to address climate change.

Seth Heald is vice chair of the Sierra Club Virginia Chapter, and is also a Dominion Resources shareholder. He is a graduate student in the Master of Science in Energy Policy and Climate program at Johns Hopkins University.

 

Unknown's avatar

Amid the carnage, some energy bills make progress

by

This week marks “Crossover” at the General Assembly. Both chambers have to finish up action on their own bills by midnight Tuesday; starting on Wednesday, they can consider only bills passed by the other chamber. If you’re a legislator and your bill doesn’t get acted on by COB Tuesday, you are out of luck for the year.

photo credit: Amadeus

photo credit: Amadeus

Most of the energy and climate bills we’ve been following now lie dead on committee floors, but some have made it through to passage by the whole House or Senate. Now they need to get through the other chamber’s committees and floor votes by March 8, the end of Session. This date is known as Sine Die, Latin for “thank God that’s over with.”

Here’s where we stand at press time:

Investment tax credit-now-grant passes Senate but not House; advocates looking for help to get it through this year. HB 910 (Villanueva) was “continued to 2015” by voice vote in House Finance, essentially killing it for the year due to a failure to find funds in the budget to cover the cost. However, SB 653 (Norment) has passed the Senate, giving proponents a second shot in House Finance and more time to identify funds. Supporters are running a campaign to generate emails to members of the House Finance committee. Follow the link to send an email.

Just for the record, I don’t recall any similar difficulty approving the tens of millions of dollars we throw at coal every year.

Redefining solar panels as pollution control equipment looks to be a done deal. SB 418 (Hanger) and HB 1239 (Hugo) have passed their respective houses. The amendment to the House bill limiting projects to 20 megawatts will likely be added to the Senate bill. The legislation is primarily designed to help third-party owners of solar systems who currently face prohibitive local taxes on “machinery and tools.”

No more HOA bans on solar. SB 222 (Petersen) is expected to pass easily in the House, where it has been referred to Commerce and Labor. The legislation nullifies homeowner bans on solar systems, while retaining associations’ ability to enact “reasonable” restrictions on their placement. Next year perhaps someone will take on the task of explaining to HOAs that restricting solar panels to north-facing roofs is not what we mean by “reasonable.”

5-year banking limits on REC purchases for the RPS expected to become law. SB 498 (McEachin) and HB 822 (Lopez) both passed their houses, so voting in the other house is just a formality before they go to the governor for his signature.

Municipal and multi-family net metering dead for the year. Last week I reported that the House energy subcommittee had killed all the House bills that would expand net metering opportunities for municipalities and multifamily housing communities. Now we have to add the Senate bill, SB 350 (Edwards), to the death toll. Condolences go out to those intrepid industry members and advocates who keep fighting to give Virginians more access to solar, knowing they have about as much chance against Dominion Power as democracy advocates have in North Korea.

Hampton Roads set to get a study of “recurrent flooding”; just don’t call it climate change. SJ3 and HJ16 have passed the Senate and House.

Fracking restrictions for Tidewater Virginia pass Senate. SB 48 (Stuart) will now go to House Commerce and Labor.

HB 207 “science education” bill may die of (press) exposure. Delegate Bell’s bill has been tossed from one House committee to the next like a hot potato, with no one wanting to go on the record voting either for it or against it. The news media have been all over this one, quoting science educators who say it promotes creationism and climate denial. Truth be told, many delegates support it for precisely that reason, but they don’t want to be exposed as troglodytes in the press. The bill is now back in Courts of Justice with pretty much no chance of getting to the floor tomorrow.

Dominion’s rate increase for nuclear clears both House and Senate. You can call it what you want, but in the absence of SB 459 (Stosch) and HB 1059 (Kilgore), we’re told regulators would require Dominion to refund to ratepayers the money it has reportedly been overcharging them, and to decrease rates going forward. These bills let Dominion keep the overage as a way of paying for a nuclear plant that will probably never get built. SB 459 sailed through the Senate. HB 1059 passed through committee and awaits action tomorrow by the full House. Stay tuned to find out if Dominion succeeds in sticking us with half a billion dollars to support Tom Farrell’s nuclear fantasy.

Unknown's avatar

Energy and climate bills get hearings in Richmond

by
photo credit: Amadeus

photo credit: Amadeus

This week Virginia’s General Assembly took action on a good many of the bills we are following. For a fuller description of the bills and information on how to access the bill language, refer to my previous posts. At the end I’ve also added comments on a few additional bills you may have read about.

Solar panels on their way to being redefined as pollution control equipment. SB 418 (Hanger) passed the Senate. HB 1239 (Hugo) passed a House Finance Subcommittee Thursday and is expected to pass the full committee next week. Following the subcommittee hearing, proponents agreed to add a 20-megawatt limitation on the size of projects that can qualify for the tax-free treatment. Obviously, this project size won’t stop any projects in Virginia, but the amendment satisfied the only opposition the bill had encountered, from the Virginia Municipal League.

HOA bans on solar may soon be a thing of the past. SB 222 (Petersen) passed the Senate unanimously and now moves the House. Petersen added an amendment sought by HOA interests that would preserve solar bans if they were included in the underlying deeds, as opposed to in HOA contracts. As no one knows of any deeds prohibiting solar, this seems to have removed the only opposition to the bill without actually limiting its effectiveness.

Investment tax credit/grant facing headwinds. HB 910 (Villanueva) was heard Friday morning in a 5-member subcommittee of House Finance, which voted to table the bill.  Usually this is fatal to a bill, but advocates who were there say in this case they do expect the bill to come before the full committee on Wednesday, and the tabling is a temporary measure while $10 million is found in the budget to cover the cost. The Senate companion bill, SB 653 (Norment) remains in Senate Finance and has not been heard yet. It has been converted to a $10 million grant in accordance with the committee’s policy to reject most new tax credits but consider grants instead.

Two RPS bills rendered almost meaningless (but they pass!), one killed unceremoniously. Both SB 498 (McEachin) and HB 822 (Lopez) originally would have made modest improvements to Virginia’s sad, toothless, voluntary, RPS. Facing utility opposition, the bills were made even more modest, amended down to consist of nothing more than 5-year “banking” limits on the length of time utilities can hold onto RECs. States with real RPS laws generally have 2-year limits. Virginia currently has no limit at all, which not-just-theoretically allows utilities to stock up on enough pre-world-war II, out-of-state hydro RECs to last through 2025. So any limit at all is an improvement. And the bills seem set to pass both chambers, so you should thank Dominion for its generosity in allowing this to happen.

Meanwhile, HB 1061, Delegate Surovell’s “Made in Virginia” bill, was killed in Thursday’s House energy subcommittee.

Efforts to expand net metering fail in the House, will be heard in Senate Monday. Solar advocates and industry members successfully beat back Dominion Power’s bid to hijack the multi-family net metering provisions of HB 879 (Yost) and HB 906 (Krupicka). Alas, Dominion got its revenge Thursday in the House Commerce & Labor energy subcommittee, where the Republican majority had clearly come prepared to kill the bills. The two bills, plus Delegate Surovell’s solar gardens bill, HB 1158, were tabled with little debate, though with dissenting votes from the subcommittee’s three Democrats.

(We interrupt this blogpost for an observation about the workings of the General Assembly, which you can skip if your interest extends only to the sausage and not the sausage-making. Sitting in the audience of the House energy subcommittee on Thursday, I couldn’t help noticing the three Democrats appeared to be entirely irrelevant. They were seated way off to one side by themselves, and took no part in any of the discussions during the three hours that I was there. Even their dissenting votes were cast by silent little waves of their hands. It is tough to be a Democrat in the House.)

Meanwhile over in the Senate, SB 350 (Edwards) is scheduled to be heard in Commerce & Labor on Monday afternoon. Like the House bills, the Senate bill as drafted addresses both multi-family and municipal net metering.

House energy subcommittee kills effort to add price stability to factors to be considered in new generation. HB 808 (Lopez) was tabled Thursday in the House energy subcommittee.

And don’t go considering the environment, either. HB 363 (Kory) was also killed in the House energy subcommittee Thursday.

On-bill financing effort fails for the year. HB 1001 (Yancey) was continued to 2015 at the request of the patron, a face-saving way to withdraw your bill when you find it really isn’t ready for prime time. The bill faced utility opposition, but also had flaws that the delegate wants to work on. “Continuing” it rather than withdrawing it signals that we can expect another effort next year.

Adding energy and water conservation projects to the powers of local service districts fails. HB 766 (Bulova) was tabled in a subcommittee of the House Counties, Cities and Towns committee.

Crowdfunding bills fail. Both HB 880 and SB 351 failed in committee.

All right, time for some good news.

Bill to impose a new gas plant on AEP fails. My understanding of HB 1224 turned out to be mistaken; AEP did not seek this legislation. Instead the proponent of a new gas plant in AEP territory is the would-be developer, which resorted to legislation when its efforts to sell the utility on its proposal failed. Following a far more spirited and extensive debate than was afforded to far better bills, HB 1224 failed to get a vote to move it out of the House energy subcommittee.

Hampton Roads “recurrent flooding” study passes Senate, moving through House. SJ3 passed the Senate, while HJ16 was reported from House Rules subcommittee with an amendment shrinking the size of the commission doing the study. Still no mention of why recurrent flooding is happening.

Some protections from fracking pass Senate Ag. SB 48 (Stuart) passed the Senate Agriculture committee unanimously. The bill provides some protections for drinking water from impacts related to oil or gas operations proposed in Tidewater Virginia. I haven’t analyzed this bill; for more information, contact the Southern Environmental Law Center, which supports the bill.

Attempts to nullify federal law (said to) fail. I’m told Bob Marshall’s HB 140 and HB 155 both died in a subcommittee of House Privileges and Elections, although the website still shows them in committee. Possibly they simply failed to gain a vote, which is one way bills die.

Saner heads prevail (mostly) on anti-EPA bills. SB 615 (Carrico), the “Carbon Dioxide Emission Control Plan” designed to ensure the continuation of carbon dioxide emissions, was in trouble even before Democrats took control of the Senate. The senator changed the bill to conform it to HB 1261 (Chafin), which called for a study with the same purpose. Under pressure from the governor’s office, the bill was amended to study not just the costs to industry and ratepayers of complying with EPA regulations, but also the benefits. In Senate Ag Thursday, still facing heavy opposition to the bill from the environmental community, Carrico accepted an amendment from Chap Petersen that took out the worst remaining provision, one that would have restricted the state from proposing any standards more stringent than the EPA required. The bill then passed unanimously. Later in the afternoon, HB 1261 was conformed to the amended language of SB 615 and passed handily. The bill remains weighted towards findings favorable to the fossil fuel industry, but it is hugely better than it was.

But lest we feel progress is being made in Virginia . . .

Dominion’s rate boondoggle shows excellent prospects. Really, you have to admire the way Dominion Power pushes through bills it wants and kills the ones it doesn’t. Dominion is the single biggest contributor to Virginia’s politicians, after the Republican and Democratic parties, and the company gets its money’s worth. But it’s not just the way it kills smart energy policies that impresses.

Take HB 1059 (Kilgore), which would allow—nay, require!—Dominion to begin charging customers for $570 million it has spent towards a new nuclear plant, plus a couple million towards offshore wind, money it would ordinarily recover only when the projects are built.

Stephen Haner, a lobbyist for Newport News Shipbuilding, delivered a valiant and spirited defense of ratepayers in opposing the bill during the meeting of Thursday’s House subcommittee on energy. The real reason for the bill, he explained, is to prevent Dominion from having to give its customers hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates as a result of having earned too much money these past two years. Two years of over-earning would also lead to a reduction in rates for consumers going forward, threatening the bottom line still further. Dominion has figured out it can avoid that result by adding the money spent on nuclear to the balance sheet, thereby canceling out that pesky excess revenue and avoiding a rate decrease. For more on this, see the article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Separate bills in the Senate–one for nuclear, one for wind—also empower the boondoggle. SB 643, the offshore wind bill, remains in Senate Commerce and Labor and is not on the docket yet. But the nuclear bill, SB 459, has already passed the Senate unanimously, a testament to Dominion’s charm if there ever was one. In addition to requiring our utility monopoly to charge us for its costs in planning and developing a new nuclear facility, it states as a matter of law that this development is in the public interest. Really, guys? How do you think the public would vote?

Science “education.” Last, I bring you a dispatch from guest blogger Seth Heald, who has been following Delegate Dickie Bell’s anti-science bill. Seth attended the House education subcommittee on Thursday. He reports:

HB 207 science education bill referred to Courts Committee. The bill purports to encourage open discussion and “critical thinking” as to purported “scientific controversies.” Last week the Hampton Daily Press and Washington Post nicely described the anti-science creationist and climate-denial history of the bill’s statutory language here and here. More detail is on the National Center for Science Education website. The bill came before the House Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education on January 30, where Rita Dunaway of the Virginia Christian Alliance was the sole member of the public speaking in favor of it. Ten or so people spoke in opposition to the bill, including representatives of teacher and education groups, the Sierra Club, and the Jewish Community Relations Council. At week’s end WRIC TV in Richmond reported that the bill’s sponsor, Delegate Dickie Bell, said he introduced HB 207 after being “approached by” the Virginia Christian Alliance. The subcommittee approved Delegate Peter Farrell’s motion to refer the bill to the Courts of Justice Committee to consider its constitutionality.  Delegate Bell’s hometown newspaper, The Staunton News Leader, opined in a Feb 1 editorial titled “Bell introduces an unnecessary bill” that HB 207 is “unworthy of legislative attention.” The paper noted that Bell “has been down this road before, sponsoring other controversial bills drafted by ultraconservatives.”

Unknown's avatar

Energy bills to watch in 2014

by
photo credit: Amadeust

photo credit: Amadeust

Every year, hundreds of energy bills are fed into Virginia’s sausage-making machine, but little of interest to clean energy advocates makes it out the other end. Utilities and coal companies largely control the outcome, thanks to their generosity in funding legislators’ campaigns, and they do not share our desire for change.

Yet the start of each new Session, like the new year itself, always produces hope and excitement about the possibilities at hand. 2014 is no exception. There are a lot of bills here worth watching, and even rooting for. The list below is not comprehensive, and new bills keep coming in while existing ones get amended faster than I can keep up with, so take this summary only for what it’s worth today.

One point worth noting is that many of the most promising bills come from Republicans. Renewable energy and energy efficiency, once identified with progressives, seem to have gone mainstream in Virginia. Well, why not? In addition to lowering our carbon footprint and helping residents save money, they make business sense and create jobs.

How to look up a bill: The links in this article will take you to the summary page for a bill on the website of Virginia’s Legislative Information Service. The bill summary is not guaranteed accurate and does not change even if the bill language changes substantially, so always follow the links to the latest version of the bill to read the text. The summary page also shows what committee the bill has been assigned to; following the links will show you who is on the committee, when it meets, and what other bills have been assigned.

Investment tax credit. The bill with the potential to do most for renewable energy in Virginia is HB 910 (Villanueva), which would provide tax credits for renewable energy projects. The top priority this year for the solar industry, the bill would go a long way towards helping renewable energy compete in a state that still shells out millions of dollars every year in coal subsidies. A companion bill from a Senate Republican is also expected but has not been filed as of the time of this posting. The combination would be a powerful statement of support from a party that has not always been a friend to renewable energy.

In a bid to create broad support, HB 910 is not limited to emission-free projects like wind and solar. It would be hugely unfortunate if a few large biomass projects were to gobble up the credits, so we hope the patrons will commit to making any necessary fixes in future years if that happens.

Expanding net metering. Three-quarters of utility customers can’t take advantage of solar energy because their property isn’t suitable for solar panels. HB 879 (Yost), HB 906 (Krupicka) and SB 350 (Edwards) would allow customers in multifamily housing to participate in shared renewable energy systems, a limited form of community net metering. The bills would also allow something called “municipal net metering,” under which local governments could build a single renewable energy facility and attribute the energy from it to multiple meters on property owned by the locality. In addition to solar, these projects could include wind, landfill gas or gas from aerobic or anaerobic digesters.

Although these three bills look to be the same right now, I’m told they may be changed so that one House bill deals with multifamily housing and the other with municipal net metering.

Defining solar panels as pollution control equipment. SB 418 (Hangar) is primarily a useful workaround to address a tax problem that is holding back solar power purchase agreements. Odd as this sounds, currently third-party-owned solar systems are subject to local tax as manufacturing equipment. In many jurisdictions where solar PPAs have the most potential to help churches, schools, and other non-profits go solar, the tax is so high as to make the projects impossible to finance. Many localities want to help solar but are paralyzed by fear of opening a Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences. To solve the problem, SB 418 would extend to solar panels a tax exemption currently available to landfill gas projects and wood mulching equipment. Beyond helping PPAs, the legislation would also exempt solar equipment from state sales tax, which would make solar systems more affordable to all solar customers.

RPS bills. Several bills seek to improve Virginia’s pathetic voluntary renewable portfolio standard law by restricting the kinds of energy or credits that can be used to meet it. None of them would make the RPS mandatory, so they can’t deliver the kind of robust market in renewable energy credits (RECs) that supports the wind and solar industries in other states. For the most part, they aim for small fixes that could cue up stronger bills in future years, and reduce the consumer rip-off that characterizes the current RPS.

Of these, HB 1061 (Surovell) is the solar industry favorite. It would create the beginnings of a solar REC market here even within the framework of the voluntary RPS. This “Made in Virginia” bill would require Dominion Virginia Power to meet a portion of its voluntary target with renewable energy certificates representing distributed generation produced in Virginia, or by contributions to the state’s voluntary solar resource fund, which provides loans for solar projects. The State Corporation Commission would be tasked with the job of creating a system for registering and trading Virginia-based renewable energy certificates (RECs).

HB 881 (Yost) similarly sets up a system of renewable energy certificate registration and tracking at the SCC. It also eliminates the double and triple credits that the RPS currently gives to certain types of energy, only grandfathering in some wind RECs that Appalachian Power had already contracted for.

SB 498 (McEachin) makes a number of changes to the voluntary RPS to put it on a stronger footing going forward. It limits a utility’s ability to satisfy the goals with purchases of low-quality RECs like those from old hydroelectric dams and landfill gas, and ensures that most future purchases of energy and RECs will represent high-quality resources like wind and solar. It does not, however, include a carve-out for Virginia distributed generation. A similar bill last year received the blessing of Dominion but died in the face of opposition from the Virginia Alternative and Renewable Energy Association, arguing for the interests of the producers of crappy RECs.

Delegate Alfonso Lopez spent much time and effort over the past year trying to broker a deal between the utilities, environmental groups and renewable energy companies to produce a modest consensus bill. The result, HB 822, would seem to be a testament to how little consensus there is; it includes only a two-year limit on banking RECs for use in future years and the elimination of double credit for energy from animal waste. (I’m guessing the animal waste people weren’t at the table.) It also strengthens existing wording about the RPS serving the public interest, which may help utilities get SCC approval for expenditures to meet the targets.

On-bill financing for energy efficiency. Advocates of clean energy say the best way to get homeowners and businesses to weatherize buildings and install efficiency upgrades is to let customers pay the cost through their utility bills, often out of the energy savings they reap.  HB 1001 (Yancey) would require electric utilities to offer on-bill financing for energy efficiency measures. The bill would be stronger if it included gas utilities and did not insist on a five-year payback period, which is too short a time for many weatherization measures, but it’s still a great start.

Service districts. HB 766 (Bulova) adds energy and water conservation management services to the list of items that can be owned and maintained by local service districts. This adds a new tool for local governments to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, allowing payments to be made via local property tax bills.

Virginia Commission on Energy and the Environment. The Virginia Energy Plan is due to be updated in 2014, and boy, does it need it. Anyone who has ever tried to make sense of the plan has probably given it up as a hopeless hodgepodge of contradictory ideas. Anything you like, it’s in there. Anything you don’t like is in there, too, and none of it means anything because the provisions for the most part have no teeth. HB 818 (Lopez) hopes to turn this mishmash into a coherent plan for Virginia’s energy future by creating a new legislative commission to perform a comprehensive review of the energy landscape.

Price stability. HB 808 (Lopez) adds consideration of long-term price stability to the factors that utilities and the State Corporation Commission must look at when evaluating a proposed new electric generating facility. This would help to level the field for renewable energy, since fuel prices for fossil fuels are highly volatile and largely unpredictable over the full 30-year design life of a facility, whereas wind and solar are famously price stable.

Consideration of the environment. In a case decided last summer (PUE-2012-00128), the State Corporation Commission essentially interpreted the Virginia code to eliminate its own role in protecting the environment when it approves electric generating facilities. HB 363 (Kory) beefs up the code just enough to make it clear the SCC still has a job to do even when state agencies have issued all the relevant permits. The bill requires the SCC to consider matters not covered by permits, such as carbon emissions and the overall effect of electric generation facilities on the health and welfare of residents.

Dealing with climate change. Hampton Roads is facing a crisis as sea level rise combines with sinking land to swamp low-lying coastal areas with every major storm, a problem predicted to get steadily worse over the course of the century. SJ 3 (Locke) and HJ 16 (Stolle) establish a Recurrent Flooding Planning Committee to examine ways to respond. It’s a good bill, but really, it’s weird to address recurrent flooding with no mention of what’s causing it. Dealing with recurrent flooding in Hampton Roads without talking about climate change is like addressing the obesity epidemic without mentioning diet and exercise. Why kid ourselves?

Carbon Dioxide Emission Control Plan. Speaking of kidding ourselves, SB 615 (Carrico) would establish a commission with the job of limiting carbon emissions without limiting the sources of those emissions. Indeed, the bill would be more accurately titled the Carbon Pollution Continuance Plan. It’s too bad to see legislators fighting to keep coal plants running full-tilt when we have better, cleaner, and cheaper options—ones that don’t put us on a course to make “recurrent flooding” a daily occurrence.

Unknown's avatar

The Keystone XL Pipeline: Game over?

by

NASA scientist James Hansen famously warned that if the Keystone XL pipeline gets built, it’s “game over” for the climate. That dire warning lit a fire under the feet of activists, who rightly argue that Canada shouldn’t be producing the dirty, carbon-intensive tar sands oil, and the U.S. shouldn’t enable the climate destruction by building a pipeline to get the oil out of North America. But stopping Keystone won’t stop global warming, and building it won’t make environmentalists throw in the towel. If this is a game, we are pawns as well as players, so we can never walk away.

Frankly, it’s hard to understand right-wing enthusiasm in the U.S. for a pipeline benefiting a Canadian company extracting Canadian oil intended for the world market. In spite of all the talk about jobs, it will employ only a few thousand workers temporarily, and not in the areas of the country where unemployed construction workers live. Moreover, building it requires the government to seize private property from unwilling landowners to benefit a private interest—usually the sort of thing that makes Republicans go ballistic.

I might add that the environmental damage being done to thousands of square miles of Canadian arboreal forests and lakes is staggering—but Republicans have long since made it clear that they do not consider despoiling nature a drawback when there is energy to be had and profit to be made. (If you are a Republican and you bristle at this, see if you can name a recent oil, gas, or coal mining project your party has opposed for environmental reasons. I can only name one, and that doesn’t get beyond “sort of.” See the Tennessee Conservative Union’s ad opposing mountaintop removal coal mining, now that a Chinese company wants to do it.)

Some would argue that the climate case against Keystone is overstated. Tar sands oil is “only” 14-24% more carbon intensive than conventional oil, if you ignore a nasty byproduct called petroleum coke that adds to the total carbon footprint. Yet surely if the reverse were true, and the carbon footprint of tar sands oil were less than that of conventional oil, it would be hailed as some kind of a planet-saving fuel. Incremental changes are what got us into this mess in the first place.

If Keystone represents evil, though, it has plenty of company, and there is blame enough to go around. Canadians are developing tar sands oil because the worldwide demand for petroleum is high and growing, there is money to be made meeting the demand, and there is no one who will make them stop. The harm done exceeds the profit to be made, but most of the harm is borne by people in other countries.

That makes the case against the pipeline mostly a moral one, and moral arguments don’t get much respect these days. Yet when the State Department or the Washington Post urges that if we don’t build the pipeline, the Canadians will just find other ways to get the oil to market, the proper response should be outrage. Their position is the moral equivalent of justifying buying stolen goods on the theory that if you don’t do it, the thieves will just find a fence somewhere else.

Admittedly, lots of people would buy stolen goods if there weren’t a law against it; for such people, morality is most successful when immorality gets you arrested. And there isn’t a law against tar sands oil; Canada is the only country with jurisdiction, and it prefers to look away.

Americans also have a little problem that we do, indeed, buy a lot of stolen goods. As the world’s biggest oil consumers, we have a credibility problem. On the other hand, if we don’t set the standards, who will? And if we don’t start here, then where?

Keystone or no Keystone, the fight against climate change will go on, because our lives and our children’s lives depend on it. It’s not a game we can stop playing—but we sure shouldn’t make it even harder for ourselves to win.

Unknown's avatar

Tom Farrell’s nuclear fantasy

by

Tom Farrell doesn’t get it. Dominion Power, the utility of which he is CEO, has been all about building natural gas plants for the past couple of years, as it rushes to take advantage of cheap fracked gas. Out with the aging coal plants that had been its first love, in with the next cheap thing, and never mind the pollution! Then suddenly two weeks ago, faced with a question about climate change, Farrell told reporters the answer is more nuclear plants.

Mother Earth to Tom Farrell: The correct answer is “renewable energy.”

Most of the rest of the country gets this. Wind supplied more new electric generation than natural gas did in 2012. More people work in solar energy than in coal mining. Renewable energy has overtaken nuclear worldwide. Almost no one is building nuclear plants, partly because—here’s an inconvenient truth for you, Tom—they cost too much. Almost three years ago a Duke University study found that power from new nuclear plants is more expensive than solar energy, and the cost of solar has only gone down since then.

But Farrell is convinced wind and solar can’t provide reliable electricity to power the whole grid. You’d think he’d been reading propaganda from the Koch Brothers and had come to believe that if there are solar panels somewhere and a cloud crosses the sun, the whole grid crashes.

Can I just point out here that Dominion’s own North Anna nuclear reactors shut down suddenly in 2011 following an earthquake in Virginia, and the grid did not crash? Even though nuclear is one-third of Dominion’s Virginia portfolio, and North Anna represents more than half of that? And even though, while weather forecasters are pretty good at predicting regional cloud cover, no one can yet predict an earthquake?

The reason the grid didn’t crash is that grid operators make sure there is enough surplus generation available to keep supplying power even at times of catastrophic failure. And note that the nuclear plants didn’t come back online when the clouds cleared off, either. They were down for four months.

If nuclear power is more expensive than renewables, and it has to be backed up 100% with other forms of energy, for much longer time periods, where is the place for new nuclear?

As the CEO of a utility, Tom Farrell should know better. He should also know about the new study demonstrating that renewable energy alone—onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar energy—can power the entire grid 99.9% of the time. The study authors show that doing this would actually cost less than conventional sources of electricity, assuming you include in the price the “external” cost society pays for the use of fossil fuels. That is, if you factor in the cost of climate change, it’s cheaper to build renewable energy than new fossil fuel plants.

Climate aside, there’s other evidence for the superior value of renewable energy in providing price stability for customers and a whole range of benefits for the grid. And of course, for meeting demand at the cheapest possible cost, you can’t beat energy efficiency.

It’s time to face reality, Tom Farrell. If all you care about is making money for Dominion today, your natural gas strategy probably makes sense. But if you care about tomorrow—or even about the big picture today—it doesn’t. Either way, there’s no room in the picture for expensive new nuclear plants.

And if you’re sincerely concerned about climate change, now would be a good time for Dominion to invest in energy efficiency, wind and solar.

*    *    *

Note to readers: Willett Kempton, one of the authors of the study cited above on powering the grid with renewable energy, will be speaking at a townhall meeting sponsored by Sierra Club and Environment America this Wednesday, March 13, at the MetroStage Theatre, 1201 North Royal St., Alexandria, VA. The meeting is open to the public (Tom Farrell is especially invited). To RSVP, contact Phillip Ellis at phillip.ellis@sierraclub.org or 571-970-0275.

 

Unknown's avatar

For electric power generation, the end of fossil fuels is in sight

by

The rap on renewable energy is that it’s too variable to meet society’s demand for a constant supply of electricity. The answer to the problem turns out to be: More renewables.

111022-N-OH262-322Climate change is acting like an ever-tightening vise on our energy options. Each year that passes without dramatic decreases in our use of carbon-emitting fuels means the cuts we have to make simply get more drastic. By 2030, say experts, we must entirely replace coal with efficiency and renewable energy, or fry. Even the most intrepid environmentalists wonder if it can be done without huge price hikes and wholesale changes in how we live and use energy–changes that society may not accept.

A new study out of the University of Delaware shows it is possible to power the grid 99.9% of the time with only solar and wind energy, at a cost comparable to what we are paying today. This counters the conventional wisdom that we will always need large amounts of fossil fuel as a backup when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. It also means the goal of getting largely beyond fossil fuels by 2030 is not just achievable, but practical.

The study focused on a regional transmission grid known as PJM, which encompasses parts or all of fourteen states, mostly in the Mid-Atlantic. Researchers ran 28 billion computer simulations to find the most cost-effective combinations of wind and solar that could power the entire grid, at the least possible cost and with minimal amounts of energy storage. The winning combination relied on natural gas turbines for backup on only five days out of the four years modeled.

The study authors looked for the least cost taking account of carbon and other external costs of fossil fuels, which are not being accounted for today, but they also assumed no technology improvements over time, making their cost estimates conservative overall. All the least-cost combinations used much more storage than we have today, but needed it for only 9 to 72 hours to get through the entire four years modeled.

The secret to dealing with the inherent variability of wind and solar, it turns out, is to build even more wind and solar. One wind turbine is unreliable, but tens of thousands spread across a dozen states greatly reduces the variability problem, and tens of thousands of wind turbines balanced with millions of solar panels is better still. To get to 99.9% renewables, you keep adding wind turbines and solar panels until you are producing three times the electricity that you actually need to meet demand. To power the grid with renewables just 90% of the time, you would have to produce “only” 1.8 times the electricity needed. (And yes, we have the windy sites and the sunny places to support all those projects.)

While it may sound strange to build more generation than you need, that is already the way grid operators ensure reliability. To take one example, if you were in Virginia when the “Big One” struck in 2011, you will recall that the earthquake caused the North Anna nuclear plant to shut down for four months. Nuclear energy provides a third of the electricity in Dominion Virginia Power’s service territory, and yet the lights stayed on. That’s because the grid wizards at PJM simply called on other power sources that had been idle or that had spare capacity.

The other component of reliability is the ability to match demand for power, which rises and falls with the time of day, weather, and other factors. So-called “baseload” plants like nuclear, coal, and some natural gas turbines don’t offer that flexibility and must be supplemented with other sources or stored energy. PJM currently uses more than 1,300 different generating sources, as well as about 4% storage in the form of pumped hydro. The right combination of other sources can replace baseload plants entirely.

wind turbine-wikimedia

Pairing wind and solar improves their ability to meet demand reliably. Onshore wind tends to blow most strongly at night, while solar energy provides power during the peak demand times of the day. Offshore wind power is also expected to match demand well. Combining them all reduces the need for back-up power.

But until now policy makers have assumed that solar and wind won’t be able to power the grid reliably, even when combined and spread out over PJM’s more than 200,000 square miles, and with the addition of wind farms off the coast. Critics have insisted that renewable energy requires lots of back-up generating capacity, especially from some natural gas turbines that can ramp up and down quickly. New gas turbines have even been designed specifically to integrate with renewables in anticipation of increasing amounts of wind and solar coming onto the grid.

This makes the work of the U. Delaware researchers a game-changer by showing that wind and solar can be backed up primarily by more wind and solar. And so we can begin planning for a future entirely without fossil fuels, knowing that when we get there, the lights will still be on.

Unknown's avatar

Mother Nature to be sued for copyright infringement

by

Hurricane Sandy, in an image clearly copied from “The Day After Tomorrow”

To: Mother Nature, d/b/a “Hurricane Sandy”

Re: Copyright infringement

Dear Ms. Nature,

It has come to our attention that you and/or your agents have made unauthorized use of certain intellectual property belonging to our client, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Fox”), including images, illustrations, plotlines, audio and video unlawfully appropriated from “The Day After Tomorrow,” a motion picture owned by Fox. This letter is to notify you that we believe your actions constitute a violation of U.S. copyright law, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

It is clear that the plotline of Hurricane Sandy has been substantially copied from portions of “The Day After Tomorrow.” The motion picture is a dramatization in which a storm of epic proportions bears down on the eastern United States, causing massive destruction and widespread flooding, including in Manhattan. Scientists in the movie say human-induced climate change is the reason for the storm’s unusual size and damaging force.

Your agent, Hurricane Sandy, was a storm of epic proportions that bore down on the eastern United States, causing massive destruction and widespread flooding, including in Manhattan. Scientists in real life say human-induced climate change is the reason for the storm’s unusual size and damaging force.

Certain scenes from Hurricane Sandy appear to be copied directly from portions of the motion picture. Photographs taken during and after your storm depict waves swamping buildings, taxicabs in floodwaters up to the windows, lower Manhattan completely dark, and a flooded subway system—images closely replicating events in “The Day After Tomorrow.” We believe this demonstrates a clear infringement of our client’s copyright.

Moreover, we feel it is incumbent on us to point out that your actions in turning a fictional and hypothetical entertainment into actual fact violate the expectations of the public that climate change is and will remain a matter of mere speculation concerning events that are firmly in the future. The American audience expects the continued burning of fossil fuels to produce entertaining epics like “The Day After Tomorrow,” while having no actual effect whatsoever on their lives. Your insistence on demonstrating that a warming ocean will produce larger and more damaging hurricanes is, frankly, in poor taste.

This letter will serve as notice of our intent to pursue any and all remedies available to our client under applicable law, including an injunction against further infringing activities.

Yours truly,

I.M. Cole

Law Offices of Cole & Oyle, LLC