/PRNewswire/ -- Thomas A Fanning, chairman, president and CEO of Southern Company, today told members of Congress that proposed regulations aimed at emissions from power plants could reduce reliability, raise electricity prices, slow economic development and eliminate American jobs.
"My message today is that the reliability and affordability that Americans deserve could be at risk," Fanning said in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power in Washington.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed regulation on further reducing air emissions from coal-fired power plants. The new regulation, known as Utility MACT (maximum achievable control technology), covers 125 different types of emissions. The EPA has allowed 60 days for comment.
"This is nearly a thousand-page rule with nearly a thousand more pages of technical supporting documents," Fanning said. "Sixty days is plainly inadequate for the industry to analyze this rule and its effects and offer meaningful comments."
Of greater concern, said Fanning, is the three years mandated for compliance.
"In just three years, utilities would have to develop compliance strategies for each plant, engineer solutions on a unit-by-unit basis, obtain required environmental permits, gain state public utility commission regulatory approval, actually procure and install the required technology, test the technology and implement any operational changes, and then demonstrate full compliance," Fanning said.
A study conducted for the Edison Electric Institute by ICF, Fanning testified, concluded that for the U.S. by 2015 over 80,000 megawatts of scrubbers and over 160,000 megawatts of fabric filter baghouses would have to be constructed and almost 80,000 megawatts of current coal capacity would have to be replaced.
"As the CEO of a company that has installed more pollution controls than any other utility," Fanning said, "I tell you that this cannot be done in three years."
Fanning also stressed that the Utility MACT proposal could cost the industry as much as $300 billion over the next five years.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Friday, April 15, 2011
Friday, July 16, 2010
Congress Passes Law to End Secrecy in Oil, Gas, and Mining Industry
/PRNewswire/ -- International humanitarian organization Oxfam America commends the U.S. Congress for making disclosure of payments from oil and mining companies to governments around the world a legal requirement. Included as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation passed by the House and Senate, this historic measure will increase financial transparency in the oil, gas, and mining industry and help reduce the corruption, mismanagement, and conflict that are too often associated with natural resource extraction booms.
"Congress has made an unprecedented commitment to financial transparency and good governance in a sector that not only affects American wallets, but also some of the most vulnerable communities around the world," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Secrecy of oil, gas and mining company payments to governments fosters government corruption and violent conflict in resource-rich countries that are home to more than half of the world's poorest people. Instability in these regions poses a long-term threat to national security, foreign policy, and economic interests in the United States."
The language included in the financial services reform measure was based on the Energy Security through Transparency Act (S. 1700), a bipartisan Senate bill championed by Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Cardin (D-MD). The new law creates a low-cost, uniform transparency method for oil, gas, and mining companies registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and covers more than 90 percent of internationally operating oil companies and many of the top international mining companies. Companies will be required to publicly disclose payments for the extraction of oil, gas, and minerals on a country-by-country and project basis as part of financial statements that are already required by the SEC. This not only includes American companies but also many foreign companies, such as Shell and BP, as well as companies from emerging markets such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia.
"This provision is a critical part of the increased transparency and corporate responsibility that we are striving to achieve in the financial industry. Given the catastrophic events in the Gulf of Mexico, oil companies, in particular, should well understand that secrecy fosters instability, corruption and greater risk," said Senator Cardin. "We now have the tools to help people in resource-rich countries hold their leaders accountable for the money made from their oil, gas and minerals."
"Too often, oil money intended for a nation's poor ends up lining the pockets of the rich or is squandered on showcase projects instead of productive investments," said Senator Lugar when he spoke in favor of the measure when it was offered as an amendment to the Senate financial reform bill in late May. (The Cardin-Lugar amendment was co-sponsored by Senators Durbin (D-IL), Schumer (D-NY), Feingold (D-WI), Merkley (D-OR), and Johnson (D-SD).) He added: "This 'resource curse' affects us as well as producing countries. It exacerbates global poverty which can be a seedbed for terrorism, it empowers autocrats and dictators, and it can crimp world petroleum supplies by breeding instability."
"We applaud Senators Cardin and Lugar for spearheading this effort in the Senate that will both level the playing field for oil, gas, and mining companies and help citizens hold their governments accountable for using revenues for economic development and poverty reduction. We also thank Senator Leahy for offering the measure during the House-Senate conference process and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank for his early leadership on transparency in the oil and mining industries and for his support for this measure that demonstrates U.S. commitment to transparent business practices and accountable governance," said Offenheiser.
"Passing this law sets up an international standard for the public disclosure of natural resource revenue information, but its effectiveness will be determined by strict implementation by lawmakers and development of effective implementing regulations by the SEC. Companies should heed the call for transparency so citizens of resource-rich countries can begin to use this information to hold their governments accountable for using revenues to address essential services like healthcare, education, and job creation."
Oxfam America calls on the SEC to quickly undertake its rule-making process to implement this important measure as Congress intended. "Oxfam America and its allies in the Publish What You Pay campaign will be closely following the rule-making process to ensure this groundbreaking disclosure measure is quickly put in place," said Offenheiser.
Oxfam America is an international relief and development organization that creates lasting solutions to poverty, hunger, and injustice. Together with individuals and local groups in more than 100 countries, Oxfam saves lives, helps people overcome poverty, and fights for social justice. Oxfam America is an affiliate of the international confederation Oxfam.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"Congress has made an unprecedented commitment to financial transparency and good governance in a sector that not only affects American wallets, but also some of the most vulnerable communities around the world," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Secrecy of oil, gas and mining company payments to governments fosters government corruption and violent conflict in resource-rich countries that are home to more than half of the world's poorest people. Instability in these regions poses a long-term threat to national security, foreign policy, and economic interests in the United States."
The language included in the financial services reform measure was based on the Energy Security through Transparency Act (S. 1700), a bipartisan Senate bill championed by Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Cardin (D-MD). The new law creates a low-cost, uniform transparency method for oil, gas, and mining companies registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and covers more than 90 percent of internationally operating oil companies and many of the top international mining companies. Companies will be required to publicly disclose payments for the extraction of oil, gas, and minerals on a country-by-country and project basis as part of financial statements that are already required by the SEC. This not only includes American companies but also many foreign companies, such as Shell and BP, as well as companies from emerging markets such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia.
"This provision is a critical part of the increased transparency and corporate responsibility that we are striving to achieve in the financial industry. Given the catastrophic events in the Gulf of Mexico, oil companies, in particular, should well understand that secrecy fosters instability, corruption and greater risk," said Senator Cardin. "We now have the tools to help people in resource-rich countries hold their leaders accountable for the money made from their oil, gas and minerals."
"Too often, oil money intended for a nation's poor ends up lining the pockets of the rich or is squandered on showcase projects instead of productive investments," said Senator Lugar when he spoke in favor of the measure when it was offered as an amendment to the Senate financial reform bill in late May. (The Cardin-Lugar amendment was co-sponsored by Senators Durbin (D-IL), Schumer (D-NY), Feingold (D-WI), Merkley (D-OR), and Johnson (D-SD).) He added: "This 'resource curse' affects us as well as producing countries. It exacerbates global poverty which can be a seedbed for terrorism, it empowers autocrats and dictators, and it can crimp world petroleum supplies by breeding instability."
"We applaud Senators Cardin and Lugar for spearheading this effort in the Senate that will both level the playing field for oil, gas, and mining companies and help citizens hold their governments accountable for using revenues for economic development and poverty reduction. We also thank Senator Leahy for offering the measure during the House-Senate conference process and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank for his early leadership on transparency in the oil and mining industries and for his support for this measure that demonstrates U.S. commitment to transparent business practices and accountable governance," said Offenheiser.
"Passing this law sets up an international standard for the public disclosure of natural resource revenue information, but its effectiveness will be determined by strict implementation by lawmakers and development of effective implementing regulations by the SEC. Companies should heed the call for transparency so citizens of resource-rich countries can begin to use this information to hold their governments accountable for using revenues to address essential services like healthcare, education, and job creation."
Oxfam America calls on the SEC to quickly undertake its rule-making process to implement this important measure as Congress intended. "Oxfam America and its allies in the Publish What You Pay campaign will be closely following the rule-making process to ensure this groundbreaking disclosure measure is quickly put in place," said Offenheiser.
Oxfam America is an international relief and development organization that creates lasting solutions to poverty, hunger, and injustice. Together with individuals and local groups in more than 100 countries, Oxfam saves lives, helps people overcome poverty, and fights for social justice. Oxfam America is an affiliate of the international confederation Oxfam.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Monday, December 28, 2009
10,000 Companies Prepare to Start Low Carbon Diet Plans on Jan. 1
/PRNewswire/ -- President Obama and the EPA are gearing up to put the nation on a low-carbon diet and their strategy would do Weight Watchers proud: Count first, cut later.
The counting begins on Jan. 1, 2010 when some 10,000 companies and other entities, including municipalities and even some universities, must start measuring their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
And while it's uncertain when mandatory cuts will be announced - and whether Congress or the EPA will act first - the law firm of Plunkett Cooney said today that polluters might want to start dieting sooner rather than later because their GHG emissions, down to the plant level, will become part of the public record after March 31, 2011.
"New regulations to reduce carbon emissions are coming but public scrutiny will come first," said Plunkett Cooney Senior Attorney. "Companies need to understand that from the standpoint of government regulation and public opinion, the debate about global warming is over. That means it's time for them to develop sustainability plans and carbon reduction strategies before regulators, environmental advocates, shareholders and other groups force them to act."
According to Mikalonis, entities that annually generate or emit at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, which includes gases such as methane, nitrous oxide or several fluorinated gases, must measure and report their emissions to the EPA or face fines of up to $37,500 per day for each violation. The reporting threshold is equivalent to the annual GHG emissions from approximately 4,600 passenger vehicles.
Entities covered under the new rules include fossil fuel-fired power plants, landfills, fuel production facilities, chemical plants, steel and aluminum works, cement factories and large livestock operations. Data collection for motor vehicle and engine manufacturers begins in 2011.
"The reporting rules will drive a lot of transparency and allow company-to-company and plant-to-plant comparisons," Mikalonis pointed out. "They will create public relations issues and potential legal problems for some companies, especially if they have been marketing themselves as 'green' when the emissions report says otherwise. But they also may speed up the adoption of energy-saving technologies, which can flow straight to the bottom line."
In Michigan, carbon dioxide accounts for the vast majority of GHG emissions, which are due in large part to burning fossil fuels for transportation and electricity. Methane is the next largest contributor, mostly from the anaerobic decay of solid waste in landfills. Nitrous oxide, the third largest contributor, comes chiefly from agricultural soil management and mobile source combustion.
In 2002, a study conducted for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality estimated per capita GHG emissions in Michigan were 6.2 million metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which is slightly below the national average.
In terms of mandatory GHG cuts, Mikalonis said new rules are a fait accompli now that the EPA has said that rising levels are a danger to present and future populations. Companies must therefore decide how they want to influence the regulatory process.
"The EPA is obligated to enact rules to drive down greenhouse gas emissions if Congress does not act," Mikalonis said. "Congress must decide if it is willing to compromise on issues like carbon cap and trade and energy taxes, or accept the risk that EPA may implement 'command and control' solutions. Businesses may prefer a mix of voluntary and legislative solutions and that approach should inform their overall sustainability strategy."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
The counting begins on Jan. 1, 2010 when some 10,000 companies and other entities, including municipalities and even some universities, must start measuring their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
And while it's uncertain when mandatory cuts will be announced - and whether Congress or the EPA will act first - the law firm of Plunkett Cooney said today that polluters might want to start dieting sooner rather than later because their GHG emissions, down to the plant level, will become part of the public record after March 31, 2011.
"New regulations to reduce carbon emissions are coming but public scrutiny will come first," said Plunkett Cooney Senior Attorney. "Companies need to understand that from the standpoint of government regulation and public opinion, the debate about global warming is over. That means it's time for them to develop sustainability plans and carbon reduction strategies before regulators, environmental advocates, shareholders and other groups force them to act."
According to Mikalonis, entities that annually generate or emit at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, which includes gases such as methane, nitrous oxide or several fluorinated gases, must measure and report their emissions to the EPA or face fines of up to $37,500 per day for each violation. The reporting threshold is equivalent to the annual GHG emissions from approximately 4,600 passenger vehicles.
Entities covered under the new rules include fossil fuel-fired power plants, landfills, fuel production facilities, chemical plants, steel and aluminum works, cement factories and large livestock operations. Data collection for motor vehicle and engine manufacturers begins in 2011.
"The reporting rules will drive a lot of transparency and allow company-to-company and plant-to-plant comparisons," Mikalonis pointed out. "They will create public relations issues and potential legal problems for some companies, especially if they have been marketing themselves as 'green' when the emissions report says otherwise. But they also may speed up the adoption of energy-saving technologies, which can flow straight to the bottom line."
In Michigan, carbon dioxide accounts for the vast majority of GHG emissions, which are due in large part to burning fossil fuels for transportation and electricity. Methane is the next largest contributor, mostly from the anaerobic decay of solid waste in landfills. Nitrous oxide, the third largest contributor, comes chiefly from agricultural soil management and mobile source combustion.
In 2002, a study conducted for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality estimated per capita GHG emissions in Michigan were 6.2 million metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which is slightly below the national average.
In terms of mandatory GHG cuts, Mikalonis said new rules are a fait accompli now that the EPA has said that rising levels are a danger to present and future populations. Companies must therefore decide how they want to influence the regulatory process.
"The EPA is obligated to enact rules to drive down greenhouse gas emissions if Congress does not act," Mikalonis said. "Congress must decide if it is willing to compromise on issues like carbon cap and trade and energy taxes, or accept the risk that EPA may implement 'command and control' solutions. Businesses may prefer a mix of voluntary and legislative solutions and that approach should inform their overall sustainability strategy."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Seniors Urge Congress to Oppose Federal Renewable Energy Standards
/PRNewswire/ -- The 60 Plus Association, a national nonpartisan advocacy group, today sent a letter to all members of Congress calling on them to oppose federal renewable energy standards. In his letter, James Martin, president of 60 Plus, noted that many senior citizens live on a fixed income and that costs of a federal renewable energy standard will have a disproportional negative affect on the senior community. The full letter is as follows:
Dear Member:
Congress is currently considering an energy policy that, if passed, will have serious affects on senior citizens. Federal renewable energy standards (RES), which will require states to produce a certain percentage of energy from renewable resources, is painfully expensive for business, for industry, and for consumers, especially senior citizens already struggling on a fixed income.
As a national nonpartisan senior citizens advocacy group, we at the 60 Plus Association urge all Members of Congress to oppose an aggressive federal renewable energy standard (RES).
Before our nation can produce and use more renewable resources, we need to invest in the infrastructure required for us to draw from these resources. We also need to account for the fact that renewable resources are much more expensive than our current energy producing assets. These costs - hundreds of billions of dollars - will be shouldered by the American people. A federal mandate like a RES would do just that; put the burden to pay for these investments on those who are least able to afford it.
Senior citizens have a great interest in this issue as so many are living on a fixed income and energy costs are regressive; the less one earns the higher percentage of his or her income is spent on energy. Daryl Bassett, Director of Empower Consumers, said it best in his April 23, 2009 testimony before the House Committee on Energy & Commerce:
"Older Americans are disproportionately affected by higher energy costs. As a share of income, households headed by a person age 65 or older spend more on energy bills than younger households. As CRS recently reported, 'Older households account for approximately 20% of our nation's total consumption on energy-related products. Although in actual dollar terms older households spend slightly less on energy-related consumption than households headed by a person under age 65, they spend a higher share of their income on energy-related expenditures.'
"...In this sense, a federal RES behaves like a regressive income tax."
We acknowledge the noble intent behind this policy, but as realists, we know retirees can least afford this expensive proposition.
Any energy policy that is enacted needs to include adequate cost containment measures to ensure that in this uncertain economic time, we are not going to leave our senior community by the wayside in our clamor for investments in "green" energy.
For that reason, we ask policy makers to avoid imposing renewable energy mandates that will likely result in higher utility bills for that segment of society least able to afford these costs increases, mainly low-income seniors struggling to make ends meet.
On behalf of 5.5 million seniors, thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
James L. Martin
The 60 Plus Association is a 15-year-old nonpartisan organization working for death tax repeal, saving Social Security, affordable prescription drugs, lowering energy costs and other issues featuring a less government, less taxes approach. 60 Plus calls on support from nearly 5.5 million citizen activists. 60 Plus publishes a magazine, SENIOR VOICE, and a Scorecard, bestowing awards on lawmakers of both parties who vote "pro-senior." 60 Plus has been called "an increasingly influential senior citizen's group."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Dear Member:
Congress is currently considering an energy policy that, if passed, will have serious affects on senior citizens. Federal renewable energy standards (RES), which will require states to produce a certain percentage of energy from renewable resources, is painfully expensive for business, for industry, and for consumers, especially senior citizens already struggling on a fixed income.
As a national nonpartisan senior citizens advocacy group, we at the 60 Plus Association urge all Members of Congress to oppose an aggressive federal renewable energy standard (RES).
Before our nation can produce and use more renewable resources, we need to invest in the infrastructure required for us to draw from these resources. We also need to account for the fact that renewable resources are much more expensive than our current energy producing assets. These costs - hundreds of billions of dollars - will be shouldered by the American people. A federal mandate like a RES would do just that; put the burden to pay for these investments on those who are least able to afford it.
Senior citizens have a great interest in this issue as so many are living on a fixed income and energy costs are regressive; the less one earns the higher percentage of his or her income is spent on energy. Daryl Bassett, Director of Empower Consumers, said it best in his April 23, 2009 testimony before the House Committee on Energy & Commerce:
"Older Americans are disproportionately affected by higher energy costs. As a share of income, households headed by a person age 65 or older spend more on energy bills than younger households. As CRS recently reported, 'Older households account for approximately 20% of our nation's total consumption on energy-related products. Although in actual dollar terms older households spend slightly less on energy-related consumption than households headed by a person under age 65, they spend a higher share of their income on energy-related expenditures.'
"...In this sense, a federal RES behaves like a regressive income tax."
We acknowledge the noble intent behind this policy, but as realists, we know retirees can least afford this expensive proposition.
Any energy policy that is enacted needs to include adequate cost containment measures to ensure that in this uncertain economic time, we are not going to leave our senior community by the wayside in our clamor for investments in "green" energy.
For that reason, we ask policy makers to avoid imposing renewable energy mandates that will likely result in higher utility bills for that segment of society least able to afford these costs increases, mainly low-income seniors struggling to make ends meet.
On behalf of 5.5 million seniors, thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
James L. Martin
The 60 Plus Association is a 15-year-old nonpartisan organization working for death tax repeal, saving Social Security, affordable prescription drugs, lowering energy costs and other issues featuring a less government, less taxes approach. 60 Plus calls on support from nearly 5.5 million citizen activists. 60 Plus publishes a magazine, SENIOR VOICE, and a Scorecard, bestowing awards on lawmakers of both parties who vote "pro-senior." 60 Plus has been called "an increasingly influential senior citizen's group."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Opinion: A Fuel-Efficient ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Model
With gas prices again on the rise and the summer travel season upon us, fuel efficiency is on the minds of many consumers. It is also being pondered by members of Congress, who are considering several "Cash for Clunkers" bills that would allow car owners to receive a voucher for trading an old, inefficient vehicle for a new, more efficient one.
The general idea is ingenious: simultaneously stimulate the economy (specifically Detroit and the United Auto Workers) and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by permanently reducing the miles driven by inefficient cars, which would be scrapped.
From an environmental perspective, what is the right miles per gallon (mpg) improvement to require? Is it better to trade a 16-mpg car for a 25-mpg model, or a 33-mpg for a 50-mpg? Actually, miles per gallon is the wrong measure to use when judging CO2 benefits. What really matters is consumption, how many gallons are burned.
Consumption and mileage may sound like the same thing, but they are not. A better way to measure actual consumption, and therefore CO2 production, is to look at the gallons it takes to drive 100 miles, a measure similar to that used in Canada and Europe.
Here's an example: A 16-mpg car consumes 6.25 gallons of gas to go 100 miles. Trade it in for a 25-mpg model, and you've dropped your consumption to 4 gallons per hundred miles (gphm) and avoided 45 pounds of CO2. So is the 33 to 50 trade even better, since the mpg improvement is so much larger? Not when you do the math on actual consumption. It saves only 1 gallon per 100 miles -- from 3 gphm to 2.
With this clearer picture of gas savings, it is easier to calculate the environmental benefits of increased fuel efficiency. Every gallon saved reduces CO2 emissions by 20 pounds, so a reduction of 1 gphm saves 1 ton of CO2 for every 10,000 miles of driving.
One strength of gphm for car buyers is that it directly reflects actual gas usage and savings in a way that mpg does not. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists efficiency in gphm on its fueleconomy.gov site.
Thinking in terms of gphm makes the environmental logic of Cash for Clunkers obvious. Even seemingly small mpg improvements on inefficient vehicles yield a big reduction in gas consumption and CO2 emissions. Trading in a 14-mpg car for a 25-mpg one (a 3.14 gphm reduction) cuts CO2 emissions more than any possible savings one could achieve by replacing a 33-mpg car that uses 3 gphm. When viewed this way, the urgent policy implication is to get people out of cars in the teens and into the mid- or high-20s.
There's one more tradeoff to consider, however. Manufacturing the new, more efficient car to replace the clunker releases an average of 7 tons of CO2, according to an estimate by Dean Bill Chameides of Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. If the trade lowers gas consumption by 1 gphm, the new car will environmentally offset its own manufacture after 70,000 miles of driving. A trade that yields a 2-gphm decrease will offset the manufacturing in 35,000 miles of driving.
With an understanding of gphm and CO2 emissions, we can return to a sensible way of setting efficiency improvements in a Cash for Clunkers bill. Instead of having a confusing maze of multiple mpg increases, thresholds, minimums and maximums, as is the case in the current bills, gphm allows a simple rule: Award a $3,000 voucher for a trade in that saves 2 gallons per 100 miles, and then $1,000 more for each additional gallon saved, up to a limit of $6,000.
This way, there’s no maximum efficiency limit set for the old car and no minimum for the new car because all gphms are created equal. As long as we are moving people up the scale by amounts that more than offset the CO2 from manufacturing the new car, we are reducing CO2 emissions. Among the current bills being entertained in Congress, the May 19 Senate proposal is close to this tiered structure; the May 5 House compromise is not.
A responsible Cash for Clunkers bill should be based on a minimum improvement in gphm, not mpg, which plays tricks on our perceptions and masks the true benefit of small mpg improvements on the most inefficient vehicles.
By Richard Larrick
Duke University
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The general idea is ingenious: simultaneously stimulate the economy (specifically Detroit and the United Auto Workers) and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by permanently reducing the miles driven by inefficient cars, which would be scrapped.
From an environmental perspective, what is the right miles per gallon (mpg) improvement to require? Is it better to trade a 16-mpg car for a 25-mpg model, or a 33-mpg for a 50-mpg? Actually, miles per gallon is the wrong measure to use when judging CO2 benefits. What really matters is consumption, how many gallons are burned.
Consumption and mileage may sound like the same thing, but they are not. A better way to measure actual consumption, and therefore CO2 production, is to look at the gallons it takes to drive 100 miles, a measure similar to that used in Canada and Europe.
Here's an example: A 16-mpg car consumes 6.25 gallons of gas to go 100 miles. Trade it in for a 25-mpg model, and you've dropped your consumption to 4 gallons per hundred miles (gphm) and avoided 45 pounds of CO2. So is the 33 to 50 trade even better, since the mpg improvement is so much larger? Not when you do the math on actual consumption. It saves only 1 gallon per 100 miles -- from 3 gphm to 2.
With this clearer picture of gas savings, it is easier to calculate the environmental benefits of increased fuel efficiency. Every gallon saved reduces CO2 emissions by 20 pounds, so a reduction of 1 gphm saves 1 ton of CO2 for every 10,000 miles of driving.
One strength of gphm for car buyers is that it directly reflects actual gas usage and savings in a way that mpg does not. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists efficiency in gphm on its fueleconomy.gov site.
Thinking in terms of gphm makes the environmental logic of Cash for Clunkers obvious. Even seemingly small mpg improvements on inefficient vehicles yield a big reduction in gas consumption and CO2 emissions. Trading in a 14-mpg car for a 25-mpg one (a 3.14 gphm reduction) cuts CO2 emissions more than any possible savings one could achieve by replacing a 33-mpg car that uses 3 gphm. When viewed this way, the urgent policy implication is to get people out of cars in the teens and into the mid- or high-20s.
There's one more tradeoff to consider, however. Manufacturing the new, more efficient car to replace the clunker releases an average of 7 tons of CO2, according to an estimate by Dean Bill Chameides of Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. If the trade lowers gas consumption by 1 gphm, the new car will environmentally offset its own manufacture after 70,000 miles of driving. A trade that yields a 2-gphm decrease will offset the manufacturing in 35,000 miles of driving.
With an understanding of gphm and CO2 emissions, we can return to a sensible way of setting efficiency improvements in a Cash for Clunkers bill. Instead of having a confusing maze of multiple mpg increases, thresholds, minimums and maximums, as is the case in the current bills, gphm allows a simple rule: Award a $3,000 voucher for a trade in that saves 2 gallons per 100 miles, and then $1,000 more for each additional gallon saved, up to a limit of $6,000.
This way, there’s no maximum efficiency limit set for the old car and no minimum for the new car because all gphms are created equal. As long as we are moving people up the scale by amounts that more than offset the CO2 from manufacturing the new car, we are reducing CO2 emissions. Among the current bills being entertained in Congress, the May 19 Senate proposal is close to this tiered structure; the May 5 House compromise is not.
A responsible Cash for Clunkers bill should be based on a minimum improvement in gphm, not mpg, which plays tricks on our perceptions and masks the true benefit of small mpg improvements on the most inefficient vehicles.
By Richard Larrick
Duke University
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Congress Set to Create Loophole That Allows Wide Public Access to Acquire Clunker Vehicle
/PRNewswire/ -- With environmentalists recently expressing their strong disappointment regarding the "Cash for Clunkers" compromise legislation, it is not good news to learn that Congress is set to establish a loophole that allows widespread public access for individuals to bid on "clunker" vehicles that are supposed to be retired under the program. The proposal being circulated by House lawmakers would allow salvage auctions to process these vehicles, a dangerous move that opens the door for criminal activity from the resale of the retired cars to the public.
The Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA) opposes the provision to make "Cash for Clunker" vehicles publicly available. The loophole is created by laws currently on the books in over 35 states that allow the general public into salvage auctions to bid on salvaged or non-repairable vehicles, rather than only licensed dealers, automotive recyclers, or scrap processors. If the "clunker" vehicles are processed here, there are little to no controls in place to prevent unlicensed individuals who may, illegally and without regard to the environment or safety, purchase these vehicles to put back on the nation's roads or export them to foreign buyers for significant profit - fleecing the American taxpayer.
The salvage pools are much different today than five or ten years ago. It is estimated that over 30% of the total-loss vehicles sold are exported to foreign countries. In fact, one large salvage auction company indicated that their vehicles were exported to over 94 countries in 2007. Therefore, by broadening bill language to include the salvage pools, Congress significantly diminishes the overall health and safety of the general public and the environment, as untrained, unregulated, and ill-equipped individuals -- rather than licensed automotive recycling professionals or scrap processors -- attempt to handle, dismantle and dispose of environmentally-harmful, waste-stream products and hazardous materials. By allowing unlicensed individuals to purchase these vehicles, it also helps the criminally minded to prosper at the taxpayer's expense. Furthermore, it is impossible for the law enforcement community to spend the time or resources to combat the fraud that this is sure to perpetuate.
"Once again, Congress' haste to act in these difficult economic times are leading to whole array of unintended consequences," says Automotive Recyclers Association's (ARA) Executive Vice President Michael E. Wilson. "This is truly something that should go through the regular legislative process with committee hearings and full floor debate." Wilson adds, "This has been circulating around the back halls of Congress for months. What is truly needed is a full public review of what is actually in the bill."
Since 1943, the Automotive Recyclers Association ("ARA") represents an industry dedicated to the efficient removal and reuse of "green" automotive parts, and the proper recycling of inoperable motor vehicles.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA) opposes the provision to make "Cash for Clunker" vehicles publicly available. The loophole is created by laws currently on the books in over 35 states that allow the general public into salvage auctions to bid on salvaged or non-repairable vehicles, rather than only licensed dealers, automotive recyclers, or scrap processors. If the "clunker" vehicles are processed here, there are little to no controls in place to prevent unlicensed individuals who may, illegally and without regard to the environment or safety, purchase these vehicles to put back on the nation's roads or export them to foreign buyers for significant profit - fleecing the American taxpayer.
The salvage pools are much different today than five or ten years ago. It is estimated that over 30% of the total-loss vehicles sold are exported to foreign countries. In fact, one large salvage auction company indicated that their vehicles were exported to over 94 countries in 2007. Therefore, by broadening bill language to include the salvage pools, Congress significantly diminishes the overall health and safety of the general public and the environment, as untrained, unregulated, and ill-equipped individuals -- rather than licensed automotive recycling professionals or scrap processors -- attempt to handle, dismantle and dispose of environmentally-harmful, waste-stream products and hazardous materials. By allowing unlicensed individuals to purchase these vehicles, it also helps the criminally minded to prosper at the taxpayer's expense. Furthermore, it is impossible for the law enforcement community to spend the time or resources to combat the fraud that this is sure to perpetuate.
"Once again, Congress' haste to act in these difficult economic times are leading to whole array of unintended consequences," says Automotive Recyclers Association's (ARA) Executive Vice President Michael E. Wilson. "This is truly something that should go through the regular legislative process with committee hearings and full floor debate." Wilson adds, "This has been circulating around the back halls of Congress for months. What is truly needed is a full public review of what is actually in the bill."
Since 1943, the Automotive Recyclers Association ("ARA") represents an industry dedicated to the efficient removal and reuse of "green" automotive parts, and the proper recycling of inoperable motor vehicles.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Obama Stimulus Package to Include $25 Billion for Renewable Energy
/PRNewswire/ -- Congressional leaders together with Barack Obama's new Cabinet are planning a $25 Billion stimulus package in order to meet the President-elect's goal of doubling renewable energy production in the next three years, according to a report in Sunday's Washington Post.
President-elect Obama's Cabinet favors an $8.6 billion extension of the Federal Production Tax Credit, a program that speeds-up the building of new wind power generation projects. In addition, a bi-partisan initiative first backed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) for a National Clean Energy Lending Authority, is likely to be approved by the Obama team. The new agency could receive as much as $10 billion to extend low-interest loans, grants or guarantees to wind, solar and other renewable energy projects.
In the wind sector, most turbine manufacturers are foreign owned and not likely to qualify for stimulus dollars. Analysts expect U.S. based wind power project builders, to be big winners. New Jersey's NRG Energy (NYSE:NRG) which just completed its second wind project in the Texas Panhandle, has received a buy recommendation from UBS. Another wind power company with two projects underway in the Texas Panhandle is Denver based Nacel Energy (OTC Bulletin Board: NCEN). CNBC guest analyst Francis Gaskins has a $4 price target on the company. Nacel Energy closed yesterday at $1.15.
There are even more U.S. companies to like in the solar sector. Analysts at Stanford Capital have issued a buy on Evergreen Solar (NASDAQ:ESLR) with a $3.70 target. Evergreen is based in Marlboro, MA, and is a leading manufacturer of integrated solar modules. Needham and Co. has a buy on New Mexico's Emcore (NASDAQ:EMKR) and a $2 price target. Both Emcore's semiconductors and Evergreen's solar modules expected to benefit from increasing demand as the Obama stimulus plan is implemented over the coming months.
A Before the Bell(TM) renewable energy update.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
President-elect Obama's Cabinet favors an $8.6 billion extension of the Federal Production Tax Credit, a program that speeds-up the building of new wind power generation projects. In addition, a bi-partisan initiative first backed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) for a National Clean Energy Lending Authority, is likely to be approved by the Obama team. The new agency could receive as much as $10 billion to extend low-interest loans, grants or guarantees to wind, solar and other renewable energy projects.
In the wind sector, most turbine manufacturers are foreign owned and not likely to qualify for stimulus dollars. Analysts expect U.S. based wind power project builders, to be big winners. New Jersey's NRG Energy (NYSE:NRG) which just completed its second wind project in the Texas Panhandle, has received a buy recommendation from UBS. Another wind power company with two projects underway in the Texas Panhandle is Denver based Nacel Energy (OTC Bulletin Board: NCEN). CNBC guest analyst Francis Gaskins has a $4 price target on the company. Nacel Energy closed yesterday at $1.15.
There are even more U.S. companies to like in the solar sector. Analysts at Stanford Capital have issued a buy on Evergreen Solar (NASDAQ:ESLR) with a $3.70 target. Evergreen is based in Marlboro, MA, and is a leading manufacturer of integrated solar modules. Needham and Co. has a buy on New Mexico's Emcore (NASDAQ:EMKR) and a $2 price target. Both Emcore's semiconductors and Evergreen's solar modules expected to benefit from increasing demand as the Obama stimulus plan is implemented over the coming months.
A Before the Bell(TM) renewable energy update.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Friday, December 19, 2008
Energy, Environmental Groups Urge Quick Action by Congress to Use Energy Efficiency Programs to Stimulate Economy, Create Green Jobs
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As a new administration transitions into the White House and Congress gears up to move an economic recovery package early next year, energy and environmental groups today issued a set of recommendations to boost the nation's energy efficiency, create green jobs, and save energy and money. The groups urged Congress to incorporate many of the proposals into legislation to be considered in early 2009.
The Alliance to Save Energy, Edison Electric Institute, Energy Future Coalition and the Natural Resources Defense Council released proposals ranging from low-income home weatherization and energy efficiency retrofits for homes and commercial and government buildings, to strengthened national model building energy codes, enhanced product efficiency standards and energy efficiency investments by utilities. In addition to federal funds for job-creating efficiency programs, the groups asked Congress to fund the authorized Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program to help states further reduce their total energy use, reduce emissions related to fossil fuel use, and improve energy efficiency across all sectors.
Significantly, the groups urged Congress to make the program's funding contingent upon state adoption of more stringent building code requirements and major changes to utility regulation that create long-term incentives to encourage major investments in energy efficiency. Without making such long-term changes, the benefits of federal funding under the block grant program likely would not be as sustainable, the organizations said.
"Today, the United States is the largest energy user and is the most energy inefficient economy of all developed countries," noted Alliance to Save Energy President Kateri Callahan, who continued: "An economic recovery bill that includes significant investments in energy efficiency will not only create jobs immediately, but also and more importantly will bring American ingenuity and its 'can-do' spirit to a new, clean and sustainable energy future -- one in which the U.S. becomes one of the most energy efficient economies in the world."
"With electricity demand projected to grow 30 percent over the next two decades and with utilities facing rising costs across the board, enhanced energy efficiency programs are critical to helping consumers manage their electricity costs," said EEI President Tom Kuhn. "For this to happen, state regulators must go beyond simply removing disincentives to greater efficiency gains by utilities. Instead, they must create regulations that allow utilities to earn a rate of return on new efficiency investments, comparable to what they would earn on a new power plant, for example."
Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition, commented, "Most utilities make more money by selling more energy than they do by saving it. Flipping that incentive structure is the key to unlocking greater national investment in energy efficiency. Right now, the nation's building trades have been knocked flat on their backs by the economic downturn. Retrofitting America's buildings for energy efficiency can put them back to work immediately and deliver needed energy savings to consumers."
"Any serious approach to moving America toward clean energy and tackling our climate crisis must include energy efficiency as one of the key elements," said Peter Lehner, executive director of NRDC. "Energy efficiency is the fastest and most cost-effective way to decrease global warming pollution. Significant investments to increase energy efficiency in people's homes and businesses will help repower America with clean energy, save consumers millions of dollars, and create new jobs to restart our economy."
President-elect Obama and congressional advocates have indicated a clear desire to take up legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The groups emphasized that energy efficiency should be a key element of any federal response to climate concerns. "Energy efficiency programs offer both immediate and long-term benefits by creating green jobs, helping to mitigate rising energy costs and reducing emissions related to global warming," they said. "We hope Congress will move quickly on these critical issues."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The Alliance to Save Energy, Edison Electric Institute, Energy Future Coalition and the Natural Resources Defense Council released proposals ranging from low-income home weatherization and energy efficiency retrofits for homes and commercial and government buildings, to strengthened national model building energy codes, enhanced product efficiency standards and energy efficiency investments by utilities. In addition to federal funds for job-creating efficiency programs, the groups asked Congress to fund the authorized Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program to help states further reduce their total energy use, reduce emissions related to fossil fuel use, and improve energy efficiency across all sectors.
Significantly, the groups urged Congress to make the program's funding contingent upon state adoption of more stringent building code requirements and major changes to utility regulation that create long-term incentives to encourage major investments in energy efficiency. Without making such long-term changes, the benefits of federal funding under the block grant program likely would not be as sustainable, the organizations said.
"Today, the United States is the largest energy user and is the most energy inefficient economy of all developed countries," noted Alliance to Save Energy President Kateri Callahan, who continued: "An economic recovery bill that includes significant investments in energy efficiency will not only create jobs immediately, but also and more importantly will bring American ingenuity and its 'can-do' spirit to a new, clean and sustainable energy future -- one in which the U.S. becomes one of the most energy efficient economies in the world."
"With electricity demand projected to grow 30 percent over the next two decades and with utilities facing rising costs across the board, enhanced energy efficiency programs are critical to helping consumers manage their electricity costs," said EEI President Tom Kuhn. "For this to happen, state regulators must go beyond simply removing disincentives to greater efficiency gains by utilities. Instead, they must create regulations that allow utilities to earn a rate of return on new efficiency investments, comparable to what they would earn on a new power plant, for example."
Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition, commented, "Most utilities make more money by selling more energy than they do by saving it. Flipping that incentive structure is the key to unlocking greater national investment in energy efficiency. Right now, the nation's building trades have been knocked flat on their backs by the economic downturn. Retrofitting America's buildings for energy efficiency can put them back to work immediately and deliver needed energy savings to consumers."
"Any serious approach to moving America toward clean energy and tackling our climate crisis must include energy efficiency as one of the key elements," said Peter Lehner, executive director of NRDC. "Energy efficiency is the fastest and most cost-effective way to decrease global warming pollution. Significant investments to increase energy efficiency in people's homes and businesses will help repower America with clean energy, save consumers millions of dollars, and create new jobs to restart our economy."
President-elect Obama and congressional advocates have indicated a clear desire to take up legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The groups emphasized that energy efficiency should be a key element of any federal response to climate concerns. "Energy efficiency programs offer both immediate and long-term benefits by creating green jobs, helping to mitigate rising energy costs and reducing emissions related to global warming," they said. "We hope Congress will move quickly on these critical issues."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Marilyn Brown Briefs Policymakers on Solar Energy
Public Policy Professor Marilyn Brown spoke Monday to a luncheon briefing at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, D.C., about solar power. Brown, a professor in the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts, was one of three guests invited to give their views on the current state of solar technology, the probable future of these devices and potential barriers to implementing them.
The luncheon was hosted by the American Chemical Society’s Science and the Congress Project and was co-hosted by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX). Julia Hamm of the Solar Electric Power Association and Nate Lewis of the California Institute of Technology also spoke to the gathering.
Brown is one of Georgia Tech’s most sought after experts on energy policy. In addition to informing national leaders about energy policy, she is also the author of Georgia Tech’s quarterly energy sustainability index, the EnergyBuzz (www.gatech.edu/energybuzz).
She joined Georgia Tech in 2006 after a distinguished career at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. There she held various leadership positions and led several major energy technology and policy scenario studies. Recognizing her stature as a national leader in the analysis and interpretation of energy futures in the United States, Brown remains affiliated with ORNL as a Visiting Distinguished Scientist.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The luncheon was hosted by the American Chemical Society’s Science and the Congress Project and was co-hosted by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX). Julia Hamm of the Solar Electric Power Association and Nate Lewis of the California Institute of Technology also spoke to the gathering.
Brown is one of Georgia Tech’s most sought after experts on energy policy. In addition to informing national leaders about energy policy, she is also the author of Georgia Tech’s quarterly energy sustainability index, the EnergyBuzz (www.gatech.edu/energybuzz).
She joined Georgia Tech in 2006 after a distinguished career at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. There she held various leadership positions and led several major energy technology and policy scenario studies. Recognizing her stature as a national leader in the analysis and interpretation of energy futures in the United States, Brown remains affiliated with ORNL as a Visiting Distinguished Scientist.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
