On Thursday, the Center for American Progress released a new report that outlines plan for jobs, business, and a growing economy called “300 Million Engines of Growth.”

It notes that climate change’s “costs to businesses, families, and government are often hidden but are becoming less so.” The report goes on to detail ways in which climate solutions “offer massive new economic opportunities.” Just as important, any infrastructure investments should reflect the impact of the consequences of climate change like extreme weather and climate change.

Transitioning from an energy system reliant on energy that gets more expensive as we use it up, to one that gets cheaper the more we use it is a winner for the economy:

The United States is dependent on imported foreign oil, is subject to volatile energy prices, and is starting to face the high costs of climate change. Each of these pressures creates a drag on economic growth. In 2012 roughly 6 percent of our electricity came from renewables, and the United States imported $313 billion in oil. Our country must capture the multitrillion-dollar opportunity of clean energy by stimulating demand, ensuring effective financing, building efficient transmission infrastructure, and prioritizing efficiency. Our goal is for the United States to have clean, sustainable, and economical energy sources — quadrupling renewable use between 2008 and 2020 and slashing oil imports in half — in order to fuel economic growth.

The authors say that “clean energy represents such massive and fundamental opportunities for the American economy … that we have devoted a separate section of this report to capturing this opportunity through smart and effective interventions.” Here are the main climate and clean energy recommendations from “300 Million Engines of Growth”:

• Instituting a $25/ton carbon tax on all large polluters, starting with power plants. We believe that the policy most likely to drive significant economic growth in the short term while also tackling the climate change problem is a tax on carbon emissions, starting in the electric-utility sector and slowly expanding to other parts of the economy. Setting a carbon tax will directly relate to our plans for economic growth by encouraging private-sector investment in new power plants and reducing industrial carbon pollution to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change that would devastate our economy.
• Launching a comprehensive clean energy investment program that includes direct support of $9 billion per year for research and development in both the public and private sector, the extension of the wind energy production tax credit, the launch of a green bank that would provide a range of financing tools to enable clean energy deployment, and public market-financing tools. The amount of renewable energy used for electricity in the United States doubled from 2008 to 2012. We can do this again by 2020. This would move us to 12 percent of power from renewables by 2020, quadrupling since 2008, and putting us on course to 35 percent by 2035, a goal the Center for American Progress called for in “Helping America Win the Clean Energy Race.”
• Improving energy efficiency: Energy consumption comprises a large share of family budgets and continues to contribute to America’s trade deficits. Efforts to improve energy efficiency will not only create jobs today but also will ease the strain on family’s disposable incomes. Three energy-efficiency initiatives — Home Star ($6 billion rebate plan for homeowners to upgrade with energy efficiency), Building Star ($6 billion in incentives for businesses to retrofit commercial and multifamily residential buildings), and Rural Star ($4.9 billion loan authority for rural electric cooperatives), which provide incentives for property owners and small businesses to invest in energy-saving technologies — should be part of any short-term jobs plan. These programs would generate 250,000 new private-sector jobs broadly throughout the economy, while also leveraging between $3 and $4 in private investment for each $1 in incentives—all while saving people an estimated $4 billion per year in energy costs for years to come.
• Eliminating $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil and gas companies and creating a future oil reduction technology fund to invest in research, development, and demonstration for clean vehicles. the fund would be fully supported by one cent of every dollar of profits from the big five oil companies.
• Increasing government investment in research by doubling budgets for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Science Foundation, and encouraging increased private investment by improving the research tax credit
• Pursuing supply-chain sustainability: Government involvement can be critical where losing or failing to develop a particular segment of industry would have severe implications for the wider economy in terms of jobs and output. Solar photovoltaic, or PV, cells are one example of an industry that has suffered as a result of a vanishing supply chain. Although the first PV devices were invented here, the United States now produces only 6 percent of the world’s PV cells. A major reason the country has failed to grab more of this fast-growing market is that many of the shared technologies (for example, semiconductors, flat-panel displays, light-emitting diodes, and solid-state lighting) have already relocated to Asia. Had the United States not long ago ceded production of key component technologies for PV cells, we would be better positioned today to compete in the solar-energy industry.

One of the most promising — and obscure — pieces of energy legislation moving in Congress is the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act. This bill that would help drive down the cost of renewable energy, making it significantly cheaper to move to a clean energy economy.

As a reminder, a master limited partnership is a type of corporation that is able to raise money on public exchanges and doesn’t pay income tax at the corporate level. These two qualities lead to a much lower cost of capital for the companies organized as MLPs.

The problem is that only companies in certain industries — like oil and gas pipelines — are allowed to be MLPs. The MLP Parity Act would fix that, by expanding the treatment to renewable energy and energy efficiency. This is a commonsense fix with bipartisan support on the Hill, and a broad range of supporters in the think tank and advocacy community.

Of course, virtually no policy has unanimous support, and MLP parity is no exception. Most intriguingly, John Farrell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance wrote a piece recently called, “Why Master Limited Partnerships are a Lousy Policy for Solar, Wind, and Taxpayers”. Farrell’s very smart and a strong advocate for clean energy, so when he says something is a lousy deal for solar, wind, and taxpayers, it’s worth paying attention.

Farrell’s argument is essentially that the cost savings from MLPs in the oil and gas sector haven’t flowed through to consumers, and that MLPs in renewables will likely lead to more large-scale projects from large investors. These are fair points, but it’s important to respond. First, note what John doesn’t say: he doesn’t say that MLPs actually won’t lead to more wind and solar. They will. This is the point that Todd Foley made in a piece published today, “MLPs a powerful tool to boost renewables”. There doesn’t seem to be any disagreement on the fact that MLP parity would lead to more renewable energy.

The disagreement seems to be mostly about who we want to have building renewable energy: large corporations, or a mix small investors like individuals, communities, and local governments? The truth is that we need both. Certainly, large corporations have an inappropriately large role in many parts of our economy (for-profit prison operators strike me as particularly loathsome), but we should be careful about dismissing policies out of hand just because they would enable corporations to participate in certain businesses.

The problem in clean energy is that it’s not clear that small investors have enough money to make the transition to a zero-carbon future happen on their own. Let’s go through some numbers.

Read more

Tesla Motors and Elon Musk have been in the news a lot lately, receiving coverage of their recent successes — Climate Progress certainly included.

Musk took a serious gamble to start an American electric car company, kept it going with help from almost half a billion in Energy Department loans, and has seen Tesla rise from shaky uncertainty into a profitable luxury electric automaker whose products earn the highest ratings from Motor Trend and Consumer Reports.

But should clean tech outlets and those watching for advacements in zero-emission transportation hold Tesla aloft as the Next Big Thing? Some conservative outlets have abandoned their attacks on Tesla or ignored its successes.

Yet there are understandable criticisms of the company’s business model. “Range anxiety” is a concern for many. And no matter how highly rated it may be, the vast majority of people will never be able to afford the Model S, currently priced between $60,000-90,000. The profit that Tesla reported in the first quarter of this year was not achieved entirely through selling cars, but through selling $68 million in Zero-Emissions credits through California state law.

Is Tesla here to stay? And should it be the poster car that so many have recently lauded as a sign of a new gasoline-free transportation system?

One hurdle for Tesla is range. It excels as a city car. But unlike new car companies that can rely on existing gas stations to give drivers peace of mind when it comes time for refueling, a Model S is tethered to the network of charging stations on a long road trip. Tesla essentially has to build the recharging infrastructure more quickly than their cars can drive. Which is what Musk said Tesla is trying to do.

A company press release announced last week that this year it will vastly expand the supercharger network its cars use to refuel — for free. This year, the network will “connect most of the major metro areas in the US and Canada,” and a year from now, the company says the network will stretch across the continent. The chargers themselves have been upgraded to allow for a full three hours of driving in less than a half hour.

What this means is that in 2014, a Tesla owner will be able to drive from coast to coast and all places in between, for free, stopping every three hours for a 20-30 minute pit stop. As the nation decarbonizes and states increase the portion of their electric grid sourced from clean energy (through renewable energy standards), the net carbon pollution from Tesla vehicles will drop steadily over time.

Read more

America’s agriculture is highly dependent on specific, stable climate conditions. Yet global warming is wreaking havoc on our nation’s farmlands — an industry that produces nearly $300 billion per year in commodities. The frequency and severity of droughts, floods, and changes in precipitation are having negative effects on crops.

It’s only going to get worse. According to the U.S. Climate Assessment, the future holds far more devastating droughts, more floods and more heat waves — resulting in the further decline of crops and livestock production. An effective strategy to protect America’s agricultural sector will have to involve both climate change mitigation and adaptation practices.

Indeed, Mark Hertsgaard wrote last year in The New York Times, “The farm bill is not only the centerpiece of United States food and agriculture policy, it is also a de facto climate bill.”

This year, Congress has another chance to shape the legislation to effectively combat climate change and help farmers prepare for what we know will occur on our farmlands. Last year, Congress was only able to extend the farm bill through September 30, 2013.

Despite modest energy provisions, neither the House or Senate versions of the farm bill comes close to preparing the American agriculture industry to adapt to the devastating effects of climate change.

Clean energy provisions play a relatively minor role in both farm bills, receiving zero mandatory funding in the House version and about 11 percent of the Senate bill’s direct outlays over the next five years. Both bills pursue mitigation through programs for renewable energy and efficiency, but they overlook the other vital arm of a thorough climate change response: adaptation.

By overlooking adaptation policies in the 2013 farm bill, both chambers of Congress are missing an opportunity to protect American farms from further damage from climate change at a time in which action is increasingly important. What’s worse, the five-year time frame of typical farm bills will delay Congressional action on adaptation until 2018.

While neither bill is capable of adequately defending agriculture from climate change risks, the Senate bill comes much closer to doing so than its House counterpart. The Senate bill re-authorizes more energy programs and contains higher funding levels than the House version. As stated earlier, H.R. 6083 gives no mandatory funding to existing clean energy programs and would be the first farm bill of this century to do so if it becomes law.

S.B. 954, on the other hand, includes $615 million of mandatory energy funding over the next five years. The lack of direct spending in the House version puts important agricultural energy programs at risk of losing the funding they need to combat climate change.

The majority of farm bill energy funding goes to the following four programs:

Read more

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University released their most recent survey this week:

The Yale survey, “Public Support for Climate and Energy Policies in April 2013,” dates back to 2008 and is an important barometer for public opinion on clean energy and climate issues.

In general, the year’s survey finds that support for prioritizing clean energy remains high, albeit with a recent dip, due in part to the increasing polarization of the American electorate.

Still, strong majorities support renewable energy and regulation carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Here is more from what’s in the report, by the numbers:

• 87 percent say President Obama and Congress should make developing sources of clean energy a priority.

While there are some programs at the federal level that have aided the development of clean energy and transportation, such overwhelming support shows that the government could and should do more. After all, fossil fuel extractors make bad neighbors. Some states are getting the message and clean energy development creates jobs. Colorado recently moved to strengthen its Clean Energy Standard. Other states’ clean energy sectors face threats. North Carolina has been fighting off efforts to repeal its clean energy standard this year (that fortunately failed).

• 70 percent say global warming should be a priority for the President and Congress.

There are billions of reasons to make it one. President Obama has more than three years left to make it a big one.

• 59 percent think the U.S. should cut greenhouse gas emissions on its own — even if other countries do not.

33 countries and 18 sub-national jurisdictions will price carbon in 2013. This comprises 850 million people and nearly a third of the global economy. China has a pilot carbon trading program in 7 cities and provinces, and is seriously considering an absolute cap on its carbon emissions. The EU has had one for years. The ball is in America’s court, and there are some easy solutions to pursue.

Read more

In our book Clean Tech Nation, which came out late last year, Clint Wilder and I offered up a Seven-Point Action Plan for Repowering America. One of our main action items was “Leverage Proven Investment Tools from the Oil, Gas, & Real Estate Sectors.” Namely, level the investment playing field by opening up master limited partnerships (MLPs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs) to clean-energy projects.

Fast-forward eight months since the release of the book, and this action item is starting to gain some bipartisan support and traction inside the Beltway. Late last month, a group of lawmakers reintroduced the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act, spearheaded by Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and House Representatives Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.).

The bill would extend MLPs to clean energy, instead of limiting them arbitrarily to oil and gas projects. “This market-driven solution supports the all-of-the-above energy strategy we need to power our country for generations to come,” Coons said in a statement. “Our legislation will unleash private capital, create jobs, and modernize our tax code.”

The bill’s language has changed from earlier versions and now includes specific provisions for clean-energy technologies ranging from electricity storage and renewables generation to combined heat and power and energy-efficient buildings. “In the ether of policy, some fossil fuel interests seem ready to accept an MLP structure that secures the mechanism for their own interests while opening it up to clean energy,” explains Patrick Von Bargen, partner at clean-tech government relations firm 38 North Solutions.

Does it have a chance of passage? Well, the bill has not been scored yet by the Joint Tax Committee of the House and Senate. In other words, there’s no clarity yet on the impact such changes to the MLP structure would have on federal revenues. Depending on the impact’s size, how would it be paid for? And finally — and perhaps most importantly — what legislative package would this all be attached to? With comprehensive tax reform unlikely in the near future, it’s more likely it would be part of a bargain on the sequester, debt limit, and fiscal 2014 funding, according to Von Bargen.

In addition to MLPs, the opening of REITs to clean-energy investments is also gaining traction.

Read more

Ron Pernick is founder and managing director of research and advisory firm Clean Edge and the coauthor of two books on clean-tech business trends and innovation, Clean Tech Nation (HarperCollins, 2012) and The Clean Tech Revolution (HarperCollins, 2007).

ARPA-E hopes to revolutionize the economy helping to create strong sustainable and renewable fuel companies. [Marketwatch]

Someplace in America, some very smart scientists are busy revolutionizing our economy.

At least, that’s what a small federal agency — ARPA-E (the Advanced Energy Projects Agency-Energy) — hopes to accomplish by giving a few million dollars to each of hundreds of promising technologies that could change the way the world produces and consumes energy.

Some of these researchers are rushing to invent, perfect and commercialize the technologies that could one day replace petroleum and other fossil-fuels as the world’s dominant energy source.

The hope is that these new technologies could allow us to dramatically cut the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases without hurting economic growth. Indeed, energy costs could be much lower and less volatile. The right mix of technologies could make any country or region entirely energy self-sufficient. …

ARPA-E is almost like a venture capital firm, nurturing many ideas in the hope that one of them will be The Next Big Thing. But ARPA-E isn’t a VC firm; it doesn’t provide all the financing needed to bring a product to market, only the seed money to prove the technology enough to attract private venture capital.

The ARPA-E incubator is already showing some successes: So far, 17 of its projects have attracted follow-up funding from the private sector totaling $450 million. Twelve other projects have started new companies, and 10 more are receiving additional funds from other government agencies.

More on that fast-moving wildfire in Southern California that has now reached the Pacific Coast Highway. [LA Times]

The U.S. delegation to the climate talks in Bonn is advancing a plan that would scrap Kyoto and allow countries to set their own emissions goals — which are likely to be too low to limit warming temperatures. [Reuters]

AP highlights the technological advancements made by fossil fuel extractors, focusing on the disparity between investment in that technology versus renewable energy technology. [AP]

What does clean energy technology investment mean? Some funds are stretching the definition beyond what one might think. [AP]

In Mexico, President Obama and President Nieto said they looked forward to implementing a deal to more easily expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. [Reuters]

The Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee set May 9 as the day EPA nominee Gina McCarthy will get a vote. [The Hill]

Wisconisn’s dependence on coal-fired power plants (and stunted wind industry) is catching up with it, according to a new report. [CleanTechnica]

The World Meteorological Organization reported that indeed, record lows in Arctic sea ice are the result of global warming. [Telegraph]

New Mexico State Representatives are skeptical of the supposed unscientific (read: tobacco advocacy and climate denial) of a candidate to lead New Mexico State University. [Las Cruces Sun-News]

Watch the Solar Impulse fly from San Francisco to Phoenix. [Solar Love]

The ALEC-sponsored bill to gut North Carolina’s clean energy standard failed last week in one House committee. But as the Charlotte Observer reports, last night it passed a Senate committee over shouted objections to do something most people take for granted in a democracy — counting votes to see which side has more.

 

Over the objections of Democratic lawmakers, a Senate committee approved legislation Wednesday to end the state’s 6-year-old renewable energy program.

Opponents of the bill shouted “No!” when voting to show their frustration at Republican Chairman Bill Rabon’s refusal to count votes with a show of hands. In what was clearly a razor-thin margin, both sides said they would have won if the votes had been counted.

“North Carolina is not a banana republic,” Democratic Sen. Josh Stein of Raleigh, one of the no votes, said after the meeting. “That was no way to run a proceeding.”

It was also evident that the Republicans are split on the legislation that would end a state policy of requiring electric utilities to buy green electricity from solar farms and other renewable generators.

At least a half-dozen Republicans voted with Democrats against the controversial bill Wednesday.

The Senate bill would keep the utilities’ clean energy requirement at a laughable 3 percent and get rid of the mandate entirely by 2023. Utilities support the standard: Duke Energy has found that the clean energy promoted by the standard helps with peak load, is reliable, and makes a profit. North Carolina agriculture showed up to testify in favor of the standard, from farmers to the Pork Council. (Pork farmers would rather use the methane from swine waste lagoons to make energy instead of letting it waft into the atmosphere.)

Who opposed it? Mostly radical conservative groups like the Heartland Institute, the Koch Brothers, ALEC, Art Pope, the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and their friends in the North Carolina State Legislature.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Bill Rabon heard the loud nays (consisting of at least six Republicans voting with Democrats) and without allowing a show of hands to count, approved the legislation out of committee. This is democracy in action in North Carolina:

(Video: NC Policy Watch)

This Senate bill moves to the Commerce Committee for a vote and would have to pass there as well as before the full Senate by May 16 to get to the House in time to pass this legislative session.

If it gets there the House version’s sponsor, ALEC member Mike Hager, will have to bring his version back before his Public Utilities and Energy Committee for a re-vote after his bill failed there last week. Hager was in the Senate committee room, talking with staff as this “vote” took place.

Gutting laws that have wide support and economically benefit the whole state becomes easier when you can do it just because you say so, and don’t have to worry about counting votes.

The North Carolina bill trying to repeal the state’s successful clean energy standard that died in the sponsor’s committee is back from the dead. [News & Observer]

Meet the bill with nine lives – and twice as many votes cast against it.

Lawmakers on Wednesday could once again attempt to end a state renewables policy whose proponents say has elevated North Carolina to the nation’s fifth-largest developer of solar farms.

Last week, lawmakers defeated the measure 18-13 in a House committee. At the time proponents of solar power and renewables celebrated a rare victory.

On Tuesday, Rep. Mike Hager, the bill’s sponsor, revived it for another vote. …

The former Duke Energy engineer said he hopes some lawmakers switch votes and others miss the meeting; he won’t decide whether he’ll put his bill to another vote until the last minute Wednesday.

“It’s all about the numbers,” Hager explained. “It’s all about who has the incentive to be there.”

Also today, the North Carolina Senate will vote on a “massive” bill aiming to roll back any local environmental regulations stronger than federal rules. [WRAL]

Industry and environmental groups call the program that has cleaned up 50,000 high-polluting diesel engines on U.S. roads a success, but funding is slated to be cut 70 percent. [Environmental Health News]

Extreme precipitation has been slamming the U.S., in the form of storms and flash floods, consistent with predictions from climate scientists. [USA Today]

Climate hawk Rep. Ed Markey won the MA Senate primary and will face off against Gabriel Gomez in June. [ABC News]

Read more

Colorado residents will now be able to enjoy even more clean energy coming out of their outlets, along with cleaner air and less carbon pollution.

After nearly two days of strenuous debate, Colorado’s House of Representatives voted shortly before midnight Friday night to strengthen the state’s successful renewable energy standard (RES). The bill, which has already passed the Senate and is supported by Governor Hickenlooper, will increase the clean energy standard to 25 percent for rural electric cooperatives by 2020 — a 15 percentage point jump from the current 10 percent. This would mean in seven years, rural areas of Colorado will benefit from one-quarter of their energy portfolio being derived from renewable sources.

These efforts proved successful despite:

• attacks from the conservative American Tradition Institute, including an ongoing lawsuit that argues the RES is unconstitutional
• previous attempts from state representatives to pass American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) “model” bills to fully repeal the standard (documented across the country)
• sudden opposition to expanding the RES from utility interests like the Colorado Rural Electric Association, an organization that had actually supported a broader RES in 2007 as renewable energy prices dropped

Prior to the vote, Democratic State Representatives made strong arguments about diversifying their energy portfolios and how important it is to decrease carbon pollution. Rep. Max Tyler, author of the 2010 law increasing the standard to 30 percent for utilities, explained how his own utility bill was cheaper than those in rural electric cooperatives because renewable energy prices have dropped steadily. Speaker Pro Tempore Claire Levy reported that the utility Xcel found that increasing its share of renewables was good for its bottom line, and because this bill included a 2 percent rate cap, ratepayers would be protected. Responding to arguments that the bill is an “assault” on rural Colorado, Levy said that instead, the bill would allow rural areas to benefits from the economic activity generated by the higher standards in other areas. In the end, the bill passed the House by voice vote.

In 2004, Coloradans were the first to approve a renewable energy standard by ballot initiative. The Centennial State has already seen the benefits of implementing and expanding a robust RES. In fact, from 2005 to 2010, the clean technology sector grew by 32 percent. This growth has led to the creation of 1,600 clean technology companies that employ over 19,000 workers, which ranks Colorado fourth nationally in clean energy jobs. In fact, the clean technology sector was the only sector in the state to show growth in 2010.

Coloradans also overwhelmingly support the policy, with 72 percent of the state agreeing that “rather than using more coal, we should move toward cleaner sources of energy,” a view held across party lines. Prior to the vote, nearly 4,000 Coloradans signed CREDO Action’s petition in support of the bill, which urged the Colorado representatives to “Please vote yes on SB 252 to ensure that Colorado continues its transition to clean sources of energy.”

Expanding Colorado’s renewable energy standard will not only continue to create clean jobs in Colorado, it will also reduce soot, smog, mercury, and carbon pollution from the state’s electricity sector. This legislation would promote investments in small-scale projects that will allow rural landowners to benefit by leasing land for wind farms — creating an additional income stream, as well as allow additional credits for renewable sources.

In fact, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind energy provides 10 times more local tax revenue than a coal-fired power plant in Colorado. If enacted, the legislation would clean up the grid for at least 100,000 Coloradans served by rural cooperatives and bring them closer to the 30 percent renewable target that urban customers enjoy.