Yesterday, new Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz sat before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee to discuss the Department’s proposed budget and ended up explaining basic climate science to a member of the majority party.

In an exchange with former committee chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) reported by E&E Daily, Moniz was blunt:

“It’s indisputable that we are experiencing warming, and that the pattern of consequences that has long been expected, in fact, are appearing around us, unfortunately — typically at the higher end of the predicted ranges,” Moniz said, pointing to melting ice caps, intensified storms, droughts and wildfires.

In recent years, the subcommittee has been used to push false talking points about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and to hold hearings just to throw climate denier talking points at real climate scientists.

Last year, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) sponsored a raft of bills that would dismantle key public health and clean air provisions and undermine landmark environmental legislation. Last week, the committee marked up Rep. McKinley’s bill that would prevent the EPA from regulating toxic coal ash.

Unsurprisingly, McKinley’s asked Secretary Moniz if global warming was “primarly man-made, or natural and cyclical.”

The conversation that followed was educational, hopefully for all parties. Watch the exchange here, courtesy of Forecast the Facts:

Here’s the transcript:
Read more

Exporting natural gas just got easier.

This afternoon, the Department of Energy approved the second application for a facility to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) worldwide. Today’s approval to export up to 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day goes to Freeport LNG Expansion, on Quintana Island in Texas, for 25 years. The approval process now moves to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions (FERC), so the company is not in the clear yet.

Several companies have received nearly two dozen permits from DoE to export LNG to countries with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement (FTA), but the approval process has been much slower for permits to export to non-FTA countries. 19 facilities that want to export LNG to non-FTA countries are still under review by the Energy Department — including a joint project between ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum.

The natural gas industry is booming in the United States, largely due to the practice of fracking, which opened up large parts of the country to extraction previously thought uneconomical to drill. Natural gas can be transported via pipeline across land, but when companies want to export the fuel overseas, they have to use ships. Since natural gas (mostly methane) in gas form would require a large ship to transport, it must be cooled and liquefied before it can be exported across an ocean.

In the last decade, companies built facilities to import natural gas because the U.S. expected lower production than what fracking actually allowed. Once the shale gas boom sharply increased domestic production, they have tried to turn those import terminals into export terminals. Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass terminal, the first facility to receive DoE approval to export to non-FTA countries, is one example of this.

The reason for the delay of such applications is due to opposition largely from the chemical industry, which fears that exports will lead to an increase in the price of natural gas (which it uses for industrial purposes), and those who care about carbon emissions and the environment, who point out that the U.S. still does not know the consequences that exports will have on carbon emissions.

Congressman Ed Markey, running for John Kerry’s old senate seat in Massachusetts, said today that “The Department of Energy still doesn’t even know what the impact of natural gas exports will be on domestic businesses and consumers, but they are approving more exports anyway.”

If the U.S. is increasing exports, it becomes even more critical to ensure that the natural gas obtained through hydraulic fracturing is as safe as possible, with zero fugitive emissions. Yesterday the Interior Department released draft fracking rules, and there are some easy ways (5 in fact) to make the rules adequately protect Americans and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is one thing to argue for weak safeguards to give Americans access to “cheap energy” — it is another to argue for weak rules that poison the air and water to export the energy to other countries.

The net climate effects of LNG exports depend largely on the energy currently used by the importing country — what the gas will replace. Coal-heavy economies that replace their coal with natural gas should see lower emissions, but this transition could threaten more valuable transitions to renewable energy.

The Energy Department said in today’s approval that “the exports proposed in this Application are likely to yield net economic benefits to the United States.” Left unsaid is the fact that the more fossil fuels left in the ground, the easier it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which would benefit the economy in myriad ways.

Yesterday afternoon, Ernest Moniz was unanimously confirmed as the nation’s new Energy Secretary, earning praise from green groups and industry. [Greentech Media]

Ernest Moniz, a former MIT physicist, is the new secretary of energy. The Senate voted to confirm Moniz this afternoon by a vote of 97 to 0.

Moniz now takes over for Steven Chu, who left the Department of Energy in April after a tumultuous tenure in office. Faced with the sequester and a possible continuing resolution that would limit the department’s budget, Moniz will also need to make hard decisions about what programs to fund.

As a moderate progressive on energy issues, Moniz had strong bipartisan support — unlike many of President Obama’s other nominees. However, some environmental groups publicly worried about Moniz because of his support for an “all-of-the-above” strategy to energy production, particularly his promotion of natural gas while at MIT…. Moniz has also been a strong supporter of renewable energy and the need to address climate change.

The Interior Department issued new draft rules on fracking, weaker than a previous version supported by many, and stronger than the “no federal regulations” position advocated for by industry. [Washington Post]

In an extended road trip around the country, a researcher has found that methane emission levels are much higher than previously thought. [Yale Environment 360]

Unfortunately, a climate denier talking point that increasing clouds will cool the earth is even less true than once originally thought. [Climate News Network]

Read more

In a contentious hearing yesterday, the House GOP members of the House Oversight Committee aggressively questioned Fisker Automotive executives and an Energy Department staffer about a loan Fisker received from the Energy Department.

The attacks were reminiscent of those made in hearings on Solyndra and were more of a reflection of the committee’s hyperpartisan agenda than any real oversight duty. It also suggested some hypocrisy as GOP lawmakers attacked the Energy Department for “picking winners and losers” in a loan program that they themselves had sought to exploit for their own “winners.”

Fisker received the $529 million loan through the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (ATVM), which began under President Bush. In fact in 2008, the Bush Administration urged Fisker to apply for a loan. The company raised more than $1 billion in outside financing. Fisker had received $192 million of the federal loan when the Department of Energy suspended the loan in June 2011. Since then, the government seized $21 million back from Fisker as a partial loan repayment. For context, the larger Energy Department clean energy loan program has leveraged more than $55 billion in total economic investment in 33 projects.

Who is to blame for this loss? Fisker met the conditions of the contract when it was made, and so the Energy Department had to follow the contract’s terms. If bankers could foreclose on a mortgage just because they heard the homeowner got a bad employment review, most would be outraged. As long as the homeowner met the terms of the loan, the bank is not allowed to foreclose. Risk exists in the market.

DoE invested in fast-growing electric car company Tesla Motors (as well as Ford and Nissan North America). Tesla is paying back its loan early, employs nearly 3000 workers, recently turned a profit, and its stock price recently hit an all-time high. Though it is possible that they lost money on Fisker, they helped to create a successful new company, and strengthen two others.

Read more

Tuesday is the confirmation hearing date for Energy Secretary nominee Ernest Moniz. The MIT professor will face the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee (webcast here starts at 10 am ET).

I have known Moniz for 30 years. Turns out he was my professor for advanced electromagnetism in 1982. Then I worked with him again at the Clinton Energy Department in 1997 and 1998 (his full bio is here). I think he’s a fine choice for Secretary — and considerably better than many of the alternatives.

Some have complained that Moniz, like Chu, is not an energy deployment guy. True enough, but somehow U.S. renewable electricity supply managed to double under Chu. Of course, that’s also mostly a coincidence because the energy secretary doesn’t actually have much power over energy in this country.

For those worry about fracking, for instance, the EPA administrator nominee — Gina McCarthy — will play a much more salient role. And she’s the one who will be in charge of developing carbon regulations. She gets a confirmation hearing on Thursday.

Moniz is exceedingly knowledgeable about carbon issues. Just last year told the Switch Energy Project he supports a carbon price that would substantially increase electricity costs:

“If we start really squeezing down on carbon dioxide over the next few decades, well, that could double; it could eventually triple…. I think inevitably if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on the cost, it brings along with it a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push towards clean technologies in a conventional pollution sense; it brings along with it a push towards security. Because after all, the security issues revolve around carbon-bearing fuels.”

Here’s the video:

Read more

President Obama nominated MIT physicist Ernest Moniz as Secretary of Energy to replace outgoing Steven Chu. In his announcement, Obama called Moniz a “brilliant scientist” who “knows that we can produce more energy and grow our economy while still taking care of our air, our water, and our climate.”

Here is where the nominee stands on the most important energy issues:

Climate Change and a Price On Carbon: According to the Washington Post, Moniz is “alarmed about climate change and devoted to funding scientific research into low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuel.” In a video interview, Moniz said, “What I believe is if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on cost, and it brings along a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push toward clean technology; it brings along with it a push toward security,” he said. A 2011 MIT gas study calls for greenhouse pollution reductions greater than 50 percent.

Energy Efficiency: A sign the DOE will continue to prioritize energy efficiency is Moniz’s own words on the topic. “The most important thing is lowering your use of energy in ways that actually save you money,’ he said. ‘It sounds trivial, but putting out lights really does matter.”

Solar Energy: He describes himself as “bullish” on solar energy. According to Solar Freedom Now, “He ‘gets’ the practical realities of solar R&D,” and has advised a number of solar finance and technology companies.

Nuclear Energy: Moniz has been embraced by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group, for his long-time support of the industry. In 2011, he wrote that it would be a “mistake” to allow Japan’s nuclear disaster to “cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits” due to his belief that nuclear power can be a partial solution to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in the long-term.

Natural Gas: Moniz wrote that “natural gas truly is a bridge to a low-carbon future” in an academic report. He favors its use as “bridge” to transition to renewables: “For the next several decades, however, natural gas will play a crucial role in enabling very substantial reductions in carbon emissions.” But Moniz also warned that natural gas could slow the growth in clean energy.

Fracking: The Energy Department would have no jurisdiction over fracking policy even though Moniz supports the controversial drilling technique. Moniz has been criticized for a pro-fracking MIT report bankrolled by oil and gas companies. However, the MIT study also supports mandatory disclosure of fracking chemicals.

Some groups, such as Public Citizen and Food & Water Watch, have criticized Moniz over his support for natural gas and hydrofracking, since neither are particularly good for the environment or climate. According to The Hill, none of the largest environmental organizations opposes his nomination. The Sierra Club expressed hesitancy that “an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy only means more of the same.”

Following Obama’s announcement, Natural Resources Defense Council released a statement of support that said, “Professor Moniz has the hands-on experience and the expertise needed to help further the climate and energy goals our country urgently needs. His background, coupled with his long history of constructive engagement with, and at, the Energy Department, will serve the American people well.” Republicans like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) also back Moniz’s nomination, calling him someone “we could work with.”

ThinkProgress War Room Senior Climate/Energy Researcher Tiffany Germain contributed research to this post.

This morning brought a piece of news that some in the press will label an “October surprise” for the Obama campaign.

A123 Systems, a manufacturer of lithium ion batteries used for electric vehicles and grid storage, has filed for bankruptcy protection and reached an agreement to sell two U.S. manufacturing plants to competitor Johnson Controls. The company received $129 million in grants to build its facilities.

Let the political messaging begin.

Journalists will likely paint this another “blow to the White House” over its support for clean energy. The pundits at Fox News are probably busy rehearsing their “crony capitalism” lines with zombie-like discipline. And Mitt Romney is doubtless penciling in a new zinger on “picking winners and losers” for tonight’s presidential debate.

Actually, it’s a good opportunity for Obama to stand up and defend federal investments in clean energy.

Today’s announcement, while certainly unfortunate for a once-promising American cleantech company, is neither a huge surprise, nor the loss of a taxpayer investment.

In fact, the only taxpayer funds provided to A123 Systems were for domestic manufacturing facilities — plants that have now been purchased by Johnson Controls, a leading company in the advanced automobile sector (Already, journalists are reporting that A123 Systems received $249 million in grants. Actually, the company only took down $129 million in grants for building its manufacturing facilities).

“Our interest in A123 Systems is consistent with our long-term growth strategies and overall commitment to the development of the advanced battery industry,” said Alex Molinaroli, president of Johnson Controls’ power solutions arm, in a statement.

So an American company purchases manufacturing facilities and other assets from another American company — keeping that advanced battery production in the U.S. — and explains that it’s “consistent with our long-term growth strategies.”

That’s quite an interesting story. But it doesn’t exactly make good election-year messaging.

Facts be damned, opponents are lining up to use A123 Systems as a weapon for attacking President Obama and Democrats for their support of clean energy.

“Obama/Stabenow choose badly with $ borrowed from China. A123 goes bankrupt and our kids are left holding the bag,” tweeted former Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) this morning.

What Hoekstra doesn’t mention is that he co-signed a letter in 2009 requesting funds for a Michigan-based manufacturing facility proposed by A123 Systems. He, like virtually every other lawmaker across the political spectrum, explained that such investments are “vital home-grown technologies and job creation in a new industry essential to jump start the development of a U.S. manufacturing base.”

Hoekstra is one of dozens of Republican lawmakers — including Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan — who asked for hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and loan guarantees for clean energy projects in their districts. But that was before it became a political strategy to exploit the failure of innovative companies in order to win an election.

The A123 issue could well come up in the presidential debate tonight between Obama and Romney.

In the last debate, Romney tried to claim that “nearly half” of clean energy companies supported by the stimulus package had gone bankrupt. That absurd claim was quickly debunked and the Romney campaign had to walk it back the next day, saying he was talking only about the loan guarantee program. In fact, out of the dozens of companies that received loan guarantees, only three have gone bankrupt.

Even if the attacks have already gotten absurdly out of proportion, this is still a legitimate story. In 2008, Obama made renewable energy a major part of his campaign. In 2009, he made it a major part of the stimulus package. So when a company fails after getting support from the Administration, it’s bound to be brought up.

But Obama should be able to defend his record. And sadly, he failed to do that in the last debate.

A123 Systems is one of 29 companies that have received funding in order to build dozens of manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S. for batteries, new types of engines, and a variety of other components to advanced vehicles.

In addition, since Obama came into office, we’ve seen

• a doubling of non-hydro renewable electricity
• tens of thousands of jobs supported in the sector
• some of the biggest “first-of-a-kind” wind, solar, and biofuels facilities built
• new efficiency standards for the automotive sector that will continue to spur new innovations in technology.

And let’s not forget: Romney was once an avid supporter of advanced vehicle manufacturing who called for “a joint public-private partnership to invest in new technology related to fuel efficiency as well as new sources of energy.”

Polls show the American people still want to see strong federal investments in clean energy technologies. When this issue inevitably comes up tonight, Obama should be able to look confidently at the American people and explain the why he believes they are economically and environmentally important — as well as put the record straight on the accomplishments we’ve made.

by Richard W. Caperton, Adam James, and Matt Kasper

Energy efficiency is a win-win-win for the United States. It saves homeowners money, it puts Americans back to work, and it helps avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. But energy efficiency investments are tough for some people to make because they typically involve relatively large up-front costs for benefits spread into the future. The Weatherization Assistance Program exists to help make sure all Americans share benefits of energy efficiency.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated $5 billion for the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program with the highly ambitious goal of weatherizing 600,000 homes by the end of the three-year Recovery Act period.[1] In crafting the Recovery Act, President Barack Obama understood that scaling up the weatherization program would be a key part of the strategy to jumpstart the economy through creating American jobs, supporting small businesses, saving everyday people money on their energy bills, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions

After a slow start, the Weatherization Assistance Program gained momentum and on Thursday, September 27, 2012 weatherized the 1 millionth home just nine months after passing the 600,000 mark.[2] This achievement marks a major milestone. Across America, the Weatherization Assistance Program has been a success.

While this is a great achievement for President Obama and the Department of Energy, the real beneficiaries are the families who have had their homes retrofitted. Any household at or below 200 percent of the poverty line qualifies to apply for retrofit services. Although 38 million households are eligible for weatherization services, priority has been given to families with children and homeowners who are elderly or disabled.[3]

The Weatherization Assistance Program also has environmental benefits. Energy use in homes, offices, and industrial facilities is a leading contributor to climate change. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, buildings in the United States account for nearly 40 percent of the nation’s total energy use and 65 percent of electricity consumption.[3] Because the construction, operation, and maintenance of buildings involves large amounts of energy, water, and other resources, buildings produce 30 percent of the greenhouse gasses emitted in the United States each year.

Read more

Love it or hate it, there’s no denying that the U.S. is in the midst of a shale gas boom. Armed with a horizontal drilling technique that allows companies to access natural gas trapped in shale formations, the industry’s production has surged and prices have fallen to historic lows.

Supporters often hail shale gas as a miracle of the free market — a product of enterprising risk takers who commercialized fracking techniques without government help.

Except that’s not entirely true.

If we look at the history of how horizontal drilling techniques were commercialized, we find a strong base of government support through R&D, mapping techniques, cost-sharing programs, and billions of dollars in tax credits. The Breakthrough Institute wrote a report on this support last year showing how decades of federal support helped businesses pioneer and commercialize new, risky drilling techniques.

The Associated Press published a follow up story yesterday on the history of government support in shale gas. It illustrates the importance of federal assistance for new energy technologies. Along with establishing a tax credit for drillers in 1980 that amounted to $10 billion through 2002, the Department of Energy provided crucial technical assistance during times of failure:

“There’s no point in mincing words. Some people thought it was stupid,” said Dan Steward, a geologist who began working with the Texas natural gas firm Mitchell Energy in 1981. Steward estimated that in the early years, “probably 90 percent of the people” in the firm didn’t believe shale gas would be profitable.

“Did I know it was going to work? Hell no,” Steward added.

In 1975, the Department of Energy began funding research into fracking and horizontal drilling, where wells go down and then sideways for thousands of feet. But it took more than 20 years to perfect the process.

Alex Crawley, a former Department of Energy employee, recalled that some early tests were spectacular — in a bad way.

A test of fracking explosives in Morgantown, W.Va., “blew the pipe out of the well about 600 feet high” in the 1970s, Crawley said. Luckily, no one was killed. He added that a 1975 test well in Wyoming “produced a lot of water.”

Steward recalled that Mitchell Energy didn’t even cover the cost of fracking on shale tests until the 36th well was drilled.

“There’s not a lot of companies that would stay with something this long. Most companies would have given up,” he said, crediting founder George Mitchell as a visionary who also got support from the government at key points.

“The government has to be involved, to some degree, with new technologies,” Steward said.

This is a hugely important message that we need to keep in mind today. Ever since the bankruptcy of a few clean energy companies that received loan guarantees — most famously Solyndra — some politicians and conservative organizations have called for an end to all government support for clean energy. Some are even calling for an end to the Department of Energy all together. (Oddly enough, many of these opponents fight for preserving billions of dollars in permanent tax credits for the oil and gas industry).

Whether they’ve truly fooled themselves or they’re just blatantly lying, these hypocritical free-marketeers are trying to convince Americans that government investments in clean energy are unique. In fact, all energy technologies — nuclear, coal, oil, and gas — have received generous federal support in order to bring them to scale.

According to an analysis from DBL Investors, federal support for oil and gas was five times greater than federal support for renewables during the first 15 years of available subsidies. The support for nuclear was more than 10 times greater than renewables.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the extent of government support and the types of mechanisms we should use to deploy and commercialize new technologies. But there shouldn’t be a debate on whether that support should exist at all.

Related Post:

• Free Market Hypocrisy: Why Do We Hold Renewables To Different Standards Than Fossil Fuels And Nuclear?