by Dan Mullen, via Ceres

In the lead-up to Tuesday’s election, all eyes are on the candidates at the top of the ticket. But if you care about energy policy, your focus should be local. Electricity policy in particular remains a highly localized issue, and in key states like Arizona, Louisiana and Georgia, voters have a real say in who calls the shots.

Each state has its own Public Utilities Commission (or Public Service Commission, Corporation Commission, etc.) that decides how utility dollars are spent. Over the next 20 years, PUC commissioners will approve about $2 trillion in power plants, transmission lines and efficiency programs. These commissions are hugely important to the future of energy because the electricity system they choose today will power our homes and businesses for decades.

Ceres recently published a report on how state PUCs can manage costs and risks, so we have a keen interest in the makeup of these Commissions. Why should voters? Well, in 13 states, they get to choose who gets into office. This week, the High Country News highlighted commission races in a number of states where the stakes are particularly high. Here are a few more to watch if you want to cast your vote for a clean energy future.

Arizona has the potential to be the “Persian Gulf” of solar energy, but that hasn’t stopped renewable energy from becoming a political flashpoint in the state’s commission race. Arizona utilities currently must source 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Democrats want to increase that percentage while Republicans, citing cost concerns, do not. A Democratic majority on the Arizona Corporation Commission could also overturn a controversial recent decision to count a high-polluting waste incineration plant toward a utility’s renewable energy requirement. Given recent reports about unpredictable fuel prices and the health impacts of fossil fuel-fired power plants, a limited renewable energy plan could trade short-term savings for increased future risks. It would also be out of step with public opinion; a 2011 poll found that more than 90 percent of Arizonans support increasing the state’s share of renewable energy – and are willing to pay more for it. Voters can help decide which path Arizona chooses.

Louisiana is a state that is no stranger to risk, and in the wake of recent blackouts following Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, utilities like Entergy are beginning to adapt to climate risks. The PUC also plays an important role in building resiliency. Recently, the Louisiana Public Service Commission expanded its powers over electricity planning, which, wonky as it may sound, could be a big step forward for investing in smart, clean, resilient electric system resources. For example, Louisiana has barely scratched the surface on energy efficiency, which the Commission could push forward. Improved efficiency would be a boon to ratepayers who want to spend less on energy. And, as Ceres’s analysis shows, efficiency is the lowest cost, lowest risk energy resource for utilities and their customers.

Finally, Georgia is another state to watch closely. Two of five commission seats are up for grabs at a time when the state’s electricity bills are rising, partly because the PSC green-lighted the state’s first new nuclear plant in 30 years. That plant has already racked up nearly $1 billion in construction cost overruns, and it’s a familiar story. In the 1980s, the adjacent nuclear plant cost roughly 12 times initial estimates. Ceres’s analysis shows that new nuclear power plants are the riskiest energy resource, which is another way of saying that they’re most likely to cost much more than expected. Nuclear plants also need large amounts of water for cooling, which is a serious concern for a drought-stricken state like Georgia. On a more promising note, the state’s main utility, Georgia Power, recently announced plans to expand its purchases of renewable energy. With all of the important issues facing Georgia’s electricity system, the state’s PSC election should stir up discussion.

State utility regulators rarely make front-page news, but across the nation, voters are facing choice between “the energy sources of the future” and “what’s worked in the past.” If you’re in a state with a publicly-elected PUC, keep that in mind when you head to the polls on Tuesday.

Dan Mullen is Ceres’ Senior Manager for Electric Power Programs. This piece was originally published at Ceres and was reprinted with permission.

Brian Bowen, Manager, Communications, contributed reporting to this article.

by Bill Becker

While energy got some airtime in the second presidential debate, neither candidate hit at the weakest spots in the other’s positions. Mitt Romney’s energy platform ignores the substantial downsides of fossil fuels and reveals a misunderstanding of how the real world works. President Obama has presided over a national energy strategy that he admits is a  “hodgepodge”.

This is a topic that deserves far more attention before Nov. 6. After all, we all use energy. We all pay for it. We all breathe its pollution. We all depend on it to be there when we need it. If there is one issue that affects every American of every age, place and income level, it’s energy.

Here are the some of the details that didn’t come out in the debate, starting with a look at Gov. Romney’s policies.

The energy paper the Romney campaign released in August presumably is the definitive statement of his energy plans. He proposes that the United States achieve energy independence by 2020 by producing more oil, coal and natural gas. What we couldn’t produce ourselves, we’d import from Canada and Mexico.

Energy Efficiency: There is no mention of energy efficiency in Romney’s plan, even though efficiency is universally regarded as the easiest, cleanest and least expensive way to obtain “new energy.”  According to the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), we waste 86% of the energy we burn in the United States, an inexcusable lack of productivity. Inefficiency means wasted dollars for every energy consumer including our biggest, the federal government. Inefficiency produces pollution, which results in more government regulation.  It makes our companies less competitive.

Energy waste costs jobs. Skip Laitner, an adviser to the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP), an economist and senior fellow at ACEEE, estimates that continued energy inefficiency could cost the U.S. economy as many as 15 million jobs in the next couple of decades – five times the 3 million jobs Romney says his energy policies would create.

On the other hand, improvements in energy efficiency would be an economic stimulus that keeps on stimulating. Families, schools and businesses would enjoy the equivalent of new tax-free disposable income that otherwise would have been spent on energy bills.

Competitive Energy Markets: The Romney plan says, “instead of distorting the (energy) playing field, the government should be ensuring that it remains level.” But the governor wants taxpayers to continue subsidizing the same fossil and nuclear power industries that have been on the public dole for generations while he has opposed government support for renewable energy. He wants to confine the government’s role in renewable energy development to basic research, but open more public lands to oil and gas drilling.  There goes the level playing field.

Read more

Colorado’s flagship newspaper, the Denver Post, is criticizing GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for promoting an energy policy that focuses almost exclusively on drilling for fossil fuels.

On Sunday, the Post published an endorsement of President Obama and lamented Romney’s “drill-at-all-costs” energy policy that treats public lands only as areas for resource extraction:

Romney notes correctly that North America is poised to become an energy exporter. But the drill-at-all-costs mantra he is pushing runs counter to the predominant view in Colorado, which is one that balances energy and environment — particularly when it comes to public land. And, unlike the Republican nominee, we believe our nation’s energy portfolio must include government investment in renewable sources such as wind and solar — both of which can become sources of more power and more jobs in the future.

The endorsement comes as Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan campaign in Colorado this week. Polls show that the race is a dead heat in the important swing state.

Since releasing his energy policy in August, Romney has come under fire for his narrow focus on fossil fuel extraction. Energy expert Michael Levi has called it a “pipe dream”; cleantech experts have called it a “political document not worthy of serious analysis; and Obama blasted Romney in the most recent presidential debate for letting “the oil companies write the energy policies.”

One of the pillars of Romney’s energy plan is to transfer federal public lands to the states in order to encourage more drilling and mining. As the New York Times has described, giving states exclusive control over these protected lands makes it very likely that they are used for fossil fuel extraction: “States, as a rule, tend to be mainly interested in resource development.”

The plan doesn’t just ignore renewable energy, it ignores the enormous value of protecting these lands for recreation and tourism. For example, a recent study showed that the newly-announced Chimney Rock monument in Colorado will double the amount of visitors to the site over the next five years, increasing the economic impact from $1.2 million to $2.4 million.

A number of other recent studies illustrate the economic importance of protecting public lands. Headwaters Economics found that Western non-metro counties made up of at least one third public lands saw employment increase 344 percent over the last 40 years; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that homes located near wildlife refuges have higher values; and the Interior Department found that recreation on public lands supported more than 2.4 million jobs and $385 billion in economic activity in 2011.

by Daniel J. Weiss

In the 2008 presidential debates, moderators Tom Brokaw (2^nd debate) and Bob Schieffer (3^rd debate) asked presidential nominees Barack Obama and John McCain about climate change and reducing American dependence on oil.  Both candidates vigorously supported reductions in carbon pollution, though the means to that end differed.

Since that election, the scientific evidence that climate change is real and human caused has only grown.  The health impact and economic costs of the extreme weather events and record temperatures of 2010, 2011, and 2012 are a 10-alarm warning that climate change poses a real threat to Americans and the world. And unlike in 2008, there is a clear difference between the candidates on whether to slow this looming disaster, let alone how to solve it.

The first 2012 Presidential debate in Denver on October 3^rd is scheduled to cover the economy. Our energy future and response to climate change is as relevant to jobs, taxes, spending, and deficits as any other questions. A coalition of environmental groups just delivered 160,000 signatures to first debate moderator Jim Lehrer to “urging him to ask President Obama and Governor Romney about climate change during the first presidential debate next week.” Hopefully Lehrer will respond to this public view by asking at least one question related to climate change and clean energy.

Since the candidates have very different positions on the issues, Lehrer should pose different questions to them. Below are some suggestions, along with some background information on them.

1. Governor Romney, as governor you acknowledged that climate change was real and human induced.  Since then the scientific consensus behind this finding has only grown stronger, including a 2010 National Academy of Sciences report that determined that the “climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities.”

What scientific evidence led to your recent questioning of the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human induced?  And what evidence led to your current opposition to any carbon pollution reduction program?

Read more

by Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman

Clean energy is an important part of the economy of Colorado, which is the location of the first presidential debate on October 3rd.

Colorado’s robust wind industry and 70,000 jobs in green goods and services could suffer if the Production Tax Credit for wind isn’t extended by the end of 2012. The presidential candidates differ on this, as well as other energy issues. Hopefully the Denver debate, scheduled to focus on the economy, will also address energy policies so vital to Colorado and the nation.

The United States is in the midst of significant changes in our energy outlook. We are producing and burning more natural gas for electricity, while reducing coal use. Domestic oil production is at a 15-year high while oil imports are at a 15-year low. Renewable electricity doubled over the past four years, while worldwide carbon pollution and the impacts of climate change grow. The next president will face these and other serious challenges posed by a changing energy world.

President Barack Obama’s first term featured the adoption of essential toxic and carbon pollution reduction measures to protect public health. In addition, he modernized fuel-economy standards for the first time in two decades, which also helped the auto industry; invested in energy efficiency and renewable electricity; and created tens of thousands of jobs.

Gov. Mitt Romney’s energy agenda couldn’t be more different. He would undo new safeguards from mercury, carcinogens, soot, and smog from industrial sources. He opposes the improved fuel-economy standards, and would continue and expand tax breaks for big oil companies, while openly disparaging clean energy and investments in wind power.

In short, there are stark differences between the two presidential candidates that must be discussed on October 3 so Americans have a clear view of the energy path each candidate would lead us down.

Below is a more detailed direct comparison of their positions on the most visible energy challenges facing the nation. Following this chart is documentation on the candidates’ positions:

Read more