QUICK NEWS, 11-15: THE ENERGY DEBATE SHIFTS; GENESIS, CONGRESS & THE ENERGY DEBATE; LIGHT BULBS & THE ENERGY DEBATE; ABOUT THAT ARCTIC DRILLING

THE ENERGY DEBATE SHIFTS
How House Republicans may control the energy debate
Lindsay Morris, November 3, 2010 (Power Engineering via HydroWorld)

"…The new Congress has several [renewable energy policy] ideas to work with that were held over from Obama's first two years in office, including a renewable electricity standard that expands the definition of what energy types count toward the thresholds, particularly adding emission-free nuclear power and clean coal to the definition of renewable energy…Tax incentives are sure to be a major driver to renewable energy development during this half-term…

"Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) is in line to become the new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a role that has significant influence over tax measures for renewables…His Michigan District 4 is home to a number of wind and solar manufacturers…[A] self-proclaimed supporter of alternative energy, Camp believes…[the] little change in America's reliance on fossil fuels from 2007 to 2009 [is] despite the investment of nearly $40 billion in tax subsidies for renewables enacted in October of 2008…[In 2007] renewable energy supplied only 7 percent [of U.S. energy]. In 2009… 8 percent [came] from renewables."

It will be hard for politicians to turn away from the economic logic of New Energy (click to enlarge)

"…[But] Camp's…record displays more openness toward renewables than some of his Republican predecessors…[H]e cosponsored legislation to invest $2.25 billion for a solar technology research and development program…[H]e cosponsored legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an investment credit for property used to fabricate solar energy property…[but he] cosponsored legislation in January 2009 to amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act.

"…[Professor of international energy policy] Elias Hinckley…said Camp's reputation as a proponent of clean energy could be beneficial to renewables…[unless] Tea Party candidates instigate an energy tax…Hinckley said the extension of existing tax subsidies for renewables is ‘relatively safe’…[but] the Treasury Grant Program may not be met with an extension…"

It will be hard for politicians to turn away from the economic logic of New Energy (click to enlarge)

"Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association, said Camp has been a supporter of biomass in the past and comes from a state that ranks in the top five states in the country in terms of biomass plants…[so] extension of the Treasury Grant Program and other subsidies will depend largely on what happens during the lame-duck session…Cleaves said he expects [the new Congress to put] a greater emphasis on tax policy…[Hypothesized compromise energy measures include] tax breaks and incentives for investment in nuclear power, clean coal and renewable energy…energy efficiency… and hydroelectric power, coupled with credits for geothermal heat pumps and next-generation heating, ventilating and air conditioning…"

[Camp:] "It is imperative that policies are in place to encourage the research and development of new, cellulosic fuels that use crop and animal waste and greater use of solar, wind, clean coal and other new energy technologies."


LIGHT BULBS & THE ENERGY DEBATE
Why the Election is Bad for Cleantech, Reason #1; Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) wants to take America back to the nineties. The eighteen-nineties.
Eric Wesoff, November 12, 2010 (Greentech Media)

"…[Because] Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) knows he has to accomplish something other than yammer about creeping socialism…statesman-like compromise [may be on the 112th Congress’s] agenda…[but] less statesman-like members of the Republican party have other ideas. Like taking America back to the nineties. The eighteen-nineties.

"Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), warming up to repealing health care reform, and fresh from apologizing to BP for letting our ocean water dilute their oil, is also taking on the noble cause of preserving the [incandescent light bulb and…is railing against "government regulators" who want to replace the inefficient incandescent with what Barton called "the little, squiggly, pig-tailed ones," according to an article in Talking Points Memo…Barton appears to be talking about compact fluorescents. Unknown to Barton or his staff is that we're in the midst of the great lighting transformation -- with solid-state LEDs on the cusp of transforming the lighting industry…"

From AssociatedPress via YouTube

"The Edison bulb and dinosaurs like Barton will soon be a relic and CFLs are an interim step.

"The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, requires that general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310 to 2600 lumens be 30 percent more energy efficient than current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. That ruling was passed in 2007 when socialist George Bush was President. Specialty lights are exempt. A number of other governments have passed laws to phase-out the use of the extremely inefficient Edison bulb."

Barton's preference for "traditional" light bulbs will cost consumers. (click to enlarge)

"Barton, eerily, is the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and one of the men vying to be the chair of that powerful panel when Republicans take over the House in 2011. It is reasonable to believe that a Republican-controlled committee could erase years of progress in renewable and energy efficiency legislation.

"Barton is not a shoo-in for the post as it will require a waiver of House Republican committee term-limit rules to get the chair and even the Republican party was less than happy about Barton's supplication to BP. Additionally, John Boehner competed against Barton back in 2006 when Republicans were choosing a minority leader…Barton told an audience at the Heritage Foundation…[he seeks to] reestablish conservative principles in the Congress and the country…Inefficiency [though] is not a conservative principle and energy efficiency measures should be a bi-partisan undertaking."


GENESIS, CONGRESS & THE ENERGY DEBATE
John Shimkus cites Genesis on climate change
Darren Samuelsohn (with Jennifer Haberkorn), November 10, 2010 (Politico)

"Rep. John Shimkus is standing by a controversial comment that global warming isn't something to worry about because God said he wouldn't destroy the Earth after Noah's flood…The Illinois Republican running for the powerful perch atop the House Energy and Commerce Committee…[said] his understanding of the Bible reaffirms his belief that government shouldn't be in the business of trying to address rising greenhouse gas emissions.

John Shimkus (R-Ill), aspirant, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair:] "I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God…And I do believe that God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood…Now, do I believe in climate change? In my trip to Greenland, the answer is yes. The climate is changing…The question is more about the costs and benefits and trying to spend taxpayer dollars on something that you cannot stop versus the changes that have been occurring forever…Really, the focus is not going to be climate…The climate debate has, at least for two years, has ended with this election. The real focus is on energy security."

From ProgressIllinois via YouTube

"Shimkus drew snickers from the left in March 2009 when he quoted an exchange between God and Noah in Genesis during a subcommittee hearing on adaptation policies for dealing with climate change. His critics have rehashed the congressman's remarks now that he's entered the internal GOP campaign to take charge of the House panel with direct oversight of global warming and other environmental and energy policy issues…

"Shimkus is one of four Republicans seeking the Energy and Commerce gavel — Joe Barton, Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are the others — in what has become an increasingly nasty campaign. Barton…and other conservatives are attacking Upton for not being conservative enough. Shimkus would not have that problem, and at the every least he is well-situated for a subcommittee chairmanship…Echoing Upton, Stearns and Barton, Shimkus pledged to aggressively pursue repeal and oversight of the health reform law, a significant piece of which falls under the Energy and Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction…"

click to enlarge

"On energy, oversight would be the name of the game. Shimkus said he would green-light the different House subcommittees to "really focus on science" surrounding climate change…

"Like the other chairman candidates, Shimkus suggested a wide-ranging policy agenda on energy that includes everything from coal to electric vehicles, nuclear power and natural gas. He also wants to permanently block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions…"


ABOUT THAT ARCTIC DRILLING
Arctic Drilling Poses Untold Risks, Study Concludes
Leslie Kaufman, November 11, 2010 (NY Times)

"…[T]he battle for the Arctic is heating up again [now that the]…suspension of deep-sea drilling [has been lifted]…[The suspension was] a reaction to the disastrous blowout in the Gulf of Mexico that gushed from April to July, producing the biggest offshore oil spill in the nation’s history. The moratorium was lifted last month…Royal Dutch Shell [immediately] began lobbying eagerly to get final approval for its long-delayed plans for exploratory drilling in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea. The petro-giant is paying for national advertising as part of a campaign to convince the public and the government that it is taking safety precautions that would prevent the kind of catastrophe that unfolded in the gulf from happening in the Arctic.

"Yet the Arctic is well known to be more fragile ecologically than the gulf… [T]he Pew Environmental Group released [Oil Spill Prevention and Response in the U.S. Arctic Ocean; Unexamined risks, unacceptable consequences] brimming with charts and maps that explores the question of how well the government and industry would be equipped to deal with a blowout and spill there. The report concludes, not so well…"

click to enlarge

[From the Pew report:] “The Arctic Ocean is a unique operating environment, and the characteristics of the Arctic OCS [outer continental shelf] — its remote location, extreme climate and dynamic sea ice—exacerbate the risks and consequences of oil spills while complicating cleanup…Oil spill contingency plans often underestimate the probability and consequence of catastrophic blowouts, particularly for frontier offshore drilling in the U.S. Arctic Ocean…The impact of an oil well blowout in the U.S. Arctic Ocean could devastate an already stressed ecosystem, and there is very little baseline science upon which to anticipate the impact or estimate damage…”

[From the Pew report:] “…Oil spill cleanup technologies and systems are unproved in the Arctic Ocean, and recent laboratory and held trials [are of limited value]…Certain environmental and weather conditions would preclude an oil spill response in the Arctic Ocean, yet an Arctic spill response gap is not incorporated into existing oil spill contingency plans or risk evaluations…[T]he researchers concluded that far more study is needed of the Arctic marine ecosystem. Modeling [of sea ice conditions and impacts] should be devised…And deployment exercises should be conducted to determine how effective a spill response would be in such a remote, sparsely populated region…"

click to enlarge

[Kelly op de Weegh, spokeswoman, Shell:] “[Shell has] taken extraordinary steps to compensate for the harsh conditions we expect to encounter in the Arctic, and that is evident in all aspects of our program, including ice management, a commitment to oil spill response and new baseline science…Our Arctic exploration plan has been scrutinized by regulators, stakeholders and the courts, and we look forward to demonstrating once again that we can operate safely and responsibly in the Arctic…”

[Senator Mark Begich, D-Alaska:] “I disagree with Pew’s insistence on an unspecified moratorium on Arctic development, because the perfect set of conditions simply never occurs…I’ll continue to push the Obama administration for responsible Arctic development now to help meet America’s energy, national and economic security.”