There’s big news for solar power coming out of Florida. Florida Power & Light (FPL) – one of the nation’s largest utilities and the largest producer of wind power – announced at the Clinton Global Initiative conference that it will spend $1.5 billion to build solar thermal energy in Florida, California, and other states. In addition, the utility plans on investing nearly another billion dollars nationwide to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a big contributor to global warming.

Solar thermal power makes electricity by converting solar energy to heat that drives a thermal power plant.

The utility’s plan is to build at least 300 megawatts (MW) of solar thermal in Florida; that’s enough electricity to power about 150,000 homes. It will also help the state reach its goal of cutting CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by that same year.

California will get a 200-MW plant that will cover 2 square miles with flat mirrors that track the sun.

FPL’s CEO Lew Hay told Reuters: "The thing we’ve got to make customers understand is that any fossil fuel has a hidden cost that society is paying every day, and that is the cost of carbon. We need to put a price on carbon, by doing so the illusion that coal-produced energy is low-cost will go away."

The project FPL has planned will start out as a 10MW pilot project and eventually grow to be the largest solar plant in Florida. But besides the solar investment, the company is also upgrading all 4.5 million electricity meters used by Florida customers. The replacements will be "smart network" meters that show a digital read-out of electricity consumption, and even give an hour-by-hour record of power use. This will allow customers and businesses to monitor their energy use more closely, and experiment with the most effective methods of efficiency. Other investments will go towards promoting these efforts.

As exciting as this news is, it’s easy to feel down when you learn that FPL’s solar plans for Florida only amount to about 1 percent of the state’s power plant capacity. But clean energy supporters and FPL are still optimistic. Hay pointed out that relatively large commitments to clean energy, like FPLs, will really drive the cost of the technology down.

Already the largest wind power provider, FPL now has its sights on leading the solar market.

Associated Press, via Orlando Sentinel
Reuters, via Planet Ark

Thanks to Erin over at RE-AMP for the heads-up on this great piece of news: Eight major utilities have agreed to implement energy efficiency measures in order to meet the growing demand for electricity. By emphasizing efficiency over coal, they will cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30 million tons — the equivalent of taking almost 6 million cars off the road — and avoid the need to build 50 500-megawatt peaking power plants.

The utilities involved have more than 20 million customers and cover 22 states: Con Edison (ED), Edison International (EIX), Great Plains Energy (GXP), Duke Energy (DUK), Pepco Holdings (POM), PNM Resources (PNM), Sierra Pacific Resources (SRP), and Xcel Energy (XEL). Up until now, the only utilities that want to grow profits through energy efficiency investments have been in California.

The move by these utilities comes at a time when demand is growing, concerns and lawsuits about emissions abound, and global warming is a hot political and business issue.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to cut global warming emissions, and the utilities agree: ” …we share a common belief that energy efficiency is the greatest untapped resource in addressing global climate change in the near-term.” Here are the major elements of their plan:

• Boost investments in energy efficiency projects to $1.5 billion per year in the next 10 years.

• Create a national institute for electric efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Institute will work on regulatory policy models, notably how utilities can make money when customers use less energy rather than more. It will be formed within the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned utilities.

Innovation and multi-party collaboration will be needed to craft policies that allow companies to profit from investing in efficiency. Utilities could profit from replacing inefficient air conditioners and light bulbs, for instance. Great Plains hopes to get legislation passed in Kansas and Missouri that would allow them to earn a higher return on efficiency investments than what would be made investing in traditional power plants. The utility could install smart electricity meters that tell customers when electricity prices are highest and even allows the utility to adjust the operations of appliances in customer homes. Michael Chesser, Chairman and CEO of Great Plains, said that energy efficiency, “with the right incentives,” could take care of all the growth in electricity demand between 2010 and 2017.

The business community was also interested by the announcement. The Dow Jones Wire commented:

It’s a sign of how quickly energy efficiency has taken center stage in the utility industry’s growth plans. Even in states where rates are low, power companies increasingly see efficiency investments as an inexpensive way to satisfy growing electricity demand and boost revenue without provoking the public opposition that usually dogs proposals for new power plants and transmission lines.

The utilities are working in partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative, backed by former President Bill Clinton’s foundation.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

Kansas City Star
Dow Jones Wire
Yahoo Finance

The week began and ended with major international climate change conferences. The first was a United Nations meeting, prepping world leaders for the December talks in Bali that will be the first step to determining emissions goals after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The meeting that closed out this week was held by President Bush in Washington. Sixteen nations, the UN, and the European Union were invited.

At the start of the two-day “Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told delegates that the U.S. while being a major emitter of global warming pollution, the government is very serious about fighting climate change. In a soundbite gobbled up by the media, she said that global warming, like terrorism, needs the nations of the world to work together to fight it.

Like the meeting earlier in the week, the Washington meeting was billed as a starting point for negotiations beyond Kyoto. But while the U.N. meetings discuss measurable emissions cuts and targets, Bush prefers voluntary measures or “intensity targets,” that call for emission reductions per each unit of economic production.

The problem is that intensity targets don’t mean overall emission cuts, and that makes many at home and abroad suspicious of the real motives behind the Bush meeting.

Besides the expected protestors outside the conference, the delegates inside were wary as well. The EU’s Deputy Environment Minister Humberto Rosa explained:

“We have actually found many, many countries voicing our view that (a) voluntary approach may be useful but will not solve the issue. Voluntary goals so far have not got us to the level of ambition that we need.”

In fact, he went on to say that Europe will insist on a clearer picture of Bush’s emissions plan and how it will interlock with the Bali talks before they agree to any further meetings. Although the U.S.’s participation is welcome, they insist, officials want to ensure that the intentions of the Bali conference aren’t stalled.

Agence France-Presse
CNN
National Post

Photo courtesy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program office.

I’m a Minnesota Public Radio member, and so I choose to receive a magazine called Minnesota Monthly as my thank you gift (I know I could save them $15 more a year but it’s a really good magazine). This month, I was at first pleased to find an article on global warming, then disturbed to learn about the rapid changes going on in Lake Superior because of the steadily increasing temperatures.

For starters, the lake’s rapidly warming water temperature has baffled scientists. Although they knew it has been slowly heating up, "it went bananas" beginning 30 years ago: about 75 percent of the 6-degree increase in water temperature has happened since 1980.

Scientists at the Large Lakes Observatory in Duluth, MN thought they had made a mistake: How could the lake be warming up twice as fast as the climate around it?

Much like the effect scientists are seeing in the Arctic, the lack of ice coverage has caused the lake to warm up faster than expected. The ice normally reflects sunlight back into space and keeps the water cooler underneath. But as warmer temperatures creep in and the average annual ice cover shrinks, the darker open water absorbs the heat and cranks up the lake temperature even faster. The vicious cycle continues, as warmer water temperatures mean less ice, which means more open water…

The spring turnover is also happening much earlier than normal. The turnover happens when the icy surface water warms up and mixes with the rest of the lake, creating a layer of warm water on top. This has been happening 10-14 days earlier than it was 25 years ago.

Last summer, Lake Superior’s temperature broke a record when it was measured at 75 degrees. Typically, it barely got above 60.

So what does this mean for the rest of us? In the states surrounding Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes, rapidly increasing temperatures mean more invasive plant and animal species from the warmer climes. Lake Michigan has already seen sea lampreys almost wipe out its lake trout. Changes to wildlife would also hurt tourism, causing a major economic blow.

It also means big disruptions to the region’s commerce. Lake Superior is at its lowest water level in 81 years, and while scientists say global warming may not be the sole cause of that decline, it is a factor. Cargo ships — some that carry wind turbine parts over from Europe, ironically — must haul lighter loads so they don’t get stranded in port. That means less efficient shipping and transportation of goods around the world.

While landscapes and habitat have changed over the centuries, the swiftness of this latest change has unsettled scientists. Meanwhile, the rest of us need to prepare to adapt to the inevitable changes have begun and take meaningful action to ensure that it doesn’t get worse.

Minnesota Monthly

Businesses seem to be flocking to appear green, lessen their carbon footprint, and talk about global warming. But scant mention of it was made in most of the reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this year. Should investors be concerned?

A group of state officials, state pension fund managers, investors, and other organizations think so. They are asking the SEC to make all public companies formally address the financial risks their company could face as a result of climate change.

Supporters — led by organizations like Ceres (a network of investors and organizations working on sustainability issues) and the Calvert Group (an assets management firm) — have asked for this disclosure before, and the SEC ignored them. This time, they’re hoping for action by filing a formal petition stating public companies should reveal their total global warming emissions, provide a strategic analysis of the risks and opportunities present by global warming, assess the physical risks to their operations, and analyze any regulatory risks (such as limiting carbon dioxide emissions).

So far, the SEC hasn’t said much except that the requirement for triggering disclosure is that the impact or potential impact has to be material to a company, and therefore material to investors.

The petition argues that the threat and impacts of global warming are financial risks and are material. It’s the SEC’s job to ensure investors have the information they need to make smart decisions, and because climate change will have major impacts on business, those risks need to be disclosed.

While some companies are reporting on global warming already, others find it difficult to do so. Differences in potential regulation — such as a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade policy — means different outcomes for certain industries and difficulty in assessing the risks. One attorney who advises utilities and energy firms told the Washington Post: "For some of our electric power clients, depending on how allowances are distributed, they lose or gain hundreds of millions of dollars. Some are winners under some schemes and vast losers under other schemes."

Green Wombat
Washington Post

While voters, businesses, and politicians are calling for carbon regulation, exactly what that regulation would look like is far from decided.

Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are the two most-cited proposals for cutting carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Supporters argue over which plan would be the most efficient method of cutting emissions while allowing for flexibility in the economy.

A carbon tax is a tax levied on CO2 emissions. Those who favor a carbon tax say it will drive innovations and technologies that allow for the same amount of work to be done with less pollution, and decrease the demand for products that are dirtier and thus more expensive. Critics point out that a tax would have a harsher impact on the poor, while others argue that carbon tax revenues could be used to lower other taxes, like income taxes or payroll taxes.

A carbon tax also makes many elected officials nervous: New taxes, fees, or whatever you want to call them, are rarely popular with voters. One notable supporter of carbon taxes — although he’s not running for office anymore — is Al Gore. He has promoted a carbon tax in addition to implementing a cap-and-trade program.

A cap-and-trade system requires an overall cut in emissions. Companies that cut emissions further than required are issued permits that they can then sell to companies that can’t or won’t cut emissions far enough.

Promoters of cap-and-trade say that the system provides an incentive — rather than a heavy-handed tax approach — to cut emissions because companies can sell the excess permits. It also requires a definitive limit on emissions, while some are afraid that a carbon tax would simply drive companies to pay the fines, pass the increase along to consumers, and keep on polluting. Companies like GE, DuPont, Duke Energy, and Toyota back a cap-and-trade policy, as do many environmental groups and labor unions. Presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama also prefer it.

This fall, Congress could see a slew of measures to cut CO2. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) are planning to propose a cap-and-trade bill. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) is expected to introduce a carbon tax proposal — not in the hopes of actually passing it, but rather just to show how unpopular such a tax would be.

San Francisco Chronicle
Wall Street Journal, via Environmental Economics

Two large U.S. corporations have announced commitments to solar power.

Costco – the giant discount retailer – is installing its first solar array on the Kailua-Kona store in Hawaii. A 680-kilowatt solar electric system – big enough to power about 111 Hawaiian homes – will be installed by REC Solar of San Luis Obispo, CA. It’s expected to be completed in the next five or six weeks.

The Kailua-Kona store may save up to a one-third of its electricity costs by producing its own energy from the sun. Costco has more solar planned for other stores, mostly in Hawaii and in California.

A Safeway store in Dublin, CA has started generating electricity from its own solar panels, and the company plans to install systems on 23 of its stores – enough to power about 20 percent of a stores’ average energy use. That’s enough to avoid over 10 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) – a major contributor to global warming.

Efficiency is another part of Safeway’s plan: Since 2005, super-efficient refrigeration systems and LED lights have been installed that have allowed the company’s stores to do the same amount of work using less energy.

Companies may be scrambling to expand their green credentials, but they’re also moving forward because of ample incentives from the states. In Hawaii, commercial photovoltaic systems are eligible for credits of up to $500,000 and net metering laws are in place that allow companies to offset electric bills with surplus power put back on the electric grid. Additionally, the federal government offers a 30 percent tax credit.

Local, state, and national incentives for renewable energy will continue to drive business to do the right thing by making it economically sensible to do so. That, combined with a better brand reputation among consumers and investors, may drive even more companies to choose greener options.

GreenBiz.com
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Also on GO:

Google Flips The Switch On Largest Corporate Solar Installation In U.S.

Wal-Mart Launching Solar Power Pilot Program

States continue to take the lead in cutting global warming pollution and more may soon follow, spurred by a federal judge’s ruling last week that Vermont can set stricter vehicle emissions standards — stricter than what the federal government requires.

Furthermore, the widespread state action on auto emissions could persuade the government to enact nationwide fuel efficiency laws, rather than leave a patchwork of state regulations for automakers to work around.

The Christian Science Monitor took a look at what’s happening across the U.S., and predicted some ramifications of the Vermont case:

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be prompted to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act. This would allow California, along with Vermont and the 10 other states with identical laws, to begin enforcing emission requirements for cars sold in their states.

• Six additional states – Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota – may proceed with their own emissions requirements. All together, the 18 states that have vehicle emission laws or that are exploring them make up about half the U.S. auto market.

• Congress may have to reconsider new fuel-efficiency standards it’s currently weighing (which are not as demanding as Vermont’s). Or they could mandate a tougher federal requirement (more of a long-shot, I’d say).

• Federal judges in two similar cases brought by the auto industry in California and Rhode Island could dismiss those cases if they determine the industry has had its day in court and further proceedings would be redundant.

Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense were party to the Vermont lawsuit, and are optimistic that the judge’s ruling will spur other states to action. The auto industry promised to stricter regulations.

The 12 states with emissions laws already on the books could cut up to 100 million tons each year. Overall U.S. emissions from cars and light trucks total about 1.5 billion tons per year.

Christian Science Monitor
Cybercast News Service

Despite Americans’ rightful wariness of nuclear power, other nations are embracing it: France gets 75 percent of its electricity from it, Australian Prime Minister John Howard called nuclear power “inevitable,” and Finland is building a new reactor.

In fact, the U.S.’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expecting 12 new applications to build nuclear power reactors at seven different sites, plus another 15 are in the pipeline for next year. These are the first full applications to build new nuclear plants in 30 years…what gives?

Oil located in unstable regions of the world and climate change concerns are some oft-sited reasons for the increased interest in nukes. Why try to work with unstable, corrupt governments that have oil when you can mine uranium in places where you’d vacation, like Australia and Canada? Why deal with CO2-spewing coal plants when you can take a deep breath next to a nuclear plant? Except for that huge hairy problem of the dangerous waste hanging around for thousands of years…

Additionally, the NRC has implemented some new processes to apparently make the approval process easier:

• Rather than require utilities to get two different licenses – one to build the plant and the other to start it up – utilities can apply for one license that covers both areas.
• Firms can get nuclear reactor designs cleared in advance. So if a reactor gets the green light, only the modifications unique to the site have to be reviewed.
• A utility can ask the NRC to approve a location before it even applies for a combined license.
• The NRC is hiring about 200 new staff every year and has set up a field office in George to deal with the particularly high number of southern utilities interested in nuclear plants.

Despite these changes, the NRC says it will still take over three years to review an application and conduct hearings.

The problem of what to do with nuclear waste is and should continue to be a serious and significant barrier, and Americans are still divided in their opinion of nuclear energy; in a March poll, about half of respondents favored expanding it. But a September 6th story in the Economist points out that nuclear may start to look more appealing as coal plants face a “regulatory risk” due to assumed future carbon regulation. Just as some energy watchers talk about a “coal rush” (the rush to build coal plants before carbon regulation takes effect), could we see a “nuclear rush” after federal carbon regulation is implemented?

The Economist
Wikipedia

Comedian, satirist, and talk show host Al Franken is running for U.S. Senate in Minnesota on the DFL ticket (in MN, the Democratic Party is called the DFL).

Last month, Franken made an appearance at the Crow Wing County/Morrison County DFL summer picnic. I grew up in Morrison County, so I attended, and was impressed with the (relatively) huge turnout. I met Al, but more importantly he took the time to answer some questions I sent him via email about renewable energy and Minnesota’s place in the clean tech revolution.

Maria Surma Manka: What specific renewable energy legislation do you want to see implemented at the federal level?

Al Franken: On a macro level, I’d like to implement a national cap and trade for carbon dioxide. This would make the cleanest renewables cheaper than fossil fuels and reward sequestration of CO2 in the form of planting acreage.

I’d like to see more federal investment in pilot projects for renewables. Representative Collin Peterson has put in several pilot projects for cellulosic ethanol that would be conducted here in Minnesota.

When I have said I want an Apollo Program for renewable energy, I’m talking about making these kinds of investments in renewables, including things like tidal and wave power. The United States has to go back to investing in research and development. This means identifying promising technologies and investing in them.

Maria: How would you open up Minnesota’s markets for renewable energy investment?

Franken: I would refer you to my previous answer.

Maria: What is Minnesota’s biggest renewable energy advantage (i.e. what can we capitalize on in a clean energy revolution)?

Franken: First of all, we grow a lot of corn, the number one feedstock for ethanol. We also grow a lot of soy, which is the number one feedstock for biodiesel. So, obviously, we have had years of experience making both, and our state universities have been doing a lot of the research.

Wind is cleaner, and Minnesota is a very windy state. We’re ninth in the nation. We should really be exploiting that more. Also, I think we should reinvigorate our manufacturing base by building wind turbines in Minnesota. So many of the turbines - the mechanisms that turn the spinning blades into electricity - are made in Europe. Let’s make them here.

Cellulosic is only a few years away and we have prairie grasses, which are perennials and have very deep root systems, making them potentially a very sustainable feedstock.

Right now gasified biomass is being used as fuel in ethanol plants. We got a lot of biomass in many forms; for example, forests, especially in the northeastern part of the state, where we don’t have wind. As cellulosic technology develops, there is great potential in using our forests, managed in a sustainable way, to add to our arsenal of renewable energy sources.

Maria: What is the role of business, government, and consumers in a clean energy future?

Franken: The government has to find ways of encouraging businesses to make clean energy available and attractive to consumers. Government should take the lead in making green buildings, working in partnership with companies that develop green technologies, and by investing in energy-efficient transportation systems - light rail, commuter rail, etc.

Obviously, tax incentives should encourage businesses to develop technologies and consumers to buy energy-efficient products. This is one of those things where everybody has to work together because it’s in everybody’s interest.

Maria: What steps have you personally taken to fight global warming or make your life more energy efficient?

Franken: Right now I’m traveling from Duluth to Minneapolis in a hybrid vehicle - my family Ford Escape. I bike to work, when I can. Biking, as Jim Oberstar might say, converts a hydrocarbon economy into a carbohydrate economy. Of course, we recycle.

But the biggest thing I’m doing is running for the Senate, so that when I get to Washington, I can make sure that the things I wrote about in the first four answers can come to fruition.

Crossposted at Maria Energia.