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.

Two proposed coal-fired power plants in Iowa could negate the state’s efforts to cut emissions with clean, renewable power.

LS Power Group wants to build a 750-megawatt (MW) plant near Waterloo, and Alliant Energy wants a 630 MW coal plant near Marshalltown. A new MidAmerican Energy coal plant just began operation near Council Bluffs on June 1.

Local and regional supporters of clean and efficient energy will fight the plants. Besides the economic drain of having to import coal from Wyoming, supporters argue that powering the Iowa’s ethanol plants with coal power does not make environmental sense or economic sense. Cleaner methods of production – like using a biomass gasification system to produce ethanol – is a smarter choice, noted Carrie LaSeur of the Iowa law firm Plains Justice: “Biofuels are supposed to make us less dependent on fossil fuels and reduce CO2. Using coal to power a biofuels plant has the opposite effect…Coal is a thing of the past. Why keep falling back on this old technology, when clean alternatives are out there?”

The Iowa Utilities Board still has to approve construction of both plants, but this situation is duplicated across the U.S., where 150 new coal plants are proposed. Worries about imminent carbon regulation seem to have mixed results: while plans for about two dozen coal plants have been scrapped since 2006, other companies are rushing to build before new regulations take effect, with the assumption that their plants would be grandfathered in under any new emissions requirements.

While more than half of U.S. states have renewable energy standards that require a certain percentage of power to come from renewables, the construction of a coal plant or two can quickly unravel all the good intentions. The left hand has to pay attention to what the right hand is doing here, and we can’t have it both ways if we’re serious about creating a rich, clean energy economy while slowing global warming.

Associated Press, via Quad Cities Online
Iowa Environmental Council

A recent study found that the clean energy industry is the fastest-growing sector in Massachusetts, easily beating out behemoths like financial services, healthcare, and communications.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Census was published by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, a quasi-public agency that runs a renewable energy trust fund of green power projects. The study found that clean energy industry had a 26 percent increase in jobs and now accounts for more than 14,000 jobs in the state. Those jobs are expected to grow three times faster than any other major industry, adding about 3,000 jobs in 2007. The next biggest increase was in the scientific, technical, and management services sector with an increase of 5.4 percent.

Three hundred and two companies, government agencies, and university research centers responded to the survey. Those in the renewable energy category said they will increase staff by an average of 30 percent in the next 12 months, while the energy efficiency sector will add an average of 25 percent more employees.

High fossil fuels costs and venture capital funding are contributing to the strong clean energy performance, as well as politicians and a public wanting action on global warming emissions.

However, the report also points out that the industry is still very young: of the 255 companies surveyed, 103 had annual revenues of less than $1 million. Most companies focus on selling their products to other companies within New England to speed up sales cycles. But this may result in limited growth if companies are passing up opportunities in faster growing and larger markets.

Governor Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi agreed last month that by 2010, Massachusetts should offset all of its growth in electricity demand with increased efficiency.

The survey defined “renewable energy” as including solar power, biofuels, wind power, wave systems, solar-assisted fuel cells, and all fuel cell companies, although the study recognizes that fuel cell production may be powered by fossil fuels.

Business Journals
Climate Ark
Massachusetts Clean Energy Census

The big news this week was that the U.S. House passed an energy bill that for the first time included a federal renewable energy standard (RES). This RES – an amendment to the energy bill sponsored by Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM) and Todd Platts (R-PA) – requires utilities to get 15 percent of their power from renewables by the year 2020. Other components of the House energy bill include:

• Moving $16 billion in tax incentives away from oil companies and putting it towards renewable energy.
• New energy efficiency standards for appliances and building codes.
• The creation of a Solar Energy Industries Research and Promotion Board to raise national awareness of solar energy options. The program would be funded completely by a portion of solar industry revenues, with no appropriations authorized.
• A modified 4-year extension of the wind power Production Tax Credit (PTC) that limits the credit to 35 percent of wind project costs.

Not in the bill is an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards (a.k.a. “fuel efficiency”) that was a hot topic as the session came to a close. By avoiding a vote on CAFE standards, Democrats avoid public in-fighting with fellow Dems from auto industry states, notably Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI).

The Senate already approved an increase in fuel efficiency back in June, which will be just another piece of the Senate bill to be reconciled with the House version in conference committee this fall. In addition, the White House has threatened to veto any legislation containing a renewable energy standard.

Renewable Energy Access
The Sietch Blog
Yahoo News

The New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) is a 10-year, $400 million program of the California Energy Commission to encourage energy efficiency and solar power in new home construction. Specifically, the NSHP works with builders and developers to install 400 megawatts (MW) of solar energy on energy-efficient CA homes in the next ten years. The Partnership focuses on new single family homes, multi-family homes, and affordable housing construction.

The NSHP officially began on January 2 of this year, and it just crossed a milestone with its first approval of a new home community. The subdivision of Wisteria in Rocklin, California is made up of 60 homes, 35 of which will all have solar power systems that come standard, totaling 82 KW of renewable energy. Christopherson Homes is building the community.

Solar power may be exciting, but California energy policy puts greater emphasis on efficiency because it is the most cost effective way of cutting emissions. By combining efficiency with solar, the NSHP can help ensure that the projects are as affordable as possible.

The Partnership’s incentives encourage homes to be 35-50 percent above current efficiency standards.
The NSHP hopes that the Wisteria project will be the beginning of a self-sustaining market and that 50 percent of all new homes by 2017 will be super energy-efficient and solar powered.

Go Solar California!

Solar Buzz

An 80 megawatt (MW) solar power plant – the world’s largest and big enough to power nearly 21,000 homes – will be built near Fresno, California.

A California-based startup company called Cleantech America LLC plans to build the solar farm. The company develops utility-scale solar plants and wants to commercialize photovoltaic (PV) solar technology in order to slow global warming and increase America’s energy independence.

The San Joaquin Valley Customer Choice Solar Farm (hopefully they’ll think of an acronym or something) is expected to be completed in 2011 and will cover 640 acres. That’s far larger than North America’s largest planned solar power plant in Nevada and double the size of the world’s largest solar project planned for Germany.

Cleantech’s CEO Bill Barnes told CNN that this project will make California the world’s clear leader in solar power, catapulting it ahead the current powerhouse, Germany:

“We’re pretty confident that solar farms on this scale are going to have an industry-changing impact. We think it’s the wave of the future. This scale of project, I think, creates a tipping point for renewable energy…the impact for it will be similar to the impact of the computer chip.”

The San Joaquin Valley is well-suited for a large solar project, according to Cleantech. Its good sun resources allow for power to be generated close to where it is needed and reduce the poor air quality that plagues the area. Producing power locally will also save on transmission costs that can drive up the price on out-of-state electricity.

According to the EPA, an 80 MW solar power plant would avoid up to 450 pounds of toxic mercury emissions and 100 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions each year – a major contributor to global warming. That’s the equivalent of keeping 20,000 vehicles off the road. The University of California at Berkeley found that the San Joaquin Valley could see considerable job creation if the growth of solar projects in the area continues; up to 1,040 installation and maintenance jobs and 1,600 solar manufacturing jobs may be created, mostly in the local vicinity.

Some significant hurdles remain. Namely, choosing one of five sites under consideration to locate the solar power project, connecting it to the transmission system, and contracting with a manufacturer to supply the PV panels. The California Energy Commission must certify the solar plant as a renewable energy source that doesn’t create pollution, and a number of local permits must be obtained.

Cleantech will partner with the California Construction Authority to build the plant and sell the energy to the Kings River Conservation District, a public agency that is the water management arm of the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority. The Power Authority was created in late 2006 to reduce the power now bought from investor-owned utilities like PG&E and Southern California Edison.

Cleantech America
CNN
Fresno Bee

When Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed the $100 million Iowa Power Fund into law this spring, Iowa committed to investing in cutting-edge research and development to continue leading the nation towards a new energy economy. But it also established something even more ambitious: The Office of Energy Independence - and they’re hiring.

The Office of Energy Independence is charged with weaning the Hawkeye state off of foreign oil by 2025 – no small feat considering that Iowans use 78 million barrels of oil each year.

But put down your muskets for this revolution – Governor Culver is looking for anyone already working to research, develop, commercialize, or implement new methods of reducing our dependence on oil through renewable energy, biofuels like cellulosic ethanol, and energy efficiency. He’s currently interviewing about 50 candidates, with a Director expected to be named by the end of the month.

When describing the Office of Energy Independence, Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy put it like this: “We are going to do for biomass what George Washington Carver did for the peanut, and it won’t be for peanuts.”

(Carver was a famous scientist who attended and taught at Iowa State, and developed multiple uses for the peanut, including peanut butter)

Ahem.

The director will be expected to provide an Iowa energy independence plan and release an annual report each year on the state’s progress. The creation of the Office of Energy Independence complements the establishment of a climate change emissions inventory and registry, as well as the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council to determine the best strategies for reducing climate change emissions.

Office of the Governor
RE-AMP RoundUp
U.S. Department of Energy

Last week, Minnesota’s Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty signed into law landmark global warming and energy efficiency legislation.

The bills include a requirement for an economy-wide climate change action plan to be submitted to the state legislature by February 1, 2008. The plan must provide a roadmap to cut emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. A Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group was recently created by Pawlenty and charged with developing and presenting this plan to lawmakers.

In addition, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is directed to estimate and factor in the costs of future federal CO2 regulation (for example, a carbon tax) when it examines proposals for a new power supply.

Energy efficiency – the cheapest, fastest, easiest way to cut emissions – finally got its due with a law that calls for increasing efficiency 25 percent by 2025. Pilot projects are planned that encourage energy savings without loss of revenues for utilities (i.e. a “decoupling” strategy that aims to make a utility indifferent to selling less energy because of restructured rates). In a news release from Clean Energy Minnesota, Sheldon Strom of the Center for Energy and Environment pointed out:

“We’ll reach Minnesota’s global warming goals in large part through saving, rather than consuming, those kilowatts of electricity or therms of natural gas…It is the most consumer-friendly way to fight global warming.”

Michael Noble, Executive Director of the nonprofit energy policy organization Fresh Energy, explained to me why it’s important for states to take action on a global problem:

“With the U.S. on the sidelines, global action on the climate warming problem is stalled. To get the U.S. government moving, innovation must percolate up from the states. State action on global warming is reaching a tipping point, and major changes seem increasingly inevitable. Minnesota is the latest example of states setting the bar higher.”

This global warming and efficiency legislation wraps up a banner year for Minnesotans. Earlier this spring, lawmakers also passed and Governor Pawlenty signed a Renewable Energy Standard requiring 25 percent of the state’s energy to come from renewables sources by 2020.

Clean Energy Minnesota
Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group
Wikipedia

Erik Blachford is the new CEO of TerraPass, a carbon offset company. When a consumer buys a carbon offset to offset the emissions from their driving, a trip, or even a wedding, TerraPass uses that money to fund renewable energy products.

Erik has never been a full-time environmentalist, although he is member of a few national organizations. In a former life he was the CEO of Expedia, although he left the company before its partnership with TerraPass was established. Erik is excited about the new venture, explaining on a recent blog post,

“Back in Internet pre-history, at the dawn of online travel, nobody knew you could even check airline ticket prices online, much less book tickets. Now almost half of all travel is booked online. I think we’re at the beginning of another explosion in consumer awareness, this time in the voluntary carbon markets.”

I spoke with Erik by phone on May 25th.

Green Options: How do you respond to carbon offset skeptics? For example, the argument that offsets are just an easy way for people to pay off their pollution without much sacrifice.

Erik Blachford: I hear that argument a lot, but it’s not accurate as to what TerraPass does. People who buy carbon offsets aren’t just sitting back afterwards and thinking they’ve done their duty. These people are active in other ways, too: they’re very in tuned to the problem and the other solutions. Furthermore, carbon offsets are a voluntary enterprise; no one is forcing someone to buy carbon offsets.

However, there is also a lot of talk about common umbrella standards for carbon offsets, and I think TerraPass and our customers would be better served with them. Our industry needs consumer protection standards. Right now it’s unregulated, and the consumer has to be very cautious. Consumers are taking the initiative and doing the research on which carbon offset programs are legitimate, but they shouldn’t be expected to do all of the work.

GO: What makes TerraPass different from other carbon offset companies?

EB: Terra Pass focuses on helping the individual consumer reduce emissions, rather than only large corporations. We want to help individuals take action to reduce their carbon footprint. We’re also very accessible. The company has a blog where we can communicate with customers and get their feedback and ideas.

GO: You support a number of different renewable energy and efficiency projects. Why did TerraPass get involved in biomass? You don’t see that as a carbon offset very often.

EB: It’s great to be able to work with biomass providers. Energy from biomass is produced by capturing methane from sources like cow manure and burning it. We’ve set up contracts with them, buy credits and register them on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). We are very careful to ensure that our carbon offsets are not counted twice.

GO: I don’t see tree planting – a very popular offset – as a TerraPass option. Why not?

EB: Trees plantings are popular offsets because they’re intuitively appealing. But the science doesn’t hold up enough for us to sell them. Some science is based on the average age of a tree being 80-100 years, but that’s just not always the case. And when the tree dies and rots, that carbon dioxide goes back into the atmosphere. There are some carbon offset programs that focus on the conservation of forests rather than tree planting, and that’s an interesting avenue that TerraPass may explore in the future.

GO: What percentage of carbon offset costs goes to the projects?

EB: We don’t break that out, because we don’t think offsets are commodity products, which is what that kind of breakout would imply. We are more focused on our pricing to consumers, which is competitive though not rock bottom, because it reflects the work we put into researching our projects thoroughly and sticking to principles like matched maturity of credits. We could probably sell offsets for a lower price if we we’re willing to sell credits from previous or future years, to buy blind on the CCX, or to buy forestry projects, but we have decided not to do any of those.

GO: How do you assure customers that their money is making a real difference?

EB: We make sure that the customer knows what we’re doing. We publish a verification report each year and we use three protocols to verify our credits: Green-e certifies our wind power projects, SES certifies our biomass, and First Environment certifies our landfill gas projects.

GO: What are some challenges and advantages of the U.S. carbon market?

EB: The U.S. didn’t sign onto the Kyoto Protocol, so one challenge is that the idea of carbon offsets is still fairly new here. There’s a general awareness of the issue, but carbon offsets still feel more exotic to people than they really are. It’s just a lack of awareness that we need to work on.

However, an advantage is that the American consumer is generally very open to new ideas and is very action-oriented. They want to take responsibility and do something, so the mindset of the consumer is right for a carbon offset market.

GO: TerraPass is well-known for its relationship with Expedia. How do you see that relationship evolving?

EB: We’ve got a great relationship with Expedia. It gets our brand out there and we look forward to continuing our relationship.

GO: I’ve got to say, it’s difficult to find the TerraPass option on Expedia’s site. It kind of gets lost in the shuffle of offers for car rentals and zoo passes.

EB: Expedia has many different lists of add-ons for their trips, so TerraPass is lumped with many other options. But we’re really happy to have the brand out there.

GO: If you could partner with any other company or entity, who would it be?

EB: That’s a really good question, but my answer is going to sound really funny. I really want to partner with the federal government. Global warming and emission reductions are a national problem. We need federal action and federal standards to solve it.

Image source: Zimbio

The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have formally agreed to make their energy systems more efficient. A regional strategy will be implemented to better coordinate and exchange energy research, science, and technology. As one U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) official put it, the three countries are shifting towards a “North American perspective” as they explore how more synergy among their systems will help move us towards a cleaner, more efficient energy system and fight global warming.

This announcement seemed to come out of thin air to me. But apparently these talks stem from the North American Energy Work Group (NAEWG) that was formed in 2001 to improve transparency and regulatory compatibility, promote the development of resources and infrastructure, increase cooperation on efficiency standards, and address challenges on the demand side. The NAEWG began as a place to generate ideas, but has since evolved into developing plans for concrete results and the exchange of information and technology.

Energy efficiency was the top priority because of volatile natural gas and oil prices. Efficiency is also the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to cut global warming emissions. The three nations will work together to expand the U.S.’s Energy Star program and share best practices and technologies in areas like fuel efficiency and biofuels, which have also been identified as high priorities. The plans specifically intend to benefit businesses, making it easier for those that manufacture appliances, lighting products and electrical equipment to do business across the continent.

More details of a cohesive energy efficiency plan are expected in June, with talks on other energy areas to follow.

Cross posted at Maria Energia

United Press International
U.S. INFO
The White House