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

Clean energy was the hot topic at the National Press Club this week, where public leaders gathered to discuss "Securing a Clean Energy Future." Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was there, as was Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) and Minnesota Governor and president of the National Governors Association (NGA), Tim Pawlenty (R).

Pawlenty explained that cutting global warming emissions was a top priority for the group of governors, with the hope that it would spur federal action. From the Associated Press: "We have a federal government that doesn’t seem to want to move as fast or as bold as many would like" on these issues, Pawlenty said… If enough states act to curtail greenhouse gases, "it becomes a de facto national policy.”

So far, 12 states have plans to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a major contributor to global warming.

The NGA announced an 8-governor task force to advance clean energy development in the states, and the Energy Department promised $610,000 to support its work.

But we may want to dig a little deeper into Pawlenthy’s enthusiasm. He supports the construction of the dirty Big Stone II coal plant, proposed for two miles over the Minnesota border in South Dakota. Minnesota is slated to receive a large portion of its electricity, and also has a say in the construction of the plant.

Pawlenty said that he disagrees with the statement "the future involved no coal"; he wants "clean" coal technology and carbon sequestration. Okay, but the controversial Big Stone II plant has neither of those, and some worry that its construction will make it harder for Minnesota to reach its renewable energy standard of 25 percent renewables by 2020. Pawlenty conceded that there would be an "awkward five-year transition in between and in the meantime the world goes on." Except that the coal plants hang around for 50 years.

Associated Press
Union of Concerned Scientists

Vestas, one of the world’s leading wind energy companies, is leaving Australia, calling the nation’s wind energy market "unviable."

Vestas Australia Wind Technology will close its 2 1/2 year-old turbine blade factory in Portland, Victoria at the end of this year. Consequently, 130 jobs will be lost. The Danish company’s Asia-Pacific senior vice president, Jorn Hammer, was quite forthcoming with his criticism of the Australian government:

"It’s not viable for us to make further investments in the Australian market…we don’t see the market as big enough in Australia to justify the expense…When we committed to build the factory we believed there was support for the wind industry in Australia, and that has not come through to the extent we anticipated.

We have the view that if the government steps up to the plate and puts the necessary security for a long-term market in place we’ll have another look at the market, but I guess we’ll be a little more careful next time…(Not) just believing in what they’ve been telling us, we need to see some hard evidence to justify investment."

Australian officials were upset with the divestment, and some pointed fingers at the Howard administration, which has been criticized in the past for moving too slowly to address climate change and implement solutions.

Vestas apparently made the ultimate decision to end its manufacturing business in Australia when it was told the government would not extend its mandatory renewable energy target (MRET) of 2 percent renewables. A spokeswoman for federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane told the Western Australian that Vestas knew the MRET wouldn’t be renewed even before they decided to build in Portland in the first place.

Last year, Vestas also shut down a wind turbine factory in Tasmania, laying off 65 employees.

Crossposted on Maria Energia.

Sunrise Powerlink is a transmission project proposed by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). According to a SDG&E map, the 150-mile line would wind its way from Imperial County east of San Diego, through Anza-Borrego State Park, and down into San Diego. It would be the first new transmission line connecting the San Diego area to the state’s energy grid in 25 years. SDG&E says the line is needed to transport wind and solar energy from projects in Imperial County to San Diego, and to meet California’s requirements to get 20 percent of its energy from renewables by 2010.

Simple, right? Hardly. This project has been hugely controversial. SDG&E’s cost savings numbers have been largely inflated, opponents argue that renewable energy projects in Imperial County don’t depend on the construction of Sunrise Powerlink, and SDG&D has admitted that it doesn’t need the line to meet the state’s renewable energy requirement as previously stated. Rather, opponents argue, the line will be a huge windfall for SDG&E and other contractors while hanging the ratepayers out to dry in the process. A recent article from the Voice of San Diego noted:

"The power line’s $447 million annual savings was cut to $142 million a year after erroneous calculations were uncovered. A solar energy project whose fate was once tied to the line has failed to demonstrate that it works on a commercial scale. SDG&E has equivocated about how much renewable energy can be found in Imperial County, where the line will begin. The company has waffled about whether the line is necessary to spark renewable energy development in Imperial County."

But SDG&E points to government reports that say San Diego will need more transmission capacity to meet a growing population. A coalition called Californians for Clean and Reliable Energy (Cal-CARE) has organized to support the project. It’s made up of a long list of businesses, unions, and government officials – but no green groups that I could find. Cal-CARE’s Co-Chair and former chairman of the California Energy Commission Bill Keese said in a statement earlier this summer: "By linking the state to abundant supplies of solar, wind and geothermal power in the Imperial Valley, the Sunrise Powerlink will battle climate change by helping meet California’s environmental mandates of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy."

Hearings at the California Public Utilities Commissions (CPUC) were delayed when Commissioner Dian Grueneich ruled that more analysis was needed. Hearings resumed in San Francisco this week and may run through the end of September. The CPUC and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management are expected to release an environmental impact statement in January, with a decision about whether to approve the line happening in mid-2008 at the earliest.

Cal-CARE
Energy and Nature
Rancho Penasquitos Concerned Citizens
Voice of San Diego

It’s been a busy week for international climate change negotiations. A meeting of the United Nations and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) have some watchers feeling cautiously optimistic of future global agreements, while others are less than impressed with the semantics.

The Vienna Climate Change talks saw more than a thousand people from government, industry, and research gather in the Austrian capital to discuss ways to fight global warming. This United Nations-backed meeting is preparation for the more high-level talks in New York in September, and Bali in December. The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012, and nations are scrambling to determine effective next steps that will address climate change mitigation, adaptation, and a global carbon market. Many hope for and expect more participation from nations glaringly absent from the first phase of implementation, like the United States and China.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said he expects the Vienna meetings to give a good indication as to whether governments are ready to take serious action on cutting emissions.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged governments to figure out the next phase of Kyoto three years before the first phase expires so there is time to ratify the law and be ready to go in 2012.

Austrian Environment Minister Josef Proell said in his opening remarks:

"Climate change is a huge challenge that can only be tackled at a global level and in an integrated manner… We do not have much time to create adequate framework conditions. Each year without mitigation measures is a year which drives the human and financial cost of adaptation steeply upwards."

On the other side of the world in Singapore, APEC has drafted a declaration agreeing to cut "energy intensity" by 25 percent by 2030 and plant nearly 50,000 million acres of trees. Energy intensity measures an economy’s energy efficiency – but clean energy supporters say this particular wording avoids any sort of serious commitment to cutting emissions. A spokeswoman for Greenpeace told Bloomberg news: "The APEC declaration is clearly ‘Made in the U.S.’ and covered with a thick coating of Australian coal dust."

Next month at a meeting in Sydney, Australia, APEC nations will agree to fund clean technologies and fight illegal logging. China has said it will support the Sydney declaration on climate change, and the U.S. is expected to attend the meetings.

Bloomberg
Independent Online

A joint goal among eight western U.S. states and Canadian provinces was formalized this week when the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) announced a goal to cut global warming emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

The goal is the cumulative total of individual reductions goals for each state and province: for example, Washington has a more ambitious goal of reducing levels of the gases to 1990 levels by 2020.

California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Manitoba, and British Columbia have agreed to the cuts, which were conceptualized in February as a “Memorandum of Understanding” between five of the states.

The next step is for the WCI to propose a regional carbon emissions trading system with a year, complementing California’s Global Warming Solutions Act that calls for a cap-and-trade system of global warming pollution. Each state will determine its own method for cutting emissions; the agreement doesn’t require any states or provinces to do anything to which they aren’t already committed.

Janice Adair, Washington state’s representative to the WCI, doesn’t anticipate easy negotiations when eight entities come together to set up a market-based system for trading carbon credits: "How we do all that and come to the table — eight very different (states and provinces) — and try to negotiate the best deal we can, and not have anyone go away feeling they got rolled, is going to be very difficult.”

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had a brighter outlook: "Our collective commitment will build a successful regional system to be linked with other regional efforts across the nation and eventually the world.”

Other states like Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming are closely watching the proceedings, as are Ontario and Quebec in Canada and Sonora in Mexico. The potential – or at least the serious interest – is there for other states to get involved in a regional emissions compact and carbon trading agreement. With meaningful energy legislation not coming fast enough from federal governments, states and provinces are reaching across borders to make the real change we need on this side of the world.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Yuba Net

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

Besides the Udall-Platts amendment to the House energy bill that calls for a federal renewable energy standard (requiring 20 percent of our energy to come from renewables by 2020), another progressive energy bill may up for a vote this week.

It’s far reaching – both in terms of what it would do for the country, and that actually passing it may be a bit of a reach.

Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) has authored a bill that increases the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards (a.k.a. “fuel efficiency”) to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018. Currently the requirement is 27.5 mpg – and that number has hardly changed in more than 10 years.

Unlike the current requirement, however, Markey’s proposed standard does not have a lower mpg rate for most pickups and SUVs. The Senate’s 35 mpg version that passed earlier this summer also didn’t distinguish between cars and pickups/SUVs. The Senate bill was strongly opposed by the auto industry and lawmakers from states with auto factories.

On the other hand, Reps. Baron Hill (D-IN) and Lee Terry (R-NE) have a bill requiring cars to have a 35 mpg standard and trucks to reach 32 mpg by 2022. This version is supported by automakers.

CNN reports that speculation is swirling over what will happen in the House. If neither of these fuel efficiency proposals makes it to the House floor, then the House will work off the Senate’s version – which is stronger than the Hill-Terry proposal. So in the end, the House may not vote on fuel efficiency standards at all, thus avoiding the gamble that the Hill-Terry bill passes and guaranteeing that the Senate version heads to conference committee.

Or, is a perfect bill the enemy of a good bill in this case? If there’s a piece of legislation, supported by automakers, that gets us to 35 mpg for cars and 32 mpg for trucks by 2022, should we pass it in 2007 in lieu of waiting for perhaps another bill and another vote in 2008? Or, are we setting the bar too low altogether?

CNN
National Public Radio

When the National Association of Governors met last weekend in Traverse City, MI, global warming policy was on the agenda. In the absence of a federal commitment to renewable energy or cutting global warming emissions, they stressed the importance of states to keep leading the way.

The Chairman of the governors association, Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), began his one-year term this week. He noted that the Republican Party has some “catching up to do” on global warming policy, although he pointed out that some of the most outspoken governors on the issue are Republicans, like Governor Schwarzenegger of California and Governor Crist of Florida. Pawlenty told the Associated Press that states should redouble their efforts to limit climate change emissions and develop renewable sources of energy: "The false premise of some of the critics is that you’ll wreck the economy. I suggest if you do this correctly, it will be a boost to the economy."

Several governors pointed out that the federal government will eventually follow if enough states take the lead and prove the clean energy technologies increase energy security, create jobs, and slow global warming. Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) explained “With the states taking action, even if you don’t have 100 percent of America, you can have 40 or 50 percent or more, and that’s a good start. We can’t just wait around for the federal government."

Several governors were more cautious in their assessment of how global warming policy would play out in their state’s economy. Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-MI, home to automakers that are battling congressional efforts to toughen fuel efficiency) said success would only come when all nations, like China, are committed to the same goals and are playing by the same rules. Governor Joe Manchin III (D-WV) said that the U.S. couldn’t afford to stop using his state’s coal, even though it’s a leading source of global warming emissions.

Associated Press, via International Herald Tribune
Forbes

A large, old, rich, and impressive group of businesses leaders has called for more action to slow global warming.

The Business Roundtable is an association of CEOs of 160 U.S. companies with $4.5 trillion in annual revenues, more than 10 million employees, and makes up nearly one-third of the total value of the U.S. stock market. They lobby lawmakers on issues like jobs, healthcare, and trade. And last week they released a statement on one of the hottest of issues: global warming.

The Business Rountable’s Climate Change Statement acknowledges that although its members – such as ExxonMobil, General Electric, DuPont, and State Farm Insurance – have varying views on how exactly to address global warming, they do agree on some essential elements:

• More companies should make cutting emissions a priority and report publicly on their progress.
• Energy efficiency should be increased 25 percent.
• Any legislative or regulatory framework must stimulate private sector innovation and investment, as well as consumer awareness of new technologies.
• Increase research and development in new low-emissions technologies.
• Investment in climate science must continue at a high level “so that we can better understand and predict the magnitude and timing of future warming of the planet."
• Policies should be flexible enough to realign timelines with the development of new technologies, price spikes, or economic competitive imbalance.
• Consider different policy tools, including cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or energy standards.
• Any policy solution should be economy-wide and not impact a particular industry sector, technology, or geographic region.
• Maximize access to limited feedstock and energy supplies (for example, figure out carbon capture and sequestration so coal could be burned with less emissions).
• Adopt a global framework where all major emitting countries (specifically including China, Brazil, and India) are committed to reduction goals.

I’m a bit wary of parts of this list. It reminds me of the discussion I and other bloggers had with Exxon’s Vice President of External Affairs back in January, where it seemed like a perfect global warming solution was the enemy of a good global warming solution. I wonder, if a solution doesn’t include a commitment by China, India, and Brazil, is the U.S. still supposed to stand still and do nothing? It sounds like it…

The fact that so many businesses – to varying degrees of seriousness – are talking about global warming solutions is encouraging. The Sierra Club dismissed the Rountable’s statement as an atempt to appear sensitive while seeking to ensure that new regulations accomodate its members. Well, of course they want new regulations to accomodate them. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. But where can we find common ground? All of us should be open to ideas and reasonable compromise, but also make sure we’re not fiddling while the clock is ticking.

Business Roundtable

Reuters