According to the American Wind Energy Association, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently told wind power supporters that a House vote on a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) was likely to happen the week of July 30.

A renewable portfolio standard – also called a renewable energy standard – is a measure requiring utilities to get a certain amount of their power from renewable sources by a particular time.

Last month in the Senate, Senator Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) RPS amendment to the energy bill was killed before a vote could be held. Although the current House version of the energy bill does not have an RPS provision, Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM) and Todd Platts (R-PA) are expected to offer an amendment requiring utilities to get 20 percent of their energy from renewables by 2020. This amendment is based on H.R. 969, which calls for an RPS and is also authored by Udall and Platts. (Make sure your Representative is one of the 120 co-sponsors here).

In her meeting with wind power supporters, Pelosi underscored the critical role an RPS would play in moving the nation towards global warming solutions.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a 20 percent by 2020 RPS would save consumers nearly $11 billion on energy bills by 2030 and save nearly 2 billion short tons of coal from being burned up into the atmosphere. Similarly, the American Solar Energy Society found that an RPS could help create nearly 40 million new jobs in the U.S. by 2030 in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors.

It’s Getting Hot in Here
Union of Concerned Scientists
Wind Energy Weekly

A survey released earlier this summer found that while 82 percent of senior technology leaders from companies around the world “closely” monitor the global warming issue, most (65 percent) do not have a defined energy strategy for it.

The “Return on Environment” study included interviews of 420 senior business decision-makers from the U.S., U.K., Canada, and China who worked for companies with revenues the equivalent of US$100 million or more.

Despite over half of respondents reporting that they don’t have a defined energy strategy, 77 percent believe there is a need to create some sort of chief energy officer position to develop, implement, and manage a company’s return on investment in clean energy technology and sustainable business practices.

Joe Paluska of the international communications firm that performed the survey, Hill & Knowlton, said in a statement:

“Despite the hype, few companies are plotting a measurable action plan to drive return on environment…We expect reputation, risk and return to suffer until companies really stand up and take charge and industry as a whole sets the standard for measuring return on environment.”

Perhaps that will soon change. The New York Times recently profiled several global companies that have implemented a position solely dedicated to linking sustainability and efficiency with a better bottom line (and who are promoting it like crazy).

General Motors’ vice president for environment, energy, and safety policy, Elizabeth A. Lowery, says that ensuring credibility is a priority of her position. She explains that she “toned down” broad statements and claims that were part of GM’s “Live Green Go Yellow” campaign and added more facts (thanks – facts are good).

At DuPont, Linda Fisher is the chief sustainability officer. She says her job is to ensure that the company never overstates the “greenness” of its items. She’s helping to develop a scorecard that researchers can use to determine whether their work will actually produce products that are smarter for the environment.

Those who have been on the greener side for a longer period of time are divided over these new efforts. While greenwashing is a rightful concern, others are cautiously optimistic that corporations are finally making the connection that efficiency and sustainability can go hand-in-hand with profits.

Most importantly, consumers are making the connection too.

Hill & Knowlton
New York Times
Wikipedia

Cross posted at Maria Energia 

Last week, the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee passed the Green Jobs Act of 2007 (HR 2847) by a vote of 26-18. Originally introduced by Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis (D-CA) and John Tierney (D-MA), the Green Jobs Act would authorize up to $125 million in funding to establish national and state job training programs for about 35,000 U.S. workers. These jobs training would help to address the shortages in green industries such as solar panel installation, building weatherization, and wind turbine maintenance.

Congresswoman Solis explained why the bill is important:

"… I know that we can achieve the goals of becoming energy independent and reducing our global warming emissions. But the strength of our nation’s economy depends on the availability of a highly skilled and well-trained work force. This legislation is an opportunity to advance not only the energy security of our nation, but also the economic security of our families.”

During committee deliberation, Democrats defeated a Republican amendment to include coal-to-liquid technologies. Fuel from liquid coal produces more than double the amount of global warming pollution as petroleum-based fuels and doesn't help to solve the climate change problem.

The Green Jobs Act is part of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “Energy Independence Day” plan. Other parts of the plan include bills that would set new energy-efficiency standards for home appliances, require more efficient lighting, promote green buildings in the public and private sectors, provide long-term incentives for companies to invest in renewable energy, and spend $3.5 billion over five years to improve how the U.S. grows and produces biofuels.

Congresswoman Solis
Gristmill, via Topix
Tri-Valley Herald
Washington Post
The Green Options Interview: Van Jones

Late last week in a vote of 65-27, the Senate passed an energy bill that made progress in some areas but was stripped down in others.

The crown jewel was certainly a near-40 percent increase in fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles by 2020. For the first time, SUVs, vans, and small trucks fall under the same regulations as passenger cars. Each vehicle group must achieve a 10 miles per gallon (mpg) increase in fuel efficiency by the target year, with an overall average requirement for the manufacturer’s fleet increasing from 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg. The current requirement has not changed in nearly 20 years.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) fought the standards and wanted to instead pass a more auto industry-friendly fuel requirement. But he admitted that one reason for his effort’s failure was the growing concern over global warming. From the Associated Press:

“‘The public wants action, rightfully so, on global warming,’ Levin said in an interview. And he added, the auto industry is ‘a juicy target.’”

Although an improvement in fuel efficiency is a long-overdue step forward, some perspective is required. Watthead over at Cleanergy.org points out the 35 mpg standards by 2020 is about where China and Japan are today, where the European Union was five years ago, and where states that adopt California’s tailpipe standards will be in five years.

Other achievements in the energy bill include:

• A 36 billion gallon by 2022 renewable fuels standard, including the specification that at least 60 percent of the requirement must be met by “next generation” biofuels like cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is not made from corn but rather other plant materials like switchgrass.

• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards, as well as a requirement that the federal government accelerate the use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

• The development of an action plan (but not a requirement) to cut oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day by 2017. That’s roughly the same as the total current imports of oil from the Middle East. The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for the plan.

Here’s what didn’t make it in the energy bill:

• No support for coal-to-liquids synthetic fuel production and no support for expanded coal, nuclear, or oil use. So although some key pieces of progressive clean energy legislation were left out, at least we’re (so far) not expanding more of our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

• No package that would have extended production tax credits and other financial incentives and offsets for renewable energy. The $32 billion package, previously approved 15-5 by the Senate Finance Committee, also included a repeal of tax credits for major gas and oil companies' domestic manufacturing activities.

• No national renewable energy standard that would have required 15 percent of our energy to come from clean, renewable sources by 2020.

The Senate energy bill now awaits action in the House. The House Ways and Means Committee passed a tax provision last week that includes support for wind and biodiesel. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Representative Edward Mackey (D-MA) have both agreed that gasoline use must be more efficient and plan to work to ensure that the House’s action mirrors the Senate’s.

Associated Press, via CIO Today
BioCycle
Cleanergy.org
Sioux Falls Argus Leader

Gamesa, a Spanish wind turbine manufacturer, has hammered out its first-ever U.S. union contract with the United Steelworkers (USW). Workers at two Gamesa facilities in Pennsylvania voted to approve their first contract with 80 percent in favor of it. The agreement lays the foundation for a stronger partnership between one of the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturers – and the only one that makes its blades, nacelles, and towers all in the U.S. – and the 850,000 member union.

The three-year contract raises worker salaries by more than 10 percent, as well as provides for bonuses and benefits for roughly 600 employees. Michael Peck, a Gamesa spokesman, called the contract “a world-class agreement." Tom Conway, USW international vice president, agreed:

“Our union is proud to partner with Gamesa to further grow their domestic manufacturing base and promote wind energy as a source of clean, renewable energy and good jobs.”

Gamesa and other wind power companies have been lured to Pennsylvania by a host of tax incentives and the adoption of a Renewable Energy Standard that doubled the state's renewable energy use to 20 percent. PA is one of the top green power purchasers in the nation according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The United Steelworkers have been longtime supporters of wind power; they and the Sierra Club founded the Blue Green Alliance that advocates for a cleaner environment and good jobs. USW also co-founded the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, business, and environmental organizations supporting clean energy and a strong economy.

Bucks County Courier Times
Gamesa Corporation
Philadelphia Inquirer, via Topix
Renewable Energy Access
United Steelworkers
The Green Options Interview: Van Jones

Photo Courtesy of Solaicx

Solaicx, a manufacturing company that produces high-efficiency silicon wafers for photovoltaic solar power, has announced a new facility planned for Portland, Oregon.

The 136,000-square-foot plant will produce silicon ingots, which are logs of pure silicon that get heated to high temperatures and sliced like lunch meat to make silicon wafers. The wafers are the semiconductor materials in solar panels. The process for producing and processing silicon wafers for solar power is difficult and expensive, but Solaicx claims it uses silicon more efficiently and thus creates a more cost-competitive product.

The plant will provide about 100 new green collar jobs and, by the time it reaches full capacity in 18 months, may produce enough material for 142 megawatts of solar panels.

Why Portland? The Oregon Department of Energy created a Solar Energy Working Group charged with developing and implementing a strategic plan to lure clean tech companies to Portland. Jeff Jones, Vice President of Manufacturing for Solaicx, said the state’s incentives were key in the company’s decision to locate there:

"We looked at the state of Oregon's generous financial incentives for renewable energy and Portland's deep base of skilled labor in silicon manufacturing, and decided that the port is an ideal place for our continued growth as a company. This welcoming atmosphere will allow us to meet our goals and rapidly ramp-up to full production by the end of 2008."

Although many manufacturing facilities are located in or are moving to China, precision manufacturing is expanding in the U.S., Japan, and Europe.

CNET News
Oregon Energy Model
Solaicx

Negotiations leading up to the Group of Eight (G-8) summit that begins in Heiligendamm, Germany on Wednesday stalled when the U.S. bluntly objected to the host country’s global warming declaration.

Germany’s proposal calls for limiting the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) and cutting global warming emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. But Bush administration officials rejected those mandatory emissions targets, as well as calls to raise energy efficiencies 20 percent by 2020. They also opposed a statement that reads, “We acknowledge that the U.N. climate process is an appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change."

So late last week, President Bush went on the offensive and proposed his own climate change goal. He urged 15 major nations – including China and India – to agree by the end of next year on a global target for reducing greenhouse gases. Rather than a specific goal like Germany’s 3.6 degrees reduction, Bush called for nations to hold a series of meetings, beginning this fall, to set a global goal and then each nation then would decide how to reach that goal. At the same time, the White House specifically registered its opposition to a global cap-and-trade program.

Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed Bush’s “new determination” to fight climate change, any goal must absolutely be part of a U.N. framework. Furthermore, she said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel that her proposals for a 3.6 degrees cut in emissions “are non-negotiable as far as I am concerned.”

The talks promise to heat up even more during the summit, given the U.S.’s hard line and Merkel’s apparent refusal to compromise the central tenant of her plan. According to Der Spiegel, which obtained minutes of a secret meeting to plan Germany’s climate change strategy at the summit:

“Merkel refuses to allow her image as a vocal advocate of climate protection to be diminished, not even by George W. Bush. According to the minutes, Merkel insisted that her government take a tough stance and not budge a millimeter at preparatory meetings at the expert level.

…There is a lot at stake for the chancellor: her reputation as G-8 chair as well as Germany's image in the world, but also Merkel's image as a politician who gets things done.

 

…Publicly, the looming conflict with the Americans is in no way to be ratcheted up — softening is the order the day. ‘The federal chancellor asks that over the next few weeks, expectations regarding the subject of climate protection and energy efficiency be played down in public,’ reads one sentence in the minutes of Merkel's pre-summit meeting.”

But Merkel seems as determined to get a concrete compromise as much as Bush is determined to soften it. The Chancellor has a lot riding on this summit, both for her own image and the health of the planet. Her advisors have told her that “reaching a concrete CO2 reduction goal is the decisive yardstick” in measuring the success of the summit. Furthermore, the German public expects a success regarding climate protection at the summit…which made me wonder how much different U.S. policies would be if we were all just as loud in our demands for success.

CNN
Der Spiegel
Washington Post

Last week, leaders of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths formed a pact to fight global warming. They delivered a letter to the White House and Congress announcing their alliance and calling on lawmakers to create limits on carbon global warming pollution.

Citing the Koran, the Hebrew Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, the interfaith body declared global warming “a moral issue” in An Interfaith Declaration on the Moral Responsibility of the U.S. Government to Address Global Warming:

“All of our traditions call us to serve and protect the poor and vulnerable. And it is the world’s poor, who contribute the least to this problem, who will suffer the most from global warming.”

The group asks fellow people of faith to see beyond their differences and make the protection of life on earth a priority. But besides working on global warming soluations, faith communities must prepare to care for those who will be displaces and impoverished by its effects.

Advertisements, meetings with elected officials, and campaigns in individual congregations are planned for the near future.

Christian Post Reporter
Episcopal Life Online
An Interfaith Declaration on the Moral Responsibility of the U.S. Government to Address Global Warming

Earlier this spring, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Although it has no legislative-making power, it can study and make recommendations on the problem. This week it took on an American icon: the Smithsonian Institution.

The Committee is investigating allegations by former associate director of the National Museum of Natural History, Robert Sullivan, that Smithsonian officials toned down a climate change exhibit to avoid angering some members of Congress and the Bush administration.

Sullivan charges that the exhibit’s text was rewritten to make the connection between climate change and human activity more uncertain. The Smithsonian has denied the allegations, pointing out that Sullivan “was neither a scientists nor a curator.” Other scientists and curators have said that nothing major was omitted, although some admitted to political sensitivities. John Calder, a lead climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration told the Associated Press:

"I remember them telling me there was an attempt to make sure there was nothing in there that would be upsetting to any politicians. They're not stupid. They don't want to upset the people who pay them."

The Natural Resources Defense Council had considered co-sponsoring the climate change exhibit but objected to the exhibit's text about uncertainties on the future warming of the planet.

Associated Press, via Examiner.com

The oil giant ExxonMobil has acknowledged that funding organizations that deny the existence of climate change has made it harder for the public to accept their attempt at a “greener” image. Now, a report by the environmental group Greenpeace charges that we have every right to be skeptical: the company is continuing to pump millions of dollars into these same organizations that attempt to throw doubt on climate science.

When I and other bloggers interviewed Exxon’s Vice President of External Affairs, Ken Cohen, in January, the question of funding these sorts of groups naturally came up. Cohen explained that Exxon does not fund specific programs within these organizations, but rather gives money for their general operations. Therefore, there is no particular issue on which Exxon’s money must be used and the company has no control over it. “We had no knowledge that this was going on,” he insisted.

Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which was a particularly vocal denier of global warming science. However, Cohen confirmed that they do continue to fund the American Enterprise Institute. The Greenpeace report says that, along with AEI, Exxon also funds the Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, and others attempting to discredit climate science.

In January, Cohen made it explicit that Exxon believes global warming is real, is caused by humans, and that something needs to be done. Greenpeace believes that Exxon’s funding of these skeptic groups is an attempt to control the debate on any emerging federal legislation on the issue. Actually, I would expect most companies would try to do that, and many of them aren’t hiding the fact. Utilities like PG&E believe that carbon dioxide regulation is coming down the pipeline and that they need to get involved in the early stages of discussion, ensuring that future policies benefit any steps their company has already taken.

In any case, Exxon must be part of the solution. We need every company, every community, and every government tackling climate change. Greenpeace’s research director, Kert Davies, agrees, “…unless they start pulling with the rest of the world, we're going to have a hard time solving global warming."

ABC News
Greenpeace