While General Electric announced structural changes to compensate for increased business in its energy-efficient lighting sector, BP is planning to restructure itself to emphasize…more petroleum.

Once self-dubbed "Beyond Petroleum" because of its increased focus on clean energy — and even considered to be one of the friendlier oil companies by clean energy supporters — BP is now folding its gas power and renewables division into its two exploration and refining segments. But despite the de-emphasis on renewables, it will continue to use the "Beyond Petroleum" moniker (still good for business I suppose) and build wind turbines and solar cells.

Why the change? Simple business: The company’s new CEO, Tony Hayward, is frustrated with its performance compared to rivals like ExxonMobil. While Exxon and BP produce nearly the same about of oil each day (4.2 million barrels from Exxon compared to 3.8 million from BP), the stock market "values" BP’s barrels at $59 and Exxon’s at $122. So Hayward wants to realign BP with its core mission to boost profits: find oil and gas and make it into fuel. As James Harding of the The Times (London) put it, "Mr Hayward is setting out to make BP resemble Exxon, not The Body Shop."

But is this a "brutal reality check" for clean energy supporters, as Harding opines? Or did BP never really leave its oily roots in the first place? Should we be surprised that an oil company — that commits to a hardly-a-drop-in-the-oil-bucket investment of $8 billion in the next 10 years on clean energy — goes back to emphasizing fossil fuels?

I don’t think so. But nor should we discount the fact that they are investing in wind and solar. However, I do wonder whether this restructuring also alters BP’s plan for operating in a carbon-constrained marketplace.

Back in June, Hayward addressed policymakers in Berlin about climate change and how efficient and clean technologies – combined with a price on carbon emissions — will help slow global warming. While BP is talking the talk and making some overtures to clean energy, consumers – backed by a supportive marketplace and policymakers — will still need to be the driving force behind a clean and efficient energy future.

British Petroleum
The Times
Earth2Tech

Coal and nuclear plants may not be dropping like flies, but the business climate and the planet’s climate have caused some utilities to think twice about investing in them.

Tampa Electric of Florida has announced that it won’t build a coal plant to meet future energy needs, as originally planned. The coal plant was going to be an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant, or IGCC, which means that the coal is broken down into different gases that make it easier to pull out and store the carbon dioxide (CO2) so it doesn’t get released into the atmosphere. It’s still a very expensive technology and has yet to be tested on a very large scale, but because the U.S. is so reliant on coal power, many believe sequestration is the only way to cut emissions fast enough to slow global warming.

Tampa Electric cited the uncertain future regulation of CO2, the challenge of carbon capture and sequestration, and the associated costs. Although the utility sees IGCC as playing a significant role in future energy needs, the economic risks were too high and too uncertain at this time to proceed. Instead, the utility will look at other technologies like renewables, natural gas, and efficiency. Florida has also had a slew of new clean energy laws, including limits on global warming emissions and requiring utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewables.

Likewise, Xcel Energy says it can delay the need for new baseload generation in Minnesota because of its diversification into new, cleaner energy (particularly wind power and efficiency measures). Xcel argued that more hydropower from Canada — not considered “green” by many because of its destruction to native communities there — and upgrades to nuclear plants are not needed because of the aggressive energy bills passed during the last legislative session. Those laws direct Xcel to get 30 percent of its energy from renewable sources and to begin cutting energy use 1.5 percent annually beginning in 2010. Xcel’s own analysis concluded: “[C]learly there will be periods when available wind energy will supplant base-load resources to meet our customers’ energy needs.”

Diversifying our energy sources and emphasizing efficiency measures have started impacting how utilities do business and how their customers power their lives. While there is no silver bullet for a clean energy future, changes like these are all part of the “silver BB” approach to get us moving towards a smarter energy system in the 21st century.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

The Energy Blog
Wind Energy Weekly

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

Last week China reiterated its commitment to renewable energy, particularly hydropower. The Asian nation plans to triple its hydropower production to 300,000 megawatts by 2020.

Chinese officials also asked the world to cut them some slack in their efforts to cut global warming pollution.

China’s contribution to global warming has been relatively small compared to the more developed Western nations, they argue, and they shouldn’t be held overly accountable. According to Chen Deming of the National Development and Reform Commission, "I hope the international media will give us some development rights, some development space and not overly blame us."

Wind power and biofuels, in addition to big hydro, will help China reach its goal of producing 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. But it’s the hydropower expansion that is raising the eyebrows of some who are concerned about the large dams’ environmental impact.

Chen Deming argued that cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that contribute to global warming is more important than any negative environmental impact of huge hydropower. Other groups like Greenpeace argue that the damage caused by large dams – like the Three Gorges on the Yangtze River — could have more consequences than conventional power plants because of the massive amount of CO2 released when trees and plant life are destroyed.

AFX News, via Forbes
Associated Press, via DelawareOnline

Image: China’s Three Gorges Dam

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.

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

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

The cost of doing green business in Silicon Valley could soon be increasing. The demand for renewable energy credits (RECs) is outpacing the amount of land needed to provide clean energy, and so prices for RECs may be on the rise.

The purchase of a renewable energy credit generally represents one megawatt hour of renewable energy. Although the clean electricity can’t be routed from the wind turbine directly to the business, the investment allows for more renewable energy to built and displace the energy needed from dirty fossil fuels. Many companies and individuals buy RECs in order to make up for, or “offset,” their unavoidable pollution (driving, manufacturing, etc).

In Silicon Valley, the big buyers of RECs include Cisco Systems, Applied Materials, and Yahoo!. The latter just signed up for 1.6 million kilowatt hours of green power costing $24,000 and meeting about 6.5 percent of Yahoo’s Santa Clara energy requirement. The RECs are purchased from Silicon Valley Power, the city-owned utility of Santa Clara.

The increase in REC purchases across the country – the most recent data from the Department of Energy shows sales doubling in 2005 – may affect places like Silicon Valley in the near future. Renewable energy producers will need to get more creative in their search for land for the solar power and wind power systems. Dan Kalafatas, president and Chief Operating Officer of 3 Degrees, the San Francisco-based energy marketing company from which Silicon Valley Power buys its renewable energy credits, noted, “The best sites have been tapped. The long-term fundamental demand will raise prices."

California law says that utilities have to increase their renewable energy use by 2010, so this problem isn’t going away. Efficiency will be key here: while it’s exciting that the demand for green power is increasing, running efficient businesses and households must be the first step, and will help cut the need for energy across the board.

Green Options’ Green Life Guide
San Jose Business Journal

Photo Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

A thought-provoking new study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) has found that locally-owned renewable energy projects generally hold more local economic benefits than large-scale ones.

The “Economies and Diseconomies of Scale” concludes that bigger is not always better. The Minneapolis-based ILSR analyzed the costs and return of wind power and ethanol, both major renewable energy sources in the Upper Midwest. While they are both less expensive to produce on a large scale, the costs of having to transmit the energy across long distances can negate those savings. That, coupled with the fact that large projects are generally owned by corporate or out-of-state interests, makes smaller, local projects more beneficial for the immediate community.

ILSR recommends that states follow Minnesota’s example, where law provides a favorable tariff for locally owned renewable energy projects, requires 51 percent ownership by Minnesota residents, and designates 51 percent of financial benefits to local owners. In addition, the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind should be changed to allow it to be taken against ordinary income rather than only applying to passive income (such as from rent). This would allow greater access to the tax credit and open it up to more individuals to be renewable energy investors.

A carbon-constrained world presents us with many options for change. Do we want to create – and is it realistic – a totally new energy system, one that is locally owned, producing energy for the local area, with the majority of economic benefits going to the local community? Or does the urgency of global warming demand as much renewable energy as possible, as fast as possible, owned by whomever possible?

Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Minneapolis Star Tribune