The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy recently released an energy efficiency scorecard for the states. In it, the ACEEE considered state-level policies, programs, and technologies and ranked the 50 states and the District of Columbia in eight categories:

1. Spending on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency Programs
2. Energy Efficiency Resource Standards
3. Combined Heat and Power
4. Building Energy Codes
5. Transportation Policies
6. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards
7. Tax Incentives
8. State Lead by Example and Research & Development

The “State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 2006” found that states are spending three times as much money on energy efficiency programs as the federal government. They’re also far ahead on appliance standards and building codes.

By documentng best practices and leadership across the county, a roadmap is created for states and other entities to learn from each other and work off of each other. Not to mention encouraging (perhaps) the federal government to catch up. The researchers at ACEEE found these states to have the best investment and policies on energy efficiency programs, codes, and standards in 2006:

1. Vermont, Connecticut, and California (tie)
2. Massachusetts
3. Oregon
4. Washington
5. New York
6. New Jersey
7. Rhode Island, Minnesota (tie)

ACEEE Acting Executive Director, Bill Prindle, described energy efficiency as a “first fuel” in the transition towards a clean energy economy. That is, the cheapest and cleanest energy is the energy we never have to use:

“Unless we accelerate the pace of efficiency investment, no clean energy strategy will work.”

Maybe Congress is taking some small steps: On Tuesday, the U.S. House voted 312-111 to increase programs that make cars and buildings more energy efficient, along with boosting research and development of clean energy. The vote count would in theory be large enough to overturn the promised veto by President Bush, who wants 4 percent less for the programs covered by the bill. The extra money in the bill would go towards research in wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower power, as well as ethanol and biodiesel. It doesn’t include anything about the new, sturdier nuclear warhead Bush wanted included.

ACEEE
Associated Press, via Yahoo! News

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, 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

Prince Charles has cut his global warming emissions by 9 percent in the past year, according to an annual review (printed on recycled paper with vegetable-based ink) of the prince’s accounts. Charles has been carbon neutral since 2005.

More trains trips, less plane trips, and a Jaguar and Land Rover that run on cooking oil have sliced his footprint. He also farms organically, and gets electricity from renewable sources at his Highgrove estate.

Charles and his wife, Camilla, have promised to cut emissions even further. Future plans include converting the royal train to biodiesel fuel (Europe’s first biodiesel-powered passenger train – Virgin Trains – left the station earlier this month, a project of Virgin’s Sir Richard Branson).

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, praised the prince’s leadership:

"The fact that he reduced his carbon emissions by 9 percent in the last year alone highlights the potential for making rapid cuts in the nation's contribution to climate change.”

Others are more critical. Charles took heat a few months ago when he flew to New York to receive an environmental award. The prince’s principal private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, explained that Charles uses carbon offsets like funding tree planting or renewable energy projects to balance out the travel. “We’re doing it the best way we can at the moment,” he noted.

CNN

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

Animal, Vegetable, Miracle is the true-life chronicle of author Barbara Kingsolver’s decision to move to an Appalachian farm and eat locally produced, organic goods for one year. She explains that her highest shopping goal was to “get our food from so close to home that we’d know the person who grew it.” Her husband and two daughters joined her on this journey.

The family raised an astonishing array of vegetables, fruit, meat, and eggs. They did buy supplies like flour, coffee, and olive oil from the grocery store, but they were able to grow the vast majority of their food at home or buy from locals. Besides Kingsolver’s accounts of the ups and downs of pulling weeds or dodging testosterone-crazy roosters, husband Steven L. Hopp provides fascinating food facts sprinkled throughout the book. He explains that if we all ate just one meal each week made of locally raised organic meat and produce, we could reduce our country’s oil consumption by over 1.1 million barrels of oil per week. Kingsolver’s nineteen-year-old daughter Camille offers sidebars of meal plans and recipes (my looming zucchinis thank her for the zucchini chocolate chip cookie recipe).

Steven and Camille’s practical commentary provide a good balance to the author’s more subjective arguments for eating seasonally. For example, Kingsolver implies that the reader will have a greater appreciation for food if they can’t eat apples in January, or that hours spent in the kitchen canning vegetables with the family is a happy time that brings you closer. It sounds great to me, but other readers may be swayed less by a touch-feely argument, and more convinced by the scientific health arguments for organic foods and the greater energy independence local foods bring (a typical meal travels 1500 miles to a dinner table). At times, I did get a bit tired of seeing Kingsolver’s world though the rosiest of glasses. Everything appears to be perfect, lush, beautiful, the most delicious, faster, stronger, healthier. I don’t doubt the superior taste and nutrition of locally grown, organic products, but I was waiting for another side to the story – some sort of significant downside or obstacle they had to overcome. The author admits this herself when she recounts telling a friend about a tranquil summer evening spent with Amish friends on a farm. The friend remarks, “What, not even a mosquito to bother heaven?” But perhaps Kingsolver’s point is that it is easier than we think to eat locally. In spite of the endless positive spin, her humor and thorough research were inspiring enough to get me to contemplate making my own mozzarella.

A thought-provoking surprise was Kingsolver’s adamant argument for eating meat – specifically locally bred, organic meat. She aligns herself with a vegetarian position, she says, except that she eats meat. She points out that “every sack of flour and every soybean-based block of tofu came from a field where countless winged and furry lives were extinguished in the plowing, cultivating, and harvest…To believe that we can live without taking life is delusional.” She goes on to explain that the oft-repeated argument that it takes ten times as much land to make a pound of meat as a pound of grain only applies to the kind of land where rain falls abundantly on rich topsoil. Cultures that live on less productive land like the Navajo, Mongols, Lapps, and Masai would starve without their animals. The argument for eating locally produced organic meat is perhaps a more realistic option for individuals who care about where their food comes from and its environmental and energy consequences, but who aren’t going to stop eating chicken or burgers tomorrow.

In the end, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle has a little bit for everyone. For those ready to set the loftiest goals, take the Kingsolver challenge of canning all fall and making meals from home seven days a week. For someone like me who has a love of food, gardening, and cooking, but who isn’t prepared to give up Cheerios (are they local if General Mills is located 20 miles from my house?), I walked away with a renewed dedication to my farmers’ market, an intensive search for local foods at my grocery store, and the knowledge that buying food that grew up continents away is as much of an energy decision as leaving the lights on.

Genesys Conferencing is global provider of web, audio, and video conferencing services. It does business in 25 countries, including with nearly half of the Fortune Global 500 companies. Genesys has also made a strong commitment to energy efficiency and to cutting its global warming emissions. Last month, it appointed a Green Officer to drive and manage a sustainable development strategy and implement the ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems Standard.

So I spoke with Genesys’ Executive Vice President of Global Marketing, Denise Persson, on May 30th.

Green Options: Why is Genesys Conferencing focusing so many resources on efficiency?

Denise Persson: It all started about five years ago. As a European company, we are more environmentally conscious. I’m Swedish, and in Sweden we recycle every single thing. We would never dream of throwing a piece of paper in the trash. So this direction for the company was very natural for a lot of us. We wanted to do all that we could to make it more efficient and more responsible in terms of climate change.

GO: Tell me more about this global certification program and how Genesys is involved.

DP: The Environmental Management Systems is a certification process that we are working towards for all of our European, North American, and Asian-Pacific offices. We are focusing on energy savings and waste reduction, like computers that turn off automatically, recycling programs, and efficient lighting. We even make sure our cleaning company recycles.

GO: Does Genesys participate in any green power programs?

DP: No we do not – we don’t own our building. However we make sure that we are as efficient as possible in other areas.

GO: Let’s face it, energy efficiency isn’t sexy – how did you sell this initiative to your shareholders or management?

DP: It’s really amazing; we didn’t have to “sell” anything. We are seeing more and more RFPs [requests for proposals] from customers that ask about environmental management plans. In fact, our customers are hearing questions about efficiency from their customers. So we want to implement even more telecommuting options so our customers can reduce their carbon footprints. It’s a very bottom-up initiative and a reason we went for the Environmental Management Systems certification.

GO: What other energy-related measures is Genesys working on?

DP: So far we’ve developed a cost calculator on our website that includes the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions customers save by using our web conferencing services instead of flying to meeting locations. Our customers love that tool.

We’re also doing a lot of surveys of customers' needs. Our next major step is certification by the end of this year, and we also want to educate more of our customers. We want to help them figure out how to implement even more telecommuting practices that cut down on pollution, time, and cost.

I’m so excited about these initiatives. I’m very proud of my organization because we’re doing everything we can on this issue. It’s wonderful to be able to combine something that’s important to me with my job. It’s so important to work for a global company that takes this [climate change] problem seriously.

Genesys Conferencing
ISO 14000/14001 Environmental Management Guide
Office of the Federal Environmental Executive

Although California ranks second in total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming, the U.S.’s most populous state is also one of the lowest emitters on a per-capita basis.

That’s right; the average Californian emits fewer CO2 emissions than people in all other states except Idaho, Vermont, and Rhode Island. According an Associated Press analysis of 2003 data (the latest U.S. Department of Energy numbers available), Californians are responsible for about 24,000 pounds of CO2 per person per year. In comparison, Wyoming emits 276,000 pounds per capita annually.

True, California has less heavy industry that many other states, and mild weather means residents aren’t blasting the heat or air conditioning as often as others. But although Californians drive just as far, live in homes just as big, and have just as many gadgets, the analysis found that policies put in place in the last 30 years have made the Golden State more efficient than almost any other.

Since the oil embargo of the 1970s, lawmakers have barred utilities from buying power from highly polluting plants, required more renewable energy, and have enacted energy-efficiency standards for new homes and buildings. The state has considered banning traditional incandescent light bulbs and creating fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, although the latter idea has been tied up in the courts. Last year, California became the first to require a statewide cap on climate change emissions, cutting them 25 percent by 2020.

Claudia Chandler, assistant director of the California Energy Commission, told the AP that these energy efficiency measures have eliminated the need to build 20 large power plants. Other estimates have shown that the average California family spends about $800 a year less on energy than it would have without these efficiency improvements.

Associated Press, via the Daily Breeze
Washington Post

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

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