Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Dems’ plan on energy tilts green
Pelosi shifts from fossil fuels, emphasizes renewable power
Zachary Coile, SF Chronicle
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled new Democratic legislation that marks a tectonic shift in the energy priorities in Congress, revoking $16 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas drilling and creating incentives to produce biofuels and boost energy efficiency.
But the San Francisco congresswoman disappointed some environmentalists by announcing that she will wait until this fall to allow debate on a major increase in federal fuel economy standards, which the Senate passed in a landmark vote last week.
The Democratic package, which the House will vote on next month, breaks from past congressional energy legislation, which focused heavily on oil, gas, nuclear and coal production. The new legislation is all about conservation and renewable energy.
Pelosi, at a press conference in the Capitol on Thursday, said the measure amounted to a new American revolution in energy and climate change.
“It provides the largest investment in home-grown biofuels and supports clean, renewable energy,” Pelosi said. “It lowers energy costs for the consumers with greater efficiency and smarter technology.”
(29 June 2007)
I notice that someone at The Tidepool (an environmental news portal), relabeled the story: “House Dems’ plan on energy tilts pale green” – a headline which is closer to the truth.
Related: Pelosi Still Wants More Miles Per Gallon
-BA
California is no longer leading the pack on wind energy
Kate Galbraith, Grist
Last year, California suffered the ultimate indignity in its quest to be the “greenest state.” It was passed by red Texas — the oil heartland — for the title of state with the most wind-power generating capacity.
The numbers get even more depressing. Last year, California’s wind capacity grew at a slower rate than any of the other top 10 wind-producing states. Texas’s wind production grew at a 39 percent clip and (What’s the Matter With) Kansas’ grew by 38 percent; California managed relatively meager 10 percent growth. That still leaves the Golden State as the No. 2 wind producer in the country, but it is clearly in a slump.
Why has California blown its lead (so to speak)? The state was an early champion of wind farms. During the 1980s, when Texans thought only of oil and gas drilling, California started putting in windmills. By 1985, turbines had sprouted in three key areas: Altamont, east of San Francisco; Tehachapi, near Bakersfield; and San Gorgonio, in the far south. The energy crisis of the 1970s, plus regulatory initiatives in California, had galvanized action.
Ironically, California’s early pioneering is part of its trouble. Regulations, well-developed through the years, make it hard for developments to get off the ground. Hal Romanowitz of Oak Creek Energy Systems, a Mojave-based wind developer focused on Tehachapi, describes California as “probably the most difficult state in the country to build in.” Nancy Rader of the California Wind Energy Association notes that land is quite expensive in California — and that while Texas provides property-tax exemptions to people with windmills on their land, California does not.
(28 June 2007)
Think-tank calls for walloping carbon fee
Allan Woods, The Star
OTTAWA-The federal government should put a hefty price tag on carbon to give polluters an incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to an analysis of the Conservative climate change plan.
Such a carbon charge would drive up the price of oil, coal, and other products that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy’s study encourages the government to move quickly to make deep cuts to emissions.
The arms-length agency, which is made up of industry and academic players as well as environmentalists, looked at the medium- and long-term targets set out in the government’s green plan, finding both achievable and would only result in “small reductions in the size of the economy.”
That finding could put to rest gloomy predictions about the impact of cleaning up the environment. It also bolsters the case for government intervention – in the form of an emissions-trading system or a punitive carbon tax.
“The findings show that an economy-wide price is required if long-term carbon emissions reductions are to be achieved,” said Alex Wood, chief executive of the group. “Finally it informs us that greenhouse gas mitigation will not result in a collapse of the economy.”
(28 June 2007)
