CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT MILESTONE

Mayor Gavin Newsome of San Francisco, California views installation of electric vehicle charging stations at San Francisco City Hall.
Photo courtesy of San Francisco Office of the Mayor, published in the New York Times, February 19, 2009.

1,000 USA Cities Now Support Reducing Greenhouse Gases Emissions

As of Friday, October 2, 2009, one thousand mayors nationwide in the USA have signed the

U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

The 1,000 mayors represent approximately 86.3 million USA citizens from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The United States Conference of Mayors
The Voice of America’s Mayors in Washington, D.C.

Seattle, Washington Mayor Greg Nickels launched the initiative on February 16, 2005 as a grassroots effort to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. Nickels recognized that his effort was necessary because at the time our federal government was not seen to be acting forcefully on the threats of excessive greenhouse gases emissions.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels
Photo courtesy of Office of the Mayor
Published in Environment News Service, September 30, 2009

The U.S. Conference of Mayors for decades “…has formally adopted and actively promoted policy positions on a range of issues affecting energy production and use…” together with impacts on our environment.

Lobbying by our nation’s mayors led to $2.7 billion in block grants authorized in 2009 by the federal government for states, municipalities and native tribes for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Continuing authority for such grants – again the result of lobbying by our mayors – is embodied in the federal climate change legislation recently introduced by USA Senators John F. Kerry and Barbara Boxer.

The Kerry-Boxer Bill is cited as
“The American Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act”

The stated intention of the bill is:
“To create clean energy jobs, promote energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.”

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels upholds that energy and economic solutions must come from the top 100 metropolitan areas of the USA. These areas represent seventy-five percent (75%) of our nation’s gross domestic product, and consume the bulk of domestic and imported energy resources.

The United States Conference of Mayors released a report on Friday, October 2, 2009 that lists city-by-city accomplishments in energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. The 52-page report is entitled:

“The Power of 86 Million Americans: 1,000 Mayors Committed to Climate Action – Selected Profiles of Mayoral Leadership.”

The report highlights specific actions being taken in our nation’s municipalities ranging from “…changing city fleets to alternative fuel vehicles, to retrofitting city-owned buildings with energy efficient technology to collecting methane gas from landfills for electricity use.”

Notable results include:

• Seattle, Washington reducing its 1990 carbon footprint by eight percent (8%) in 2005,
• Los Angeles, California reaching its Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases reduction targets in 2008, four years ahead of schedule,
• Boson, Massachusetts increasing its solar power capacity by three hundred percent (300%),
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania adopting a plan to retrofit one hundred thousand (100,000) homes with energy-savings features during the next seven years, and
• Cleveland, Ohio setting a standard of converting to twenty-five percent (25 %) of its electricity consumption to be provided by renewable energy sources.

The United States Conference of Mayors believes that our mayors are “…on the front lines of impacting human behavior…” on a wide variety of issues, including those of energy and greenhouse gases emissions reduction. In this regard, comments from the group’s September 30, 2009 Press Release are instructive:

“Global warming is real and demands our immediate response. It is in our national interest to act now and exhibit our global leadership."

“We are especially pleased that the Senate has responded to our request that the bill include a provision for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. By doing this, these Senate leaders are acknowledging the important role cities play in creating green jobs and achieving energy independence and climate protection. The Conference has worked long and hard to establish this innovative program as a cornerstone of our national climate protection strategy."

“In these hard economic times, we know that many people are without jobs and are struggling. This bill will help jump start new green industries that will create new jobs at a time when they are desperately needed. These green jobs are the future of our economic competitiveness.”


Earth At Night: The Lights Of North America

Source: "Earth from Space: The Human Presence"
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Data (1994-1995) compiled courtesy of Marc Imhoff, Craig Mayhew, and Robert Simmon, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and Christopher Elvidge, NOAA/National Geophysical Data Center

Energy Efficiency Potential In The USA

"Heated Earth"
Earth image from Earthobservatory at NASA, Compiled by iStockphoto/Adam Korzekwa, Science Daily, January 28, 2009.

New McKinsey & Company Report Focuses On Barriers To Achieving Energy Efficiency

A significant tool in the portfolio of climate change solutions is improved energy efficiency across a broad range of applications throughout global society. Although energy efficiency has been widely touted as desirable for at least the past several decades, its full-scale potential remains far from being realized.

In July 2009, McKinsey & Company through its electric power and natural gas division published an important report entitled, “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy.”

"The report is the product of a year-long effort by McKinsey & Company in close collaboration with 13 leading U.S.-based companies, government agencies and environmental NGOs."

See both the Preface and pages 143-144 for lists of contributors.

The focus of the collaborators “…has been to identify what has prevented attractive efficiency opportunities from being captured in the past and evaluate potential measures to overcome these barriers. Our goal is to unlock the efficiency potential for more productive uses in the future.”

The report examines in detail the energy saving potential “…for greater efficiency in non-transportation uses of energy…” and reaches this central conclusion:

“Energy efficiency offers a vast, low-cost energy resource for the U.S. economy – but only if the nation can craft a comprehensive and innovative approach to unlock it. Significant and persistent barriers will need to be addressed at multiple levels to stimulate demand for energy efficiency and manage its delivery across more than 100 million buildings and literally billions of devices. If executed at scale, a holistic approach would yield gross energy savings worth more than $1.2 trillion, well above the $520 billion needed through 2020 for upfront investment in efficiency measures (not including program costs). Such a program is estimated to reduce end-use energy consumption in 2020 by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs, roughly 23 percent of projected demand, potentially abating up to 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gases annually.”

The report acknowledges that decline in energy demand attributed to energy efficiency is only one tool in reducing carbon-emitting energy production. There will be demand for new clean energy power plants, both to serve regions of growth and to retire “…economically or environmentally obsolete energy infrastructure…” such as nearly all existing coal-fired power plants.

The collaborators reaffirm that energy efficiency represents an emissions-free energy resource. “If captured at full potential, energy efficiency would abate approximately 1.1 gigatons CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent; also, CDE) of greenhouse gas emissions per year in 2020 relative to BAU (Business-As-Usual) projections, and could serve as an important bridge to a future era of advanced low-carbon supply-side energy options."

[For BAU = Business-As-Usual projections, the collaborators used the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2008 to focus on the 81 percent of non-transportation energy with end uses that the collaborators were able to attribute.]

The report has a thorough glossary, a detailed explanation of methodology, a 20-page reference list, and sidebars to explain and complement the highly informative graphics.

The graphs throughout are very informative. For example, the graphic on page 11 shows itemized energy efficiency potential -- expressed as cost savings -- for building components and other actions relative to the year 2020.

You can download the 165-page document as a 6.4-megabyte .pdf file:

McKinsey & Company, 2009, Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy: McKinsey Global Energy and Materials, Electric Power & Natural Gas, July 2009, 165p.

Another way to look at energy efficiency potential is a flow chart recently published by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy. The diagram shows "Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2008: ~99.2 Quads."

[One Quad = 1 quadrillion BTUs]

The flow chart shows a grey box in the upper right labeled "Rejected Energy 57.07 (Quads)".

[1 Quad = approximately 293,071,000 megawatt hours.]

"Rejected Energy" means that out of 99.2 Quads produced from all energy sources, about 57.5% (fifty-seven and one-half percent) is wasted. Wasted energy is that energy produced that is not used for the services we demand, labeled as "Energy Services" on the flow chart. Improved energy efficiency would make better use of that wasted energy and/or would reduce total energy demand.

In a typical statement on USA energy waste, Clark Energy Group (2009) says:

“Electricity from the (USA) grid is tremendously inefficient as less than half of the energy utilized to produce grid electricity is used productively. In fact, much of grid electricity’s energy is lost from waste heat during the generation process, transmission losses, converting between AC and DC current, and the like.”

Click on the chart below to enlarge it and make it more readable.

Flow Chart for Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2008: ~ 99.2 Quads.
Graphic prepared by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy.

The Wedge Game – Solving the Climate Problem By 2055

Targets For Legislative Proposals In The USA Congress Of Mandatory Cap And Trade Programs For Greenhouse Gases Emissions, courtesy of World Resources Institute (WRI) – December 8, 2008.

The top (red) line shows historical and projected carbon emissions for the USA for 1990-2050 under conditions of "business as usual." The other lines show estimated carbon emissions reductions trends for 2010-2050 under different legislative proposals.

WRI offers a high resolution image of this graph plus details about the methodology, assumptions and references that went into creating it. WRI updates the graph each year.


A World In Transition

In the brief span of about two years – between the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2009 – our global society has greatly accelerated its transformation towards a new energy economy. Considering where we were just two short years ago, those of us in the business of climate change and economic improvement solutions should be very encouraged by this progress. In late 2006, global warming and climate change science and solutions were barely on the radar of our general public and the popular media.

As we begin 2009, concrete measures to better understand our Earth’s systems together with actions to manage climate change dominate global news, global politics, and the thinking of people at all levels of our global societies. Two years ago, I would have told people that such an expansive level of activity was a decade or more away.

By about the middle of 2007, my correspondents and audiences were demanding a story far more comprehensive than scientific accounts of global warming and its impacts. People were demanding solutions. And like people everywhere, they were demanding (and offering) straightforward solutions. And most were (and remain) convinced that somehow there would be an easy-to-understand and easily implemented single solution. How do we fix this quickly? What is the single most important thing we can do? What technology do we need? How much will it cost?

Unfortunately, there is no “silver bullet” solution to drastically eliminating the bulk of our polluting greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in a reasonably short time. However, we can solve a major part of our emissions problems beginning now and using currently available technologies.

Often described as “silver shotgun” approaches, there are solutions scenarios that comprise several concurrent actions. These are actions that make sense physically, economically, and politically – actions that might be understandable and palatable across a broad spectrum of political, economic, cultural, spiritual and other viewpoints.

In 2004, prominent carbon management researchers Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow of Princeton University introduced the “stabilization wedges” concept for solving our climate problem for the next 50 years using current technologies. This work continues to advance, and now is a joint project of Princeton University, BP, and Ford Motor Company. The project is called the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI), and it seeks practical solutions to the greenhouse gases emissions problem.



The “stabilization wedges” concept is based upon using a suite of seven low-carbon energy technologies and enhancing natural carbon sinks. The concept name comes from the “wedge” or cut in emissions depicted on a graph of carbon emissions projected for 2005 – 2055. Each “wedge” represents a carbon-cutting strategy that can grow from zero in 2005 to one billion tons of carbon emissions by 2055.

Thus, pursuing seven “wedge” strategies would cut carbon emissions by seven billion tons, keeping global carbon emissions flat for the next 50 years. Pursuing more than seven strategies would reduce our carbon emissions below today’s levels by 2055. The CMI demonstrates that at least 15 “wedge” strategies are available now, showing there is already a more than adequate portfolio of tools available today to control carbon emissions for the next 50 years.



The CMI shows opportunities for cutting carbon emissions using current technologies in combinations of actions under these headings:

Efficiency & Conservation

Increased transport efficiency
Reducing miles traveled
Increased heating efficiency
Increased efficiency of electricity production

Fossil-Fuel-Based Strategies

Fuel switching (coal to gas)
Fossil-based electricity with carbon capture & storage (CCS)
Coal synfuels with CCS
Fossil-based hydrogen fuel with CCS

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear electricity

Renewables and Biostorage

Wind-generated electricity
Solar electricity
Wind-generated hydrogen fuel
Biofuels
Forest storage
Soil storage

The CMI provides briefs showing how GHG emissions reductions are calculated for each opportunity in this list. The briefs include commentaries on the pros and cons of each technology and how they interact with each other. The numbers in these commentaries should be useful to those wishing to understand the dimensions of combatting GHG emissions.

The CMI has produced a “Teachers Guide to the Stabilization Wedge Game.” This is a team-based exercise in which players build a portfolio of stabilization strategies and assess their impacts and costs. Those interested in explanations of our climate and carbon problem – and the relative contributions and costs of solutions using the strategies above – might want to examine this guide and its associated resources.

A significant feature of the “wedge” concept and game is that people may choose their preferred combinations of strategies from the above list, and reject strategies that might be less palatable for various political, economic or other reasons. For example, if you do not like current-technology nuclear or coal-fired electricity as a part of the suite of solutions, you can select a balancing alternative from the list of 15 opportunities. You might also consider the extra costs and benefits of substitututing compensating amounts of current-technology wind- and solar-generated electricity, for example.

New USA Greenhouse Gases Emissions Report Now Available

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Holcomb 1 360-Megawatt Coal-Fired Power Plant, Holcomb, Kansas -- Associated Press Photo in The Santa Fe New Mexican, May 14, 2007.

The USA Energy Information Administration (EIA) in December 2008 published its annual update, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2007,” by the EIA Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy.

This important 54-page document answers a wide variety of questions about fuel and sector roles in emissions of such greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Page 4 provides an excellent diagram of the flow of greenhouse gases from sources to emissions throughout the USA economy.

The report breaks down GHG emissions by fuel source, showing, for example, that burning petroleum, coal and natural gas is responsible for about 99 percent of the USA’s carbon dioxide emissions. Burning fossil fuels is also responsible for the bulk of methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that together constitute about 17 percent of the USA’s total GHG emissions.

The report contains historical information and shows a variety of trends, especially for the years 1990 – 2007. For example, the USA has steadily increased its anthropogenic GHG emissions by slightly less than one percent per year since 1990, from about 6,242 million metric tons CO2 equivalent in 1990 to about 7,282 million metric tons CO2 equivalent in 2007.

The report also has a section on land use, land-use change, and forestry activities in the USA and how these result in sequestration and/or emissions of carbon dioxide.

The report encapsulates “Recent U.S. and International Developments in Global Climate Change,” including California S.B. 375, the Thirteenth Conference of the Parties to the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-13) and the Third Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (CMP-3). [Now available are results of COP-14 and CMP-4 in Poznan´, Poland December 1-12, 2008 that were not available at the time of publication of the the EIA report.]

The EIA provides briefs on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions at other web sites, including “Frequently Asked Questions – Environment,” and “Energy in Brief – What Everyone Should Know About Energy.”

These pages answer such questions as:

How much carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced when different fuels are burned?

How much CO2 does the United States emit? Is it more than other countries?

[The USA emits about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide per capita, about 5 times the global per capita average. The USA (21% of world total), China (19% of world total) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Europe (16% of world total) together are responsible for 56 percent of anthropogenic global carbon dioxide emissions.]

What are the largest sources of total greenhouse gas emissions by sector?

[The residential sector is responsible for about 17 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions. The commercial sector is responsible for about 19 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions. The industrial sector is responsible for about 36 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions. The transportation sector is responsible for about 28 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions.]

How much greenhouse gas is emitted to produce and transmit electricity?

What are the largest sources of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel?

[Petroleum is responsible for about 44 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions. Coal is responsible for about 36 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions, and natural gas is responsible for about 20 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions.]

What are greenhouse gases and how do they affect the climate?

Why do carbon dioxide emissions weigh more than the original fuel?

Does EIA report water vapor emissions data?

How does the hole in the ozone layer affect global warming?

I plan to add information to this article during the next few weeks on the basis of requests from some of my colleagues. Please revisit this post from time to time if you have further interest in greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions information.

New Mexico Energy Efficiency Strategy: Policy Options

Albuquerque, New Mexico, seen from the Northeast with Intersection of I-25 and I-40 in the foreground and Rio Grande in the background, Wikipedia, December 1, 2006.

The State of New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (NMEMNRD) has just released a new 152-page report, "New Mexico Energy Efficiency Strategy: Policy Options" and Summary.

The report was prepared for the NMEMNRD, Ken Hughes, Project Coordinator, by the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, ETC Group, LLC, and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Those working at the state and local levels might want to obtain this document for reference in anticipation of rapid upgrades of the New Mexico statewide building code and upgrades in other states as well. For example, the Buildings and Appliances Policies options in the report include a recommendation to upgrade the New Mexico statewide building code toward greater energy efficiency in 2009 and every three years after that.

"The New Mexico Energy Efficiency Strategy contains 25 major policies, programs, or initiatives that could be implemented in order to accelerate energy efficiency improvements in the state and achieve the goals where possible. The policies save electricity, natural gas, or gasoline. These energy sources account for 77 percent of primary energy consumption in the state and 65 percent of energy consumption on a secondary (site) basis."

The 10 highest priorities in the report are these:

"Among the 25 options developed in this report, we suggest that 10 be viewed as high priority by the Governor, the Legislature, the Public Regulation Commission, and other key decision makers. These options provide the greatest energy savings and consequently the bulk of the economic and environmental benefits."

Expand Electric Utility Demand-Side Management Programs

Adopt Decoupling or Shareholder Incentives to Stimulate Greater Utility Support for Energy Efficiency Improvements

Expand Natural Gas Utility Energy Efficiency Programs

Upgrade Building Energy Codes and Fund Code Training and Enforcement

Expand Retrofit of Homes Occupied by Low-Income Families

Undertake an Industry Challenge and Recognition Program

Increase Energy Efficiency in the Oil and Gas Sector

Adopt Energy Efficiency Requirements for Public Colleges and Universities and Extend the Requirements for State Agencies

Reduce Per Capita Vehicle Use

Implement a Broad-Based Public Education Campaign

The report – unlike many proposals that miss or downplay the connection between energy generation and water use -- considers impacts on limited and declining water supply in New Mexico and the American Southwest:

“There also will be significant water savings, particularly from options that result in reduced operation of fossil-fuel based power plants because these plants consume sizable amounts of water in their cooling systems. We estimate that the options taken together will lower water consumption in power plants by approximately 3.65 billion gallons per year in 2020. This is equivalent to the annual water use of 60,000 typical Albuquerque [New Mexico] citizens. There will be additional water savings from increased adoption of energy and water-conserving devices such as resource-efficient clothes washers and dishwashers.”

The report concludes:

“By 2020, electricity use [in New Mexico] could be reduced by 24 percent, natural gas use by nearly 20 percent, and gasoline use by 26 percent, all in comparison to otherwise forecasted levels of per capita energy use that year.”

California Greenhouse Gases Emissions Targets For Entire USA?

"Overheated Planet," New York Times, December 11, 2006.


California regulators on December 11, 2008 voted to adopt the USA's most comprehensive plan to cut greenhouse gases emissions. President-elect Barack Obama expressed hope that the USA Congress would adopt California's targets for the entire nation.

Yahoo News/Associated Press

December 11, 2008

California adopts tough greenhouse gas restrictions

By SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California air regulators adopted a sweeping new climate plan Thursday that would require the state's utilities, refineries and large factories to transform their operations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The California Air Resources Board voted unanimously to adopt the nation's most comprehensive global warming plan, outlining for the first time how individuals and businesses would meet a landmark 2006 law that made the state a leader on global climate change.

The plan would hold California's worst polluters accountable for the heat-trapping emissions they produce — transforming how people travel, how utilities generate power and how businesses use electricity.

At the heart of the plan is the creation of a carbon-credit market designed to give the state's major polluters cheaper ways to cut the amount of their emissions. That market and the many other strategies referenced in the plan will be fleshed out and adopted over the next few years.

California's plan comes at a time when governments around the world are struggling with a financial crisis that threatens to undermine efforts to fight climate change. California itself is facing a forecast budget gap of $41.8 billion through June 2010.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said the state's climate law will stimulate the economy, said Thursday that California was providing a roadmap for the rest of the country.

"Today is the day we help unleash the full force of California's innovation and technology for a healthier planet, a stronger and more robust economy and a safer and more secure energy future," Schwarzenegger said in a statement released after the board's vote.

His sentiments echo those of President-elect Barack Obama, who also has promoted investments in energy efficiency and green technology to help spur the country out of recession. Last month, Obama said he hoped Congress would adopt California's targets for the entire country, essentially reversing eight years of U.S. policy against mandated emission cuts.

California's 2006 law, called the Global Warming Solutions Act but commonly referred to as AB32, mandates the state cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The strategy chosen by air regulators relies on 31 new rules affecting all facets of life, from the fuels Californians put in their vehicles to the air conditioners businesses install in their buildings.

The average Californian, for example, could see more fuel-efficient cars at dealerships, better public transportation, housing near schools and businesses and utility rebates to equip their homes to be more energy efficient.

But there will also be costs.

California drivers will see more expensive cars on showroom floors and should expect to pay higher power bills as utilities increase their use of renewable energy.

Republicans, small businesses and major industries that will be forced to transform operations beginning in 2012 say jobs will be lost, companies might leave the state and energy prices will skyrocket. Many demanded the board perform more economic analysis before committing to policies they warned could worsen the economy.

"The deepening recession has affected businesses throughout the state," Amisha Patel, a policy advocate at the California Chamber of Commerce, told the board. "The reality of climate regulation is there will be costs."

The air board's background work has been criticized in reviews by California's nonpartisan legislative analyst and independent scientists, with both groups saying the costs to the state could be greater than projected.

Republican state lawmaker Roger Niello of Fair Oaks has asked the board to postpone its vote and complete a more thorough economic review.

An air board analysis published in September projected California's economy would grow at a faster rate by cutting emissions. It also estimated 100,000 more jobs would be created and the average California household would save $400 a year by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and living in more energy-efficient homes.

Nichols said her board had done a thorough job of assessing the plan but vowed Thursday the board would conduct more studies as the regulations are developed over the next few years.

Most of the reductions in California's emissions will come from more detailed regulations that will be written over the next few years, including rules governing a cap-and-trade program that launches in 2012 to help the largest polluters achieve emission cuts.

But allowing businesses to buy their way out of the problem is another contentious part of the plan. Representatives of California's poor communities say the polluting power plants, refineries and factories in their neighborhoods could write a check rather than cut emissions.

European Union's 20:20:20 Renewable Energy Plan Agreement

The European Union reached an agreement that more than one-third of EU electricity must come from renewables by the year 2020. Each state of the EU must have drawn up an action plan by June 2010 to meet the 20:20:20 targets.

Renewable Energy World/European Union

December 10, 2008

EU Passes New Climate Directive

Brussels, Belgium [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Agreement on the European Union Renewable Energy Directive has paved the way for the economic bloc to achieve its plans for a 20% renewables contribution to total energy demand and a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, the so-called 20:20:20 plan. The deal, between the European Parliament, the French Presidency on behalf of the Council and the European Commission, means that more than one third of EU electricity must come from renewables by 2020.

A move welcomed by the renewable energy and environmental sector, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) president Arthouros Zervos noted, "This European Directive will be the most important piece of legislation on renewable energy in the world," adding that the legislation will provide for much-needed investor confidence in the renewable energy sector, and thereby enable the European Union to achieve in the most cost-efficient way the binding 20% renewable energy target.

Under the terms of the Directive, for the first time each Member State has a legally binding renewables target for 2020 and by June 2010 each state will have drawn up a National Action Plan (NAP) detailing plans to meet their 2020 targets. Member states will report on progress every two years.

"At a time when international climate negotiations are ongoing, the European Union gives a strong signal to other countries worldwide. I am confident that this piece of legislation will inspire other parts of the world to help us achieve a sustainable energy future," Zervos said.

The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) further noted that the Directive confirms Europe as the leader of the energy revolution the world needs. "Moreover, the directive addresses existing barriers that prevent Europe from fully exploiting its largest domestic energy resource," said a statement from EWEA.

Christian Kjaer, EWEA's chief executive said, "The grid and administrative barriers whose shadows loom long over wind energy project developers will finally be tackled throughout Europe thanks to the directive."

Ahead of the agreement, which had been in doubt following calls for a 2014 review from Italy and France, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said that the climate change and energy package was one of the most significant pieces of work the EU had carried out over recent years. He added that a low carbon economy would boost Europe's competitiveness and encourage innovation.

British Government & Giant USA Utilities Announce Feed-In-Tariffs For Clean Enegy Development

Two momentous events in the evolution of policy for a new energy economy for the planet occurred in late November 2008.

The Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, the largest municipal utility district in North America, announced on November 24, 2008 that it is prepared to launch one of the continent's largest solar power programs, also making use of a feed-in tariff by 2016. Los Angeles joins Gainesville Regional Utilities in Florida, Toronto Hydro (Canada's largest municipal utility, and second largest to LAWPD in North America), and a few other smaller cities in using FITs as a centerpiece for encouraging rapid clean energy development.

"Regardless of how or even whether it follows through, Los Angeles, as one of North America's largest cities, has put feed-in tariffs, at least for solar, on the continent's public policy map."

Two days later, The British Government on November 26, 2008 approved its Energy Bill that includes implementing a system of feed-in tariffs (FITs) for small renewable energy producers by 2010. The feed-in tariff provisions until recently were unthinkable in the British political landscape.

"The move by the British government has far reaching ramifications. The English speaking world has been more resistant to feed-in tariffs than non-English speaking countries, sometimes on ideological grounds, sometimes simply out of ignorance. Many North Americans, for example, attribute continental Europe's success with renewable energy to renewable portfolio standards, which is not the case.
 Now that the British have clearly moved toward the camp favoring feed-in tariffs, there may be less reticence to do so elsewhere in the Anglophone world."

See full details in the second article below, and note that FITs are the basis for accelerated clean energy development in Germany, Spain, France, and Denmark, for example.

For a primer on FITs, see the easily readable and well illustrated 16-page 2008 report from the World Future Council: "Feed-In Tariffs -- Boosting Energy for our Future: A guide to one of the world's best environmental policies," by the World Future Council, 2008

It looks like a very promising 2009 awaits us in moving rapidly from a obsolescent fossil fuel/dirty energy economy to a modern clean energy economy.


Renewable Energy World/Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

December 3, 2008

North America's Largest Municipal Utility Proposes Solar Feed-in Tariff

by Paul Gipe, Contributing Writer

Los Angeles, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced to much fanfare on November 24 that the city's municipal utility would launch one of the continent's largest solar power programs. The mayor's plan would direct the city's municipal utility, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), to build or purchase 1,300 MW of solar energy by 2020.

Among provisions of the plan is a feed-in tariff for 150 MW of solar photovoltaics by 2016. This is the first official announcement of a feed-in tariff proposal by a California city, but it is not the first in the United States. Gainesville, Florida previously announced that it was formally considering a feed-in tariff to replace its solar rebate program.

Recently, the Palm Springs Desert Sun reported that Palm Desert, California was also considering solar feed-in tariffs after city officials toured Spain, one of the world's leading developers of solar energy. Spain uses feed-in tariffs.

LADWP is the continent's largest municipal utility. It was briefly at the forefront of solar energy development in California from 1999 to 2003, before inexplicably abandoning its program.

The city and LADWP provided no details on the solar feed-in tariff or on the other renewable energy proposals that were part of the mayor's press release. There were no further details on LADWP's web site. Photos of wind turbines on the web site were standard stock photos and all were of wind turbines outside the utility's service area.

LADWP claims that 8.5% of its electricity currently comes from renewables and that the utility is on track to meet its 20% target by 2010. The last report on the utility's web site about its renewable energy program, however, is dated 2003, the year the utility canceled its successful solar program.

Los Angeles' 120 MW Pine Tree wind project is slated to come on line in 2009. The project also is outside of the Los Angeles Basin, just north of the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area.

Interestingly, it was a municipal utility that launched the modern version of Germany's famed feed-in tariffs. Aachen introduced the first solar-specific feed-in tariff in the mid-1990s. Subsequently other German cities followed suit. In 2000 Germany's parliament incorporated the concept behind Aachen's policy in its groundbreaking system of Advanced Renewable Tariffs.

Municipal utilities in the Americas may be able to emulate Aachen and be the first to launch true feed-in tariffs. Because municipal utilities are governed by city officials, they can be more responsive to public demands for action on renewable energy than the often more distant state or provincial legislatures.

Toronto Hydro, North America's second largest and Canada's largest municipal utility, briefly considered a solar PV feed-in tariff in 2007, but took no action. The proposal before Toronto Hydro employed a differentiated feed-in tariff that was intended to work with the province of Ontario's Standard Offer Contract Program.

The proposal of Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) is the most advanced in the United States.
GRU's commission has ordered preparation of a tariff.


In contrast to Gainesville's approach, LADWP made public little or no information on the details of its proposal. GRU prepared a detailed report which it presented to Gainesville's utility commission when the utility went public with its proposal.

Los Angeles incorporates Hollywood within its city boundaries and there's always an element of showmanship in its pronouncements. The city's proposal is aggressive, more than one-third of the California Solar Initiative's 3,000 MW of solar PV, if it is more than simply aspirational.



The portion of the plan devoted to a feed-in tariff is about one-tenth of the entire program. Countries that have been the most successful at rapidly developing renewable energy (Germany, France, and Spain) use feed-in tariffs as the principal if not only policy mechanism.

Despite the uncritical media accounts of the "world's most ambitious solar plan," attention has focused not only on the targets, but also on the various mechanisms that may be used to reach those targets, including feed-in tariffs.

Regardless of how or even whether it follows through, Los Angeles, as one of North America's largest cities, has put feed-in tariffs, at least for solar, on the continent's public policy map.


Renewable Energy World/Britain’s Energy Bill

December 1, 2008

British Feed-in Tariff Policy Becomes Law - Was Once Unthinkable

by Paul Gipe, Contributing Writer

London, UK [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

The Queen gave her "royal assent" to Britain's long-debated Energy Bill on November 26, 2008, putting into law Britain's commitment to dramatically cut its greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Bill also contained provisions calling on Gordon Brown's Labour government to implement a system of feed-in tariffs for small renewable energy producers by 2010.

The feed-in tariff provisions were once unthinkable in the British political landscape. They said it "couldn't be done" is how British campaigners described the remarkable success.



Since Margaret Thatcher, Britain has relied on a series of call for tenders and eventually a complex quota system to build a modest wind energy industry dominated by the word's largest electric utilities. There was little more than token support for small-scale renewables through traditional subsidy programs under successive Conservative and Labour governments.



Meanwhile on the continent, renewables were booming, first in Denmark, then in Germany, France, and Spain through the use of innovative systems of feed-in tariffs. These systems of Advanced Renewable Tariffs spurred growth of a variety of renewable energy technologies at all scales. In Germany, a large percentage of solar and wind energy are being developed by homeowners, farmers, and small investors.



The feed-in tariff provisions of Britain's Energy Bill are modest in comparison to those in other countries. In contrast to continental European policies, projects are limited to no more than 5 MW. There are no project size limits in Germany, for example. Nor does the Energy Bill contain the specific provisions or prices that are part of such acts in France and Germany. Specific provisions will be determined administratively in 2009.

The Energy Bill leaves in place Britain's existing Renewable Obligation Certificate trading program for larger projects. The two programs, the Renewable Obligation and the feed-in tariff system, will operate in parallel.



There was cross party agreement on amendments to the bill that included the essential elements of any successful feed-in tariff policy. For example, there was an amendment that called for different tariffs for different renewable energy technologies a key feature of the policies in Germany, France, and Spain. The cross party agreement included both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.



The campaign for the Energy Bill was led by Friends of the Earth UK (FOE) and Britain's Renewable Energy Association.

According to FOE campaigner David Timm, the Labour government now appears committed to introducing a true system of feed-in tariffs by the end of 2010.



Alan Simpson, Labour MP, led debate in the House of Commons, taking issue not only with expected opposition to feed-in tariffs from electric utilities but also from the renewable energy industry itself.

"On the record, many of the big energy suppliers have been fighting tooth and claw to prevent us from doing anything as bold and imaginative as we are doing. The Association of Electricity Producers had lobbied for a threshold of 50 kW. The British Wind Energy Association lobbied, until the last moment, for a threshold of 500 kW. Such demands would preclude the opportunity to develop genuine, transformational renewable energy systems on a community, town or city scale. The Secretary of State should be praised for his determination and willingness to push the boat out much further than many of those vested interests would have felt comfortable with," he said.

Observers noted that no one rose in Commons to oppose final passage. Conservative Party leaders put the ruling Labour Party on notice that if the feed-in tariff provisions didn't pass, they would support the policy in a subsequent Conservative Government. Previously, Gordon Brown suffered an embarrassing back-bench revolt over the issue from his own party members.



The move by the British government has far reaching ramifications. The English speaking world has been more resistant to feed-in tariffs than non-English speaking countries, sometimes on ideological grounds, sometimes simply out of ignorance. Many North Americans, for example, attribute continental Europe's success with renewable energy to renewable portfolio standards, which is not the case.



Now that the British have clearly moved toward the camp favoring feed-in tariffs, there may be less reticence to do so elsewhere in the Anglophone world.