Florida’s Amendment 1 defeat shows why solar won’t be stopped, Trump or no Trump, http://www.utilitydive.com/news/floridas-amendment-1-defeat-shows-why-solar-wont-be-stopped-trump-or-no/430373/14 Nov 16, David Pomerantz, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, wants utilities to ‘co-thrive’ with DERs.
Americans who are concerned about climate change are shell-shocked over the election of Donald Trump, who has claimed climate change was a hoax created by China and promised to end federal support for clean energy, neuter the EPA, and kill the Paris agreement.
If Trump follows through on these threats, it will cause irreversible damage. But an election result buried by the chaos of Tuesday night offers a thin silver lining to the dark clouds gathering on the climate horizon: the surprise defeat of a deceptive ballot initiative in Florida called “Amendment 1.”
Florida’s investor-owned electric utilities – Duke Energy, Florida Power & Light (FPL), Gulf Power and Tampa Electric – spent $20 million pushing Amendment 1 and branding it as “pro-solar,” when in fact it would have undermined customer-owned solar power in Florida. Amendment 1’s passage would have paved the way for the utilities to add fees to solar customers’ bills and to cut net metering payments for the extra power they produce. They could have killed the nascent rooftop solar industry in Florida, which already lags behind far smaller states like
Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Amendment 1’s defeat offers a road map for how to keep the clean energy economy growing under a Trump presidency: turn to the states. During the George W. Bush years, wind and solar power grew rapidly, despite federal hostility, thanks to supportive policies in both red and blue states. That’s not surprising, as Americans across the political spectrum, then and now, overwhelmingly support clean energy. A President Trump can’t block that progress, but another obstacle can: electric utilities.
Utilities profit when they build more power plants and transmission lines, which they can only do if people buy more electricity. Distributed solar threatens that outdated business model by offering people the choice of making their own power, so utilities have waged war on rooftop solar, and Amendment 1 revealed their battle plan:
Instead, they advocate for “smart solar” and “solar done right” – code for large solar farms that utilities own, not customers. But it’s a ruse; Duke Energy told Florida regulators that it planned to generate a mere 2.2% of its power from solar energy in 2025, and FPL reports that it will be 1% solar in that year. Duke and FPL are instead investing heavily in gas, as are many other utilities.
Florida voters proved that they wouldn’t be fooled. The utilities’ “pro-solar” message crumbled after the Energy and Policy Institute and the Center for Media and Democracy released an audio recordingconfirming Amendment 1 was a “political jiu-jitsu” campaign designed to trick pro-solar voters. Once the truth was out, support cratered.
Second, utilities try to divide environmentalists from low-income advocates and communities of color, using front groups to argue that rooftop solar is only for the rich, who “shift the costs” to poor people. It’s more deception: a host of studies have shown that the benefits that rooftop solar customers provide to the wider grid outweigh the costs.
Low-income communities and communities of color are refusing to be pawns in the utilities’ game. Black and Latino leaders spoke out against Amendment 1, noting that they want policies that result in more solar for their communities, not less. The NAACP nationally has been a forceful advocate for rooftop solar power, and polls show that communities of color support clean energy at the highest rates of all Americans.
Last, utilities use their financial might to buy political power. In addition to the $20 million that Florida’s utilities spent backing Amendment 1, they spent another $9.3 million on campaign contributions to legislators this cycle. Utilities’ influence peddling will never go away, but the pro-solar movement is learning to counter it via grassroots organizing, as it did effectively in Florida.
If other utilities follow their Florida brethren’s game plan, they too will unite their opponents into broad movements against them, and politically sensitive regulators will take notice. FPL’s war on solar power is already having this effect. Regulators in Hawaii, rightfully skeptical of FPL’s record of blocking solar in Florida, rejected its parent company NextEra’s bid to buy Hawaii’s electric utility. In Texas, where NextEra wants to buy Oncor, regulators are expressing their own concerns.
Nevadans – many still outraged at NV Energy’s hostility toward rooftop solar in the net metering battle there – voted Tuesday to strip the utility of its monopoly status.
These results should send a loud alarm to utilities and their investors that every attack they launch at rooftop solar will boomerang to erode their customers’ trust and weaken their standing with regulators.
There is only one way out of the jam for utilities: they have to adapt their business models and find ways to co-thrive with distributed resources. Some are trying to do that, albeit at the behest of regulators, but most seem intent on wasting time fighting a war they are destined to lose. Customers are demanding solar, the market forces behind solar cannot be stopped, and a Trump presidency will not change those facts.
November 23, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decentralised, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
All bets are off: 4 takeaways on what President Trump means for the power sector
The paradigm of decarbonization that’s guided utility sector investments for the past decade is now up in the air, Utility Dive, Gavin Bade@GavinBade, 9 Nov 16, “…… In the coming weeks, much effort will be spent trying to decipher who Trump will appoint and how his team will handle the specifics of energy policy. But given that President Trump will likely come into office with a GOP-controlled Congress and a vacancy to fill on the Supreme Court, there are some broad conclusions for the power sector that we can already draw.
1. The Clean Power Plan — and other air regulations — are in danger
One of the most immediate impacts of Donald Trump’s election is that the Clean Power Plan now appears much more likely to be struck down.
The CPP is the EPA’s first set of federal carbon regulations and seeks to cut CO2 emissions from the power sector 32% by 2032. Though the utility industry is largely on board with the plan, a group of conservative states and fossil fuel interests challenged the rules, saying they constitute an overreach of EPA’s authority.
Those arguments came to a head in September, when the D.C. Circuit Court held an en banc hearing on the regulations. Due to the composition of the court — six Democratic appointees and four from Republicans — legal experts largely expect the rules to be upheld there.
But the Supreme Court could be a different story. No matter who prevails at the D.C. Circuit, the high court is expected to take up the Clean Power Plan next year. The justices have already shown interest in the case, placing an unprecedented judicial hold on compliance until court challenges are concluded.
After Justice Antonin Scalia’s death earlier this year, the Supreme Court has a vacancy, and Republican senators have refused to confirm President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.
If the Supreme Court were to hear the Clean Power Plan case with one seat vacant, energy lawyers told Utility Dive that a 4-4 split would be plausible, which would uphold the D.C. Circuit decision. But if Trump puts another conservative on the court — as he has promised — it could potentially give CPP opponents the five skeptical judges they would need to overturn the Clean Power Plan.
Given that Trump will come into office with a GOP-controlled Senate, that judicial outcome is now much more likely. But even if the Supreme Court upholds the plan, a Trump administration and Republican Congress could still scuttle it by defunding the agency or simply halting implementation work.
And while the Clean Power Plan is the highest-profile EPA air pollution rule at risk in a new Trump presidency, it is not the only one. Fossil fuel interests still bristle at rules like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which regulates harmful coal power pollution, and the EPA’s new source pollution rules, which govern emissions from new power plants.
Trump has indicated that he wants to overhaul the EPA. With him in the White House, the future of any clean air or water regulation remains uncertain.
2. Renewable energy subsidies could be on the chopping block
EPA regulations are a relatively easy way for Donald Trump to weaken President Obama’s clean energy legacy, since many of them are facing current court challenges or could simply not be enforced.
Renewable energy subsidies would take more of an effort to revoke. At the end of last year, Congress reached a deal to extend supports for wind and solar energy into the early 2020s, with subsidy levels decreasing over time. That tax credit extension is fueling a boom in deployment, with renewables expected to add the vast majority of generating capacity for the remainder of the decade.
That could change quickly. Though Trump hasn’t laid out a policy position on renewable subsidies, wind and solar have been the target of frequent ridicule from the president elect. In one speech designated for energy policy, Trump lambasted solar energy as “very expensive” and accused wind turbines of “killing all the eagles.”
Because the renewable energy supports are already in place, revoking them would take a legislative effort. That’s a heavier lift than in the past, since many Republican officials have renewable energy facilities or manufacturing in their states, boosting support for the industry among conservative lawmakers.
But there’s also appetite in some circles to get rid of renewable energy subsidies altogether. Some fossil fuel and nuclear generators complainthat the production tax credit for wind lets these facilities to bid into the market at lower prices, pushing down electricity prices and preventing their baseload plants from competing.
If Trump’s energy team will listen to clean energy opponents remains to be seen. The president elect has also said he is “for” renewable energy on many occasions, even while criticizing it in the next breath. But whether he opts for a full-frontal attack on wind and solar subsidies or will simply turn his attention to boosting fossil fuels, the future for renewables in a Trump administration does not look as bright as it would under a Clinton administration.
3. Fossil fuels will likely get a boost………If Donald Trump has sent mixed messages about renewables, no one can mistake his support for fossil fuels……
4. The paradigm of decarbonization may shatter….. http://www.utilitydive.com/news/all-bets-are-off-4-takeaways-on-what-president-trump-means-for-the-power-s/430071/
November 23, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ENERGY, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Obama Seeks to Fortify Iran Nuclear Deal New steps weighed include licenses for more American businesses and lifting additional U.S. sanctions, WSJ, By CAROL E. LEE in Lima, Peru, and JAY SOLOMON in Washington Nov. 20, 2016
The Obama administration is considering new measures in its final months in office to strengthen the landmark nuclear agreement with Iran, senior U.S. officials said, with President-elect Donald Trump’s first appointments foreshadowing an increasingly rocky road for the controversial deal.
Action under consideration to buttress the pact includes steps to provide licenses for more American businesses to enter the Iranian market and the lifting of additional U.S. sanctions.
The effort to shore up the agreement was under way before the election and is not aimed at boxing in Mr. Trump, who opposes the deal, the officials said. Officials also acknowledged the proposals are unlikely to make the nuclear agreement more difficult to undo.
Mr. Trump’s first two picks for his national security team—retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn
as national security adviser and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) as Central Intelligence Agency director—are hard-liners on Iran who have voiced opposition to the nuclear deal…..
Administration officials said they haven’t yet begun conversations on the Iran deal with the officials Mr. Trump has deployed across the government to facilitate his transition into office. They also are unsure whether those Trump officials are the ones they need to persuade.
The picture they plan to articulate for Mr. Trump’s team is stark: If the agreement falls apart, and the U.S. is blamed for its collapse, Iran would resume its nuclear program more aggressively. In that case, the U.S. risks alienating Europe, as well as China and Russia, and limiting its ability to use sanctions again to contain Iran. Military action against Tehran’s nuclear facilities, these officials argue, could be the only alternative…….http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-seeks-to-fortify-iran-nuclear-deal-1479692853
November 23, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Iran, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Ameren opposes Exelon’s Illinois nuclear energy bill, Utility Dive, Peter Maloney@TopFloorPower, Nov. 22, 2016
Dive Brief:
- Ameren Illinois is opposing a bill now before the state’s general assembly that includes provisions aimed at shoring up two financially strapped Exelon nuclear plants, the Herald & Review reports.
- Ameren is concerned about the impact the bill would have in its current form on its 1.2 million customers in central and south Illinois.
- The bill, which faces a short legislative session, could come to a vote early next week.
Dive Insight:
In addition to funding support for the Exelon’s Clinton and Quad City nuclear plants, the bill, SB 2814, includes add-on payments for south Illinois coal plants, potentially including some owned by Ameren, as well as a range of other provisions including funding for utility energy efficiency measures, community solar programs and microgrids, as well as a shift in rate structure to demand charges and the elimination of retail net metering for solar power.
A previous version of the bill would have shifted ratepayers to demand charges based on the peak demand for the month. The latest version of the bill uses average demand over the course of the month.
Two earlier versions of the energy bill have also faced opposition and not been passed by the state’s General Assembly.
Craig Nelson, Ameren’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs and financial services, last week told a legislative committee that Ameren would not be able to shift to the new rate structure until it finishes installing smart meters for all its customers, which is not expected to be completed until late in 2019……http://www.utilitydive.com/news/ameren-opposes-exelons-illinois-nuclear-energy-bill/430887/
November 23, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
Obama blocks new oil, gas drilling in Arctic Ocean, USA Today November 18, 2016 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administrationis blocking new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean, handing a victory to environmentalists who say industrial activity in the icy waters will harm whales, walruses and other wildlife and exacerbate global warming.
A five-year offshore drilling plan announced on Friday blocks planned sale of new oil and gas drilling rights in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska. The plan allows drilling to go forward in Alaska’s Cook Inlet southwest of Anchorage.
The blueprint for drilling from 2017 to 2022 can be rewritten by President-elect Donald Trump, in a process that could take months or years.
Besides Cook Inlet, the plan also allows drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, , long the center of U.S. offshore oil production. Ten of the 11 lease sales proposed in the five-year plan are in the Gulf, mostly off the coasts of Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Alabama.
Confirming a decision announced this spring, the five-year plan also bars drilling in the Atlantic Ocean.
“The plan focuses lease sales in the best places – those with the highest resource potential, lowest conflict and established infrastructure – and removes regions that are simply not right to lease,” said Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. “Given the unique and challenging Arctic environment and industry’s declining interest in the area, forgoing lease sales in the Arctic is the right path forward,” Jewell said…….
Jacqueline Savitz, senior vice president of Oceana, an environmental group, hailed the announcement and praised Obama and Jewell for “protecting our coasts from dirty and dangerous offshore drilling.”
The announcement “demonstrates a commitment to prioritizing common sense, economics and science ahead of industry favoritism and politics as usual,” Savitz said.
Nearly 400 scientists signed a letter this summer urging Obama to eliminate the possibility of Arctic offshore drilling. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/18/obama-blocks-new-arctic-drilling/94076986/
November 21, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ARCTIC, environment, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Nuclear plant temporarily shuts down due to system problem http://www.dailyprogress.com/nuclear-plant-temporarily-shuts-down-due-to-system-problem/article_2d1f2c37-a7a1-5bc8-bb6f-e1421c989e6b.html LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) — The nation’s oldest operating nuclear plant has been temporarily shut down due to a fault in the turbine control system.
But officials with the Oyster Creek plant say it won’t have any impact on the electrical service it provides.
The plant automatically shut down without incident at 3:42 a.m. Sunday when the fault was detected. The turbine control system is located on the plant’s non-nuclear side, and technicians were working to repair and test it before the system was returned to service.
Oyster Creek is located about 60 miles east of Philadelphia. It generates enough electricity to power 600,000 homes, or roughly all the homes in Monmouth and Ocean counties combined.
The plant’s operators have said it will close in 2019. The final refueling outage is planned for 2018.
November 21, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
safety, USA |
Leave a comment
Pilgrim: Baker pressed to name independent nuclear inspector Cape Cod Times, Nov 19, 2016 PLYMOUTH — Critics of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station are frustrated by the silence coming from the governor’s office concerning their request for a state-appointed nuclear engineer to accompany the federal inspection team set to take a sweeping look at the plant’s systems and staff, beginning Nov. 28.
More than a month ago, Mary Lampert, a Duxbury resident and director of Pilgrim Watch, contacted both the governor’s office and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the request for an outside expert who would represent the interests of the public.
Others have followed Lampert’s lead with their own emails.
The upcoming site visit marks the third and final inspection in a three-phase process that began in January as part of the effort by federal regulators to increase oversight at the 44-year-old, problem-plagued plant. A year ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission categorized Pilgrim among the three worst performers in the nation — one step from mandatory shutdown.
Entergy Corp. owns all three of the reactors in that lowest category.
While federal regulations allow the governor’s office to appoint a representative to tag along, during past inspections the state has used its longtime appointed liaison with the NRC, John Giarrusso, a Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency employee, whose background is limited to site security at nuclear plants.
MEMA spokesman Christopher Besse said the agency has been contacted and plans to send Giarrusso.
“MEMA stresses that it has neither been invited to participate as an active participant in the inspection process, nor does it have the requisite expertise or experience in nuclear power plant operations to inspect and evaluate plant operations and capabilities,” Besse wrote in an email. “MEMA’s expertise is on off-site emergency preparedness and coordinating response operations.”
Giarrusso’s presence doesn’t fill the need for an independent nuclear engineer, Lampert said. “The role taken by state engineers is to have a dialogue with the inspectors to represent the interests of the public,” she said. “This is not an examination of emergency planning.”
Gov. Charlie Baker’s office has not responded to requests from Lampert and other nuclear watchdogs looking for some knowledgeable and independent eyes watching out for their safety.
After phone calls and emails from the Times, Brendan Moss, the governor’s spokesman, simply wrote back Thursday: “We haven’t made a decision on the role yet.” Moss did not respond to requests Friday for further information.
The NRC has been given no indication on whether a state-appointed nuclear engineer is being considered by Baker, said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan.
Time for action is running out…….
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has assigned 20 inspectors from around the country to the Plymouth plant for the upcoming inspection. In his response to Lampert, Raymond Lorson, the NRC’s director of reactor safety for the Northeast, said the inspection would be thorough and unbiased.
But Heather Lightner, president of Concerned Neighbors of Pilgrim, said watchdogs want someone outside of the federal team.
“The request for an independent observer to join the NRC on its upcoming inspection of Pilgrim was made because the public does not trust the NRC,” Lightner said. “Allowing an individual to accompany the NRC could be seen as an admission that the NRC’s credibility is in question; perhaps that is why the governor’s office has been slow to make the appointment.”…..
Lampert said Massachusetts should have a nuclear engineer, both while Pilgrim remains operating and after it shuts down in 2019. “The fact we don’t have a nuclear engineer is absurd,” Lampert said. “Where has been the voice of the Commonwealth through all the problems we’ve had?” http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20161118/pilgrim-baker-pressed-to-name-independent-nuclear-inspector
November 21, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
safety, USA |
Leave a comment
Optimists are hoping for a Trump makeover. They cling to his brief victory remarks suggesting that he wants to be the “president of all the people.” In his 60 Minutes interview following the election Trump said that the protestors were out in the streets because “they do not know me.” They recall his statement some months ago that he had to say outlandish things in order to get greater media attention and reach more people than his Republican primary competitors.
Character and personality are not prone to change in most people. Especially in the case of Trump, who sees these campaign tactics as reasons for his “successes.” However, the assumption to exalted, higher offices of public trust and power sometimes brings out the better angels.
So far, though, the signs are foreboding. Trump values loyalty, and people like Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich stuck with him at his lowest points earlier this year. Trump knows very little about the awesome job given him by that dead hand from the past – the Electoral College – which has once again caused a plurality of voters to see their chosen candidate lose (Even Trump acknowledged its unfairness on CBS’s 60 Minutes after the election).
Lack of knowhow coupled with blind loyalty brings Trump to rely heavily on these old hands behind the worsening corporate state and military belligerence.
His transition appointments are delighting the corporatists. The man chosen to oversee the changes in the Environmental Protection Agency denies that climate change is man-made and scowls at regulation of harmful pollutants. Trump has opened the door to the big oil and gas lobbyists to control the Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior. Wall Streeters are smacking their lips over Trump cavorting with opponents of regulating that giant gambling casino.
His military advisers do not come from the ranks of prudent retired officials who see perpetual war for what it is – a mechanism for national insecurity, authoritarianism and profits for the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about in his 1961 farewell address. To the contrary, many of Trump’s military advisors have been quick to embrace an Empire mentality and its warfare state.
One can imagine how a major stateless terrorist attack on the U.S. during his administration could provoke Trump into a heavy-handed retaliation with dangerous and unforeseen consequences. This is exactly what these adversaries want him to do in order to further spread their propaganda campaign against the U.S. Meanwhile, our civil liberties, and the domestic necessities of the people are shoved aside.
His first two major assistants – Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon – have called for corporate tax reductions and elimination of the estate tax on the rich (the only ones who pay it). Despite the “small government” façade, they are not likely to challenge the deficit-swelling combination of a larger military budget, decreased revenue and continuation of the bailouts, subsidies and giveaways known as crony capitalism that have enriched Trump and his plutocratic allies over the years.
Intrigue and internal fighting inside the White House and top Cabinet levels are likely if Trump insists on giving powerful roles to his three children and son-in-law (albeit without pay). Nepotism and conflicts of interest are acidic cocktails and undermine the integrity and transparency of public office.
Then there is the explosive crackdown on immigrants – many of whom benefit millions of Americans by working in low-wage jobs – that can produce daily turmoil, not to mention the exorbitant human cost of breaking up families in communities across the country.
In past Republican Party electoral victories, there was always a modicum of checks and balances to slow their plutocratic greed and power grabs. As of January 21, 2017 the Republican Party controls the Executive Branch, the Congress, the Supreme Court and most likely 33 governorships and 32 state legislatures. The anti-democratic Electoral College is the cause this November of giving the GOP control over the White House and, by extension, the Supreme Court (see nationalpopularvote.com).
Other than an unlikely vigorous and fearless free press, not just in Washington but also back in the localities, or a self-destructive Trump implosion, the redeeming power of the people can only come from the grass roots.
Our country is in an extraordinarily high-risk condition, given who possesses the reins of power. Self-described conservatives and liberals can curb that power if they form alliances back in the Congressional districts around the major initiatives on which they agree (See my book Unstoppable: The Emerging Left/Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State). Such alliances have occurred with success in the past.
With the power brokers employing their divide-and-rule tactics, such potent political alliances will require citizen action and adequate funding in all Congressional districts with focused and sustained intensity on their Senators and Representatives. Congress, with only 535 lawmakers, is the most accessible of the checks and balances reachable by the people back home.
How many enlightened billionaires, serious citizen-patriots and advocates for transforming elections and governance step up?
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns http://www.skepticalscience.com/trump-environmental-posts-clowns.html 17 November 2016 by John Abraham Come on, you can admit it. I admit it. I admit that after Trump’s election victory, I secretly hoped and even though that his rhetoric was worse than its bite. He only said those crazy things during the campaign to get elected. He wouldn’t really follow through on his plans to completely gut the US commitment to keeping the Earth habitable. Oh how naive we were. Trump’s plan to fill positions in his administration shows things are worse than we could have ever feared.
According to recent reports, Trump has picked long-time climate denier and spokesperson for the fossil fuel industry Myron Ebell to head the Environmental Protection Agency transition. This basically means the EPA will either cease to function or cease to exist. It also appears that the US will pull out of any agreements to limit greenhouse emissions.
It means we have missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change. That may sound hyperbolic, but I study the rate that climate change is happening – the amount of heat accumulating in the Earth’s system. We didn’t have any time to waste in implementing Obama’s aggressive plans, and Trump will result in a decade of time lost.
So who is Myron Ebell? He is a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition. Where did he get his PhD in science? Nowhere. In fact, he isn’t a scientist at all, but he does have a degree in economics. Yeah!
Is there any conflict that Ebell’s Competitive Enterprise Institute is funded by companies such as ExxonMobil and groups such as the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation? Surely not.
Myron Ebell is not new to obstructing action on climate change. Years ago, it was reported that he favored editing Bush-era scientists’ reports on climate change.
It isn’t just Ebell. Trump has other insiders, some of who represent fossil fuel companies, working on the transition.
What this selection also tells us about Trump is that he is surrounding himself with people who are not knowledgeable in a topic and will not effectively educate him. Not that educating Trump was ever possible. But there was always the outside chance he would take his contrarian streak to a new level and be contrarian to the contrarians. We now see that is not going to happen. If Trump listens to anyone, it will be people who think like he does and represent special interests who would be most affected by his policies. We have a fox guarding the hen house.
I know Trump won’t listen, but I have a wager for him. I could randomly pull an Earth scientist’s name out of a hat and any name I pulled would be better than Myron Ebell. I challenge Trump and his administration to actually include real scientists in forming legislation and action on environmental issues. And I am not talking about scientists that are connected to rightwing thinktank groups. I am talking about independent unaffiliated scientists. Cripes, just go down to the neighborhood university, pick anyone – they will be better than what you have now.
Or Trump could attend the world’s largest geophysics meeting, which occurs in just a few weeks (American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting).
Click here to read the rest
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Donald Trump Offers Hope of Less Hostile Policy toward China, Huffington Post, 11/18/2016
U.S.-China relations are likely to benefit from the election of Donald Trump as president. Hillary Clinton’s policy toward China emphasized confrontation. In a leaked email she was quoted as privately threatening to “ring China with missile defense” if Beijing didn’t bring North Korea to heel. She also said Americans should “put more of our fleet in the area.”
While Trump primarily emphasized trade issues, Clinton’s approach would have risked a military confrontation while adding new tensions to U.S.-China relations. This approach also would have driven Beijing closer to the ever provocative Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The DPRK’s nuclear program has become Northeast Asia’s biggest security challenge. Today the North is believed to have enough nuclear materials for up to 20 nuclear weapons. By 2020 Pyongyang could have at least 50 and perhaps as many as 100 nukes.
Marry such an arsenal to accurate long-range missiles and Pyongyang’s mischief-making ability would expand dramatically. China understands the dangers and wants to keep the Korean peninsula nuclear-free……..
America, usually through its secretary state, including Clinton, has made a practice of simply telling the PRC what the U.S. desires and complaining when China does not deliver. Alas, the time, if it ever really existed, when Washington could simply dictate to others has passed. Even more, the time when anyone could dictate to Beijing has passed……..
American policymakers understandably are frustrated by China’s continuing support for North Korea. However, threats like that advocated by Clinton almost certainly would be counter-productive. The U.S. is unlikely to apply pressure sufficient to coerce Beijing into acting against its interest. But the attempt would make China less willing to cooperate in the future.
Instead, Washington needs to relearn the art of diplomacy and seek to persuade rather than dictate. Doing so might not be as satisfying as making demands. But such a course would be more likely to succeed. Which should be everyone’s objective in dealing with North Korea. Ironically, despite his bluster, incoming President Donald Trump may be more open to such an approach than would have been a President Hillary Clinton. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/donald-trump-offers-hope_b_13071974.html
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Judge Won’t Dismiss Youth Climate Lawsuit; Stage Set for Historic Trial ,17 November 2016 By Dana Drugmand, Truthout | Report As global temperature continues to rise — with 2016 slated to set a new high for the third consecutive year — young climate activists are rising to the occasion and breaking new legal ground. Finally, a landmark youth-led climate change lawsuit may move forward to trial.
On November 10, 2016, US District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled in favor of 21 youth plaintiffs suing the federal government over its inadequate action to prevent anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD).
“It’s clear Judge Aiken gets what’s at stake for us,” said 17-year-old plaintiff Victoria Barrett, from White Plains, New York. “Our planet and our generation don’t have time to waste. If we continue on our current path, my school in Manhattan will be underwater in 50 years.”
Judge Aiken rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, following the recommendation made by magistrate judge Thomas Coffin last April. Judge Coffin determined that the youths had standing and had potential constitutional and public trust claims.
The youth plaintiffs (who range from nine to 20 years old) and the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust claim violation of the public trust doctrine, and most prominently, violation of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property due to climate instability. Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the main defendants, supported by the fossil fuel industry as interveners in the case. The plaintiffs allege that the government has known about the dangers of climate change for decades, yet deliberately pursued policies that enabled a fossil-fuel-based energy system and locked in dangerous levels of warming that may be irreversible.
Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of a court mandate that the US develop a climate recovery plan based on the current science……
Although this was not a decision on the merits, Judge Aiken acknowledged the substantive argument that the conventional policy response to the climate crisis has failed to prevent harm.
“This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case,” she wrote in her decision. “It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions — whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty — have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.”
In seeking appeal, the government will ask the judge for certification that raises a jurisdictional question, but Vermont Law School professor Patrick Parenteau said she will likely deny this request, thus sending the case to trial.
“I think the case has a lot of moral force and a lot of rhetorical force, regardless of what its ultimate fate may be,” Parenteau told Truthout, adding that it will hopefully capture public attention and remind people that elections have consequences, particularly for younger generations……..http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38405-judge-won-t-dismiss-youth-climate-lawsuit-stage-set-for-historic-trial
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, Legal, USA |
Leave a comment
Act now for nuclear future, US Senate committee told http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Act-now-for-nuclear-future-US-Senate-committee-told-1811167.html 18 November 2016 The USA must take action now if it wants to have a “nuclear energy option” by 2030, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee was told on 16 November.
John Deutch, chairman of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board (SEAB), presented the results from a task force study on the future of nuclear power to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, at the second of two oversight hearings on the future of nuclear power in the USA.
The task force was asked by US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to describe an initiative leading to a revitalised US nuclear industry of a scale able to deploy 5000 to 10,000 MWe of nuclear power annually, between 2030 and 2050. The report was approved by the full SEAB in September.
“If the country is going to have a nuclear [energy] option in 2030, it must an initiative of the scope and size that this committee [the Task Force] describes,” Deutch said. “If you do not undertake a major initiative now, it is inevitable that in 2030 the country will not have a nuclear option,” he said. Any such initiative would require time, significant public resources, a redesign of electricity markets, and “sustained and skilled” management. “There is no shortcut to doing this,” he said.
The task force called for market restructuring to avoid the premature retirement of nuclear power plants as a prerequisite for the success of any nuclear power initiative. It called for the carbon free nature of nuclear to be recognised in order to diminish the “cost disparity” between new nuclear – with high overnight capital costs of $5000 per kWe – and natural gas-fired generating capacity – with overnight costs of $1000 per kWe. This could be achieved through either a direct production payment proportional to the cost of carbon avoided – recommended by the task force as 2.7 cents per kilowatt-hour – or by the imposition of a carbon charge on the emissions from gas-fired generation.
Two-part program for new reactors
The task force recommended the USA pursues a two-stranded program to support the development of new plants. Reactors based on proven light-water reactor (LWR) technology would not need any additional federal support beyond the proposed 2.7 cents per kilowatt-hour production payment, although Department of Energy assistance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing and possibly siting early reactors on federally-owned sites “would be appropriate and helpful”, it said.
For advanced reactors based on new technology, the task force recommended a four-part program to bring a reactor from early concept to construction of commercial plant. It estimated such a program, including technology selection and construction of a first-of-a-kind commercial plant, would take up to 25 years and about $11.5 billion. The cost would be shared equally between the government and the private sector entity undertaking the project, with the government’s contribution coming in the earlier phases of the program.
The task force recommended the creation of an independent quasi-public corporation to manage the proposed advanced reactor initiative. It underscored the importance of addressing fuel cycle and waste management as part of the proposed initiative, noting that advanced reactors will raise different issues from LWRs for the front and back end of the fuel cycle. Deutch said committee staff had suggested a single entity could be created to manage both the advanced nuclear initiative and the implementation of the nuclear waste plans from the 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.
The NRC should develop a staged approach for the licensing of advanced reactors, in consideration of the time and cost associated with obtaining construction and operation licences. The regulator already has the authority to proceed “and should do so now”, although it may require more budgetary support to do so, Deutch said. New advanced reactors constructed and licensed abroad would still require a full NRC review, he added.
The SEAB provides advice and recommendations to the secretary of energy on the department’s basic and applied research and development activities, economic and national security policy, educational issues, operational issues and any other departmental activities and operations as the secretary may direct. The duties of the board are solely advisory.
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Texas City Moves To 100 Percent Renewable Energy Spurred By Federal Plan That New Administration Is Expected To Spurn, Fronteras, By Lorne Matalon November 17, 2016 GEORGETOWN, Texas — Donald Trump’s victory and the impending Republican majority in Congress means the Obama administration’s initiative to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the Clean Power Plan, is almost certainly in jeopardy.
The plan is currently before a federal appeals court, under challenge by 24 states. But the new administration is expected to spike the plan before the court rules.
One conservative Texas city has decided to do what the plan was meant to help promote. It’s going 100 percent renewable, wind and solar, in a state largely defined by oil and gas.
There are environmental benefits to the switch, but the decision is all about the money.
In the central Texas city of Georgetown, the droning sound of natural gas powered industrial air conditioning represents unpredictability. Natural gas prices are low now, but historically that market fluctuates.
This city of 55,000 is on the cusp of joining Burlington, Vermont, population 42,000, as the country’s only sizable cities buying 100 percent power from renewable energy. Liberal Burlington is a far cry ideologically from fiercely conservative Georgetown. But they’re fellow travelers in energy.
“So we begin the conversations of what the future might look like,” said Georgetown’s utility chief Jim Briggs.
The city had been buying power from a utility that was expanding its coal-fired power plants. But when the Obama administration began pushing back against new coal plants, Briggs decided to go all green. And it had nothing to do with the environment.
“It was regulation and legislation coming out of Washington,” he said. Then there was the money. “We wanted the least risk, most cost effective option we could get for the community.”
In Texas, the country’s leading wind generation state, wind is now competitive with fossil fuels. But unlike oil and gas, costs don’t fluctuate.
Fred Beach, assistant director for energy and technology policy at University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute, explained the economics of renewables.
“You’re locking in that rate and ten years from now, wind and solar many be even less yet,” Beach said. “But if you’re happy with locking in today’s rate for the next 20 years with certainty, that’s an unbelievably powerful hedging opportunity.”
Now Briggs can tell customers, both businesses and residential, about that hedge, about a price that’s fixed……..
Wind is economical here because the state has invested in transmission lines to bring wind power from sparsely populated west Texas to cities like Georgetown in the center of the state.
History’s full of examples of sending resources across large distances, from Roman Empire aqueducts to the Hoover Dam. The dam sends power from Lake Mead on the Arizona-Nevada border to Los Angeles.
Texas has taken a page from that playbook, deploying $7 billion of taxpayer money on those transmission lines.
“We’ve done this kind off stuff in the past but now it’s like, oh well, you’re doing that for environmental reasons, you’re doing it for tree-hugger reasons,” Beach said. But now there’s a strong economic rationale. “It’s not going to cost more tomorrow, or five years or 10 years from now, we’ll lock it for 20 years.”
The city will be powered exclusively by wind and/or solar in 2017 said Chris Foster, Georgetown’s Manager of Resource Planning and Integration.
“As you add more renewables to the grid, eventually those renewable plants get paid off. And once they’re done being paid off, they have an operating margin of almost zero,” Foster said. “So if you can own these assets super longterm, you see the cost of power should be continuing to decline.” http://www.fronterasdesk.org/content/10488/texas-city-moves-100-percent-renewable-energy-spurred-federal-plan-new-administration
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
renewable, USA |
Leave a comment
Bill to save Exelon nuclear plants proposes vast rewrite of Ill. law Jeffrey Tomich, E&E News reporter EnergyWire: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 The Illinois Legislature’s six-day veto session opened yesterday with the thud of a sprawling 446-page bill that represents the most significant rewrite of state energy law in almost a decade.
The centerpiece of S.B. 2814, as expected, is a New York-style plan to subsidize two Exelon Corp. nuclear plants that will otherwise be shut down over the next two years.
While Exelon’s nuclear emergency provides the impetus for cash-strapped Illinois to cram through a complex energy bill in the span of a few days, the measure would go much further and remake virtually every aspect of the state’s electricity market for years to come………
the most controversial element in the bill remains a provision to subsidize two Exelon nuclear plants.
Exelon announced this spring that the Clinton plant northeast of Springfield and the Quad Cities plant on the Iowa border would be prematurely closed on June 1, 2017, and June 1, 2018, respectively (EnergyWire, June 3). The plants, which have lost a combined $800 million over the last seven years, continue to bleed red ink as cheap natural gas, increasing wind penetration and declining energy demand depress wholesale power prices.
The new bill is the third try to win support for the plants. The company proposed legislation creating a low-carbon portfolio standard in March 2015 that would have benefited all of its six nuclear plants. Earlier this year, Exelon took a bill to Springfield called the “Next Generation Energy Plan,” which would have provided more targeted aid to the Clinton and Quad Cities plants.
The provision in the bill was inspired by Exelon’s success in winning support for its New York nuclear units. The New York Public Service Commission in August approved a plan to provide payments to three upstate nuclear plants based on the federal government’s social cost of carbon (EnergyWire, Aug. 10).
The latest Illinois proposal would require utilities ComEd and Ameren to purchase zero-emission credits from the nuclear plants at a price based on the social cost of carbon. The price would be adjusted for changes in energy markets. Increases on retail electricity rates would be capped at about 2 percent a year…….
rooftop solar companies warned that the measure would kill residential solar in Illinois before the market gets off the ground. There are currently fewer than 1,000 rooftop solar installations in the state. They said the new rate structure authorized in the bill would make residential solar projects economically infeasible. And the group doesn’t see rebates being dangled by ComEd as a good substitute for the state’s net-metering law, which credits solar generators for excess generation put back on the grid.
“This radical rate design would eliminate solar as an option for Illinois residents to help lower and manage their energy bills, and it would put solar installers out of business in the process,” Amy Heart, a Midwest-based public policy manager for Sunrun Inc., an alliance member, said during a news conference yesterday morning in Springfield……..
unpredictability of demand-based rates would stymie rooftop solar growth in Illinois, said Rebecca Stanfield, a Chicago-based vice president of policy and electricity markets for SolarCity.
“It’s a nightmare for anyone in the distributed energy business” if customers can’t easily compute the payback time on an investment, Stanfield said in an interview.
The demand charge proposal is the main source of opposition from AARP, which said the impact of the change would disproportionately fall on low- and fixed-income residents.
“It’s going to have a major impact on the quality of life in Illinois,” said Julie Vahling, associate state director for the group. She said the bill creates an end run around the Illinois Commerce Commission, the state agency tasked with deciding utility rate structure. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045842
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Legal, USA |
Leave a comment
John Kerry: We will fight to keep US in the Paris climate deal
Secretary of state says the outgoing Obama administration is determined to prevent Trump withdrawing the US from the landmark deal, Guardian, Arthur Neslen in Marrakech and Fiona Harvey, 17 Nov 16, John Kerry has signalled that the outgoing Obama administration is preparing a fight to ensure that Donald Trump does not withdraw the US from the landmark Paris agreement, to prevent catastrophic climate change.
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, USA |
Leave a comment
