Chris O'Brien, reporter for the San Jose Mercury News has posted excerpts from his interview with T. Boone Pickens, the Texas-based oil-man-turned-wind-energy-advocate.

The Pickens Plan, as O'Brien lays it out:

In short, Pickens wants to build massive wind farms to generate 22 percent of our electricity. He would use that to free up natural gas which would then be used to power new fleets of trucks and government-owned vehicles.

Such views have brought Pickens attention from the media and environmentalists. But the interview reveals that Pickens hasn't turned entirely green. When O'Brien asks him about the hot issue of offshore drilling, Pickens doesn't flinch:

You oughta drill off the West Coast, the East Coast, ANWR, Florida, the whole thing.

Watch the video here; listen to the audio here.

Labels: energy policy, offshore drilling, oil industry, renewable energy, t. boone pickens, the pickens plan, wind energy

WalkScore has released its annual list of the Most Walkable Cities in the United States. Sadly, no Southern cities crack the top 10 list. The highest-ranking city -- Louisville, KY -- comes in at #15.

In fact, out of the 40 cities profiled on the website, which is backed by the environmentally-focused Sightline Institute, seven of the bottom 10 are in the South:

31. El Paso
32. San Antonio
33. Fort Worth
34. Kansas City
35. Memphis
36. Oklahoma City
37. Indianapolis
38. Charlotte
39. Nashville
40. Jacksonville

But don't hang up your shoes and hop in your car just yet: Even in the metro areas most hostile to hoofin' it, WalkScore lists the best neighborhoods for walking, as well as a list of 138 Walkers' Paradises across the country (top Southern entry: at #53, Dallas' West End Historic District -- one of only six Southern cities on the list).

The website also points to a key piece of improving urban walk-ability -- and all the benefits that includes, from healthier people to a healthier environment: better transportation policy.

Curious about their methodology? Read about how they do their rankings, and what makes a walkable city.

Labels: energy policy, environment, environmental health, sightline institute, urban issues, urban south, walking, walkscore

The Florida Public Service Commission today unanimously approved Progress Energy's proposal for two new nuclear reactors on an undeveloped site in Levy County.

The new complex is planned for Florida's west coast about seven miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico and eight miles north of the company's Crystal River plant, where Progress operates another nuclear reactor along with four coal-fired plants. The new reactors are projected to come online in 2016 and 2017 and generate enough energy to power about 1.3 million average residential homes.

But they come at a considerable cost to rate-payers.

The reactors' construction is expected to cost more than $17 billion and cause an almost immediate jump in consumer rates of about $7.53 per month. The burden on consumers will continue to grow through 2016, according to data drawn from a recent PSC staff memo and turned into this handy chart by the folks at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, who had tried to block the reactor's licensing:



So why will Progress Energy's customers be paying more before the reactors are up and running (assuming they eventually will be)? Because in 2006, the Florida legislature passed a measure allowing power providers to recoup expenses up front as an incentive to build new nuclear plants. Progress is the first company to take advantage of the deal.

Labels: energy policy, Florida, nuclear power, Progress Energy

One of the many downsides to high gas prices is that it unleashes a flurry of conservative punditry claiming that "the market" will solve our energy problems, including catastrophic climate change.

See, when the price of gas goes up, they say, consumers cut back -- and voila! no more oil issues or climate crisis. Just like the 1970s, a bevy of conservatives are once again saying there's no need for tougher efficiency standards on cars or other government policy -- just let the market and high prices work their magic, and we'll be free of foreign oil and living in a clean energy world in no time.

They were wrong in the 1970s, and they're wrong again today.

A perfect example of this kind of thinking, which one can find bubbling out of the Cato Institute and other conservative think tanks, comes from Charles Territo with the Auto Alliance, a mouthpiece for the car industry blogging at The Wonk Room yesterday. Territo excitedly describes how high gas prices have led to big reductions in driving and gas use in 2008:

[T]he rise in gas prices allows automakers to swim with, rather than against the current. As a result of gas prices, fuel efficient auto sales are increasing and there have been significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Consider:

* Americans Drove 1.4 Billion Fewer Highway Miles in April of 2008 than in April 2007 [...]

* Americans took 2.6 billion trips on public transportation in the first three months of 2008. This is almost 85 million more trips than last year for the same time period.

* EIA estimates U.S. petroleum consumption will shrink by 290,000 bbl/day in 2008. This will lead to a corresponding 20 million ton CO2 reduction in 2008.

All of which is likely true -- but the question is, why did it take so long for Americans to cut back on gas consumption? We've known for years that oil dependence was a losing proposition -- so why is this the first time since 1992 that U.S. gas consumption has declined?

Because since the 1980s, leaders in Washington -- Democrats and Republicans -- have chosen to sit back and let "the market," instead of thoughtful policy, set our energy priorities.

After the 70s gas shortages, consumers flocked to smaller cars (most from Japan, because Detroit didn't respond fast enough). By 1990, the average fuel efficiency of a passenger car in the U.S. had risen to 20 mpg.

But after the 1979 energy shock, oil prices plummeted; in the late 1990s, crude was going for $9 a barrel, compared to around $140/barrel today. With cheap oil, consumers turned to gas-guzzlers -- which auto makers were all to willing to deliver, in the absence of fuel efficiency standards.

You know the rest of the story: the SUV and truck craze of the 1980s and 1990s took off, beginning a 25-year march in the wrong direction for U.S. energy policy. The fuel efficiency gains of the 80s and 90s were wiped out. Consider this telling timeline of gas used by the average U.S. driver since 1960:

Average amount of fuel consumed per vehicle - U.S.

1960: 784 gallons/year
1970: 830 gallons/year
1980: 712 gallons/year (energy crisis/high prices spurs demand for efficient cars)
1990: 677 gallons/year
1995: 698 gallons/year (SUV craze kicks in, wipes out past efficiency gains)
2000: 719 gallons/year (SUV's/trucks set back efficiency to below 1980 levels)
2005: 743 gallons/year

... and so on, an out-of-control, upward spiral of gas gluttony, right up to the gas price spike of 2007/2008.

All the while, Democrats and Republicans did almost nothing: CAFE fuel-efficiency standards for light trucks increased a miniscule 2.2 mpg from 1985 to 2007. Passenger car standards didn't budge at all, stuck at the same levels for 22 years.

In other words, "the market" was allowed to operate without constraint, just as the conservatives like it. And left to its own devices, the "the market" led us to the worst possible outcome. CO2 pollution in the U.S. skyrocketed 18% from 1990 to 2004 (especially in the Southeast and Gulf South), pumping millions more tons of pollutants into the air. Our country's quest for oil independence and a sane energy policy was set back a generation.

Let history be a warning. If -- thanks to offshore drilling, exploration in Alaska, political detente in the Middle East, or other events -- the price of gas should drop, "the market" will do the exact same thing again.

We can't afford to make the same mistake twice.

Labels: auto alliance, cato institute, Climate Change, democrats, economics, energy efficiency, energy policy, free market, global warming, republicans, the wonk room

North Carolina is one of the last Southern states to still support the federal ban on new offshore oil drilling, but lifting that ban has now become an issue in the governor's race.

This week, Republican nominee and Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (photo right) announced that he would issue an executive order allowing "safe, technologically sound" exploration and drilling -- and he criticized his Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, for her opposition to new drilling:

"Too many of our elected officials simply reject the possibility of offshore drilling with scare tactics. Lt. Gov. Perdue says she is '100 percent opposed' to the idea of examining deep sea drilling, claiming one 'Exxon Valdez could destroy North Carolina coastline forever.' (Maybe someone should inform the lieutenant governor that the Exxon Valdez was a boat with a drunken captain, not a rig.) Instead of a balanced and comprehensive approach, she endorses 'green energy alternatives' as the only solution."

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that McCrory is wrong about Captain Joseph Hazelwood being drunk at the time of the accident, a charge the longtime Exxon employee successfully defended himself against during his trial.

Instead, let's consider what McCrory values: balance.

What's the balance between what we stand to gain through drilling offshore versus what we stand to lose?

Because despite McCrory's downplaying of them, the potential environmental losses of offshore oil drilling are considerable. Even if pipelines are used to transport oil ashore, there's still a very real risk of leaks and spills -- and these can be catastrophic. In 2000, for example, a broken pipeline dumped about 1,300 tons of oil into the waters off Brazil, and a pipeline break off Nigeria's coast two years earlier spilled some 14,300 tons of oil into the sea, according to the United Nations Environmental Program.

There can also be spills related to the drilling process itself, including "blowouts" that result in the uncontrolled flow of fluids from an oil well. A blowout at the Ixtoc I exploratory oil well off the Mexican coast (pictured left) that took place over a nine-month period from 1979 to 1980 resulted in the dumping of some 475,000 tons of oil, while a blowout near Nigeria in 1980 spilled 54,000 tons of oil and destroyed more than 800 acres of mangroves.

There's also potential risk to offshore oil facilities from hurricanes -- a serious problem for the North Carolina coast.

In recent weeks, proponents of expanded offshore drilling have been downplaying the effect that hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Speaking in favor of expanded drilling last week on Fox News, Louisiana Gov. Bobbie Jindal claimed there had been "no major spills" after Katrina and Rita. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain delivered the same message earlier in the month.

But Jindal, McCain and the other politicians deploying this talking point are simply wrong.

In fact, Katrina and Rita caused 124 offshore spills that dumped a total of 743,700 gallons of pollution into the ocean, as Think Progress reports. At the same time, onshore spills from pipelines, tanks and refineries totaled 9 million gallons, as compared to the 10.8 million gallons released by the Exxon Valdez. A single spill of 1 million gallons from the Murphy Oil refinery in Chalmette, La. (photo right) spread over one square mile and contaminated some 1,700 homes.

Clearly, the environmental risks of drilling for oil off North Carolina's coast are considerable.

So how much do we stand to gain from expanded offshore drilling?

The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that production from currently protected areas would reach 200,000 barrels per day in about 20 years. And that's for the entire U.S. continental shelf -- not just North Carolina's coast.

That amount represents a drop in the bucket of demand, as the United States now consumes about 21 million gallons of oil per day day.

Meanwhile, the "green energy alternatives" McCrory scoffs at could have a bigger impact on boosting the availability of oil. For example, a new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that if the federal government had simply increased vehicle mileage standards after 1985 at the rate of just 0.4 miles per gallon per year for both cars and light trucks, the savings would be equal to 3.3 million barrels of oil per day through 2027, when offshore drilling is expected to reach peak capacity.

(Pat McCrory photo from the Charlotte Mayor's Office website, Ixtoc I oil spill photo from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Response and Restoration, and Murphy Oil spill photo from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)

Labels: energy policy, environment, environmental politics, north carolina, offshore drilling, Pat McCrory

National average gas prices, July 1 2007: $2.97/gallon

National average gas prices, July 1 2008: $4.09/gallon

Source: AAA Fuel Gauge Report

PLUS: Is Texas benefiting from the oil price boom? The Houston Chronicle reports that the net balance sheet isn't great for the Lone Star state:

Despite what some people may think, the state isn't getting a windfall from high gasoline prices, because unlike the production taxes, which are keyed to prices, the state gasoline tax is a flat 20 cents per gallon and hasn't been increased since 1991.

And gasoline costs are straining some state agency budgets, as they are consumer pocketbooks, but on a much larger scale. School districts also will be hard hit when they start busing students to classes when the new school year begins later this summer.

Labels: AAA, energy policy, gas prices, oil industry, texas

One of the world's top climate experts says chief executives of big fossil fuel companies should be tried for crimes against humanity for their role in spreading disinformation on the climate crisis.

James Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, will brief Congress today -- the 20th anniversary of his historic speech before that body warning of the need for action on what he calls the "global warming time bomb." Hansen will speak before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming at 3 p.m.

In an interview that appears today in the British newspaper The Guardian, Hansen said his testimony will accuse the CEOs of companies including Texas-based ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of Missouri of being fully aware that they're spreading disinformation about climate change:

"When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."

This morning, Hansen repeated his call for trying fossil fuel executives involved in spreading disinformation on WAMU's Diane Rehm Show. He pointed to the companies' continuing efforts to dispute what science knows about human impact on climate and to fund contrarians that help disseminate disinformation.

As we reported in our investigation last year into efforts by fossil fuel-funded think tanks to cast doubt on climate science, a Peabody Energy lobbyist participated in a conference call organized by the John Locke Foundation of North Carolina and the Chicago-based Heartland Institute that was aimed at disrupting state-level efforts to address the climate crisis. Both of those market fundamentalist think tanks have been generously funded by fossil fuel interests, with Heartland taking at least $791,500 from Exxon since 1998.

ADDENDUM: A presentation Hansen made to the National Press Club as well as his briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is available online here. The Powerpoints used are available as a PDF here.

(Photo of James Hansen from Goddard Institute for Space Studies' website)

Labels: climate, energy policy, Exxon Mobil, global warming, James Hansen, Peabody Energy

Beside the bullying behavior of Big Energy, another troubling aspect of the story about environmental activist Panagioti Tsolkas' spirited fight against Florida Power & Light's expansion plans has been the media coverage.

Writing last week for the Palm Beach Post's "Seeing Green" blog, for example, reporter Christine Stapleton called Tsolkas a "self-described anarchist." She also deployed the "anarchist" label in the post's headline.

Now, could you imagine a Big Media reporter calling the CEO of a Big Energy company a "self-described capitalist"? Or the director of a Big Green organization a "self-described social democrat"?

What's the rhetorical purpose of a designation like "self-described anarchist"? To let readers know they shouldn't take the activist's ideas seriously because he inhabits the political "fringe" -- even though some of the United States' most prominent intellectuals inhabit that same "fringe"?


Also troubling is the unwillingness of some Big Media reporters working the Big Energy beat to call a spade a spade.

Take for example a June 11 story on a public hearing about Progress Energy's plans to build a new reactor at the Shearon Harris nuclear plant near Raleigh, N.C. News & Observer reporter John Murawski included the pro-nuclear comments of one Nina Cann-Woode, who he identified as a field representative of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition.

But Murawski did not identify the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition.

Guess it's a grassroots group like Tsolkas' Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition?

If so, guess again.

It's actually a public relations campaign for new nuclear reactors funded by the nuclear industry's trade association and headed by former Bush Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman -- a fact anyone could learn with a quick visit to the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch website.

But when the swarmers at the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network contacted the newspaper to ask for a clarification, they were told to write a letter.

For the opinion page.

Labels: energy policy, Florida Power and Light, media, NCWARN, news and observer, north carolina, nuclear power, palm beach post, Progress Energy

Last week, Florida Power & Light filed papers with the state's Public Service Commission opposing the request of an activist with the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition to intervene in the company's petition to convert an oil-burning power plant in Riviera Beach into one powered by natural gas.

The move comes after Panagioti Tsolkas of Lake Worth, Fla. submitted papers to the commission critical of FPL's conversion plans and accused the company of "greenwashing." PBCEC points out that gas-fired power plants are a major source of global warming pollution as well as other toxic emissions that present a threat to humans and ecosystems.

Tsolkas, the PBCEC co-chair, was arrested last month at a press conference where he announced a lawsuit seeking to stop construction at another FPL power plant after someone apparently alerted authorities to an outstanding trespass warrant against him. He was also among 27 protesters arrested in February for blockading the construction entrance to the FPL site.

In an interview published last Independence Day by a Fort Lauderdale blog titled Amuse the Ants, Tsolkas was asked about his most frightening confrontation with authorities:

Panagioti: This recent fight with FP&L I think. I wouldn’t say frightening, although I think that element could be there because I think its one of the most massive entities that I’ve ever been involved in taking on and challenging, and realizing how well-connected they are, even within the environmental community. I think their connections go very deep and being nervous about what sort of impact that’s gonna have on peoples live who get involved in protesting it. I don’t think it's any cause to stay away from the fight but I do think people should keep FP&L in check. We had the civil disobedience act there at their shareholders meeting and some people were arrested for blocking the road and the police arrested a young woman with a bullhorn … Security guards were hiding out in the bushes and just this kind of air of intimidation – police officers taking pictures of people up in their faces … They just grabbed the bullhorn and put it in the police car, and it was sorta like, to me, a little eye-opening that some of these giant companies actually, I think, have a lot of control over the authorities that we’re kind of under.

Indeed, Florida is not the only state where law enforcement authorities have used intimidating tactics against grassroots activists protesting Big Energy's polluting plans. In April, two nonviolent protesters were Tasered after locking themselves to bulldozers at the construction site for Duke Energy's massive new coal-fired power plant in western North Carolina, leading clean-air advocates with the Canary Coalition to call for an investigation of the police officers' actions. And in Colorado last year, an activist was arrested and jailed for simply carrying a "No New Coal Plants" sign inside the bar of a hotel that had just hosted a clean energy conference.

In an article published earlier this year by Orion magazine, writer Ted Nace described these grassroots activists working to stop the building of polluting power plants as a "swarm," using as an example the No New Coal Plants e-mail list founded by Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network. [Disclosure: I'm a member of that list.] Nace contrasted the "swarmers" -- who also like to call themselves "the Twigs" -- with large national environmental groups sometimes dubbed Big Green, noting that in many cases the grassroots activists have been more effective:

As fighting forces, swarms both preceded and eventually vanquished the orthogonal ranks of legionnaires that forged the Roman Empire. In a swarm, the emphasis is not on discipline, experience, and orderliness but rather on fighting spirit and individual initiative. Swarms are known for their tactical flexibility, sometimes using guerrilla-style harassment, as did the farmers who routed the British at Lexington and Concord; other times prevailing with overwhelming numbers in the manner of the Arapaho, Lakota, and Northern Cheyenne fighters who overran the U.S. Seventh Cavalry at the Little Bighorn.

While Tsolkas and his swarm has not yet succeeded in stopping FPL's plans for new polluting power plants, they have clearly gotten under the company's skin. In its filing against Tsolkas' intervention, FPL threw the proverbial book at him, arguing that:

1) he lacks standing because he's not an FPL customer,

2) there's no proof PBCEC members are FPL customers,

3) PBCEC is not registered as a business or nonprofit in Florida, and

4) Tsolkas is neither an attorney nor a "qualified representative."

PBCEC is currently collecting contributions to defray legal costs. To donate, visit the front page of their website.

(Photo of Panagioti Tsolkas being arrested during a protest against FPL's expansion plans is by Damon Higgins of the Palm Beach Post and was taken from the PBCEC Web site)

Labels: activism, energy policy, environment, Florida, Florida Power and Light, Panagioti Tsolkas

The Sierra Club announced this week that it's sending formal notices of intent to sue to about 30 new coal plants across the country in an effort to force them to better control emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants. The states where the targeted plants are located include Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas.

"We want to give moms across the country some peace of mind this Mother’s Day," says Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign. "That’s why we’re taking action today to ensure that these coal plants make every effort to keep their toxic mercury pollution out of our communities."

A recent study from the University of Texas found that children's risk of developing autism, a brain disorder that impairs communication and social interaction, increases with proximity to coal-fired power plants. According to the researchers, a child living 10 miles from a coal-burning power plant has a 2 percent higher risk of developing autism than a child living 20 miles away.

Coal-fired power plants are the single largest man-made source of mercury pollution in the United States. When the plants release mercury into the air, it rains down into lakes, rivers and streams and builds up in the bodies of fish -- and the people who eat the fish.

In February of this year, a federal appeals court struck down the Bush administration's mercury regulations for coal-fired power plants, saying they failed to adequately protect public health. The Sierra Club is asking the coal plant developers to come up with new plans to control mercury and other toxic pollution before the facilities are built.

"There are affordable technologies widely available today that can substantially reduce mercury and other toxic pollution," says Pat Gallagher, director of the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program. "In their rush to build new coal plants, developers have turned a blind eye to these technologies, and correspondingly the health of children everywhere."

For a map that shows all of the planned coal plants in the United States and their current status, click here.

Labels: autism, coal, energy policy, mercury, public health, Sierra Club

Interest in alternative energy such as wind, geothermal, and solar is spreading beyond so-called "fringe" environmentalists and "tree huggers" to the business world. If there is any doubt, consider this: U.S. clean energy venture capital investments totaled $2.7 billion in 2007, a 70% increase over 2006. Worldwide investments in clean energy totaled $148 billion, a 60% increase over 2006. Alternative energy is going mainstream.

That's according a "2008 Clean Energy Trends" report by Clean Edge. According to their findings, growth in four key clean energy technology markets grew 40% from 2006, reaching $77 billion in 2007. They expect growth to exceed 300% over the next decade, reaching $254 billion.

You've probably heard all the candidates talking about "green-collar jobs." This isn't just election year rhetoric.

For example, an op-ed column in today's Nashville Tennessean says that Tennessee could gain $307 million in solar energy investments and hundreds of new jobs by the year 2015. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says there are already more than 50 solar power related businesses in the state, including the Sharp Electronics solar panel manufacturing facility in Memphis which employs more than 200 workers and which, according to Sharp Electronics, has shipped more than 200 MW of solar array modules since 2002.

The Tennessean column urges support of HR5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act recently passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate. This bill extends commercial solar power investment tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of 2008, for eight years. It also extends residential tax credits for one year and removes the $2,000 cap.

According to the SEIA, the U.S. could lose 116,000 jobs and $19 billion in solar and wind power investments if the tax credits aren't extended.

Some might argue that this amounts to corporate welfare for the clean-energy industry. It should be noted, however, that coal, nuclear, and hydro power are all heavily subsidized by taxpayers, directly in terms of capital construction costs, infrastructure, and government regulation, and indirectly in terms of the environmental costs. Also, the amounts involved are a fraction of what we already spend on "traditional" power generation, with the potential for huge long term environmental and economic benefits.

For example, the Clean Energy Trends report estimates the per-gigawatt construction costs for a typical nuclear plant at $2 to $6 billion (not to mention taking years to get online due to regulatory hurdles), versus $1.4 to $1.8 billion for wind, or $1.6 billion for geothermal. Solar is still more expensive at $5 to $10 billion (but in the same ballpark as nuclear), and unfortunately coal is still the cheapest (not counting the environmental costs) at $750 million to $1.4 billion.

But, as clean energy R&D investment increases and manufacturers ramp up production, costs are expected to come down and efficiencies are expected to go up, so federal support in terms of tax credits and R&D funding makes sense.

Both Clinton and Obama voted for the 2007 Clean Energy Bill. McCain abstained. That bill proposed these and other clean-energy incentives and would have paid for them by eliminating tax breaks for oil companies, shifting incentives away from polluters to clean energy producers.

These provisions were dropped from the Clean Energy Bill as passed, but are now back as part of HR5351. It will be interesting to see how our three presidential candidates act on these proposals in relation to their day jobs in the U.S. Senate.

Labels: energy policy, environment, renewable energy

Here's the latest Institute Index, as featured in the Institute's bi-weekly email newsletter, Facing South. Don't get Facing South yet? Sign up in the box in the upper right hand corner today!

If the Southeast were an independent nation, its rank among the world's largest emitters of carbon dioxide: 10th

Amount the Southeast spends per resident annually to promote energy efficiency: $1

Amount New England spends: $12

Average annual energy bills for newly constructed, affordable homes in one Atlanta community: $1,200

Increase in total construction costs required to cut those bills by $400 a year: $500

Proportion of water in drought-afflicted Georgia used for cooling power plants: more than half

Total electricity sales of eight Southeastern utilities: 470,000 gigawatt-hours

Amount of renewable generation those eight utilities have access to: over 106,000 gigawatt-hours

Amount the Tennessee Valley Authority committed to invest in energy efficiency at its August 2007 board meeting: $22 million

What that represents per capita: $2.53

Utilities' national average per capita spending for energy efficiency in 2004: $4.93

Annual investment TVA could make if it spent 1 percent of revenues on energy efficiency: $97 million

Estimated number of jobs that a renewable energy standard would create in Tennessee: 40,000

Cost to N.C.-based Duke Energy for its proposed Save-a-Watt efficiency program: 2 cents/kilowatt-hour

Amount Duke Energy would charge its customers for the program: 5.2 cents/kilowatt-hour

Save-a-Watt's rank among the costliest utility efficiency programs for consumers: 1

Labels: energy policy, environment, facing south, institute index

A watchdog group is criticizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for abruptly halting a public meeting last week after problems arose with Progress Energy's application for a new reactor in North Carolina -- and for continuing the discussion with company officials in private. The N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network says the agency's action violates federal policy and has asked U.S. Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) to intervene.

The meeting on technical aspects of the company's plan to build a new reactor at its Shearon Harris nuclear plant near Raleigh was held Thursday at NRC's headquarters in Rockville, Md. N.C. WARN's attorney, executive director and other representatives were participating via phone when NRC staff raised questions about the site's geology and availability of cooling water. The historic drought afflicting North Carolina recently forced Progress to warn that it might have to shut down the existing Harris reactor because of low levels in the adjacent cooling lake.

When the answers offered failed to satisfy the NRC, Progress officials suggested that the issues be resolved after the meeting. At that point, a meeting that had been scheduled to last two and a half hours was ended after 70 minutes. In a letter sent to the NRC today, N.C. WARN Attorney John Runkle criticized the move:

You essentially went into "closed session" after some tough questions from the NRC staff that lengthy discussions did not resolve. Representatives from Progress Energy were the ones to suggest that issues be resolved "after the meeting." Nothing being discussed was proprietary or safeguards-related, so all of the meeting should have been public.

N.C. WARN called on Rep. Price to help ensure all future meetings regarding Progress Energy's proposed reactor are held near the Harris plant to allow greater public participation. Price has proved willing to use his post as chair of the House Appropriations' Homeland Security Subcommittee to exercise oversight of the nuclear industry: In response to a recent Inspector General report that found Harris and other nuclear plants are violating fire safety regulations, for example, Price wrote a letter to NRC Chair Dale Klein urging him to demonstrate that the agency's actions on the matter "are fully transparent." Hearings on that report are set for next month. Price has also requested a Government Accountability Office investigation into nuclear fire safety issues.


In other nuclear news, Progress Energy is raising eyebrows with its cost estimate for the two nuclear reactors it's planning to build near its Crystal River Nuclear Plant in Levy County, Fla.: $14 billion for construction costs and an additional $3 billion for transmission facilities, with the expense to be passed on to its customers in the form of higher bills. Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have as much as tripled in the past two years due to climbing prices for materials, labor and reactor technology. Progress Energy's initial estimate for the Crystal Rivers reactors, for example, was $5 billion to $7 billion -- off by more than half. The reactors chosen for Florida -- the Westinghouse AP1000 -- are the same model Progress plans for Harris.

Labels: Crystal River, energy policy, NRC, nuclear power, Progress Energy, regulatory oversight, Shearon Harris

Citing a recent federal court ruling, 18 environmental groups have called on the North Carolina Division of Air Quality to reopen the pollution permit it granted last month for Duke Energy's proposed new coal-burning unit at its Cliffside power plant in the western part of the state. In a letter submitted to DAQ, the groups charge that the permit is illegal under the Clean Air Act because it fails to require the toughest controls available for mercury, a potent neurotoxin released from burning coal.

"North Carolina has issued an illegal permit that violates the Clean Air Act and a federal court ruling," said Gudrun Thompson, attorney with the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center, which submitted the letter to DAQ. "The Division of Air Quality must now go back and do its homework by first identifying the highest achievable level of control for this hazardous pollutant and then requiring Duke to implement it."

The other signatories include Environment North Carolina, Environmental Defense, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, Sierra Club's N.C. chapter, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Cape Fear Riverkeeper, Catawba Riverkeeper, Lower Neuse Riverkeeper, New Riverkeeper, Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, Watauga Riverkeeper, Waccamaw Riverkeeper, Yadkin Riverkeeper, and Cape Fear Coastkeeper.

The permit issued by DAQ would allow Duke's plant to emit mercury at a rate 10 times higher than the Clean Air Act allows. In addition, the permit fails to require or even analyze maximum pollution controls for 66 other hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants, including hydrochloric acid, arsenic, dioxins, and heavy metals other than mercury.

(Photo of Cliffside Steam Station from Duke Energy's Web site)

Labels: coal, Duke Energy, energy policy, environment, north carolina, Southern Environmental Law Center

The same day South Florida was paralyzed by a massive and still-mysterious power outage following a fire in an electrical substation, Texas narrowly avoided rolling blackouts after a sudden drop in wind in the western part of the state, where wind turbines are concentrated.

It's interesting to compare the immediate news coverage of the two events. The South Florida outage occurred in the service area of Florida Power & Light, which generates most of its power via fossil fuels (natural gas, coal and oil) and the rest via nuclear, and it led to the emergency shutdown of the Turkey Point nuclear power plant. So unusual is it for such a minor event to cause a blackout affecting as many as 2.5 million people that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is considering conducting its own investigation. Yet nowhere in the initial news coverage did we read that the blackout indicates the precarious nature of a traditional centralized power system dependent on fossil fuel-burning and nuclear plants.

Compare that with the report about the Texas near-incident that appeared in the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, which included this comment:

"This is a warning to all those who think that renewable energy is the sole answer [to the state's power needs]," said Geoffrey Gay, an attorney representing Fort Worth and other North Texas municipalities in utility issues. "We can't put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to any form of generation. We need to consider the cost and the reliability issues, in addition to the environmental impact."

In the same story, a spokesperson for the American Wind Energy Association pointed out that the solution is to locate turbines in different places, since the wind is generally blowing somewhere. But we find it interesting that news coverage of an averted blackout triggered by temporary problems with wind generation would raise questions about the reliability of all renewable energy, whereas coverage of an actual blackout in a system based on fossil fuel and nuclear energy didn't immediately raise similar reliability concerns.

Labels: blackouts, energy policy, Florida, texas, turkey point, wind energy

Because utilities in the South operate under a traditional rate regulatory structure that encourages investment in new plants and limits competition, companies seeking to develop nuclear power facilities in order to take advantage of federal tax incentives are drawn to the region -- even though it already has a surplus of idle generation.

That's the finding of a new analysis by the Reuters news agency. Titled "Nuclear industry eyes oversupplied U.S. South," the story notes that of the 21 reactor sites identified in NRC filings, 15 are in the South: four in Texas, three in South Carolina, two each in North Carolina and Florida, and one each in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. But at the same time, the Southeast has more than enough existing gas-fired generation to meet power needs for at least another decade.

The push for new nukes comes as Southerners are still paying for the expensive plants built during the nuclear boom of the 1980s, Reuters notes:

Frank Spencer, a former Mississippi assistant attorney general, has not forgotten the years-long legal battle over Entergy Corp's Grand Gulf station that pitted elected officials in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi against the utility and state and federal regulators. The fight over who would pay went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Spencer battled unsuccessfully to keep Mississippi residents from paying more than their share of Grand Gulf's price tag which ballooned to more than $3.4 billion from $900 million.

"It was a huge burden, with the increase in rates," said Spencer, now a minister who runs a soup kitchen and shelter in Jackson. "It was the most costly plant at the time and Mississippi had to pay for one-third of it."

Today, a typical Entergy Mississippi customer still pays $12 a month for overruns at the 23-year-old nuclear plant, according to state regulatory filings.

And it's not just ratepayers who will be bearing the financial burden: A number of states including Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida are considering handing out their own taxpayer-funded incentives to politically powerful nuclear companies.

Labels: economics, energy policy, nuclear power, tax subsidies

The Coal Moratorium NOW! conference kicks off this Wednesday in Houston. The two-day event will bring together activists from across the country who are working to stop the building of new coal-fired power plants in their communities.

The event coincides with "America's Energy Future: Houston's Presidential Summit," a Feb. 28 conference sponsored by energy suppliers that will feature a speech by presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, the movement to halt the construction of new coal plants has gotten a boost from the federal government itself. A new report [PDF] from the National Energy Technology Laboratory, a division of the Department of Energy devoted to fossil-fuel research, questions the need for all the new coal-fired power plants now being planned. Titled "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants," the report states:

Coal-fired power plant development activity significantly exceeds the current estimate of need by [the Energy Information Administration].

The report goes on to suggest that efforts to promote energy conservation and efficiency may be having an effect:

Low forecasts of demand growth add an element of "demand uncertainty" to the problems of regulatory uncertainty and rapidly escalating costs for coal-fired power plant development.

Labels: coal, coal moratorium, department of energy, energy policy, national energy technology laboratory

Amory Lovins is the visionary co-founder and chair of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado-based "think-and-do" tank that helps businesses, communities, individuals and governments increase profits and competitive advantage through efficiency while building a more just and sustainable world. Lovins was in North Carolina recently to speak at the 2008 Emerging Issues Forum at N.C. State University on the topic of energy innovation as economic success. While in the area, Lovins also dropped by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he spoke to Institute for Southern Studies intern Meaghan Jennison's environmental policy class. The discussion -- which ranged from the profit potential of saving energy to the problem with Duke Energy's controversial Save-a-Watt program -- was so interesting that we asked Meaghan to share her notes with Facing South readers.

What is RMI?

The Rocky Mountain Institute was founded 25 years ago and currently runs on a $12 million budget earned by private-sector consultancy to advance our mission of fostering the efficient and restorative use of resources to make the world secure, just, prosperous, and life sustaining. We are currently reviewing our mission to change its wording to align more with what we actually accomplish; we want to eliminate the word “foster” because we are driving transformational change. Our modus operandi is akin to institutional acupuncture—we figure out where the business model isn’t “flowing” and we stick in needles, so to speak. We don’t lobby or litigate, but we do use large corporations to leverage change—WalMart, Rupert Murdoch, etc. Our biggest work in the last few years has been the book Winning the Oil Endgame (oilendgame.com), which outlines a plan to get the U.S. off oil by the 2040s; out of about 20 major industrial sectors, three or four sectors have already begun implementation.

How did you get to do this work?

I am a recovering physicist. But honestly, I work in a ton of sectors, which leads to a lot of cross-pollinations. In the last few weeks I have been working on the Empire State building, an oil refinery, a car company, and more. I have to say that it's pretty amazing considering I am a dropout of Harvard and Oxford, and so I have all honorary degrees. Ironically, part of what I currently do is lecture on my work at various universities. I recently visited as faculty at the Stanford energy school on how to see expanding, not diminishing, returns in energy efficiency (you can see the lecture on energy history at rmi.org.)

How can we have profitable solutions to the climate and oil problems?

The climate, oil and proliferation problems are artifacts of not using energy in ways to save money. It is much cheaper to save fuel, not buy fuel. Smart companies are reducing their CO2 intensity by 5 to 10 percent per year, which is the smartest money-saving thing they can do. Energy saving is about profits and competitive advantage. It doesn't take a great deal of efficiency changes to solve climate change. If we reduce the total energy intensity of world by about 2 to 3 percent, 2 percent would stabilize carbon dioxide emissions and 3 percent would actually reduce them. And 3 percent is less than what those smart companies are already doing! Besides, developing nations haven't built much infrastructure yet and have a big market for efficiency.

The current breakdown of our emissions sources is simple. Two-fifths of the fossil carbon emissions come from burning oil, two-fifths from power plants, and one-fifth is directly used coal and gas. With oil, we can redouble its use efficiency. We can also use biofuels and renewables. For vehicles, we need to make lighter weight products, which can be done with existing technologies -- aerospace technology at an automotive cost. RMI is currently using WalMart to get double-efficiency heavy trucks on the road. Boeing has developed a one-fifth more efficient, same-price airliner, which has sold out through 2016. Ford is now looking at doing the same thing. All this activity is generating hyper-competition. Even the military is emerging as the federal leader in getting the country off oil, developing triple and more efficiency. In the public sector, we could save about three-quarters of our energy by implementing late '80s daily life energy savings techniques.

Why is there a persistent gap between what the public knows about and the true existing options?

If climate is a problem, you need to buy the most solution per dollar, but this is never mentioned! Why? Lazy editors, lazy journalists, and an undemanding public. We hold the assumption that anything "carbon free" must be good, without looking at the range there and comparing.

Utilities should be encouraged to invest in energy efficiency instead of building new plants. Why are environmental groups opposed to some of this -- for example, Duke Energy's Save-a-Watt program? This program would allow Duke Energy to share the benefits of savings from conservation programs up to 90 percent of their avoided cost. The problem is that many industries lack complete transparency. In Duke's specific case, people are opposed to the 90 percent model -- if Duke can save so much money, why aren't people getting more savings back themselves?

An inherent problem with utilities is that generally companies are rewarded for selling more energy and penalized for selling less. The solution: decoupling and shared savings. That is, make profits indifferent to total sales (if a company sells more than anticipated one year, then the extra revenue goes into an account that is drawn upon in a year when they sell less than anticipated). You also let utilities keep, as profit, a small part of what they saved the customers by increasing efficiency (about 10 percent). You therefore align the utilities' interests with the customers' interests.

You seem to have a very different outlook on our future than Al Gore. Are you not an alarmist? Are you not worried?

Focusing exclusively on the bad things achieves nothing. The country is fairly balanced between hope and fear, and it's worth reflecting on the difference between optimism, pessimism, and hope. Someone said that the optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds, while the pessimist fears this is true. We need to take the responsibility for creating the future we want. The hopeful person is always working hard to beat the odds, while the optimist just sits back and counts on the fact that the odds will work out in his favor. I don't take either position; for me, the glass is not half empty or half full, but it is 100 percent expandable by improved efficiency.

I hardly ever mention problems in my speeches because people in my audiences already know there are problems. With regards to Al Gore's approach, he has been successful in letting people in a crowded theater know that there is a fire and to move smoothly to the exits but doesn't tell them how to contact the fire department.

Why aren't most engineers following your principles yet?

Cars aren't changing to lightweight advanced composites yet because of cultural hesitation. That is, our obstacles are mainly cultural and not technological or economic. We need to change the paradigm of engineering. RMI is working to change it, and our working principles are on 10xe.com. We need to increase our natural resource productivity. We need to recognize integrative business design as profitable. We need to optimize whole systems for multiple benefits.

Are there other arenas in which we can be working on solutions?

There's exciting stuff to be done everywhere! You need a combination of vision, a business model, culture, structure, marketing, and after-marketing. You need to follow through with whole value change. You can't simply change facilities and infrastructure but need to change underlying values as well.

Increased efficiency can be had anywhere. I can give you the example of when I worked with a cider company. We found that the orchard trimmings that they had been throwing out were actually perfect for growing shiitake mushrooms, which is more profitable than cider itself. We also found that the apple core and seed casings that they had been discarding contain antioxidants, which are also more valuable than the apple itself. That company was able to utilize all of its input elements to expand their business and capitalize on all profit potentials.

What do you have to say about the paradox of when I use energy more efficiently, it costs me less so I'll buy more, thus keeping total energy consumption unchanged? Are energy efficiency efforts futile?

Saving energy encourages more energy consumption? If this were true, the business model would say we should mandate inefficient appliances in order to make more money. The reality is that in the end, saving energy saves energy, period. Improved efficiency can improve welfare. Markets themselves cannot be counted on to encourage efficiency, though. We must include ethics, faith, and politics.

Labels: Duke Energy, energy efficiency, energy policy, renewable energy

Bucking a national trend away from coal-burning power plants, North Carolina regulators yesterday issued a permit allowing Duke Energy to build a massive new coal-fired unit at its Cliffside plant in the western part of the state. The company plans to begin construction on the $2.4 billion project immediately and hopes to have the facility up and running by 2012.

The decision to permit the new unit comes despite serious concerns raised about its impact on climate, public health, and air quality in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. It also comes amidst an ongoing lawsuit brought against the Charlotte-based company by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its failure to meet pollution control requirements.

Environmental advocates who had been fighting the project denounced North Carolina's decision and criticized what they called misleading statements made by Duke and state regulators about the facility's environmental impact. According to a statement issued yesterday by N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network Director Jim Warren:

"The State and Duke Energy seem to be working in tandem to put lipstick on a pig, based on their coordinated announcements today. Despite their withering campaign of distortion, building the Cliffside power plant is a losing strategy for the climate crisis, air quality and mercury poisoning of the North Carolina public."

Warren pointed out that the final permit included only a "slight, token" reduction in mercury limits over the draft version -- and the reduction was based on a recalculation of mercury emissions rather than any required changes to controls. This means the planned facility will be out of compliance with federal rules limiting mercury emissions, Warren said.

He also blasted Duke's and North Carolina's claims that Cliffside will be "carbon neutral" by 2018. He called that a "meaningless statement" based on "vague promises" of carbon offsets elsewhere in the company's operations. In fact, the new Cliffside unit is expected to emit more than 6 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, which is 12 times more than what's emitted by the four smaller units the company plans to retire. It's also expected to emit 405 pounds of mercury, a potent neurotoxin, each year, and use 120 million gallons of water a day in a region that's suffering from an extraordinary drought.

Cliffside opponents have also raised concerns about Duke Energy's enormous political influence in the state. Indeed, the company's political action committee consistently ranks among the 10 largest in the state and among the five largest sponsored by a single company, according to a recent study [PDF] by Democracy North Carolina. Duke Energy also ranked in the top 10 energy-industry contributors during the 2004 and 2006 election cycles, according to a recent study [PDF] by the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

The Canary Coalition, a clean air advocacy group based in western North Carolina, has called for protests against Cliffside to continue until the plans are abandoned. The group is promoting weekly boycott actions against the company, with concerned citizens asked to turn off their lights every Sunday at 8 p.m. and to place an LED candle in the window in solidarity.

(Photo courtesy of the Canary Coalition.)

Labels: coal, energy policy, north carolina

An administrative law judge has upheld Georgia's decision to issue an air pollution permit for Dynegy's proposed coal-burning power plant in Early County. But environmental attorneys say they will appeal, charging that the judge ignored evidence that the company will not adequately restrict pollution from the Longleaf plant that threatens human health and crops critical to the local economy.

"This is the first coal-fired power permit to be approved in Georgia in over 20 years but with this court's ruling, I fear it will not be the last," says Justine Thompson, executive director of GreenLaw, which is leading the legal fight against the plant. "As neighboring states stand up against coal plants, Georgia's acquiescence will make us a target for new coal-fired power plant proposals. Building this plant as currently designed will lock this state into dirty air for the life of the plant, at least 50 or more years."

Georgia's decision comes as plans for other coal-fired projects across the United States have been canceled or delayed due to rising construction costs and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. James Hansen, a scientist who runs NASA's Goddard Space Center, has said he believes the government will be forced to regulate coal plants out of existence in the near future due to climate concerns.

During the hearing for Dynegy's proposed plant, GreenLaw attorney George Hays pointed out that the state Environmental Protection Division staff could not explain how permit limits for harmful soot and smog had been reached and said that state employees adopted conclusions proposed by Dynegy verbatim and without independent verification. The Houston-based Dynegy has proposed building more new coal-fired power plants than any other U.S. company.

Environmental advocates, health care providers and patient groups oppose the plant, and the Medical Association of Georgia issued a resolution opposing the building of any new coal-fired plants in the state, which already has 10 such facilities. The proposed Dynegy plant would emit 9 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution annually and 4,700 tons of sulfur dioxide. The plant's particulate emissions would violate the Environmental Protection Agency's standards for safe air in the community where the plant is located, and the facility would draw more than 20 million gallons of water per day from the Chattahoochee River, which has already been impacted by the region's severe ongoing drought.

Early County -- where African Americans make up almost half of the population and more than a quarter of the population lives in poverty -- already faces a serious pollution problem from Great Southern Paper Co.'s papermill. According to EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, the mill released more than 2 million pounds of toxic chemicals to the air in 2005 alone, including 240 pounds of lead, 47 pounds of mercury -- both potent neurotoxins -- and more than 2,200 pounds of benzene, a known carcinogen. Dynegy's plant would dramatically increase the local community's toxic burden.

For more details on the proposed plant's impact on environmental justice, see the comments [PDF] submitted to state regulators by the Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest, which has since changed its name to GreenLaw. For a copy of the judge's ruling, click here [PDF]. And for more on the fight against Georgia's coal plants, visit www.nonewcoal.org.

Labels: coal, energy policy, environment, Georgia, global warming

Today President Bush signed into law an energy bill that increases efficiency standards for vehicles, phases out incandescent light bulbs, and for the first time places limits on the amount of water that can be used by new washing machines and dishwashers. In a statement, Bush said the measure

...represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing our dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. It will increase our energy security, expand the production of renewable fuels, and make America stronger, safer, and cleaner for future generations.

However, clean-energy advocates point to serious problems with the final version. Faced with threats of a White House veto, the Senate dropped a provision that rolled back $13.5 billion in tax breaks to oil companies, which would have raised revenue for renewable energy investments. It also dropped a provision creating a federal renewable energy standard.

In addition, the law mandates an almost fivefold increase in the production of ethanol by 2022 -- from 7.5 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons. That means there will be more corn grown in the Midwest, which in turns means more nitrogen-based fertilizer running off fields, pouring into the Mississippi River and eventually flowing into the Gulf, where it will enlarge the "dead zone" -- a 7,900-square-mile area off the coast of Louisiana and Texas so depleted of oxygen that no fish, crabs or shrimp can survive.

As the Associated Press reported earlier this week, some researchers worry that the booming demand for corn will result in the very rapid expansion of the dead zone:

"We might be coming close to a tipping point," said Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental group. "The ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted."

Beside threatening species diversity in the Gulf, the dead zone is also a threat to the region's $2.8 billion commercial and recreational fishing industry. GRN points out that the amount of brown shrimp caught declines in years when the dead zone is largest, forcing shrimpers to look elsewhere for their catch.

Other parts of the country will also feel the impact from expanded ethanol production, says Mike Ewall with the Pennsylvania-based Energy Justice Network:

Many hundreds of additional communities are now going to become targets for ethanol biorefineries, including "advanced" biofuels, which will include even more use of biotechnology and which will clear our forests and crop lands to liquidate them to fuel vehicles. Even more troubling is that much of this will create a demand to try to turn trash, sewage sludge and other contaminated waste streams into liquid fuels. We're already busy enough trying to help communities fight these things and our work is going to get FAR bigger. The more we succeed in stopping these insane "biofuel" schemes in the U.S., the more we'll end up importing it and contributing to deforestation and global hunger in other countries.

(In the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration photo above, the reds and oranges represent low oxygen concentrations.)

Labels: energy policy, environment

Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (H.R. 6), a wide-ranging measure that promotes renewable energy sources, improves automotive fuel economy and boosts production of homegrown biofuels. According to the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the measure would also benefit the South's economy.

"A very important measure in this bill is the 15 percent renewable electricity standard for utilities that will dramatically increase renewable sources of electricity," says SACE Executive Director Stephen Smith. "We are pleased to see that the House has rejected the false assumptions that the Southeast does not have renewable energy potential, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy’s analysis shows that this standard will significantly boost clean energy production in our region."

The Southeast has abundant renewable energy potential, but the region has lacked economic incentives to encourage renewable energy production and stimulate job growth, Smith says. This measure provides those incentives.

The legislation offers a $21 billion tax package providing renewable energy incentives that it pays for by repealing oil and gas industry tax breaks and extending production tax credits for cellulosic fuels and renewable energy sources including wind and solar power. It also requires cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to achieve a minimum fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 -- the first congressionally mandated increase in corporate average fuel economy standards since 1975.

In addition, the bill imposes a five-fold increase in the biofuels mandate, requiring that 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels be blended with gasoline by 2022. That measure is controversial among some environmental advocates such as the folks at the