Obama to visit Tampa to tout smart grid?

Our colleagues at The Buzz are reporting that President Obama's upcoming visit to Tampa next Tuesday may be to highlight his vision for a revamped national energy network, the so-called smart grid.

Obama's stimulus package contains $4.5 billion in funding for a smart grids, which would tap into wind and solar and other green energy sources and transmit it to large urban areas, such as Tampa and Miami. The New York Times, in a story on Boulder, Colo., becoming the first big test area for the technology, calls smart grids "the most ambitious move the United States could make toward cutting its emissions from burning fossil fuels."

Big corporations are jumping on the bandwagon too. General Electric -- which recently started an experiment in Hawaii that saves energy by turning off household appliances when electricity is expensive and makes better use of wind and solar power -- is joining with Whirlpool and other companies to demonstrate the role of smart grid technologies in battling climate change.

--Craig Pittman

Study: Hidden health costs from energy consumption top $120 billion

The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academies of Science, released a report today that attempts to estimate the hidden costs of energy production and the use of coal, oil and other sources, such as the impact of air pollution, on human health.

The estimate: $120 billion in 2005.

And that's just a partial estimate, the council notes. The number "reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation," a news release on the study says. "The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security. ..."

Here's the breakdown:  

"Coal accounts for about half the electricity produced in the U.S.," the release notes. "In 2005 the total annual external damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter created by burning coal at 406 coal-fired power plants, which produce 95 percent of the nation's coal-generated electricity, were about $62 billion."

And then there are all the cars and trucks on the highway spewing pollution from their tailpipes. In 2005, motor vehicles produced $56 billion in damage to human health, the study found.

The committee that wrote the report tried to figure out the hidden costs in terms of climate change impact too, but it ran into lots of problems quantifying an amount for those impacts. Nevertheless, it found that "coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., emitting on average about a ton of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. ...Climate-related monetary damages range from 0.1 cents to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour."

Craig Pittman, Times Staff Writer

*

PSC says yes to charging in advance for nukes, staff says no to conservation

Our colleagues over at The Buzz are reporting that the Florida Public Service Commission rejected arguments from environmentalists and clean-energy advocates and voted 3-1 today to approve a request by Progress Energy, and Florida Power & Light to charge customers four new nuclear power plants that wouldn't generate any voltage until 2017.

The lone no vote came from Commissioner Nancy Argenziano, whom FPL on Thursday accused of being biased and unethical.

The decision allows Progress Energy to charge customers customers $213 million, or $5.86 a month per 1,000 kilowatt hour, to upgrate its Crystal River nuclear power plant and build two new nuclear units in Levy County.And FPL gets to raise $63 million and add 67 cents per 1,000 kilowatt hours to customer monthly bills to pay for the pre-construction costs of two nuclear units at its Turkey Point Plant in Miami-Dade County and to add two new units to its St. Lucie County plant

Meanwhile though, the PSC's staff has recommended against adopting strict energy conservation goals for the utilities. The reason, according to the Sun-Sentinel: they think that conserving too much energy would cost customers more.

Last year, at the behest of Gov. Charlie Crist, the Legislature passed a law requiring the commission to adopt efficiency goals that encourage lowering energy use.

However, as the paper notes, "Utilities often oppose lowering energy use because that means less in electricity sales and profit. FPL officials project a rate increase of about $4 billion over the next 10 years if they used aggressive goals recommended by environmentalists."

Environmental activists contend that if the PSC adopts tougher conservation goals, the Sun-Sentinel reports, "customers' bills would decrease over the long-term both because they'd use less electricity and it would eliminate the need for new FPL power plants, which customers pay for through rates."

--Craig Pittman

Showdown at the PSC over Progress Energy, FPL nuke plant charges

As our colleague Robert Trigaux notes in his Venture blog, Friday will bring what promises to be the final showdown at the state Public Service Commission over whether Progress Energy and Florida Power & Light can charge customers years in advance for building new nuclear plants.

Estimated cost for the two plants: $35 billion. The one Progress Energy hopes to build in Levy County accounts for half of that -- $17 billion.

Once viewed as a slam-dunk for the utilities, Trigaux points out, now the question of what the PSC will do is definitely up in the air.

"Critics say investors, not consumers, should bear more of the risk of nuclear power plants," he writes. "And economic circumstances have stalled some of the initial momentum for new nuclear power. Enough so to ask: will Progress Energy itself ultimately decide the nuke plants are no longer worth the growing controversy in the state?"

Further complicating the PSC's decision is Gov. Charlie Crist's selection of two new members in the wake of an ongoing scandal that has led to suggestions that it's time to change how the state regulates its utilities.

--Craig Pittman

Apple, Nike, utilities splitting with Chamber of Commerce over climate change, showing shift in political alliances

The exodus began last month, as Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear energy provider; a New Mexico utility holding company called PNM Resources,and Pacific Gas & Electric, California's biggest utility  all headed for the door. Then came Nike resigning from the board, and now, today, the almighty Apple departed as well, resigning from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its climate policy.

“We strongly object to the chamber’s recent comments opposing the EPA.’s effort to limit greenhouse gases,” wrote Catherine A. Novelli, vice-president of worldwide government affairs at Apple, in a letter  to Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the chamber. "“Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the chamber at odds with us in this effort."

You may recall that the Chamber not only opposes the EPA's climate change rules and the Waxman-Markey bill that was passed by the House earlier this year. It also wants the EPA to hold something like the "Scopes monkey trial" to determine if global warming is real and is really being caused by people. But now it's the Chamber that's on trial, painted by its former members as "scientific obstructionists."

Democrats who support climate-change legislation are hooting about the departures from the Chamber, which according to Newsday spent $7.4 million lobbying on climate change this past spring. Jay Inslee, a House Democrat from Washington State and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, told Forbes that the string of resignations was "an earthquake."

The Wall Street Journal notes that the growing rift amid the Chamber's members "is highlighting how the climate-change issue is straining traditional alliances in Washington, as some businesses seek to profit from overhauling the energy market and others try to cut deals to head off tougher regulation."

--Craig Pittman

EPA proposes own greenhouse gas limits -- a "warning shot" to Congress

On the same day that two prominent senators unveiled a new, slightly tougher climate-change bill, the Environmental Protection Agency popped out a surprise that lend impetus to the bill's passage.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and oil refineries -- a move the Los Angeles Times called "a warning shot to Congress that if it does not move to curb global warming, the Obama administration will act on its own."

Jackson's proposal targets only the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, as identified by the nation's first greenhouse gas reporting system, which the EPA unveiled just last week. The new proposal would require industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year to obtain construction and operating permits from the agency.

As the LAT notes, that's a departure from the Clean Air Act, which requires regulation of any source that produces more than 250 tons of a pollutant covered under the Act.

Jackson said she was trying to reduce emissions "without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. This is a common-sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources -- those from sectors responsible for nearly 70% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources."

Although industry lobbyists questioned whether the regulation would stand up in court, the EPA's action follows a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that rebuked the Bush Administration for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

--Craig Pittman

Climate change bill to be unveiled in Senate

A major new climate change bill is due to be introduced in the Senate today by California Democrat Barbara Boxer.

The bill is the Senate's version of an energy and climate measure the House of Representatives passed last June. The bill is expected to require industrial emissions of greenhouse gases to be reduced by 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. It also calls for a "cap and trade" system of carbon credits.

The bill is likely to set off intense lobbying from special interests, as well as a push-back from Republicans who fear climate legislation will hurt the economy.

Here's an explanation of the climate debate in Congress from the Huffington Post.

David Adams, Times Staff Writer

*

G-20 ready to pull the plug on fossil fuel subsidies

The Group of 20, meeting in Pittsburgh this week, has a draft agreement ready to phase out government subsidies for oil and other fossil fuels in the "medium term,"reports Reuters today.

Countries such as China, Russia and India subsidize coal and oil to keep prices artificially low, which boosts demand for hydrocarbons.

The G-20 draft says the subsidies "encourage wasteful consumption, distort markets, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with climate change.” According to the Wall Street Journal, cutting those subsidies could cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 10% by 2050.

You may recall that President Obama promised to work toward that goal during his speech to the U.N. earlier this week. Reuters says that getting agreement approved by the G-20 meeting is a victory for his administration.

But the WSJ notes that removing those subsidies could have an unintended side effect: "Consumption subsidies distort demand; in the Middle East and Asia, demand for oil kept rising even when crude hit $140, because many consumers didn’t pay market prices." Getting rid of the subsidies would raise prices in those places, and thus cut demand and "smooth out the violent price swings that have characterized the oil markets in recent years—and which helped galvanize public attention and appetite for alternative energy."

--Craig Pittman

Obama tells world leaders climate change threat is "urgent," will require sacrifice

"Serious." "Urgent." "Growing." Those were the words President Obama used to describe the threat from global warming when addressing a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations Tuesday, reports the Washington Post.

"Rising sea levels threaten every coastline," said Obama, making his first-ever address to the U.N. "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent . . . The security and stability of each nation and all peoples -- our prosperity, our health, our safety -- are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out." 

The speech -- here's the full text -- is more than mere rhetoric. It's an attempt by Obama to jump-start negotiations on a new deal to cut emissions. The New York Times reports: "Negotiators trying to hammer out a deal to cut global emissions by December in Copenhagen have largely stalled, and the United Nations organizers are hoping that gathering the leaders will give the talks new political momentum."

However, Obama acknowledged that he's talking about sacrifices at a time when everyone is already hurting, noting that "there should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is in front of us. We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation's most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work."

Although Democrats in the U.S. Senate are now talking about waiting until 2010 to take up a climate-change bill, Obama told the gathering that the U.S. is already taking other steps. He said the U.S. will be making its largest-ever investment in renewable energy, setting new standards for reducing pollution from vehicles and making clean energy profitable. He also promised to work to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, Bloomberg says.

[AP photo]

--Craig Pittman

Energy Secty says Americans are "like your teenage kids" when it comes to climate change

With the Senate showing signs of balking at passing a climate-change bill this year, leaving President Obama feeling boxed in by the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference, Energy Secretary Steven Chu made some comments to the Wall Street Journal that may not help matters much.

Chu, speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, told the WSJ that he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,”  Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”

Still, Chu said, he is optimistic that eventually the public will see the wisdom of the Obama Administration's pitch that energy efficiency and caps on greenhouse-gas emissions will help the economy rebound. Although if he's thinking the public is just a bunch of teenagers, maybe Chu could put his message into a musical about high school to convince everyone.

[Photo: "High School Musical" from Disney]

--Craig Pittman