Pepperidge Farm, known for its delicious goldfish crackers and other tasty pastries, has just dedicated the nation's largest fuel cell power plant. Located at the company's Bloomfield, Connecticut bakery, the 1.2-megawatt generator will provide more than half of the facility's energy needs.

A subsidiary of Campbell Soup Company, Pepperidge Farm paid for the installation with a $3.5 million grant from the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF). The new fuel cell, along with a previously installed 250kw cell, provides 70% of the 260,000-square-foot facility's electricity.

By combining the 47% electrical efficiency of the fuel cell with savings from using waste heat to bake the company's fluffy breads and rolls, the system can peak at about 80% efficiency. Compare that to your average coal-fired plant, which lopes along at about 30-35% efficiency.

Fuel cell power plants have been popping up recently and not just because they're pretty sweet (much like Pepperidge's delectable 3-layer cakes). Although they are often powered by hydrogen from fossil fuels, they are much more efficient than conventional power plants and emit near zero nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate matter. These systems still produce a fair amount of carbon dioxide, but efficiency and the option to use biogas can offset this problem.

If carbon capture and storage becomes cheap and reliable, fuel cell plants may offer a true stopgap until humanity gets its collective head in the renewable game.

*In case you're confused about how a fuel cell power plant works, here's a poorly edited but highly informative video.

 

The U.S. Forest Service has enrolled its Rutland, VT headquarters in Central Vermont Public Service's Cow Power  -- a program that provides its customers with power generated from methane. CVPS already has 4,000 customers enrolled, and plans to add a fifth farm to its group of energy suppliers within the month.

The Forest Service will pay approximately $2,100 for its electricity annually, including a four-cent premium on energy provided by Cow Power.  That money is used to help farmers join the CVPS program. CVPS customers can receive all, half, or a quarter of their electricity through Cow Power and pay the premium on only the amount of power received through the program. The Forest Service will be receiving a quarter of its power via Cow Power.

Not only does Cow Power make use of a renewable energy source, it also helps to reduce the amount methane released into the air. The methane needed to produce the Forest Service's electricity alone is the equivalent of the emissions of 30 cars. The system also boosts farmers' incomes: CVPS pays the farmers involved in the Cow Power program 95 percent of market value for the energy they sell to CVPS.

The energy doesn't come directly from cows, of course. Cow Power generates electricity by placing manure and other agricultural waste in a sealed concrete tank heated to 101 degrees Fahrenheit — the same temperature as a cow's stomach. Bacteria digest the materials, generating methane, which fuels a generator. Any pathogens, weed seeds or other problematic matter found in the manure is neutralized during the digestive process.

"We work hard to improve the environment every day, so it's natural that we'd want to lessen our environmental impact through Cow Power," said Forest Supervisor Meg Mitchell. "As we looked at ways to reduce the impact of our energy usage, enrolling in CVPS Cow Power had a great impact. We are supporting a working landscape, helping to improve water quality and removing methane from the atmosphere."

CVPS started the Cow Power program in 2004. Since then, it has received numerous awards and similar programs have gone into development throughout the U.S. Cow Power remains the first manure-based farm-to-consumer energy program, however. Any of CVPS' customers are able to enroll in the Cow Power program and receive at least a portion of their energy from a renewable source. In the event that the Cow Power program cannot meet all of its energy commitments, CVPS has guaranteed that it will purchase Renewable Energy Certificates to cover the shortfall.

Photo by Flickr user JelleS

Native Americans are among the poorest ethnic groups in the United States. More than 40% of people residing on reservations or in areas with a historic tribal presence live below the poverty line.

The social impacts of this impoverishment are enormous. On the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota, the high school dropout rate is 70%, infant mortality is 300 times the national average, and the average home has seventeen residents. Life expectancy for men is 48 years, and for women it’s 52 -- the second lowest rate in the western hemisphere, behind Haiti.

This is the background against which an ambitious wind power initiative is unfolding. Spearheaded by the Intertribal Council On Utility Policy (COUP), a coalition of 14 Great Plains tribes, it aims to place wind turbines on members’ reservations, generating electricity for Native American and non-tribal populations.

It’s an integrated community-development initiative as well as an alternative-energy project. Among its goals: making tribal housing more affordable and efficient through better design, retrofitting, and the use of local, natural materials such as straw bale and earthen plasters. Another goal is to create green-collar jobs with a view toward both improving energy efficiency on the reservations and staffing up Intertribal COUP’s emerging wind-power business. “This isn’t only a matter of having technicians be Native Americans,” says Bob Gough, Intertribal COUP’s secretary. “We want the entire business to be tribally owned and operated.” 

Wind has the potential to help bootstrap tribes’ emergence from poverty. Casinos have provided Native Americans with one financial lifeline. Wind has as much or more promise as an economic-development engine, and it comes without gambling’s down sides.

The COUP acronym is no coincidence. In the Native American tradition, “counting coup” is a form of honorable battle. The coalition, says Gough, is committed to building sustainable homeland economies as a way to “do honorable battle with climate change and the major pollution issues that threaten the planet.”

Intertribal COUP starts with a significant asset: huge amounts of wind. “On the Rosebud Sioux reservation,” says Gough, “the Tribe set up an anemometer, which measures wind, and got an average 17.9 miles per hour wind speed. That’s golden.” According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, there is enough wind energy on all tribal lands -- not just Intertribal COUP partners -- to produce over 535 billion kilowatt hours per year and meet 14% of U.S. electricity demand.

Indian Country’s first turbine, a 750-kilowatt unit, was installed on the Rosebud Sioux reservation in 2003. Gough says, “It went up over two days, but it took eight years to get to those two days.” This drawn-out process is not surprising, as Native Americans have historically faced many challenges when dealing with the federal government.

One special challenge arises from the fact that federal policy penalizes tribal ownership of wind power projects. One of the major incentives for wind power development is the production tax credit (PTC) that pays based on the amount of electricity produced. However, they are only useful to private-sector organizations with sizable federal tax obligations. Because tribes are governments themselves, they do not pay federal tax and so the PTC provides no benefit.

This makes it more difficult for Indian tribes to succeed on their own, and it also discourages businesses from partnering with them. According to Gough, “If a business partnered with a tribe on a 50/50 basis, the business would get a 50% PTC and the tribe would also get a 50% PTC, which it wouldn’t be able to use. If the business developed the project on its own, it would get a 100% PTC.” Two pending bills (H.R. 1954 and S. 2520) have been introduced in the U.S. Congress that would allow tribes to transfer their PTC to their joint-venture partners.

Another problem emerges from the familiar real-estate adage: location, location, location. Tribes situated in the Northern Great Plains are selling into an energy market dominated by cheap lignite coal electricity, which is very climate-unfriendly. According to Patrick Spears, President of Intertribal COUP, it is cheap “only because we don’t count the pollution and greenhouse gas costs.” Because the price of electricity is the lowest in the country, this creates a competitive challenge for renewable energy.  “A two-cent penalty in a three- or four-cent market is significant,” says Spears.

Despite these challenges, progress is occurring.  Several small tribal wind turbines projects have been installed across the Dakotas, with a 30-megawatt project pending at Rosebud. COUP has also become an owner on behalf of its member Tribes in Native Energy, a carbon offset company that helps fund clean energy projects on native and non-native land.

The scaling-up process is just beginning. By 2015 the organization aspires to produce 3,000 megawatts of wind power annually, spread over twenty reservations. That’s a big number, representing enough energy to power about two million homes. How likely is it to happen? Says Gough, “In 2001, we announced our target. Two years later the Western Governors’ Association announced a goal of 30,000 megawatts of clean energy for 19 states, making our goal only 10% of the Western states’ goal, and eminently do-able.”

It has required enormous perseverance for Intertribal COUP to get as far as it has, and there’s still a long way to go. The prospects are favorable, though. The organization is well along on the learning curve, and demand has never been greater. The winds are shifting in its favor.

 

Barack Obama isn’t your run-of-the-mill candidate. He’s an emissary from the future.

To embrace sustainability, people need to be sensitive not only to where we are, but also to where we’re headed. Take climate change: If you can’t look beyond the present, it’s a non-issue. Unfortunately, that’s precisely what it is for many people.

Until recently our politics have reflected our cultural inability to look forward. With the current presidential campaign, however, this pattern may finally be changing. For perhaps the first time in our history, the future is a key factor shaping the voters’ decision-making process.

More precisely, it is the future incarnate that is shaping their decision. Barack Obama embodies the future. He speaks to people of the future, and he speaks to them from the future. He is a bridge, an improbably talented politician doing skilled work in the here-and-now, and also a man whose message is, "I am the face of tomorrow."

People react to politicians for various reasons and on many levels. We definitely respond to who we imagine them to be; we may even respond at times to who they actually are. We put them to the test: We want them to make us feel safe, comfortable and hopeful. Winners have images people can attach to. Ronald Reagan was our ruddy, kindly uncle. Bill Clinton was smart and charming, with a touch of the devil about him. George Bush was the guy we’d have a beer with.

The future hasn’t really entered into this mix -- until now. How people feel about Obama reflects, among other things, how they feel about the future that is crashing with hurricane force into their lives.

It’s been the rule for our presidential candidates to have their psyches firmly planted in the present. With Obama, this familiar baseline is dissolved. He is post -- well, he’s “post” a lot of things.

For starters, and most visibly, he is post-Caucasian. Power is shifting to darker-skinned people. Globally China is ascendant. In the U.S., the Latino and Asian populations will almost double by 2050 as a percentage of the total population. Whites will be a minority (47 percent), compared to the current 67 percent figure. Barack’s face is a freeze-frame from the future.

Obama is also post-tribal. For hundreds of years, our world view has been limited and provincial. Us vs. them, Yankees vs. Red Sox, my country right or wrong. Politicians defy this mindset at their peril, which is a big reason our political discourse is so banal. We’re good and they’re bad. We’re right (or left) and they’re wrong. And so on.

This world view made sense -- and was, indeed, inevitable -- when all our knowledge came from the tribe. Now, however, information comes to us from sources far beyond these enclaves. This has produced a divide in our culture and often in our psyches, too. We’re still tribal, but we’re also global (or “world-centric”) and growing more so all the time. The result: a strange brew of old-style tribal politics-as-usual, mixed with a growing readiness to entertain and assimilate foreign points of view.

Obama reflects this division in a way that tilts considerably more toward the world-centric. He plays tribal politics, and he plays them to win (hence the familiar, if exaggerated, charge that he’s an "old-style Chicago politician"). At the same time -- and some see paradox in this -- he’s comfortable acknowledging that opposition views can have merit.

This readiness was on display during the first presidential debate with his repeated acknowledgement that “John is right.” People’s response to this depended on their world view. Tribalists saw it as a sign of weakness -- the beta dog was going belly-up. Globalists found it refreshingly mature.

Finally, Obama is post-modern. What I mean by this much-abused term is this: Obama integrates competing reality tunnels inside his psyche. As we’ve seen, he’s strongly tribal and strongly post-tribal too. His faith is a uniquely post-modern combination of a belief in Christ and secular humanism. His views on race are similarly nuanced.

One of the first rules of theatrical improvisation is, never say “but” when you can say “yes and.” This is because “but” negates while “and” supports. Barack Obama is our ultimate “yes and” candidate. He is black and he is white. He is tribal and world-centric. He understands black and white anger, and he’s transcended both. He’s got that old-time religion and the new-time religion. He’s got one foot in the present and the other in the future.

I believe this goes a long way toward explaining Obama’s appeal. He integrates multiple viewpoints into a new and higher-level mix, and he does so in ways that are new to national politics.

In this way, too -- as a man who can cope with complexity -- Obama is a man of the future.

These same qualities also explain why many people are frightened of Obama. The future can be a scary place.

He is not a “visionary politician” in our usual understanding of the term. His policies aren’t especially visionary, with the exception of his commitment to green jobs. In another sense, though, he is visionary, for this reason: simply by being who he is, he reveals possibilities.

The container, not the contents, are what’s relevant here. By virtue of his mixed blood and multi-faceted personality, Barack Obama embodies a world that is coming into being: a complex, post-tribal, rainbow-colored world. While it would be easy for us to be threatened by this world -- and many people are -- there’s something about Obama that tells us we needn’t worry. By all appearances, he is calm, contented and unflappable. These reassuring qualities tell people that Barack-World isn’t just a future place, it’s also a safe harbor, serene and coherent.

This is the ultimate Something About Barack. He doesn’t just show us the future. He offers us peace of mind there.

If he is elected, it will mean that a fundamental shift has taken place in the national psyche. It will tell us we’ve grown more comfortable with looking toward the future. It will say we’ve gotten more adept at accepting the world as it is and as it will be … and that we may finally be ready to tackle in earnest the challenge of sustainability.

As automakers roll out plug-in hybrid electric cars over the next few years, linking them to the grid will be a critical step in determining their ultimate efficiency.

Increased energy security and independence, petroleum reduction and greenhouse gas reduction are among the potential benefits if the infrastructure is properly installed to handle the extra load on the grid, experts say.

Plug-in vehicles are expected to roll out regionally, and in small numbers. "As these cars come on board, there will be very little short-term impact on the grid," says Larry Alford, manager of distributed generation at Austin Energy. "According to a California Edison study when [GM was] doing the EV1, 20 percent of the fleet could be plug-in hybrids with no adverse grid impact. At some point beyond that it becomes an issue."

Austin Energy is currently evaluating PHEV's value in sharing power, using smart-grid communication to deploy technology from V2Green, a startup communications company. Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) services provide two-way communication between PHEVs and the power grid, helping utilities manage electricity flow to and from vehicles. The real-time data sharing can minimize grid stress and use the vehicle's battery storage to buffer power generated by intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power.

The existing electrical infrastructure can handle the PHEV load demand, but only if customers recharge the batteries during off-peak times, says Nathan Mitchell, director of engineering and operation services for the American Public Power Association.

Concerns about vehicles tapping into the grid during peak power consumption will increase as more PHEVs appear. This could require the building of additional power plants and even a reconfiguration of the transmission/distribution infrastructure. According to a study completed earlier this year at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, within 20 years most regions of the country will need to add capacity to provide for charging PHEVs.

Charging Stations
Public charging stations are also needed because half of the U.S. population lives in multi-family dwellings or park on the street and do not have a home garage, says Bill Boyce, electric transportation supervisor for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). That will require infrastructure upgrades, says Boyce, adding that new construction may have to assimilate different wiring options to accommodate plug-ins.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy data, only two states -- California and Massachusetts -- have more than 10 public electric charging stations, and most have none (see map above).

Public charging stations would cost approximately $50,000 each, with one station required for every 1,500 vehicles, according to research from the Rocky Mountain Institute. Meters with bi-directional communications would cost approximately $400, while a charging timer would cost around $50.

Coulomb Technologies recently unveiled a smart PHEV charging infrastructure for public stations that incorporates payment systems and communications technology to interact with the utility grid. Earlier this month the company announced a partnership with Gilbarco Veeder-Root, a fuel equipment and payment systems vendor, to co-develop charging infrastructure products.

CEO Richard Lowenthal says there are only 54 million garages in the United States to accommodate the roughly 247 million passenger vehicles out there, necessitating charging options for municipalities and parking lot owners.

Coulomb's Smartlet Charging Stations allow subscribers to locate a public charging station, using GPS or through GM's OnStar service. A smart card or key fob is used to unlock the door and begin charging. When charging is complete, the subscriber swipes the card or fob to unlock the door, with the billing data transmitted wirelessly to the utility.

Although the city of Sacramento built many public charging stations for its test of plug-in hybrids, most people opt for workplace and home charging, according to SMUD's Boyce. To discourage consumers from charging at peak times, time-of-use rates or customer incentives would be needed, he says. California officials discovered that by offering incentives, 80 percent of the vehicles charged during off-peak hours.

Utilities are upgrading their resource management capabilities to adapt to renewable power with smart grid technology. However, Kurt Stogdill, Austin Energy’s program manager for innovation and opportunity development, doesn't think upgrading the grid is required.

"We probably don’t need a smart grid to accommodate a significant penetration of PHEVs," Stogdill says. "We could implement smart charging with a charge management system independent of the grid, with communications such as radio or cellular, provided vehicles are capable.

Utilities also look to tie customer billing for vehicle charging into the smart grid, which could identify a car as it charges at different locales and send the bill to the driver’s home.

In another scenario, utilities would sell metered power to "box stores" such as Wal-Mart, with consumers paying for power by inserting coins or swiping a card. However, that would require fast-charging technology since recharging empty car batteries through a standard 110-volt would take several hours, probably a strain for people used to gassing up in five minutes.

The ability to adapt regional power systems for PHEVs may depend on the type of utility located in a specific place. Deregulated private utilities may face more of a challenge than municipal utilities, since they do not control their supply chain.

"Austin Energy is a municipal utility that is vertically integrated, so we can handle these issues much easier than most utilities in Texas that are deregulated," Alford says. "Because the different sections of their supply chain (such as wire and transmission line owners) cannot even talk to each other, it’s much harder for them to do that."

Alford expects to meet with Department of Energy officials Oct. 8 to determine what alliances can be created among power companies, governments and business communities to accommodate PHEVs.

There will also need to be discussions about regulations, standard laws and rules, according to Alford. Those efforts will focus on a standard protocol to guarantee seamless communications between utilities and vehicles, regardless of the latter's manufacturer.

"A lot of rules are being written on the front end with an idea about what things will look like on the back end," Alford says. "When there’s mass deployment, standards and practices need to be in place at that time."

(The Rocky Mountain Institute is holding a charrette workshop in Portland, Oregon on October 8-10 to discuss how to integrate plug-in hybrids into that smart grid. Matter Network is covering the event .)

The arrival of PHEVs should offer utilities increased revenue opportunities from power sales and can improve a system’s load profile to make it more efficient and balanced, says Mike Rowand, director of advanced technologies for Duke Energy.

However, clean air and not profit is SMUD's motivation for developing charging stations, says Boyce. The reduction in burning fossil fuels by switching to PHEVs is expected to be "huge," he says.

By recharging instead of pumping, consumers benefit by purchasing the equivalent of a gallon of gas for less than $1, Boyce says. "Money spent on electricity will stay in the community instead of going for imported oil. It helps the overall community get much better economically and leads to sustainability."

So, despite all the challenges of integrating PHEVs, Rowand says, "The potential benefits make it worthwhile."

(Photo via flickr)

Related Articles:
PHEVs: Will the Grid Be Ready?
Upgrading the Grid: The Key to New Energy Tech
Balancing PHEV Power Demand
Driving Toward a PHEV Future with CalCars.org's Felix Kramer
Plug-In Tax Credits Hitching Ride on Bailout Bill
Green Building Aspects of Toyota's Plug-in Hybrid News

Last week ten states, joining together as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) hosted the first U.S. carbon-credit auction. Participating states netted a total of $39 million for investment in renewable energy. Plans are in place for the cap-and-trade auction to be held quarterly.

Maryland walked away with $16 million and Massachusetts $13 million. Other states that took part in the auction include Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The regional auction of allowances will enable the participating states to reduce emissions from carbon sources and have funds on hand to invest in renewable energy instead.  The states sell emission allowances at auction and invest the proceeds in consumer benefits -- energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies -- spurring innovation in the clean energy economy and thereby creating green jobs.

Each credit sold for a mere $3 a ton at this first auction. Most experts believe that $40 -$100 a ton is needed in order for us to make the switch to a post-carbon economy. 

The states participating in RGGI had already agreed on an initial regional cap on carbon emissions -- 188 million tons per year -- that will be enforced through 2014. Starting in 2015, the cap will be reduced 2.5 percent each year.

The 233 power plants in the ten states are required to pay for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit, as part of the pollution-reduction legislation already passed among the 10 states that limits the amount of carbon dioxide power plants are allowed to emit.

Alternatively, the power plant can find a way to reduce its pollution. One such option would be utilizing combined cycle heat and power technology, creating twice the energy on a per-ton of carbon basis. CS technology is among the efficiency measures funded under the renewable energy incentives in the federal legislation finally signed into law last week attached to the bailout.

State-based legislative innovation like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has historically led the nation in jumpstarting the green industrial revolution.

California is one example of where this has already happened. Zero-emissions vehicles requirements in CARB legislation in the '90s created a talent pool of engineers that sparked an entire new startup electric car industry in California (with names such as Tesla, Phoenix, ZAP, Miles and AC Propulsion) and provided the initial boost that propelled Ford, Toyota and GM into the electric car industry, by requiring auto companies make at least some zero emissions vehicles, in order to sell in the state.

Large car companies fought that legislation, ultimately succeeding in defeating it.  Yet in different ways the legislation led to the production of zero-emissions vehicles from Big Auto that could revitalize the U.S. auto industry here.

Ford's THINK, developed in response to CARB legislation, is about to return to these shores, albeit now under Norwegian ownership. Rising from the ashes of the EV1, GM is now dedicated to getting the Volt to market in time to save itself. Toyota got a tremendous amount of help from its own government with consumer subsidies to meet the CARB deadline that produced the Prius.  Toyota has become something of a de facto U.S. automaker with Prius-dedicated plants popping up in the states. 

Regional clean energy legislation can thus have very far-reaching effects.

So it will be interesting to see how the RGGI states invest in renewable energy. Boston's MIT, home to a wealth of innovative ideas in need of startup funding, will no doubt have an influence on the direction that Massachusetts decides to take. Maryland's ideas include helping low-income families weatherize their houses and providing upfront funding for home solar panels.

"This is the moment we've been waiting for," said Brad Heavner of Environment Maryland, who pushed lawmakers to join RGGI. "Everyone wants more clean energy, and there's a widespread acceptance that it's a good thing to do to put public resources into it. But we've never been able to come up with the money."
 

 

In the world of climate change, no figure looms larger than Al Gore. From his Oscar-winning documentary to his 10-year clean energy challenge, Gore has been at the forefront of the push to sustainability. But the environmental drum major sounded a slightly different note at a Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York City this week, urging “civil disobedience” among young Americans to stop the construction of new, non-sequestering coal power plants. 

While I admire the sentiment at the root of this call to arms, I’m wondering if it won’t prove to be more of a divisive force among the people pushing the shift toward sustainable businesses and activities. Up to this point, the public image of the newer sustainability movement has had a distinctly separate tone than the environmental movement of years past. 

Although for many, the term “environmentalism” conjures up images of hippies, the people most associated with reducing their carbon footprint, or offsetting the impact of their Ford Excursion are generally portrayed as affluent, successful Americans, the sort of consumerists many “old” environmentalists—Edward Abbey, for example—decried in their work. 

While these “new” environmentalists may have all the passion of those who strove to protect the planet in decades past, they also have a lot more to lose. Chaining oneself to heavy equipment at a coal plant construction site could have a tremendous impact on a current career and future job prospects, especially with the massive proliferation of cameras and access to information in today’s society.  Furthermore, a desire for many young people to dissociate themselves with the “treehugger” image associated with past acts of environmental civil disobedience might further reduce response.

Most of all, I think that civil disobedience in this case will have little impact on effecting change. From the Salt March to Dandi to sit-ins in at segregated lunch counters in the American South, the most successful acts of civil disobedience have always presented a larger economic challenge. Illegal salt-making cut British revenues, and a sit-ins hurt businesses.  But short of outright property destruction—which I doubt is what Al Gore has in mind—protests will do little to stop the construction of new plants.

Instead, Americans concerned about coal plants can do what they should—and perhaps have—been doing all along: reducing their consumption of energy.  Less demand on the electrical grid severely undermines the arguments that renewable energy sources can’t provide enough power to fuel America’s needs, and reduced demand drops the price of energy in deregulated markets, limiting profits for utility companies that ignore consumer demand for clean power.

So while a bold call, I think civil disobedience in pressuring industry toward more sustainable practices will provide as much division as motivation among clean energy advocates, and in the end, prove fairly ineffective in slowing harmful climate change. 

Photo by Flickr user Simone Brunozzi

 

 

 

Concerns about climate change are prompting states and the federal government to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by power plants.

This emphasis on energy efficiency and conservation conflicts with the business models of many for-profit utilities, which traditionally have depended on increasing the amount of power sold to grow revenue. For utilities to remain in the black while producing less power, the regulations on how they set rates may require a major overhaul.

That means the way utilities make money "has got to change significantly," says Rick Weston, a partner with the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), who adds that achieving an 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (as California intends) will take "wildly expanded investment in end-use energy efficiency in the electric sector."

Weston’s organization advocates decoupling -- an alternative utility revenue-collection approach promoting energy efficiency.

RAP, a non-profit organization funded by philanthropic groups, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, provides policy assistance to federal and state electricity regulators and energy officials.

In traditional monopoly services regulation, rate cases involve a state's public utility commission, utility company representatives and others to determine a price per unit. This is achieved by estimating the cost of providing service for a year and dividing it by the number of anticipated sales units (the amount of electricity to be sold).

That creates a strong selling incentive, says Weston. Utility companies often derive "a lot more revenue per kilowatt hour than it actually needs to produce it," he adds. When end-users become more energy efficient, that results in lower revenues.

By contrast, rate programs based on decoupling establish a target revenue figure for the utilities, Weston says. This removes the incentive to sell more power to existing customers. If the utility collects more than expected, it's returned to consumers. If it collects less, the difference is collected through rate surcharges.

Electricity decoupling is now the rule in California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maryland, New York and Vermont and is under consideration in Arkansas, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin.

According to a June 2008 RAP study of decoupling initiatives across the country, decoupling "gives the firm a strong incentive to improve its operational efficiency. Indeed, it is only through such productivity increases that the company will be able to earn increased profits."

Former President Bill Clinton is firmly behind decoupling, and recently calling for it to be a federal mandate.

"Decoupling simply allows the utilities to recover their authorized revenues regardless of differences between forecasted sales and actual sales volumes," says Terrie Prosper, director of communications for the California Public Utilities Commission. "With decoupling, the utilities track any over or under-collections, and adjust rates prospectively as needed."

Prosper adds that decoupling is revenue-neutral in terms of a utility’s profitability and has no "direct" relationship to service quality.

Minnesota’s legislature in 2007 passed an energy bill including a provision that its Public Utilities Commission study decoupling criteria and develop pilot projects. "Decoupling proponents say its main advantage is removing the disincentive to save energy," says Burl Haar, the Minnesota PUCs's executive secretary. "They also believe it'’s important to build in measures to make sure utilities take further steps toward achieving greater energy efficiency."

RAP's Weston says decoupling gives utilities a firm number for annual revenues to use for decision making, and offers incentives, such as managing its own costs more wisely. "The utility now no longer cares about how many kilowatt hours go across the wire because its revenues are already set. In fact, it's interested in anything reducing its cost," he says. A utility may then focus more on the power cost of service than wires and substations, he adds.

"Decoupling recently has only applied to the wires portion of service cost (transmission lines to customer locations), which comprises up to 50 percent of service cost," says Weston. "Power cost is treated separately. Decoupling power costs gives very strong incentives to invest in efficiency. "Wires are 'fixed' costs driven by the number of customers, not by electricity sales," Weston says.

Decoupling a rate system is more common for natural gas utilities. End-user efficiencies have reduced natural gas demand in contrast to electric utilities' 3 percent growth. To stabilize rates, 10 states have adopted gas decoupling, while another 9 are considering it.

The idea of decoupling is not well-received by everyone. "It promotes mediocrity," contends John Anderson, CEO of the Electricity Consumers Resource Council. "It guarantees profitability to the utility. It shifts a significant amount of business risk from the utility to the consumers."

Anderson says it's better to utilize third-party businesses for energy efficiency implementation as is done in North Carolina, New York and Vermont.

Critics contend that if a utility no longer has an interest in increasing sales, “Arguably it doesn’t care whether the wires fall down,” but. RAP's Weston sees holes in that line of reasoning. "That's ludicrous. If the wires fell down, regulators and politicians would go nuts. Even under traditional regulation, there are service quality standards."

Weston says utilities with sales that increase faster than their customer numbers view decoupling as blocking profit potential. He says Florida Power & Light "made it very clear they’re not yet interested in it" during a recent workshop. "If I were a regulator, that would not stand in the way of decoupling. More important things have to happen. It's a regulated monopoly for a reason."

Florida's Public Service Commission is preparing a report on decoupling to present to the state’s legislature by January 1, says Bev DeMello, assistant director for the office of public information, adding it is "premature" to address its focus.

Decoupling is not meant to put utilities out of business or take money from shareholders, says Weston. And regulators still need to be vigilant in decoupling, ensuring no one can predict windfalls or shortages, such as happened in Maine in the early 1990s, where numbers were off by "tens of millions of dollars."

Weston says decoupling is gaining more attention: "With serious discussion about global warming and high energy prices and everything attendant to those significant challenges, folks are taking another look at decoupling."

Image courtesy Wikimedia commons

The U.S. Department of Energy has announced up to $7.3 million in funding for 14 research projects focused on advanced water power technology. The chosen plans vary widely, with some updating old technology and others developing brand-new eco-apps.

I've been really impressed with the cool tidal/wave projects happening abroad. America's progress in this arena has been decidedly lackluster to date. After building the epic riverstoppers of the golden age of dams, the U.S. didn't seem to bother innovating along these lines, so I'm excited to hear about this shot of new capital.

DOE's awards cover the areas of technology development, market penetration, and the development of marine energy centers. The winning entries are listed below:

First Topic Area: Technology Development (Up to $600,000 for up to two years)

• Electric Power Research Institute, Inc (EPRI) (Palo Alto, Calif.) Fish-friendly hydropower turbine development & deployment. EPRI will address the additional developmental engineering required to prepare amore efficient and environmentally friendly hydropower turbine for the commercial market and allow it to compete with traditional designs.
• Verdant Power Inc. (New York, N.Y.) Improved structure and fabrication of large, high-power kinetic hydropower systems rotors. Verdant will design, analyze, develop for manufacture, fabricate and thoroughly test an improved turbine blade design structure to allow for larger, higher-power and more cost-effective tidal power turbines.
• Public Utility District #1 of Snohomish County (SnoPUD) (Everett, Wash.) Puget Sound Tidal Energy In-Water Testing and Development Project. SnoPUD will conduct in-water testing and demonstration of tidal flow technology as a first step toward potential construction of a commercial-scale power plant. The specific goal of this proposal is to complete engineering design and obtain construction approvals for a Puget Sound tidal pilot demonstration plant in the Admiralty Inlet region of the Sound.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (San Francisco, Calif.) WaveConnect Wave Energy In-Water Testing and Development Project. PG&E will complete engineering design, conduct baseline environmental studies, and submit all license construction and operation applications required for a tidal energy demonstration plant for the two WaveConnect sites in Northern California.
• Concepts ETI, Inc (White River Junction, Vt.) Development and Demonstration of an Ocean Wave Converter (OWC) Power System. Concepts ETI will prepare detailed design, manufacturing and installation drawings of an OWC. They will then manufacture and install the system in Maui, Hawaii.
• Lockheed Martin Corporation (Manassas, Va.) Advanced Composite Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) cold water pipe project. Lockheed Martin will validate manufacturing techniques for coldwater pipes critical to OTEC in order to help create a more cost-effective OTEC system.
  

Second Topic Area, Market Acceleration (Award size: up to $500,000)

• Electric Power Research Institute (Palo Alto, Calif.) Wave Energy Resource Assessment and GIS Database for the U.S. EPRI will determine the naturally available resource base and the maximum practicable extractable wave energy resource in the U.S., as well as the annual electrical energy that could be produced by typical wave energy conversion devices from that resource.
• Georgia Tech Research Corporation (Atlanta, Ga.) Assessment of Energy Production Potential from Tidal Streams in the U.S. Georgia Tech will utilize an advanced ocean circulation numerical model to predict tidal currents and compute both available and effective power densities for distribution to potential project developers and the general public.
• Re Vision Consulting, LLC (Sacramento, Calif.) Best Siting Practices for Marine and Hydrokinetic Technologies With Respect to Environmental and Navigational Impacts. Re Vision will establish baseline, technology-based scenarios to identify potential concerns in the siting of marine and hydrokinetic energy devices, and to provide information and data to industry and regulators.
• Pacific Energy Ventures, LLC (Portland, Ore.) Siting Protocol for Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Projects. Pacific Energy Ventures will bring together a multi-disciplinary team in an iterative and collaborative process to develop, review, and recommend how emerging hydrokinetic technologies can be sited to minimize environmental impacts.
• PCCI, Inc. (Alexandria, Va.) Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Technologies:  Identification of Potential Navigational Impacts and Mitigation Measures. PCCI will provide improved guidance to help developers understand how marine and hydrokinetic devices can be sited to minimize navigational impact and to expedite the U.S. Coast Guard review process.
• Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) (San Diego, Calif.) International Standards Development for Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy. SAIC will assist in the development of relevant marine and hydrokinetic energy industry standards, provide consistency and predictability to their development, and increase U.S. industry’s collaboration and representation in the development process.
  

Third Topic Area, National Marine Energy Centers (Award size: up to $1.25 million for up to five years)

• Oregon State University (OSU), University of Washington (UW) (Corvallis, Ore. and Seattle, Wash.) Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center. OSU and UW will partner to develop the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center with a full range of capabilities to support wave and tidal energy development for the U.S. Center activities are structured to: facilitate device commercialization, inform regulatory and policy decisions, and close key gaps in understanding.
• University of Hawaii (Honolulu, Hawaii) National Renewable Marine Energy Center in Hawaii will facilitate the development and implementation of commercial wave energy systems and to assist the private sector in moving ocean thermal energy conversion systems beyond proof-of-concept to pre-commercialization, long-term testing.

Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons

As a companion piece to McCain's 50 Votes Against Clean Energy, published last week, this article lists Senator Obama's votes on the same clean energy bills. Obama joined the Senate in 2005, so his list begins at vote number 27.

 

Obama was not present for the last three clean energy votes, so I contacted his Senate office to find out how he would have voted.  His energy staffer told me that he would have voted "yes" on all three, which is consistent with his record, as these were repeat attempts to pass legislation that he had voted in favor of previously.

I had recorded "no" votes for McCain on the 13 that he missed  because his staff had told a Forbes reporter that that's the way McCain would have voted on the bills in question. Further, the staffer said that McCain would have supported the Republican filibuster, as he had done in the past. 

Since his Senate debut in 2005, Obama has had 24 opportunities to vote for clean energy, and he chose clean energy 23 of those times. The one time he did note vote with Boxer was in 2005 when he voted for nuclear power subsidies as part of the McCain-Lieberman bill. By contrast, McCain scored at the Inhofe end of the scale.

Summary

Obama's first vote: 1-(27) '05 (D) Increase clean energy R&D funding
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 53-46

2-(28) '05 (R) Appoint Stephen L. Johnson to head of EPA
Boxer No
Obama No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 61-37

3-(29) '05 (D) Clean energy incentives
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 47-53

4-(30) '05 (D) Try again to establish a RPS
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 52-48

5-(31) '05 (D) Tax oil company windfall profits rebates to consumer
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 35-64

6-(32) '05 (D) Tax oil companies windfall profits to fund clean energy
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 41-65

7-(33) '05 (R) Cap and trade funded nuclear subsidies McCain-Lieberman
Boxer No
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 38-60

8-(34) '05 (R) Let wind NIMBYs prevent wind development
Boxer No
Obama No
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 32-63

9-(35) '05 (R-D) Energy funding: both fossil and clean energy
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe Yes
McCain No
passed 85-12

10-(36) '05 (D) Tax oil to fund energy efficiency assistance
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 48-50
11-(37) '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 57-36

12-(38) '07 (D) Increase science and new technology funding
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present

13-(39) '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 62-32

14-(40) '07 (D) Tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 65-27

15-(41) '07 (D) To expand liquid natural gas development
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 37-56

16-(42) '07 (R) Inhofe coal-to-liquids fuel subsidy
Boxer No
Obama No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Not present
failed 43-52

17-(43) '07 (D) Ensure that "renewable fuels" are green
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 58-34

18-(44) '07 (D) Include RPS in final energy bill
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 56-39

19-(45) '07 (D) Cloture to vote on bioenergy funding
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 55-42 (cloture needs 60)

20-(46) '07 (D) Cloture to vote on 2007 Energy Bill included PTC
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 53-42 (cloture needs 60)

21-(47) '07 (D) Cloture Full 2007 Energy Bill still including production tax credits
Boxer Yes
Obama Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed by one vote* 59-41 (cloture needs 60)

22-(48) '07 (D) 2/3 stripped down 2007 Energy Bill: only CAFE
Boxer Yes
Obama Not present (staff said: Yes)
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 86-8

23-(49) '07 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Obama Not present (staff said: Yes)
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 52-44 (need 60)

24-(50) '08 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Obama Not present (staff said: Yes)
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 53-43 (need 60)

Obama was not the first choice of nearly half of the Democratic voters. Compared to Hillary Clinton, his support for nuclear power, shown by his vote for McCain-Lieberman (35) was troublesome to many Democrats. Before he voted with most of the Democrats against Inhofe's bill to fund coal to liquids fuels (42) he let Inhofe think that he would support it.

As a result, a roar of disapproval went up among environmental activists, and Obama (along with eight others) disappointed Inhofe with a change of heart, as CNS newsman, now Inhofe staffer Marc Morano bitterly noted on the Environment Committee website at the time.

Senator Bingaman then inserted an amendment (43) that only low-carbon synthetic fuels (such as genetically engineered algae biodiesel) could qualify for subsidy, which Obama supported. While this has made for good, strong policy, many Clinton supporters felt that a truly "green" president should have been already aware of this problem, even though Obama ultimately voted "no" to coal-to-liquids fuel.

However, based on Obama's consistently pro-environment voting record, he is apparently far from the wolf in sheep's clothing that Hillary voters feared. There is virtually no discrepancy between Obama's frequently voiced concern with climate change, and his voting record on how to deal with it.

Related stories:
McCain's 50 Votes Against Clean Energy
Obama Plans Zero Energy Buildings Nationwide By 2030

Photo by Flickr user jurvetson