Hard Economic Times Hit State Renewable Energy Goals

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) have been a big driver of getting more renewable electricity onto the grid. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has estimated that by 2015, generation resulting from RPS will surpass 150 million MWh.

However, a soft economy has led some states to water down their mandates, while the current political situation makes passage of a federal renewable energy standard next to impossible, according to a recent webinar sponsored by the Renewable Energy Markets Association.

"Modifications to eligible generation technologies, sourcing requirements and other revisions are changing the face of renewable energy in the states," said Justin Barnes, senior policy analyst with the North Carolina Solar Center.

For instance, Maine introduced legislation in 2011 that would significantly reduce its RPS. A 2007 law increases the amount of renewable energy utilities must obtain by 1% each year until they reach 10% by 2017. The new law would cap the RPS at 4%.

Another bill proposed in Washington state in 2011 could temporarily suspend the state's 15% by 2020 RPS during the slow economy.

"It is the legislature's intent to provide utilities with more time during the continuing economic downturn to meet certain mandates of the [act] and thereby delay the rate impacts that would be caused by the capital investments to meet such mandates," the bill states.

Other states have tried to expand the definition of "eligible resources" in order to make compliance easier. Iowa includes plasma gasification, Maryland considers waste-to-energy a Tier 1 resource, and Oregon now includes nuclear and hydropower.

"As long as we have a sluggish economy and the focus is on jobs, then we'll continue to see pushes against [RPS] portfolio implementations," said George "Chip" Cannon, a partner with Patton Boggs LLP.

But even if the economy improves, he added, the political climate is not favorable for renewable energy.

"At the risk of wading into some dangerous political waters, I think it's also worth noting the partisan rhetoric that often accompanies some of the regional efforts," said Cannon. "Efforts to repeal or push back some of the standards in certain states will continue. We'll just have to see what happens during the next couple of election cycles."

Nonetheless, politics did not prevent Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, from recently reviving clean energy legislation.

The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, introduced in late February, amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act to include a federal clean energy standard (CES).

In addition to renewable energy, such as wind and solar, the legislation includes other low-emissions and clean energy resources such as renewable biomass, natural gas, hydropower and nuclear power, as well as "clean" coal with carbon-capture technology.

Before proposing the legislation, Bingaman asked the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to analyze the impacts of a CES, according to Cannon. The EIA created a base case for the CES, which stated that the standard would include full credits for all renewable resources and would apply to all utilities, regardless of ownership and size.

The bill, as introduced, differs from the base case and would require, beginning in 2015, all large retail utilities - excluding those in Alaska and Hawaii - to obtain 24% of their electricity through clean energy sources, with the mandate increasing by 3% each year through 2035. In addition, the federal CES would not replace or have additional authority over state mandates.

Cannon is not optimistic about the legislation being enacted.

"Given that it's an election year, it really has no chance of passage," he said. "There were no Republican co-sponsors, but it is significant in that it places a marker for continued congressional discussion on a clean energy standard."


State successes
Although things look bleak at the federal level and despite efforts by some to weaken state mandates, progress is being made in meeting the targets that currently are on the books. Twenty-nine states plus Washington, D.C., have an RPS, while eight states have voluntary goals or targets. California has the most ambitious RPS, 33% by 2020, which was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., in 2011.

The state must hit a 20% target this year. As of 2010, California is at 86% compliance.

"That's not necessarily a measure of whether a utility has been deemed non-compliant by the regulatory entities in California," he added. "It's a measure of the amount of renewable electricity actually delivered in comparison to the percentage-based standard."

California utilities are able to borrow renewable energy credits (RECs) from some of the renewable energy contract that are expected to come online in the near future, Barnes said. So even though some of the targets may not have been met, utilities will not be considered non-compliant by regulators.

Changes are also ahead in California. Legislation signed in 2011 means that the state's RPS now applies to publicly owned utilities and retail sellers. As a result, the Southern California Public Power Authority issued a request for proposals seeking a total of 5 GW of renewable energy to be placed in service by 2020.

Colorado is another state with an impressive RPS. Investor-owned utilities must obtain 15% of their electricity from renewable resources during this year and in 2013, with the mandate ramping up to 30% in 2020.

Barnes says that Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest utility, is in good shape to meet the target, which means that new opportunities for wholesale generation in the state might not necessarily exist.

"If you look at [Xcel's] most recent 2012 RPS compliance plan, it indicates that [the utility] has the resources that it needs to meet compliance with this standard through 2020," he says.

As of 2010, Minnesota was in complete compliance with its RPS, which is 30% by 2020 for Xcel Energy and 25% by 2025 for all other utilities. For 2012-2013, Xcel's RPS increases to 18%, while other utilities have to reach 12%.

"While there is a pretty substantial increase coming down the pike for 2012-2013, there's also a fairly substantial amount of banked renewable energy credits that will be used to meet that standard," said Barnes, adding that utilities in the state currently hold 12.8 million RECs.

Americans Believe Benefits of Natural Gas Outweigh Risk?

In a year of intense media scrutiny on hydraulic fracturing, the manner in which most oil and natural gas companies access natural gas, two-thirds of Americans (66%) say they believe the benefits of natural gas outweigh the risks while 17% say the risks outweigh the benefits. Natural gas has maintained a relatively low price, compared to other fuels with similar uses (like fuel oil and gasoline). Additionally, it is considered a relatively clean source of energy. For Americans, these factors seem to outweigh the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing, the extraction method most associated with gas.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,056 adults surveyed online between February 6 and 13, 2012 by Harris Interactive.  There are significant generational differences, however, Echo Boomers (ages 18-35) are less likely to believe the benefits outweigh the risks than Matures (those 67 and older) are (53% vs. 84%). And, people living in the East are less likely than those in the West to agree that the benefits outweigh the risks (60% vs. 71%).  There is also a political difference when it comes to feelings on natural gas. Three out of four Republicans (74%) believe the benefits of natural gas outweigh the risks compared to just over three in five Democrats (62%) and over two-thirds of Independents (69%) who believe the benefits outweigh the risks. Looking at the reverse, the partisan differences are significant, with larger portions of Democrats (21%) and Independents (19%) believing the risks outweigh the benefits than Republicans who believe this (10%).

March 21, 2012 Source: Harris Interactive

Quick Facts on Ice Shelves

What are ice shelves?

Ice shelves are permanent floating sheets of ice that connect to a landmass.
Most of the world’s ice shelves hug the coast of Antarctica. However, ice shelves can also form wherever ice flows from land into cold ocean waters, including some glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere. The northern coast of Canada's Ellesmere Island is home to several well-known ice shelves, among them the Markham and the Ward Hunt ice shelves.

How do ice shelves form?

Ice from enormous ice sheets slowly oozes into the sea through glaciers and ice streams. If the ocean is cold enough, that newly arrived ice doesn't melt right away. Instead it may float on the surface and grow larger as glacial ice behind it continues to flow into the sea. Along protected coastlines, the resulting ice shelves can survive for thousands of years, bolstered by the rock of peninsulas and islands. Ice shelves grow when they gain ice from land, and occasionally shrink when icebergs calve off their edges. This give and take helps them maintain a dynamic stability.

Why are ice shelves important?

Because ice shelves already float in the ocean, they do not contribute directly to sea level rise when they break up. However, ice shelf collapse could contribute to sea level rise indirectly. Ice streams and glaciers constantly push on ice shelves, but the shelves eventually come up against coastal features such as islands and peninsulas, building pressure that slows their movement into the ocean. If an ice shelf collapses, the backpressure disappears. The glaciers that fed into the ice shelf speed up, flowing more quickly out to sea. Glaciers and ice sheets rest on land, so once they flow into the ocean, they contribute to sea level rise.

The Ross Ice Shelf, at the Bay of Whales, is the southern-most navigable point on Earth.
—Credit: Michael Van Woert, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) NESDIS, ORA

Research suggests that glaciers behind ice shelves may accelerate by as much as five times following a rapid ice shelf retreat. To read about a recent study on such glacial acceleration, see the 2004 news release, Antarctic Glaciers Accelerate in Wake of Ice Shelf Breakup.

What’s happening to Antarctic ice shelves?

In the last thirty years, scientists have observed a series of unusual ice shelf collapses on the Antarctic Peninsula. Although it is not unusual for ice shelves to calve large icebergs, that process normally takes months to years, as cracks slowly form in the ice. Following a calving, ice shelves generally recover over a period of decades.
In recent years, ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula and along the northern coast of Canada have experienced rapid disintegration. In March 2008, the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica retreated by more than 400 square kilometers (160 square miles). Later that summer, several ice shelves along Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada broke up in a matter of days.
In contrast, the collapses in previous years happened over a period of weeks, leaving a soup of chunky ice and small icebergs. The remaining ice shelves retreated by as much as 90 percent, and several have experienced repeated collapses. For more information on recent collapses, see Wilkins Ice Shelf Breakup Events and Larsen Ice Shelf Breakup Events. To learn more about the current state of ice shelves, see State of the Cryosphere: Ice Shelves.

This satellite image shows floating chunks of ice from the 2008 Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse. —Credit: National Snow & Ice Data Center

What causes an ice shelf to collapse?

Scientists think that the recent ice shelf collapses in both the Arctic and Antarctica are related to climate change. Most of the rapidly retreating ice shelves in Antarctica are located on the Antarctic Peninsula. The Antarctic Peninsula juts north towards South America, into warmer waters. The peninsula has warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1950, making it one of the fastest-warming places on Earth.
Scientists attributed rapid ice shelf collapse to warmer air and water temperatures, as well as increased melt on the ice shelf surface. Retreating sea ice may also play a role.
Warm air melts the ice shelf surface, forming ponds of meltwater. As the water trickles down through small cracks in the ice shelf, it deepens, erodes, and expands those cracks. In a separate process, warmer water melts the ice shelf from below, thinning it and making it more vulnerable to cracking. Scientists have observed both processes in all the ice shelves that have rapidly retreated in recent years.

However, warm temperatures alone do not fully explain rapid ice shelf collapse. Recent research suggests that waning sea ice surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula and the Arctic ice shelves in Canada might also have contributed to the recent collapses. Sea ice provides a layer of protection between an ice shelf and the surrounding ocean, muting the power of large waves and storms. As sea ice decreases, more waves buffet the ice shelves. The largest waves can buckle and bend an ice shelf, increasing instability and possibly contributing to a collapse.

The Larsen Ice Shelf, on the Antarctic Peninsula, has experienced an unprecedented series of collapses. —Credit: Ted Scambos, NSIDC

Ice Shelves

British Antarctic Survey has captured dramatic satellite and video images of an Antarctic ice shelf that looks set to be the latest to break out from the Antarctic Peninsula. A large part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is now supported only by a thin strip of ice hanging between two islands. It is another identifiable impact of climate change on the Antarctic environment.

What is Geo Engineering?

The concept of geoengineering (or climate engineering, climate remediation, and climate intervention^[1]) refers to the deliberate large-scale engineering and manipulation of the planetary environment to combat or counteract anthropogenic changes in atmospheric chemistry.

Suck It Up: Geo Engineering

What if it is too late to save the climate by cutting greenhouse gas emissions? What if the amount of carbon dioxide already added to the atmosphere by human activity is so great that it is going to produce big temperature changes no matter what, with big shifts in rainfall and in ocean chemistry?

Message from the Caltrans Director

Dear Reader:
This issue of the California Transportation Journal is organized around the topic of climate change, the environment and the ways in which the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) works as a responsible steward to the planet while ensuring that our highway system is as efficient and effective as possible.

Solar Storm Speeds Toward Earth, May Disrupt Power, Satellites

 

The largest solar storm in five years was due to arrive on Earth early Thursday, promising to shake the globe’s magnetic field while expanding the Northern Lights.  The storm started with a massive solar flare earlier in the week and grew as it raced outward from the sun, expanding like a giant soap bubble, scientists said. When it strikes, the particles will be moving at 4 million mph.

Ozone

Recent observations from satellites and ground stations suggest that atmospheric ozone levels for March in the Arctic were approaching the lowest levels in the modern instrumental era. What those readings mean for the remainder of the year is unclear. But what they mean for the long-term is that the recovery from human-induced ozone depletion is an uneven climb.

These maps of ozone concentrations over the Arctic come from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA’s

CARBON TAX vs. CAP AND TRADE

CARBON TAX

A carbon tax is a tax on the emission of carbon dioxide. Some economists and policy makers believe that taxing a negative behavior, such as emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, will discourage such behavior. A carbon tax is a direct policy approach to reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, as opposed to a market-based cap-and-trade approach. This kind of tax is one method that can be used to reduce the amount of carbon emissions, which lead to global warming and climate change.  As a result of a government instituted carbon tax, a power plant, for example, would have to pay a certain dollar amount in proportion to how much carbon dioxide it produces.  Many Western European countries have already implemented carbon taxes, while others are still in the process of discussing the costs and benefits.  The United States has not yet instituted a federal carbon tax, though some cities have done so on a local level.

CAP AND TRADE

Cap and trade is one method for regulating and ultimately reducing the amount of pollution emitted into the atmosphere. It is viewed as a more democratic solution to regulating pollution than a carbon tax as it creates a commodity out of the right to emit carbon and allows the commodity to be traded on the free market.The basic concept involves two parties, the governing body and the regulated companies or units emitting pollution. The government sets a cap on pollution, limiting the amount of carbon dioxide and other harmful output that companies, or other groups, are allowed to release. The government then issues credits which allow companies to pollute a certain amount, as long as the aggregate pollution equals less than the set cap. Since some companies can reduce polluting emissions more inexpensively than other companies, they may engage in trading any extra permits. Companies that can more efficiently reduce pollution sell permits to companies that cannot easily afford to reduce pollution. The companies that sell the permits are rewarded while those that purchase permits must pay for their negative impact. Applied to climate change, this system would theoretically reduce carbon emissions at the lowest total cost.  Economists debate whether a cap and trade system or a carbon tax is more effective in reducing carbon emissions. Currently, the European Union has instituted an Emissions Trading Scheme that utilizes cap and trade principles, and the same system is favored in American policy debates. Many view the cap and trade system as having the same ultimate effects as the carbon tax, but many politicians have yet to agree. Successful cap and trade systems need to have an extremely strict and knowledgeable governing body. Accountability on the part of the companies involved is the biggest concern for anyone trusting the cap and trade system to work. Politicians in the past have simply supported or disagreed with cap and trade through discourse, but future legislation could change that.