Press Release from Friends of the Earth [Editor: As you might expect, this travesty was passed on a nearly complete party line vote, with 230 Republicans and 10 Dems in favor. Dems voting FOR the bill included: A. Dutch Ruppersberger MD, Ami Bera CA, Brad Ashford NE, Collin Peterson MN, Doris Matsui CA, Filemon Vela TX, Gene Green TX, Henry Cuellar TX, Jim Costa CA, and William Keating MA. Republicans voting AGAINST the bill included: Christopher Gibson NY, James Sensenbrenner Jr. WI, Joseph Heck NV, Justin Amash MI, Mo Brooks AL, Thomas Massie KY, Walter Jones Jr. NC. Track the bill here. – RS]
House approves $279 million renewable energy cut
By: Kate Colwell, May. 1, 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2028, “The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016,” by a vote of 240-177.
The bill sets funding levels for important programs within the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior, and the Army Corps of Engineers. While staying within the limits set by the sequester, the bill manages to raise funding for fossil fuel research by $34 million from 2015 levels while cutting renewable energy and efficiency research by $279 million. Simultaneously, it is packed with policy riders that undermine bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to study the dangers of hydraulic fracturing.
Friends of the Earth Climate and Energy Campaigner Lukas Ross issued the following statement in response:
Shoveling more of our tax dollars into the pockets of ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers while defunding clean energy is climate denial at its worst. Fossil fuel interests don’t need more money. Solutions to the climate crisis do.
From hobbling the Clean Water Act to limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to even study fracking, House Speaker John Boehner is continuing his assault on the air we breathe and the water we drink.
Billionaire fights to keep tar-sands oil out of state
By David R. Baker, April 29, 2015
Tom Steyer hopes to block Canada oil from the state. Photo: David Paul Morris, Bloomberg
Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer has a new mission
— keeping oil from Canada’s tar sands out of California.
Steyer’s NextGen Climate organization released a report Tuesday warning that an “invasion” of tankers and railcars carrying crude from the oil sands could soon hit West Coast refineries, which currently process very little Canadian oil.
Steyer, a major Democratic donor who quit his hedge fund to focus on fighting climate change, has risen to prominence as a vocal opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline extension, which would link the oil sands to American refineries on the Gulf Coast.
A train carries crude oil through Kansas City, Mo., in 2014. Environmentalist Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate organization warns that railcars carrying oil from Canada could soon hit West Coast refineries. Photo: Curtis Tate, McClatchy-Tribune News Service
But Tuesday’s report, prepared with the Natural Resources Defense Council and a coalition of other environmental groups, notes that the oil industry is pursuing other pipeline routes that would carry tar-sands petroleum to Canada’s Pacific Coast. From there, it could be shipped to refineries in California and Washington. In California, companies have proposed five new terminals for receiving oil shipped by rail — another potential means of entry. California’s policies to fight climate change discourage but don’t prevent the use of oil-sands crude.
“Keystone is not the only way the tar sands threaten our country,” Steyer said Tuesday at an event in Oakland, releasing the report. “The owners of the tar sands are always looking for other routes to the world’s oceans and the world’s markets.”
Steyer and other environmentalists have made blocking Keystone a rallying cry in the fight against global warming, since extracting hydrocarbons from the oil sands releases far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than other forms of oil production. And unlike common oil, the diluted bitumen (a tar-like substance extracted from the sands) sinks in water, making spills from pipelines and tankers difficult to clean.
“It is shockingly toxic, it is extremely nasty and it takes forever to clean up,” Steyer said. “To end the risk from tar-sands oil once and for all, we need to move beyond oil to a clean energy future. Luckily, this is the kind of leadership California excels at.”
The oil industry, and the Canadian government, call the oil sands a reliable source of oil from a friendly ally. And industry representatives often note that California’s dependence on imported oil has grown in recent years, in large part because production in Alaska — once one of California’s biggest suppliers of crude — has dropped.
Steyer has devoted a sizable chunk of his personal fortune, estimated at $1.6 billion, to backing political candidates who support action on climate change and targeting those who don’t, spending $73 million in the last election cycle. He said Tuesday that he has not yet decided whether to pay for an advertising campaign against bringing oil-sands crude to the West Coast.
“I’m not 100 percent sure,” he said. “Exactly how we fight it, I don’t think we’ve determined.”
Crude from the tar sands makes up a tiny fraction of the oil processed in California refineries — less than 3 percent, according to the report. And while the amount of oil shipped into the the Golden State by rail has soared in recent years, most of that petroleum comes from North Dakota and other states where hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has produced a glut of crude.
But oil companies have proposed two pipeline projects that would link the oil sands to the Pacific Ocean, both of them traveling through British Columbia. If built, they could lead to an additional 2,000 oil tankers and barges moving up and down the West Coast each year, according to the report. The rail terminal projects proposed in California could raise the amount of oil-sands crude processed in the state each day from the current 50,000 barrels to 650,000 barrels by 2040.
However, that outcome is hardly certain.
A California policy known as the low carbon fuel standard requires oil companies to cut by 10 percent the amount of carbon dioxide associated with each gallon of fuel they sell in the state, reaching that milestone by 2020. In addition, the state’s cap-and-trade system forces refineries to cut their overall greenhouse gas emissions. Neither policy specifically prevents refineries from using oil-sands crude, but both give oil companies a powerful incentive to use other sources of petroleum.
Anthony Swift, one of the report’s authors, said California needs to adopt more stringent emissions targets to keep out crude from the oil sands.
“These policies are a very good start,” said Swift, of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We need to get more robust targets — for both the low carbon fuel standard and the cap — to signal to the industry that California is not going to be an option for tar-sands refining.”
David R. Baker is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer.
Often dismissed as unwise by oil industry proponents and criticized as a distraction even by supporters of action on climate change, the divestment movement is no longer being ignored.
Look no further than CeraWeek, an annual get-together of North America’s fossil fuel elite. On April 22, amid discussion panels such as “Asia: Still the Promised Land for New Energy Investment?” or “Canada’s role in the rising North America energy powerhouse,” there was also a session dedicated to divestment and the implications for energy companies. The conversation analyzed how sustainable the business model is for fossil fuel companies as the world moves towards regulating carbon emissions.
The attention paid to the divestment at CeraWeek suggests that the growing publicity and success from the environmental movement’s ability to secure divestment commitments from universities, banks, pension funds, churches, and other wealth funds are starting to be perceived as a threat by the fossil fuel industry.
A few weeks earlier, The Guardian made a splash with its “Keep it in the Ground” campaign, a very firm declaration in support of divestment. The Guardian Media Group vowed to divest its £800 million fund as well.
The growing concern over carbon pollution raises the possibility of a regulatory or tax crackdown, both at the national and international level. Newsweek reported on April 21 that HSBC wrote in a private note to its clients that there is an increasing risk that fossil fuel companies will become “economically non-viable.” As a result, HSBC advised its clients to divest from fossil fuels because they may be too risky. If investors fail to get out of fossil fuels, the bank says, they “may one day be seen to be late movers, on ‘the wrong side of history.’” As the divestment campaign builds up steam, major oil and gas companies are starting to see the writing on the wall.
But there could be a way to adapt. The Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) just published a “blueprint” for fossil fuel companies to adapt to a carbon-constrained world. The blueprint provides several recommendations. For example, oil companies should avoid high cost projects such as the struggling Kashagan field in Kazakhstan or expensive oil sands projects in Canada. High-cost projects put companies at risk when they are hit with unforeseen events, such as an oil price crash, a decline in demand, or a change in tax regimes. Instead, companies should invest in lower risk projects with higher rates of return, CTI says. CTI also insists that corporate governance within fossil fuel companies is critical – management needs a clear-eyed prognosis of how exposed their assets are to a potential scenario in which their oil and gas reserves are no longer wanted.
It is far from clear whether or not the oil majors will heed CTI’s advice on adapting their companies. In mid-April, 98 percent of BP’s shareholders voted in favor of an initiative that would force the company to disclose which of its assets would become “unburnable” in a low-carbon world. The results of that analysis will be much anticipated. ExxonMobil undertook a similar study, but summarily dismissed the likelihood that its assets would be affected in the future by climate action.
“Our analysis and those of independent agencies confirms our long-standing view that all viable energy sources will be essential to meet increasing demand growth that accompanies expanding economies and rising living standards,” William Colton, ExxonMobil’s vice president of corporate strategic planning, said in a March 2014 statement. In other words, investors have little to fear — ExxonMobil will be fine.
However, much has changed since then. The divestment movement has gathered quite a bit of momentum as protests hit more campuses and city halls. The U.S. and China reached a landmark agreement to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. More countries will set policies to reduce energy demand ahead of international negotiations in Paris later this year. Oil prices have crashed, highlighting the vulnerabilities of many over-leveraged oil companies. And clean energy continues to make inroads, amid falling costs for solar, wind, and energy storage.
Oil companies ignore the divestment campaign – and other threats to their business models – at their own peril.
Repost from Fuel Fix [Editor: Significant quote: “Since 2008, wind and solar energy capacity in the U.S. has tripled. A new report from the Energy Information Administration found that electricity generated from wind and solar grew a lot faster than electricity generated by fossil fuels last year.” – RS]
Guest commentary: America’s new and improved energy mix
By Paul Dickerson and Thomas R. Burton III
Mintz Levin, April 25, 2015 8:00 am
(Sam Hodgson/Bloomberg)
Not too long ago, America was governed by an either/or energy market. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, the rise and subsequent demise of solar energy as a viable energy alternative was directly related to the jump and collapse in crude prices before and after the OPEC oil embargo. Solar was resuscitated – along with a host of other nascent alternatives – in the first decade of this century when oil prices spiked once again. Plenty of pundits warned that investments in solar, wind and other energy alternatives would prove short-sighted when the price of oil finally retreated.
But something significant happened along the way: demand for energy alternatives became untethered from oil and natural gas prices. At a time when the price of crude oil has plunged by more than half and natural gas prices have plumbed two-year lows, growth in energy alternatives has actually accelerated. Since 2008, wind and solar energy capacity in the U.S. has tripled. A new report from the Energy Information Administration found that electricity generated from wind and solar grew a lot faster than electricity generated by fossil fuels last year. So-called distributed generation – a better proxy for real-time demand because it measures installations such as solar panels by end users and not utilities – exhibited even faster growth. In fact, by the time you’ve read this, another new solar project will have come online (it happens every 150 seconds).
A host of drivers help explain why these energy technologies are holding their own this time around. Whether you agree with them or not, growing concerns about climate change and energy’s role in it has created generous federal and state incentives for energy sources that aren’t derived from fossil fuels.
Incentivized by these policies, public and private sector innovation has driven down the cost of these technologies so they can increasingly compete on price even as their subsidies expire. Wind energy’s dramatic success here in Texas is a key reason why state senator Troy Fraser, a key proponent of Texas’s Renewable Portfolio Standard and Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, recently argued that those programs have accomplished their objective and are no longer needed.
Finally, innovation has migrated to the industry’s financing models. Previously, much of solar’s growth was driven by technology advancements. More recently, however, growth is being driven by financial improvements such as more flexible leasing models, a greater availability of capital that lowers costs for installers, and better analytics that enable installers to target customers more effectively. The result has been a rapid change to the competitive landscape, which has transformed and invigorated the market.
By now you might be wondering: Why does this matter to me? The answer is because there are huge implications from diversifying our nation’s energy supply.
The first benefit is the ability to hedge our energy positions when the price of one technology soars. Much in the way that investors are adding alternative investments to complement their holdings in stocks and bonds, a national energy portfolio that can draw on solar, wind and other alternatives is much less susceptible to downside risks. While still a small piece of the overall energy pie, these energy technologies give us a degree of flexibility in weathering market fluctuations. This flexibility makes us less reliant on any one energy source, putting downward pressure on the prices we pay to heat or cool our homes or fuel our cars.
The second big benefit is ensuring the reliability of our energy supply. Solar and wind technologies need to work in concert with 24/7 solutions such as natural gas since they can’t produce energy all of the time. Having access to more alternatives gives our electricity grid operators the flexibility to prevent or work around disruptions, use real-time usage data to identify and tap the most efficient energy sources at all times, and continue to meet our growing energy demands. Of course, we still have some work to do in this respect, and we urge federal and state legislators to continue to support programs that help develop the technologies needed to seamlessly integrate our growing array of energy choices.
A third reason, one that we are painfully familiar with as much of Texas remains gripped by drought, is water. One of the biggest demands for water is power generation, and as people continue to move to Texas, demand for electricity will continue to rise. By developing wind and solar sources, we will ease the burden of that growth on our already stressed water supplies.
Finally, a nation with greater flexibility in the way it meets its energy needs is one far less prone to the will or whims of others. In recent years, the term “energy independence” has been thrown around a lot. It’s a laudable goal, but we can’t achieve it by drilling alone. Before we can have true energy independence, we first must have energy diversity.
Thomas R. Burton III is the founder and chair of the Energy & Clean Technology Practice at Mintz Levin in Boston. Paul Dickerson, of counsel at the firm, is a former chief operating officer at the US Department of Energy.
