Energy Literacy Advocates Newsroom
Energy Literacy Advocates (ELA) is a non-partisan, non-profit, public education and advocacy group dedicated to improving the energy literacy of all sectors of our democracy in order to empower a comprehensive national energy policy that is responsible and sustainable. Stay tuned for updated energy news!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Preparing for an Electric Vehicle Future
At their winter meeting the WGA is considering how to plan for the infrastructure requirements of electric vehicles - a crucial first step to eliminate the chicken and egg problem of whether to provide charging stations or electric vehicles first. A newly created Transportation Fuels Council will report back to the WGA at the summer meeting next year. We will be greatly interested in their findings.
Western Governors push for long-term transmission planning, infrastructure
for electric vehicles
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 16, 2009
San Diego - Western governors, car manufacturers and electric utility representatives meeting here today agreed that electric vehicles will become mainstream only with coordinated, long-term infrastructure planning and development.
The integration of electric vehicles (EVs) to the electric grid was a major topic of discussion on the opening day of the Western Governors' Association's Winter Meeting. The governors and panelists discussed current and future efforts that are needed to accommodate EVs and ensure greater numbers can be plugged in without major disruptions to the electric grid.
Governors attending the meeting are Brian Schweitzer (Mont.), Chairman; C.L. "Butch" Otter (Idaho), Vice Chairman; Felix Camacho (Guam); Jim Gibbons (Nev.); Bill Richardson (N.M.); Ted Kulongoski (Ore.); Gary Herbert (Utah); and Dave Freudenthal (Wyo.).
Participating in the discussion were: Mark Duvall, Director of Electric Transportation at the Electric Power Research Institute; Pedro J. Pizarro, Executive Vice President, Power Operations at Southern California Edison; and Tom vonReichbauer, Director of Finance at Tesla Motors. Tesla is one of the few companies that already is producing vehicles, but many automakers are expected to enter the market in 2010.
"Electric vehicles intersect a number of policy issues that the Western Governors' Association is working on, including decreasing our dependence on oil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and ensuring reliability in our electric transmission grid," said Ted Kulongoski, who moderated the panel discussion. "WGA has taken the stance that it's better to be proactive rather than reactive on these issues, and finding ways to enable these new vehicle technologies is a step in the right direction."
In 2008 WGA created a Transportation Fuels Council, which brought together governors' representatives to examine what states were already doing and what they could do collectively to accelerate the development of alternatives fuels and vehicle technologies. The council produced a report early this year that recommended the Governors pay close attention to the issues regarding the integration of electric vehicles in the grid and the coordination of transportation infrastructure corridors.
"The Western Governors have long been leaders in ensuring that we take advantage of the West's vast clean energy resources and have been emphasizing the need for responsible, effective, and timely infrastructure planning," Gov. Herbert said. "By working together to develop infrastructure corridors, we can collaborate with the auto manufacturers to ensure that our efforts are coordinated with new vehicle technologies. We have asked our Transportation Fuels Council to work with the automakers on this issue and report back to us in June at the WGA Annual Meeting."
The Annual Meeting will be held June 27 - 29th in Whitefish, Montana.
Labels: electric vehicles, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 9:32 PM
0 comments
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Charging Infrastructure for Electric Cars
Where can I juice up my ride?
Nov 17, 2009
Washington Post
Peter Whoriskey
As their manufacturers see it, the electric cars entering U.S. showrooms as early as next year will be engineering marvels: stylish, battery-operated, zero-emission wonders.
Yet for all their technological prowess, there's one practical question that unsettles the green dreamers and entrepreneurs alike:
Where, oh, where, can you plug them in?
While most electric cars are expected to be recharged at home, the predicament of a driver who runs out of battery power on the road has yet to be settled, and the issue of "range anxiety" has set off an array of billion-dollar speculations.
On Monday, a coalition of companies that includes Nissan, FedEx, PG&E and NRG Energy issued a report calling for billions of dollars in government aid to support the transition of the U.S. vehicle fleet to cars that run on batteries.
The group is asking for $124 billion in government incentives over eight years including $13.5 billion for tax credits to build public charging stations.
"The public charging infrastructure is really important early on for getting drivers over range anxiety," said Sam Ori, one of the authors of Electrification Coalition report. "No one really knows how intense it will be. Everyone has pet theories. But consumers need to see that the whole thing works and feel confident in adopting this new technology."
Indeed, one of the main rivalries in the race to build mass-market electric cars, between the forthcoming Nissan Leaf and the Chevrolet Volt, turns on the different ways that each will address range anxiety.
Nissan chief executive Carlos Ghosn said in an interview Monday that he believes that range anxiety will afflict only a portion of the potential market. For plenty of people, trips of 100 miles or less will be fine.
Thus, the Nissan Leaf is a pure electric vehicle with a battery that will give it a range of approximately 100 miles.
If the Leaf were targeted for all drivers, "range anxiety would be a real issue," he said. But it only "exists for 30 percent or 40 percent of the market."
General Motors, meanwhile, has studied range anxiety and seems to have arrived at a different conclusion.
During the late '90s, it produced about 900 electric vehicles, known as EV1s.
"Our experience with EV1 told us that range anxiety is very real," company spokesman Rob Peterson said. "It was something the drivers experienced."
Accordingly, its forthcoming electric car runs on a battery for the first 40 miles, but when the charge runs low, a gasoline engine kicks in. With or without public charging stations, a Volt driver can motor on as long as there is a gas station nearby.
"For a long time, cars have represented a way to move around -- freedom," Peterson said. "Some people are unwilling to accept restrictions to that."
One critical distinction between the Leaf and the Volt will be price, though neither company has said what their vehicles will cost. Both are struggling to make the price comparable to a gas-powered car.
But Ghosn said that by forgoing the gas engine at the expense of a more limited range, Nissan will be better able to make its electric cars cheaply.
"We are not a maker of electric cars," Ghosn said. "We are a maker of affordable electric cars. That is the most important thing from the beginning."
Even so, Nissan and other companies exploring the market for electric cars say it would be very difficult to win over consumers without the benefit of the $7,500 tax credit for people who purchase electric cars.
Ghosn said Nissan plans to sell the Leaf only in countries such as the United States, Japan and France that offer consumer incentives.
Not surprisingly, the Electrification Coalition, of which Ghosn is a member, proposes that at least $75 billion in U.S. government money be used to fund the consumer incentives.
That's a lot of money to ask of government, the coalition's Ori said, but it "pales in comparison to the cost of U.S. oil dependence, which has huge environmental, economic and national-security costs."
Labels: automakers, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 4:12 PM
0 comments
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Shale Gas - How Much is There?
The following article notes the concern of a gentelman who, whether right or wrong, seems to be closed out of the debate as shale gas becomes a hot item once again. It's ashame we can't look at these issues thoughtfully and rationally, in order to get a true picture of the possibilities they hold for the future. A similar example would be the hype over ethanol a few years back. There is nothing wrong with ethanol in my view, (a domestically produced fuel with about the same or perhaps slightly better environmental impact than oil), the problem was touting it as a viable alternative to oil when experts knew it would never account for more than 10-20% of our total fuel use.
| Shale or sham? | |||
| Nov 13, 2009 | Houston Chronicle | ||
| Shale or sham? By LOREN STEFFY Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
Art Berman didn't set out to become the Cassandra of shale gas. That's simply been the result as the Sugar Land petroleum geologist and consultant has persisted in raising doubts about the hottest play in the domestic energy industry.
Natural gas extracted from shale formations has transformed the U.S. energy outlook, leading to predictions that it could produce as much as half of our natural gas by the end of the next decade. Shale gas, though, requires more expensive drilling techniques to produce than conventional gas. That made shale gas attractive last year, when natural gas was selling for $13.58 per million British thermal units, but it can be a money-loser at today's prices of less than $4.50.
In a boom-prone industry known for greeting new discoveries with wide-eyed hype, shale gas has unleashed a gusher of zeal, sparking a drilling craze and soaring lease rates across millions of acres from Texas to New York.
Berman isn't saying that the major shale players — companies such as Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy and Houston-based Petrohawk Energy — are wrong, but he's skeptical that shale gas will be the domestic energy boon that the companies claim.
“I'm saying it's a bubble,” Berman said. “They're creating an illusion.”
Decline rates disputed That view puts Berman at odds with a host of energy companies, consultants and investment bankers, who claim shale gas may more than double our domestic supply. They argue Berman's analysis is flawed.
The two sides disagree on how to calculate the decline rates for the wells. In simple terms, Berman believes that shale gas wells will play out much faster — producing much less gas — than his detractors do. He also believes that many of the wells being drilled in shale won't be commercially viable.
His conclusion is based on production rates from the Barnett Shale near Fort Worth, the country's oldest field, which he says show steep and persistent declines. Supporters say the initial declines ease over time and settle into a steady production stream.
In criticizing shale, though, Berman has become something of an Oil Patch pariah.
“I'm being creamed,” he said. “There's a brotherhood of defenders out there, and they're all lined up against me.”
A column he wrote for the trade publication World Oil got spiked, and Berman resigned in protest. He claims the shale companies put pressure on World Oil's publisher to silence him.
‘Time to move on' John Royall, president and chief executive of Gulf Publishing, said he didn't receive any pressure from gas companies. World Oil serves a global audience, and gas shale is largely a domestic issue. Berman had written on the topic for a year, and Royall decided that was enough.
“Art had an interesting take on shale gas,” he said. “It was interesting, provocative stuff, but it was time to move on.”
Berman doesn't come off as obsessed or paranoid. He simply believes that the industry has abandoned caution when it comes to shale, wasting millions drilling wells with a lack of scientific analysis.
“All of my instincts say if you approach it this way, it's just insanity,” he said.
If he's right, the insanity could affect us all. As Congress discusses carbon capture and environmentalists champion converting vehicles to run on natural gas, the prospect that gas supplies could be far less than we think could have a profound economic impact on the country.
“My message isn't ‘this is bad,' it's that we need to practice some caution here,” Berman said.
Loren Steffy is the Chronicle's business columnist. His commentary appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Contact him at loren.steffy@chron.com. His blog is at http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/. | |||
Labels: energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 3:08 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Powering our Transportation Fleet with Natural Gas
Natural gas should be the vehicle fuel of the immediate futureBy Sen. Mark Udall and T. Boone Pickens
Friday, November 06, 2009
Too often in Congress, and in our political debate, people stake out a position and, in the course of defending that position, refuse to credit anything their opponent is saying. We’ve all seen that.
When it comes to passing a clean energy plan for the United States, we need to take a broader, longer look at all of the tools we have at our disposal to accomplish two very important goals: Enhancing national security and reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
Far from being mutually exclusive, these two crucial goals are complementary and should be understood as goals that are beyond partisan politics. They really are crucial for our country’s future, along with the pressing need we also have to spur job growth and get our economy fueled up.
In spite of all the talk about energy independence since the first “energy crisis” in 1973, we are still importing nearly two-thirds of the oil we use in the United States. Why is this a national security problem? Because we are dependent on that oil from many countries and regions that are unstable or unfriendly to the United States.
Month after month, we are spending about $25 billion to buy foreign oil. Over the course of a year, that may add up to $300 billion. That is money that should be circulating through the economy of the United States, instead of the economies of Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela.
To show just how dangerous this situation is becoming, earlier this month CNBC reported that Russia has surpassed Saudi Arabia as “the top crude oil producer in the world, pumping a record 10.01 million barrels of output in September.”
Russia is the largest single supplier of natural gas to much of Europe. Last year, in the dead of winter, in a price dispute with Ukraine, Russia simply turned a valve and shut off supplies to Europe to force the affected countries to bring pressure on Ukraine to settle.
This is where using all the tools in our toolbox comes into play.
One bill making its way through the Senate and the House is the NAT GAS (S.1408) Act, which will help provide tax incentives to change cars and trucks running on imported gasoline and diesel to natural gas.
With recent improvements in the techniques and technology to recover natural gas from the enormous shale deposits under the continental United States, studies indicate we could have natural gas deposits that would last for more than 100 years. This is a sea-change from what we thought our natural gas reserves were prior to being able to utilize these so-called “shale plays.”
Going to domestic natural gas as a principal transportation fuel will also have significant, if not almost immediate, impacts on the U.S. economy. Along with jobs being created in other alternative energy areas, we can produce and/or save thousands of jobs in the supply chain of natural gas vehicles, from the well-head to the manufacturing floor and from sales and distribution to fueling and maintenance.
Seventy percent of the oil we import is used as transportation fuel. We can’t run 18-wheelers on batteries and, while we can and should do more with renewable energy sources like wind and solar, putting fuel in the gas tank is a special challenge. There are over 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world, but only about 130,000 in the United States. Natural gas can be used in virtually any vehicle running on our streets and highways.
Natural gas is cleaner than either oil or coal. In fact, natural gas emits almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal. And natural gas produces almost no particulate emissions.
Natural gas can and must be developed in an environmentally responsible way that includes involvement from local communities. But properly developed, it can play a significant role in our energy future.
It is a bridge fuel that can get us to the next era of clean fuels. Natural gas will not last forever, and we will not need to use it forever. But, as a transition fuel, it can help us do our part in cleaning up the planet, it can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and it can provide a real boost for jobs and the economy.
Mark Udall, a Democrat, is the senior senator from Colorado. T. Boone Pickens is chairman and CEO of BP Capital, which operates energy-focused commodity and equity funds.
Labels: energy policy, National Security
posted by Jamie Lang at 3:30 PM
0 comments
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Should the Federal Government Provide Incentives for Eletric Car Production and Charging Stations?
One very simple but hardly politically feasible solution is to levy a national carbon tax. In a classic economic sense we would then be taxing the bad and letting the free markets figure out the "winner" for what is good. But in the absence of a strong stomach by both politicians and the public for such a solution we simply have to pick some technologies to be ushered along, even if they end up not being the best choice. Why? Because the alternative is to wait until oil prices spike again (remember $147/barrel in the summer of 2008 - what if that were permanent?) and then suffer an estimated 10 year dislocation as the free market - finally incentivized to act due to the high price of oil - works out the best substitute technologies over that longer time frame. Or we can start planning now so as to make the transition as smooth as possible (although it probably won't be overly smooth no matter what), so that some technologies, whether the most fit are not, are at least available when we need them most.
| |||
| | | | |
| Katharine Lackey The federal government and some states are plugging into the future of electric cars with subsidies to develop charging stations. But their plans are generating opposition. The U.S. Department of Energy awarded $2.4 billion in stimulus money in August to build electric vehicles and support them with charging stations. The goal is to promote clean energy and reduce The largest of 48 approved projects — out of 250 proposals for stimulus grants— is with Arizona-based Electric Transportation Engineering Corp. (eTec), which signed a $99.8 million contract with the Energy Department last month. Some of the money will pay for charging stations in 11 cities in five states by 2011, according to Colin Read, vice president of corporate development for Ecotality, eTec's parent company. The cities are Nissan is partnering with Ecotality on its project and will make 4,700 additional Nissan Leafs available in 11 cities by working with dealerships, Read says. The Nissan Leaf, expected to be released late next year, is an all-electric vehicle capable of getting 100 miles on a single charge, Read says. In addition, Chrysler, General Motors and Ford received DOE grants, ranging from $30 million to $70 million, to manufacture plug-in hybrids and electric cars, according to the Energy Department. The projects come when there are only about 1,000 plug-in hybrids on the road today, and major auto companies do not plan to release their plug-in or fully electric models for another year, says Mark Duvall, director of electric transportation at the Electric Power Research Institute, a non-profit organization that conducts research about the generation, delivery and use of electricity. Opposing views Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a non-partisan, non-profit organization with more than 1 million members, says the government should not spend taxpayers' dollars to push a technology but should let the private sector develop it. "Why is the government picking and choosing which type of technology will be best for the country?" Schatz asks. "Maybe someone will come up with another idea." A report released in October by the National Research Council — a non-profit government-charted agency — questioned whether electric and plug-in vehicles' impacts are better or worse than conventional gasoline vehicles, mainly because about half of the energy supplied to the electricity grid comes from coal plants, "which contribute to air pollution" said Dan Greenbaum, a member of the committee that wrote the report and CEO of the Health Effects Institute in Boston. U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a frequent critic of what he calls excessive government spending, says it would be better to let the marketplace decide whether technologies such as electric cars will prevail. "I don't think the federal government does a very good job of picking winners and losers," he said, referring to the government's effort to fund various renewable energy programs. Charging ahead Charles Territo, senior director of communication at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an advocacy group for the auto industry, says having charging stations in place could help entice consumers to purchase an electric car. Sandalow says the stations could mean the difference between establishing a strong electric car industry in the Schatz says government spending on charging stations won't entice consumers to spend the extra money the vehicles will cost — at least 10% more than their gas counterparts — especially in a down economy. Prices for electric and plug-in models hitting the road in 2010 have not been officially released. Other areas exploring the future of electric cars include: | | ||
Labels: energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 9:34 AM
0 comments
Monday, November 2, 2009
Cash for Clunkers Critique Draws Fire from the White House
| 'Clunkers' critique draws fire from White House | |||
| Oct 31, 2009 | The Washington Times | ||
| William Ehart
Oct. 30, 2009 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- The White House lashed out again Thursday at a media outlet, calling the automotive site Edmunds.com "wrong (again)" for saying that the "cash for clunkers" program cost too much money and had little lasting impact on car sales or the economy.
Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive officer of Edmunds.com, said he was "shocked" by the administration's reaction and said it ignored his auto research firm's other conclusion that the industry is recovering faster than analysts think.
"I think they've got their B team responding," Mr. Anwyl said. "I know there are smart people at the White House, but I don't think they're blogging today. Why are they even messing with this? We're talking about the White House.
"I feel like Joe the Plumber," he said.
Edmunds.com said Wednesday that it cost taxpayers $24,000 to spur each car sale beyond what would have occurred anyway.
About 690,000 cars were sold under the hugely popular program, from late July to late August, at a cost of $3 billion. Congress agreed to increase funding based on the heavy response.
The initiative was designed to boost car sales and reduce emissions, as rebates of up to $4,500 were available to those buying more fuel-efficient vehicles.
No one argues that some portion of "cash for clunkers" buyers were already planning to buy a car at some point this year or next. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of Americans got stimulus checks from their fellow taxpayers for making routine purchases.
But analysts differ on how many car buyers fit in that category.
Edmunds.com estimates that only 125,000 cars, or 18 percent of the total sold during the program, can truly be tied to "cash for clunkers" incentives. The auto information site based its analysis on a study of factors such as actual sales and pre-existing sales forecasts. The analysis excluded luxury cars and other vehicles ineligible for the program.
Dividing $3 billion by 125,000 yields a cost of $24,000 for each sale the stimulus program fostered, according to Edmunds.com's analysis.
The average transaction price for a new vehicle in August was $26,915, the firm said.
The White House fired back on its Web blog Thursday, noting that motor-vehicle output boosted economic growth by 1.7 percent in the third quarter.
"This is the latest of several critical 'analyses' of the 'cash for clunkers' program from Edmunds.com, which appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV," the administration said.
"This analysis ignores ... reports from across the country that people were drawn into dealerships by the 'cash for clunkers' program and ended up buying cars even though their old car was not eligible for the program."
The White House also argued that automakers are ramping up fourth-quarter production because the program depleted their inventories, and that other research firms, including IHS Global Insight, have reached different conclusions about the economic impact of the stimulus program.
Mr. Anwyl faulted the administration's "anecdotal" evidence.
"There's always that one consumer who came in and found they didn't qualify but bought something anyway," he said.
"Car companies are increasing production, but the fact of the matter is that the car business is recovering. No car company is going to increase production because of a little 30-day increase in sales," he said.
The White House cited an analysis by IHS Global Insight predicting that the program would add 600,000 net auto sales this year.
An IHS Global Insight spokesman declined to comment on the dispute specifically. But an economic analysis released by the firm Thursday said the "clunkers" rebates were not the major factor in increased auto production, as the administration argues.
"Most of the [third-quarter] increase in vehicle output would have happened even without cash for clunkers," wrote IHS Global Insight economist Nigel Gault.
Newstex ID: KRTB-0225-39321590 | |||
Labels: economy, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 11:08 AM
0 comments
Friday, October 2, 2009
The EIA and You: More Important Than You Think
Ask the average American and they probably have never even heard of the Energy Information Administration (the EIA). Commissioned by Congress in the seventies, this government organization acts as the statistical bureau for the US Department of Energy. By mission EIA reports and analyses support sound policy making, efficient market development, and public understanding about energy.
Why is this important to you? Because not only are key energy policies based on EIA projections and statistics, but many businesses use the organization’s Annual Energy Outlook as a planning tool for future capital expenditure projects, for example. And anyone who has dug into the world of energy data soon finds there are few data-based sources of information to utilize for policy decisions outside the EIA. So it is safe to say (especially after 40 plus years of stagnate energy policy) that EIA numbers have been key drivers of policy discussions.
Don’t get me wrong, the EIA provides a very valuable service, but as Energy Literacy has pointed out before (read our piece critiquing the EIA here), the EIA may be reasonably good at projecting near-term (five years or less) energy prices and production, but long-range predictions exhibit a high margin of error. This should be of no surprise, as quoted from the EIA website, “Two of the more important factors influencing energy markets are economic growth and oil prices,” and “World oil prices play a key role in domestic energy supply and demand decision making and oil price assumptions are a typical starting point for energy system projections.” Clearly crafting assumptions 25 years out (the 2009 Annual Energy Report runs projections to 2030) for economic growth and oil prices is a daunting, if not impossible, task for any organization. (Note very few individuals predicted oil price spikes in the seventies or the current financial crisis).
This means that policy makers and businesses alike must be overly cautious when using future projections by the EIA for decision making, yet in the absence of other credible sources for energy projections outside of paid consultants one could argue there is nowhere else to turn.
I urge caution because when oil production plateaus and/or begins to decline (note there has not been significant increases in worldwide production since 2004) models that assume growing supplies will clearly be faulty. Those who have read the book “The Black Swan” by Nassim Taleb are familiar with the concept of a Black Swan event – one that comes along very rarely but in its severity has profound consequences once it occurs. These types of events are almost never included in models, and a restricted supply of oil is likely just such an event.
So all of us should try to wrap our heads around the paradigm shifting concept of a restricted oil supply – a difficult task for a society and economy built on the availability of cheap, abundant energy supplies. And be critical of data that makes you feel comfortable with our current energy use situation, as we will have to change our habits, it’s just a matter of when.
For more information on how the EIA projects energy data read The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview. Or read the Annual Energy Outlook 2009. Note to readers these are both a bit technical.
For more information on the peaking and plateauing of oil supplies visit ASPO-USA and/or attend their upcoming International Peak Oil Conference in
Labels: energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 5:17 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Walk-outs Show U.S. Split on Climate Change
This is a refreshing development in this author's view, as any truly meaningful policy discussions need to equally weight all affected party's views. While eventually consensus among all parties needs to be sought, breaking the hold that special interest groups often enjoy when influencing legislation should help more voices, and therefore options, be heard.
Read the article...
Labels: climate change, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 12:00 PM
0 comments
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Where are the High Mileage Diesels in the US
Read the article here.
Labels: automakers, efficiency, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 3:00 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
China Plans Largest Solar Field in the World
First Solar is the largest manufacturer of solar cells, and will partner with China to install the cells in a 25 square mile blanket in Inner Mongolia.
The Chinese government has designated this area within Inner Mongolia as its renewable energy development zone, and hopes to eventually generate 12 gigawatts of renewable energy from solar, wind, biomass and other renewable sources.
The first production from this field, rated to be 30 megawatts, will begin in June 2010.
For more, click here.
Labels: electricity, energy policy, renewables
posted by Amanda Voss at 11:17 AM
0 comments
Friday, August 28, 2009
Obama Administration Finds Support on Energy Issues
52 percent of those polled support Obama's controversial cap and trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions. 42 percent opposed the idea.
Overall, the results indicate fairly broad and steady public support for the Obama administration's agenda toward revamping US energy policy.
For the full article in the Washington Post, click here.
Labels: climate change, energy, energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 11:35 AM
0 comments
Monday, August 24, 2009
Cash for Clunkers Ends
This article addresses both the good and the bad of the program and is worth the read.
Labels: automakers, cash for clunkers, efficiency, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 3:20 PM
0 comments
Friday, August 14, 2009
Cash for Clunkers No Longer Limited to Inventories
Energy Literacy Advocates has previously commented on the need for lengthening the duration of the clunkers program in order to allow for a change in mindset to producing and driving more fuel efficient vehicles. Clearly the ability to order cars still falls far short of this goal, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
To read more about using vouchers to order a vehicle click here.
Labels: automakers, cash for clunkers, economy, efficiency, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 2:13 PM
0 comments
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Review from the National Clean Energy Summit
Promoting the Obama administration's energy policy, Energy Secretary Steven Chu emphasized the need for a carbon tax to support many of these policy goals.
Other policy discussions included mandating a renewable energy portfolio for the US electricity supply and modernizing the electricity supply grid.
While the agenda during the second National Clean Energy Summit focused largely on policy supports for the green energy industry, it featured former vice president Al Gore's case for quick action.
Gore warned that the planet's petroleum reservers are falling faster than predicted, which can only lead to more price spikes and shortages.
For a more in-depth review of the Summit, click here.
Labels: climate change, energy policy, gas tax, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 1:48 PM
0 comments
Friday, August 7, 2009
Cash for Clunkers Renewed
For some interesting stories on citizens using the Cash for Clunkers program click here.
Labels: automakers, cash for clunkers, economy, efficiency, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 12:47 PM
0 comments
Friday, June 12, 2009
Cash for Clunkers – An Opportunity Lost?
Energy Literacy Advocates has been closely following the Cash for Clunkers debate on capital hill since several different versions of the legislation were floated months ago. We previously published a white paper discussing the pros and cons of such legislation, as well as key components we felt needed to be considered (
But first the good news: Only vehicles with fuel efficiencies of 18 MPG or less are eligible for the program in the current version of the bill (H.R. 2751). There is a cap on the new vehicle purchase price of $45,000 and you must prove you have been driving your clunker for the past year by providing proof of insurance. These parameters are both reasonable and logical, as avoiding the creation of a black market for clunkers and only incentivizing the purchase of reasonably priced vehicles (not luxury vehicles) is common sense.
However the hurdles set for the purchase of a new car (+4 MPG for $3,500 and +10 MPG for $4,500) are uncomfortably low and the hurdles set for trucks (+2 MPG and +5 MPG for Category 1 trucks, which include light trucks and SUVs) are woefully inadequate. Not to mention the incentives for Category 2 and 3, or “work” trucks, which are nothing short of a handout.
If we are going to commit $4 Billion for a program that replaces roughly 625,000 vehicles (as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office), or 0.31% of the entire fleet, we deserve to have a meaningful increase in fleet wide efficiency over time. Mind you any program that swaps for fuel efficient vehicles will be a small percent of the outstanding fleet, but all the better to make sure the program puts US consumers and the auto industry on a path to producing safe, fuel efficient vehicles well into the future, and without further incentives. (One could argue the one year duration of the program is too short as well, since charting a new path will surely take longer). Practically giving away $3,500 - $4,500 for modest gains in car efficiency and what would be difficult to even measure in trucks is simply unacceptable. We have a very unique opportunity right now to:
- Set the course for a far more fuel efficient vehicle fleet, from an average of 22 MPG now to well over 30 MPG in the very near future, and
- Provide much needed financial stimulus to the American economy, but in a way that results in the foundation for a more secure future wherein we become less dependent on oil and reduce our emissions.
Labels: automakers, CAFE standards, efficiency, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 1:04 PM
0 comments
Monday, June 1, 2009
Debate Resumes Over Waxman-Markey Climate Bill
To offer a counterpoint to the debate, we are posting a link to a Washington Post article, which discusses some of the possible negative points of the Waxman-Markey bill.
To access the article, click here.
Labels: climate change, energy, energy policy, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:09 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
EIA Releases Extended Energy, Pollution Outlook
While substantial growth is expected in the use of renewable energy sources such as hydropower, wind and solar, the EIA maintains that overall growth in demand will require continued reliance on fossil fuels, especially oil and coal.
The biggest increases in energy use will come from economically developing countries such as China and India.
To read more, click here.
Labels: energy, energy policy, energy sources, environment, global warming
posted by Amanda Voss at 12:37 PM
0 comments
Monday, May 18, 2009
Energy Committee Opens Debate Today
Sponsored by committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee chairman Edward Markey (D-MA), the bill offers some sweeping changes in U.S. energy policy, including limits on carbon emissions and a government-run permitting system.
Committee Republicans are expected to offer an alternative measure and amendments during today's hearings.
To read more, click here.
Labels: climate change, energy policy, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:27 AM
0 comments
Monday, May 11, 2009
Energy Legislation Draft Possible This Week
The subcomittee has pledged to maintain its Memorial Day deadline for release.
While agreement exists over provisions like "Cash for Clunkers," dissension remains over climate policy. Lawmakers have focused on four critical areas: targets and timetables for domestic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, distribution of valuable emission allowances; use of offsets to ease industrial compliance costs; and a nationwide renewable electricity standard.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: automakers, energy policy, environment, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:33 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
International Consideration Grows for "Cash for Clunkers"
The Japanese government plans to introduce a “cash for clunkers” incentive this month.
Germany introduced a vehicle incentive program in January, with demonstrable success for new car sales. The U.S. government, as well as several other governments, is considering a similar program.
Labels: automakers, efficiency, energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 7:48 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Global Warming & Energy Bill Released by House Democrats
Sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the bill would establish a cap-and-trade program curbing U.S. emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. It also creates a nationwide renewable electricity standard that reaches 25 percent by 2025, new energy efficiency programs and limits on the carbon content of motor fuels, and requires greenhouse gas standards for new heavy duty vehicles and engines.
To read the full article and learn more details about the bill draft, click here.
Labels: energy policy, environment, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:46 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Transportation Department Raises Fuel-Economy Standards
The 8 percent gain announced this week from Washington carries out a 2007 law intended to curb emissions and fuel use.
To read the full article in Bloomberg detailing this mandate, click here.
Labels: automakers, CAFE standards, efficiency, energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 1:16 PM
0 comments
Friday, March 27, 2009
Cash For Clunkers
Read a news article about the program here.
Labels: automakers, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 1:22 PM
0 comments
Monday, March 23, 2009
Obama Links Clean Energy Progress with Budget Proposals
According to the Associated Press release, Obama planned to make the case Monday for a budget proposal that invests billions in research designed to reduce climate change and guarantees loans for companies that develop clean energy technologies. Obama has tied his first budget proposal as president to a renewable energy program to help the United States move toward energy independence.
Details of the budget specific to energy include $39 billion at the Department of Energy and $20 billion in tax incentives for clean energy. Obama's 10-year budget proposal contains spending of nearly $75 billion to make permanent existing tax cuts for energy research and experimentation.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: energy, energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:28 AM
0 comments
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Outlines Plan to Meet Obama's Energy Goals
First on the slate is an energy bill that could contain a renewable portfolio standard, energy conservation measures and a number of other efficiency regulations. Reid felt the bill would come up for a vote before April.
To read the rest of the article, click here.
Labels: energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 12:05 PM
0 comments
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Energy Crops Up in Obama's Speech
Obama touted "renewable energy investment as part of the 'foundation of lasting prosperity' and blasted past energy policy as an underlying factor behind the nation's economic woes."
"We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy," Obama said. "Yet we import more oil today than ever before."
The emphasis placed on developing alternative and renewable energy signals that, despite economic woes, Obama's team plans to move on the energy policy front.
To read the full article in The New York Times, click here.
Labels: energy policy, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 10:57 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
L A Times: "Promise and Peril" of Energy Transition
"The stakes are high. If Obama succeeds, he could spark a domestic jobs boom and lead an international fight against climate change. If he fails, he could cripple existing industries and squeeze cash-strapped Americans with higher energy prices."
Comparing the efforts to transition America away from imported oil to the Manhattan Project and moon shot combined, the article offers an interesting comparison of the policy efforts to fast-track alternative energy in the U.S.
To read the article, click here.
Labels: election 2008, energy policy, energy sources, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 12:14 PM
0 comments
Monday, February 9, 2009
New Chair of House Energy Subcommittee Reveals Policy Goals
Citing staunch agreement with T. Boone Pickens, Markey is well-known as a champion for tougher vehicle fuel efficiency standards, a foe of nuclear power plants and has called for less generous royalty terms for oil production on federal lands. He has also supported a windfall tax for oil companies since the 1980s.
While Markey focused on energy-related parts of Congress’ economic stimulus package at CERA, he also indicated that massive climate change law is expected out of his committee this spring.
To read the full article and hear more about Markey and proposed energy policy, click here.
Labels: election 2008, energy, energy policy, environment, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 11:29 AM
0 comments
Friday, February 6, 2009
Obama Calls for New Energy Efficiency Standards
Obama's memorandum comes in the face of an executive history of tardiness in applying Congressionally set standards. According to the Times, Mr. Obama said he intended to comply with the laws, starting this year with nine categories of products, including ovens, vending machines, microwave ovens, dishwashers and light bulbs.
Obama touted the energy and cost savings of these measures in remarks before the Energy Department.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: efficiency, energy, energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 1:13 PM
0 comments
Thursday, February 5, 2009
A Non-Profit Analysis of Energy Provisions in the Stimulus Bill
To access their assesment, click here.
Labels: energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 7:58 AM
0 comments
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Wall Street Journal Debates; What Is An American Car?
In an article released January 26, the Wall Street Journal debates what is - and is not - an American car, and what the ramifications of this decision are for legislation and funding.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: automakers, energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:35 AM
0 comments
Friday, January 23, 2009
Energy Attachment to Stimulus Bill Clears House Panel
Other measures, like spending for power lines, efficiency projects, and a program to insulate low-income homes, are also included. Additionally, the measure would provide $8.4 billion in renewable energy loan guarantees, renewing and extending some existing programs.
The energy provision is a portion of the $825 billion economic stimulus measure. The broader legislation includes $550 billion in new government spending and $275 billion in tax cuts.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: efficiency, energy policy, energy sources, environment, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:25 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama Reaffirms Commitment to Energy at Inaugural
President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to revamping America's energy policy during his inaugural message. The newly elected president emphasized America's legacy of determination and responsibility in confronting a myriad of crises.
Obama cited energy as part of the current crisis, remarking that "each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."
Citing the aggressive application of renewables in America's new energy portfolio, Obama said "We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories."
To access the full text of President Barack Obama's inaugural speech, courtesy of ABC News, please click here.
Labels: election 2008, energy policy, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 11:43 AM
0 comments
Monday, January 19, 2009
Search for Automotive Energy Solutions Likened to Race to the Moon
"I will play a keystone role in helping to craft the energy agenda," Salazar told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, according to Politico.com. "I would not have taken this job if I was not given the assignment to help craft the energy moon shot that we will take." While Salazar has conceded increased use of traditional fuels, including the expansion of oil shale and offshore drilling, he anticipates the era of the electric car and advanced hybrid batteries.
Meanwhile, Obama foresees change and sacrifice coming to the automotive industry. Obama met with the editorial board of the Washington Post and said the auto industry restructuring will require "everybody, from labor to management to creditors to shareholders, giving something up."
Policy watchers are anticipating a further unveiling of the new administration's energy plans during Obama's inaugural speech on Tuesday, January 20.
Labels: automakers, election 2008, energy policy, energy sources, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:17 AM
0 comments
Friday, January 16, 2009
Nominee Salazar Touts Energy Agenda as Secretary of the Interior
Salazar emphasized the need for a balanced yet innovative approach to energy issues, promising to consider numerous options for energy independence, including offshore oil drilling and, under the right conditions, oil shale development on government lands.
While offering moderation on points like offshore drilling, Salazar emphasized his aggressive stance on energy independence for America. Renewable energy development -- a cause he championed as senator -- remains a main goal for Salazar, who also promised a balanced approach to energy and land-use policy.
Labels: election 2008, energy policy, energy sources, environment, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:29 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
USA Today Offers Peek at New Energy Secretary
Of prime concern in the energy picture is global warming. Chu began studying global warming a decade ago, and his since taught himself economics to understand various options to slow environmental degradation. Chu coauthored a 2007 report about energy that in part concluded: "What the world does in the coming decade will have enormous consequences that will last for centuries. It is imperative that we begin without further delay."
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: election 2008, energy policy, global warming, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:44 AM
0 comments
Friday, January 9, 2009
New Leader for House Subcommittee on Energy and Economy
Historically, Markey has fought against nuclear power and advocated for higher fuel-efficiency standards in automobiles.
To access the full article, click here.
Labels: energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:20 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
A View from the Other Side: Energy in the Tehran Times
In response to the negative effects of low oil prices, the article reported, "Moreover, lower oil prices are likely to impede the massive investment needed to meet rising demand by 2030, delay introduction of energy-saving technologies, and make alternative fuels less competitive. The tight credit environment will also make it more difficult for energy firms to obtain the necessary funding for financing the capital-intensive growth in production capacity, especially necessary for expensive and difficult offshore production, exploration and development, and heavy oil, oil sands, or oil shale production."
The article also discusses the growing threat of energy nationalism, the future supply crunch, and the sleeping giants of China and India.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: energy policy, energy sources, oil price, oil supply/demand, peak oil
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:48 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
President-Elect Obama Announces Energy Team
Carol Browner, a confidante of former Vice President Al Gore, will lead a White House council on energy and climate. Browner headed the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. Nancy Sutley, a deputy Los Angeles mayor, will be chair of the White House Council on Environment Quality.
While these appointments have drawn inevitable criticism and praise, they reflect the President-elect's vow to "move beyond our oil addiction and create a new hybrid economy."
To access the full Associated Press release, click here.
Labels: election 2008, energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:25 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Radical Change in Energy Department Predicted
Currently, the bulk of the $24 billion Deparment budget goes to mitigating issues surrounding nuclear weapons: maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpiles, cleaning up sites used to produce those weapons, or dealing with non-proliferation issues. Only $4 billion is allocated for energy research and development, with only $650 million put towards renewable fuels.
While its role in supervising nuclear affairs will never be abandoned, the new agency is likely to reverse current spending trends, expanding the R&D budget, with particular focus on renewable fuels, while also focusing on greater conservation efforts. Additional agenda items will likely be laying out a role for the Department in curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
To read the full article, click here.
Labels: biofuels, election 2008, energy policy, energy sources, renewables, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:44 AM
0 comments
Thursday, December 4, 2008
China Eyes Fuel Price Reform, Gasoline Tax
Ten years ago, China first proposed a fuel tax to raise revenue for road and infrastructure maintenance. Officials cite the new fuel tax as a measure to encourage resource conservation.
The Chinese government hopes a reduction in fuel prices will stimulate economic activity.
To read the full story, click here.
Labels: energy policy, oil price, oil supply/demand
posted by Amanda Voss at 1:16 PM
0 comments
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
UK Hosts First-Ever Carbon Dioxide Auction
While European Union member nations are required to participate in emissions trading, other nations are eyeing the allowance system. Japan and Australia have announced plans for experimental carbon emission trading, and President-elect Barack Obama has promised to introduce a similar cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions in the US.
Labels: climate change, economy, energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 12:16 PM
0 comments
Thursday, November 13, 2008
International Energy Agency Releases World Energy Report
The International Energy Agency (IEA) released its 2008 World Energy Report. The Report stressed that world energy systems face a crossroads, and must combat patently unsustainable behaviors. Despite the recent economic downturns which have lessened demand on oil, the Report states that "Oil is the world’s vital source of energy and will remain so for many years to come, even under the most optimistic of assumptions about the pace of development
and deployment of alternative technology."
Given the world's reliance on oil, the IEA calls for radical and coordinated policy action from national and international authorities in order to both decarbonize energy sources while speeding up the transition to alternative energy forms. The IEA promoted increasing financial incentives and regulatory frameworks, and removing existing conventional energy subsidies, as viable policy paths. The Report stresses that any policy choice must support both energy-security andclimate-policy goals in an integrated way.
While the IEA holds that world oil has yet to reach a peak, the fact that oil field declines are accelerating should prompt government actors, despite the fall in oil prices, to continue aggressively investing in alternative energy paths.
To read the IEA World Energy Report, and access other IEA materials, click here.
Labels: energy policy, environment, oil price, oil supply
posted by Amanda Voss at 8:48 AM
0 comments
Friday, August 8, 2008
Paris Hilton's Energy Plan
Don’t Laugh. Paris Is Right.
What Ms. Hilton could teach Messrs. McCain and Obama about our energy crisis.
Howard Fineman
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:27 PM ET Aug 7, 2008
Even if you know this statistic it's worth repeating: In the mid 1970s, the last time we were in a dither about energy, we were getting a third of our petroleum from abroad. Now, decades later, we buy more than two thirds of it from overseas. As T. Boone Pickens says, it's the largest transfer of wealth in history, with the possible exception of the armadas of gold and silver the Spanish took home from the New World centuries ago.
The new "oil shock"—not an Arab oil embargo this time, but a scary run-up in the price of crude—has dragged us back to an old storyline and a confrontation with the monsters we failed to destroy decades ago. We're still using up our resources too fast, damaging the environment unnecessarily and becoming too dependent on others for our survival. This time, the challenges are even more difficult to deal with. China and India are growing too fast; oil producers are choking on dollars whose value they distrust; Russia and Venezuela (and some Muslim countries) are antagonistic, turbo-charged petroligarchies.
So where should we turn for inspiration and leadership? To Paris Hilton, of course!
I mention her not only because I am betting she looks better in a one-piece bathing suit than John McCain or even Barack Obama. No, we need Paris because her cheerful and sensible approach to the energy problem—encapsulated in her own poolside “ad"—is a lesson in leadership to the two "real" presidential candidates.
Paris's message: don't stress, don't dis each other's ideas, let's just try everything!
It doesn't get any smarter than that.
McCain and Obama, by contrast, are engaged in a phony war that refuses to accept the Hiltonian point: we need every tactic in this new energy war. We need all the production, conservation and research strategies we can imagine. Nothing should be belittled, or dismissed; everything should be attempted. We can't afford to think otherwise.
At the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival recently, I was struck by the fact that the captains of industry from Silicon Valley and the academic and journalistic muckety-mucks agreed on only one thing: we need to tackle the energy challenge with the urgency and imagination of the Manhattan Project and the Marshall Plan combined. Men and women who are paid to see over the horizon, and who have a good track record of doing so, said privately that we are a decade from ruin at best.
So what are McCain and Obama doing? Arguing about tire gauges and offshore drilling!
It didn't have to come to this.
Perhaps because of his national-security and Navy background, McCain was the first of the two candidates to see the urgency of the issue. The other, less generous explanation, is that McCain needed to tap into the old Bush crowd at the Houston Petroleum Club, and that the only way to overcome their skepticism of him was for him to abandon his semi-green stance on things and go pedal-to-the-metal on the need for more production. And it is true that McCain has racked up lots of donations.
For whatever reason, he was the first of the two candidates to capture the urgency that the American people feel. His Lexington Project was unveiled early this summer at a time when Obama, who had just wrapped up the Democratic nomination, wasn't paying much attention. And to McCain's credit, his plan does have an all-hands-on-deck quality to it, stressing production, to be sure, but also creative tax and investment notions for pushing the technology and conservation envelope.
But in recent days, McCain has gotten sidetracked by some of his own (and his advisers) juvenile rhetoric, as they attempt to portray Obama as an unmanly and out-of-touch Ivy League fop. McCain has wasted valuable time ridiculing Obama for his sensible reminder that individual self-help acts on conservation—like making sure your automobile tires are properly inflated—can add up to tremendous energy savings.
Eventually, McCain was forced to concede that everyone from the American Automobile Association to the Department of Energy has been saying exactly the same thing about tires. In fact, I'm sure even the guys at NASCAR check the pressure on the tires of their civilian cars, not to mention the ones they drive around the track.
As for Obama, his own New Energy for America Plan, released last week, bears similarities to McCain's in terms of a cap on carbon emissions and trading of emission rights; various tax incentives and awards to push the technology of alternative fuels, especially for cars. He, too, is in favor of a "smart grid" to wheel power more efficiently as we increase of reliance on electricity to power all kinds of vehicles.
But Obama can't let go of the chance to portray McCain as a mindless, rapacious driller and digger who eats uranium for breakfast and quaffs kerosene with his coterie of Big Oil friends. Obama's plan dwells on problems associated with nuclear power, and none of its benefits (such as the complete absence of carbon emissions). In his original proposal, Obama flatly opposed opening up new offshore areas to oil exploration, too.
As rapacious as McCain is, however, Obama has now joined him—at least part way—in agreeing that some drilling in newly permitted offshore spots may in fact be a good idea. Obama knows the truth. New ocean prospecting won't produce immediate results, but it can at the least be an expression of American determination—and that can have an effect in and of itself.
Just ask Paris.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/151256
Labels: energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 6:03 AM
0 comments
Friday, May 30, 2008
Searching for Precedence in Today's Energy Crisis
Then, as now, a weakening U.S. dollar placed upward pressure on oil prices, eventually leading to a quadrupling in cost. While attempts at government price controls on oil proved, historically, to be a particularly bad idea, Sieb cites two government steps which were effective: first, an increase in energy supplies, and secondly, policies aimed at reducing consumer demand. The 1970's saw the creation of Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards, which required auto makers to produce fleets that got better gas mileage. The standards required that new-car gas mileage, on average, double over the following decade. When combined with a national speed limit set at 55 miles-per-hour, CAFE standards helped lower demand for oil by 2 million barrels per day.
While energy transition is not simple or quick, improvements in America's energy portfolio combined with increased efficiency have proven historically useful in lessening a crisis. To read more about the policy precedents of the 1970's and potential contemporary applications, click here.
Labels: election 2008, energy policy, oil supply/demand, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 9:06 AM
0 comments
Monday, May 19, 2008
Michael Klare's New Energy Order
So begins Michael Klare's article chronicling the end of the energy world as we know it. Klare identifies intense competition over energy sources among economic powers, insufficiency of existing energy supplies, the delay in developing alternative energy sources, migration of wealth and power to energy-rich nations and a growing risk of conflict as factors shaping our new energy reality.
For the full text of this article, click here.
Labels: energy, energy policy, energy sources, oil price
posted by Amanda Voss at 4:10 PM
0 comments
Monday, April 21, 2008
"Practical Peak Oil" Policy Highlighted in Saudi Arabia
In remarks that flew under the radar screen of American media, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah revealed orders to preserve new oil discoveries untapped, in order to extend the reign of oil wealth in his country. "When there were some new finds, I told them, 'no, leave it in the ground, with grace from god, our children need it'," King Abdullah said.
King Abdullah's position mimics that of Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi who, when asked "How high can your production go?" replied, "We’ll get to 12.5 million barrels a day and then we’ll see." Current Saudi production capacity stands at roughly 11.3 million bpd.
To read more on this subject, including the responses of American energy analysts, click here.
Labels: energy policy, oil supply, peak oil
posted by Amanda Voss at 3:06 PM
0 comments
Friday, April 4, 2008
Transportation Sector Continues to Plague U.S. Trade Deficit
The trade deficit is calculated by measuring the annual amount spent by U.S. individuals, companies, and government agencies on foreign-made products, minus the amount spent by foreign entities on U.S.-made products. The heavy and costly reliance of the U.S. on imported oil is easily seen in these deficit calculations.
For further information, click here.
Labels: economy, energy policy, u.s. energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 12:57 PM
0 comments
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend
Read the article.
Labels: economy, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 3:00 PM
0 comments
Thursday, March 20, 2008
EPA Accepting Proposals for Clean Diesel Project
The EPA estimates that projects will likely include engine upgrades, cleaner fuel use, and vehicle or equipment replacement. To learn more about this campaign, click here.
Labels: biofuels, energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 1:13 PM
0 comments
Friday, March 14, 2008
EPA Expands Diesel Emission Standards
This article further describes the EPA's new standards, which aim to aid communities in achieving better ozone standards.
Labels: energy policy, environment
posted by Amanda Voss at 10:17 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Bush Emphasizes Energy Goals at Washington International Conference
Bush's remarks emphasize the December 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which includes mandates increasing vehicle fuel economy and an aggressive renewable fuels quota. Further EISA provisions encompass home lighting and appliance efficiency standards, and federal loan guarantees to support alternative energy research.
This article additionally provides highlights of recent federal developments in energy policy, both domestically and internationally.
Labels: energy policy
posted by Amanda Voss at 5:42 PM
0 comments
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Position of Power
Read the article here.
Labels: energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 1:41 PM
0 comments
Friday, February 22, 2008
End of the Oil Age
Read the article here.
Labels: biofuels, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 2:32 PM
0 comments
Thursday, February 7, 2008
What Washington Can Learn From Montana
Read the article here.
Labels: energy policy, environment, oil prices, renewables
posted by Jamie Lang at 3:47 PM
0 comments
Monday, February 4, 2008
Next Car Debate: Total Miles Driven
Next Car Debate: Total Miles DrivenFebruary 5, 2008
WSJ – Joseph White
I lead a double life.
Monday through Wednesday, I get to work by walking a block and a half from a high-rise apartment building to a stop on Washington, D.C.'s Metro subway. I emerge three stops later a half block from my office. My commute is pretty close to a zero petroleum experience (never mind how the Metro gets its electricity.)
The rest of the week, I am back in Detroit, where I return to the 20th century. I drive about 20 miles to my office, which is located by the side of a freeway in a suburban "edge city." I sometimes walk to a sub shop for lunch, but it's an arduous slog along busy four lane streets that sometimes have sidewalks, and sometimes don't. To get just about anywhere from my office requires another car trip.
It turns out I am straddling the frontier of the next big debate over the role of the automobile in America. Congress and President Bush late last year agreed to order car makers to boost the average fuel efficiency of new vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Last year's energy debate centered around CAFE, the acronym for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. The next phase of the energy/climate change debate over cars will force us to learn another piece of technical jargon: VMT, or vehicle miles traveled.
Car makers and consumers will bear considerable costs to switch to a fleet of cars that meets the 35 mgp CAFE goal. But that might not result in a significant reduction in U.S. petroleum consumption or cut the CO2 we add to the atmosphere if we keep driving more and more miles.
From 1977 to 2001, the number of miles driven every year by Americans rose by 151% -- about five times faster than the growth in population, according to data compiled for a 2006 report to the U.S. Department of Transportation written by Stephen Polzin, a transportation researcher at the University of South Florida in Tampa.
The reasons for the big growth in miles traveled are pretty obvious if you don't live in the center of a big city endowed with functioning public transport. To make space for ever larger suburban homes, housing developers pushed further and further from city centers and shopping areas. New neighborhoods often had street layouts cluttered with cul de sacs that forced people to drive farther to get to main roads or stores. Local zoning laws -- reflecting the preferences of residents -- tended to separate commercial and residential uses, and single family from multi-family dwellings.
Meanwhile, the bulk of the money spent on transportation infrastructure was directed to building more and bigger highways. We could have subsidized bullet trains and more light rail systems, but we didn't.
Now, many of the environmentalists, politicians and scientists who made the case for boosting vehicle fuel efficiency are turning their attention to the problem of how much we drive -- and the legacy of 20th century land use and transportation choices.
Just how much more driving Americans will do is a matter of some debate. Higher gas prices, changes in demographics, and a recent upturn in urban redevelopment aimed at luring empty nesters back to city neighborhoods all could result in vehicle miles traveled growing more slowly in the future than it did during the past 30 or so years.
Still, the U.S. Department of Energy projects that miles driven will keep increasing in coming years, and by 2030 could grow by 59% compared with 2005 levels -- still outpacing population growth, though not by as much in the last three decades of the past century. That means even though we'll be driving vehicles that slurp less petroleum per mile, carbon dioxide emissions could grow by as much as 41%, according to a report titled "Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change," published by the Urban Land Institute.
Deron Lovaas, a transportation researcher with the Natural Resources Defense Council, predicts that the debate over how to curb driving will come to the fore next year, when Congress is scheduled to debate a massive bill to fund transportation projects using federal gasoline tax revenue. The NRDC and other environmental groups, fresh from their victory in the fuel-efficiency debate, are turning their attention to issues such as reforming land use rules to promote denser development and concentrating more public spending on better mass transit systems for metro areas, he says.
Meanwhile, the Energy Department, in response to a 2005 congressional mandate, has enlisted an arm of the National Academy of Sciences to study how travel behavior will change as people live in communities that are designed to have different services closer to their homes, and more homes closer together.
How all this will affect the experience of driving and what we want to drive is a problem that's starting to keep executives of big car companies up at night. If you live the way I do in Washington, you don't really need a $35,000, all-wheel drive luxury wagon. On the other hand, the challenge of dictating to Americans where and how they should live is a problem that will likely keep politicians up at night. There's a reason why so many of us live in big single-family houses, and it's not because living in a small apartment wasn't available as an alternative.As for me, I think it's time for a pair of new shoes.
Labels: efficiency, energy policy
posted by Jamie Lang at 4:04 PM
0 comments
