Climate Scientist Katherine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian who sees her work and the need to protect the earth as deeply consistent with her faith.

Read all about her at Climate Central.  Buy her book, co-written with her husband who, like Dr. Hayhoe, is a Professor at Texas Tech. He is also the Pastor of their church.

Given the latest science showing that the models that predict the exact march of global warming appear to be overly conservative and underestimating the effects of the warming in progress and the strong likelihood that we are about to cross an irrevocable tipping point that commits the planet to deeply damaging warming it is not crazy to suggest that we need science, prayer and action.

The need for action and steps to be taken to address this crisis is not abstract.  The latest massive compilation of science shows the very real effects that global warming is having all around us and will increasingly inflict upon us.  The need to build resilient communities that can survive (and even thrive) in these conditions is very real.  However, it is equally vital that we reduce the emissions that are disrupting the climate.  This means building renewable energy of many sizes and types, it means making our society and economy more efficient, properly planning and building our communities and providing and funding safe and clean transit and spreading and truly implementing efforts like the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act and the greenhouse gas regulations being slowly rolled out by the Federal government.

The size, scale and nature of the crisis we face must spur all of us, whether we are motivated by a purely secular moral motivation to watch out for our fellow humans and/or other planetary passengers or the religious mission that guides someone like Dr. Hayhoe, to act. Because if we don’t we truly don’t have a prayer.

A study released today documents the powerful benefits of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – the nation-leading effort by Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants while building up energy efficiency and clean energy efforts in the states.

The study found that RGGI created $1.6 Billion in net economic benefits across the region ($888 million in New England alone).  The program saved electricity customers $1.3 Billion on their energy bills region-wide due to investment by the program in energy efficiency and created 16,000 Job Years (a standard measure of employment) during the first 3 years of the program (including temporary and permanent positions).   The cost of the program was minimal, creating an imperceptible 0.7% electricity price increase on customer bills across the region that was more than offset by the benefits of the program.

CLF has been deeply involved with the RGGI program from its inception. We strongly believe that this is solid proof that RGGI, while first and foremost an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is also a win for the economy, consumers and business, as well as the environment.

We must apply the lessons of RGGI to date and move beyond this pilot phase, scaling up the program to further reduce pollution, create even more jobs and reduce energy bills on a much greater scale, and take this effort into other parts of the nation.

RGGI has proved that a well-designed greenhouse gas reduction policy is a win for just about everybody.  The complaints (amplified by their well-financed megaphone) from the filthy few companies who make their money by extracting and selling coal and oil, at great cost in lives and environmental damage, should not distract us from hearing that very positive story.

                Wouldn’t it be great if Maine law required that our power companies must save their customers money by investing in the cheapest form of energy, known as energy efficiency, while simultaneously ensuring that the sources of power sold in Maine increasingly come from clean, renewable energy sources?  If you agree, you are not alone. A coalition of Maine businesses, workers, health professionals, citizens and public interest groups, including CLF, feels the same way and we have initiated a referendum for next year’s election that will make it happen—with your help.

                To do so, our coalition will have to gather more than 70,000 signatures from Mainers seeking to place this issue on a ballot for state-wide vote in November 2012. This Election Day (tomorrow- November 8—VOTE!) keep an eye out at your polling place for folks collecting signatures on our petition and join our cause.

                What exactly are we proposing? To make changes to existing law that would require that a portion of our electricity bills fund cost-effective energy efficiency efforts throughout the state. Cost-effective energy efficiency means reducing the amount of electricity that we use, by investing in improvements to our industries, businesses and homes in a manner that saves more money than was spent on the improvements. On average, these kinds of investments save three times as much as they cost. If left untouched, Maine’s currently planned investment in energy efficiency will capture only 25% or so of the potential available savings. These are savings that will reduce everyone’s electricity bill, avoid the need for new expensive electricity lines and limit the amount of electricity that needs to be generated—let’s not squander them.

                We are also proposing that a requirement in Maine law, providing that at least 10% of electricity sold in the state must come from new renewable energy sources, should be increased so that 20% of our electricity comes from clean renewables. The effect of this requirement would be to increase the development of home-grown renewable energy projects that generate jobs in Maine while reducing our energy-related pollution. In combination, energy efficiency and increased renewables will mean Mainers pay less to the power company while doing more to preserve their quality of air and place.

                Why are we undertaking this? Governor LePage and the current leadership in the Legislature have made clear that, not only do they not support money-saving energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy, but they are attempting to scale back both from their current levels. We don’t think that approach is good for Maine and we believe a majority of Maine people agree with us. This ballot initiative allows the people to decide this issue of critical importance for our economy and our environment.   

                If you are interested in helping us in this campaign, please contact the CLF Maine office.

Today, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services provided an annual report to the New Hampshire legislature detailing the results of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Carbon Dioxide Emissions Budget Trading Program.  The report notes that the program has supported approximately $20 million in job creating energy efficiency investment in New Hampshire and that each dollar of invested RGGI revenue resulted in $3.42 in direct energy savings (See this study by the University of New Hampshire). The report concludes that the effect of the RGGI program on rates has been negligible, amounting to .06 cents per kWh, or approximately 30 cents per month per household.

At the same time, electricity bills for customers of New Hampshire electric utilities have decreased dramatically since RGGI went into effect, with the exception of PSNH customers.  According to the report, the average PSNH residential customer is currently paying approximately $27 per month more than a New Hampshire customer in National Grid’s service territory for the same amount of power ($89 per month for PSNH versus $62 per month for National Grid).

Given the magnitude of the excessive energy costs paid by PSNH residential customers (comprising the overwhelming majority of New Hampshire homes), one might assume that the legislature would use the report as a basis for reviewing and revising the state’s policy that forces New Hampshire residents to subsidize PSNH’s above market costs to the tune of $324  per ratepayer per year.

Instead, House Speaker William O’Brien and Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt issued a statement today criticizing RGGI for laying an extra “$5.50 per year on the backs of our ratepayers.”  They appear to have missed the forest for the trees (and bungled their math).  New Hampshire ratepayers pay among the highest rates in the country because PSNH imposes on them the above-market cost of its dirty and expensive power.  In fact, the report shows that National Grid ratepayers in New Hampshire, having been spared the legislative mandates that inflict exorbitant costs on PSNH ratepayers, pay the lowest electric rates in New England. National Grid and other New Hampshire utilities purchase power from newer, more efficient power plants selling into the wholesale market.

Improving New Hampshire’s economic future requires a thoughtful review of the statutory policies that extend the lives of PSNH’s uneconomic power plants and foist the exorbitant costs of these plants, and the pollution they emit, on New Hampshire residents. Portraying a successful and economically beneficial program such as RGGI as a burden to ratepayers lays blame in the wrong place and amounts to a game of political charades—a disservice to New Hampshire voters and job creators.

No one knows better than the US military that our dependence on fossil fuels comes with enormous hidden costs.  In this Op-Ed in the Tampa Tribune three retired generals and one retired admiral discuss the hundreds of soldiers who have died and the thousands of their brother-in-arms who have been seriously wounded guarding fuel convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our military has long known about the overarching threat to our security from unchecked global warming.

Reducing our dependence on oil and building a clean energy future will require work on a wide variety of fronts – and that is why CLF is working not only to foster renewable generation like wind and solar power but also working “on the demand side” to ensure that energy efficiency prosper as well.

This is a challenge that stretches far beyond the realm of electricity use or heating or cooling buildings and homes.  We use enormous amounts of energy in our transportation sector.   We can be more efficient and reduce our fossil fuel use by driving cleaner cars that get more miles per gallon.  We also can build and operate transit systems that move masses of people in a far more efficient manner.  Even just building sidewalks and more “walkable” communities reduces driving, fuel consumption and emissions.

Pushing for better transit, more sidewalks, more efficient buildings, the retirement of old coal plants and wind and solar power might seem very far removed from the effort to protect the nation, but it really isn’t such a stretch and it is part of what drives forward the work of organizations like CLF and our many friends, allies and partners.

Obviously, we here at the Conservation Law Foundation think that crafting and advocating for environmental solutions is a very important thing to be doing and that when we have a job opening that the best, smartest, most tenacious and brightest folks should apply.

However, we know that we are part of a much larger network and community of people and organizations working to create positive change.  Some of those groups work largely out of the public eye – providing critical infrastructure for the flashier and more visible efforts.  An excellent example of one such group is the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) which has done a phenomenal job of coordinating and advancing the work of the environmental and efficiency advocacy communities in the world of standards setting for appliances.  It might sound kind of boring but it is of critical importance – which I will lay out a bit more below.

But before I get to that here is the important part – they are hiring.  If you have what it takes to be a “Strategic Program / Technical Analyst” you should give them a look.

(more…)

Why buy when you can save? Power saved through energy efficiency is widely available, clean, and costs approximately one half to one third the cost of buying electricity from a power plant. During a nine-month workshop process with regulators, utilities and businesses, CLF recommended Vermont invest in far greater efficiency to aggressively tackle high-energy bills, curb pollution and climate change, and provide a more secure energy future. While Vermont regulators acknowledged that greater efficiency pays for itself and avoids more expensive power purchases and transmission upgrades, they ultimately approved only a small increase for efficiency efforts.

The Board’s order is disappointing. A limited number of businesses opposed increasing efficiency. This opposition is short-sighted. The most successful businesses are also the most efficient. They represent opportunities for growing our economy and keeping jobs in Vermont and pollution out of Vermont. With more energy efficiency, we can support and grow our economy instead of throwing our energy dollars out the window. Efficiency investments provide savings through financial incentives for equipment, lighting, renovation, and construction that allows buildings and homes to use less energy.

Even with this limited increase, Vermont will remain a strong leader on electrical energy efficiency. Unfortunately, there are still too many savings left on the table. As a result, Vermonters will be paying too much and polluting too much to meet our power needs. We could easily make twice the investment we are making now, and that’s what we should be doing. The Board’s decision is a baby step in the right direction, but we still have a marathon to run.

As we have reported here, a dim-witted attempt was made in the U.S. Congress to roll back energy efficiency standards for light bulbs.

A rather silly column in the Boston Globe on this subject inspired a good editorial in response, and raft of letters to the editor, including one from the CEO of major light bulb manufacturer Phillips Lighting North America noting that the law criticized in the column would not ban incandescent light bulbs, limit consumer choice or force people to buy very expensive light bulbs:

. . .  With this law consumers now have more choice than ever before, including new energy-efficient incandescent light bulbs that meet the new requirements.

Already on retail shelves and selling for as little as $1.49, energy-efficient incandescents look and feel the same as the light bulbs consumers have been using for more than 100 years, but they use almost 30 percent less energy. They are no more fragile than their traditional incandescent sibling, and some can last as much as 3,000 hours, or three times longer than Edison’s bulb.

The savings from these new choices are a direct result of government, business, and industry working together to drive innovation and improve energy efficiency. At a time when families are struggling with high energy costs, these new minimum efficiency levels will lower our nation’s electricity bills by over $12 billion per year. That’s about $100 per year for every American family.

Clearly, there is a need for good information about light bulbs – and now some smart folks are looking to shed some light on the subject with the launch of the LUMEN Coalition website, a joint effort by industry and non-profit energy efficiency and consumer advocates. Take a look, it might brighten your day.

A judge in New Jersey has determined, after an exhaustive legal proceeding, that RGGI, the regional program to regulate emissions of Carbon Dioxide (the primary pollutant causing global warming) from power plants,  can and must keep confidential internal market information. All sophisticated auctions and markets, like the stock and commodities markets have very similar rules because the traders who operate in these markets could potentially manipulate and subvert the market if they had internal information, like exactly what other businesses bought and sold, and the exact prices they paid.

When the ideological opponents of climate action filed a lawsuit in New Jersey to force full disclosure of all information about the RGGI auction they were in effect asking to force disclosure of this information, a release that would have created a real risk of market manipulation.  Even more suspiciously, it appeared that some of those same opponents were financially backed by businesses who were trading in the RGGI market and would have financial interests in the release of that information.

Now that lawsuit has been dismissed by a wise judge in New Jersey.  In a 75 page decision (posted on the website of the organization that brought the lawsuit) the judge determined that “Clearly, the RGGI auction information is often identified as confidential due to the detrimental effect its release would have on the auction process . . . Thus, the court agrees with defendants that the [disclosure] request—including the names of the bidders, individuals bids, and amount and type of allowances requested are proprietary commercial or financial information and should be not be disclosed.”

The bottom line is that RGGI continues to function, acting as a limit on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and a critical source of support for clean energy development, especially the deployment of energy efficiency.  It is a well functioning market and program and should be preserved and enhanced.  The judge’s decision was not unexpected as this kind of internal confidentiality is so needed and common and is a complete vindication for the states in the RGGI program and the folks who administer the program for them.