Senate Wind Energy Legislation Needs a Push

In the past two months, a bipartisan group of senators has introduced two pieces of legislation designed to provide additional impetus for the further growth of the wind power industry. Unfortunately, I have not seen that either of these bills has received much attention - undoubtedly because of the larger goal of passing comprehensive climate change legislation.

I do think that both pieces of legislation deserve a bit of recognition, as do the senators who have introduced them. Through their efforts, there has been a continuing push to further stimulate an industry that is seen by most as one of the best alternatives to coal-fired electric generation (development and startup costs notwithstanding). Let me take a moment to summarize each bill.

S. 3062, which hasn't been given a formal title, was introduced on March 3, 2010 by Senators Tom Carper (Democrat of Delaware), Sherrod Brown (Democrat of Ohio), and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (Republicans of Maine). This short, three-page bill would amend the 1986 Internal Revenue Code to extend tax credits for electricity generated by offshore wind facilities to January 1, 2020. The bill, which has since picked up two additional cosponsors - Kay Hagen (Democrat of North Carolina) and Bob Menendez (Democrat of New Jersey) - was referred to the Senate Finance Committee on March 3 and is still awaiting action.

S. 3226, which is also suffering from the lack of an official title, was introduced on April 19, 2010 by the original four sponsors above along with Senator Ted Kaufman (Democrat of Delaware) and totals 17 pages. It would, in shore, require the Secretary of Energy to take action to "stimulate the emergence of an offshore wind power industry in the United States." The brief findings used as the introduction to the bill provide the root cause for the introduction of this bill: (1) The lack of installed offshore wind power projects; (2) The technical feasibility of high penetrations of wind generation through infrastructure expansion; and (3) The identified need (in the Department of Energy's publication, 20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030) to meet this goal by making technological advances to enable improvement in performance and a reduction in cost. As of today, the bill is pending in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Both of these bills appear on the surface to provide great benefits to the wind industry. Both bills, regretfully, are stuck in committee. Is it possible they could move this year? Certainly, but I find it highly unlikely. With the legislative challenges still remaining before Congress - appropriations bills, climate change legislation, immigration reform, further jobs bills - it would be an extremely heavy lift, given the time remaining on the legislative calendar.

I would think a more realistic approach would be to roll either or both of these bills into the soon-to-be-released Kerry-Graham (maybe?) - Lieberman bill in whatever section addresses alternative energy. The goals of both are worthy of merit, and supporters of wind energy should certainly take an opportunity to consider each for themselves and weigh in with their own senators to reqeust additional cosponsors and support - and, perhaps, a push across the finish line.

BP CEO: Yeah, We'll See...

A story by Mike Soraghan in today's Energy and Environment Daily (subscription required) reports that Tony Hayward, the global CEO of BP, is offering conflicting responses on the lengths to which his company will go to cover the liabilities resulting from the Gulf spill.

Publicly he had stated, "BP is taking very seriously its responsibility. ... All legitimate claims will be paid." In a meeting with Democrat Florida Senator Bill Nelson just minutes after, however, he said in response to Nelson's question about BP's responsibility for economic damages that "That's something we'll have to work out in the future."

As I had mused in yesterday's post on the economic impact on the Gulf Coast region, this looks as if the stage is being set for a series of long and messy court battles - perhaps dragging on for years. And the pending Senate bill retroactively raising the $75 million cap for legal liability to $10 billion - well, is that going to be enough? Following the Valdez accident in 1989, Exxon paid $3.8 billion to cover damages and cleanup costs, and that was just for a portion of coastline in one state - the most expensive spill in history, if not the largest.

With the potential that this spill could impact not just the Gulf Coast but also the East Coast (depending on how the currents direct the oil), what will this figure ultimately be? Will $10 billion even come close?

Could You Go "No Impact"?

When I first watched the documentary "No Impact Man", based on a year in the life of Colin Beavan and charting his family's attempt to make changes in their lifestyle so as to have absolutely no environmental impact, two thoughts crossed my mind. First, I thought he was crazy - here is a man with a wife and a young child who is about to radically change the way they live, and life may be hell for all of them.

Then as I watched it I wondered, could I do this? Would my family be able to make it for twelve months with no electricity (meaning no Noggin' or Sprout for the kids, no "Days of Our Lives" for my wife, and no way to charge my Kindle when it winds down), composting our own trash, eliminating the use of any transportation not powered by our own feet? More importantly, how long into such an effort would it be before my wife contracted out with someone who could make me disappear?

Beavan's project seemed to work well in Manhattan, where things are much more "compact" (a good brisk walk could get them wherever they needed to go, with the exception of a train ride to the country for a five-day stay on a farm). I'm not so sure that it would translate well to life in the metropolitan Washington area, however; it's 10 miles to my office (which I could bike, I suppose), but there are also day care and school transportation issues to consider (while it wasn't covered, would this project eliminate having our kids ride the school bus?) and trips to the grocery store and church. We possibly could do without electricity, although it gets pretty darn hot and muggy during the summer. Recycling wouldn't be an issue, because we wouldn't be able to buy anything that couldn't be composted or reused.

So the thinking on this continues. I'll ultimately sit down and read the book version of this year-long adventure penned by Beavan, and perhaps may pick up more answers to questions that I'm still considering. In the meantime, I enjoy watching others try more scaled-back, one week mini versions of the "No Impact" project, which for many would be a much more realistic or feasible way of eliminating their footprint. There are even some great videos posted on YouTube that show how folks are going about this; here is one that Beavan linked to his blog (which is well worth a visit) that shows how one college is going about their week-long project.

BP and the Gulf Coast: The End of a Way of Life?

Having lived on the Gulf Coast of Alabama for nearly ten years, I am very familiar with the significant impact tourism and the seafood industry have on state revenue. The importance of the oysters, shrimp, crab and fish caught by the men and women of south Mobile County; the beaches and resorts and restaurants of south Baldwin County. Both play a significant role in the sustainability of the state; in fact, 33 percent of the state's total tourism revenue comes from these two southernmost counties.

During those ten years, I made many friends whose livelihoods depend direclty on either tourism or seafood - and in the days following the explosion and capsizing of the Deepwater Horizon platform and the spread of enough oil to equal four Exxon Valdez accidents per week, I have grown quite concerned for their futures. Hurricanes have come and gone and seafood dumping has waxed and waned, but through it all the small communities on the bayous, the rivers and the beaches have recovered and endured.

This time I fear things may be different, especially for the seafood harvesting community.

Beaches can be cleaned, restored and reopened; I've seen it many times. But wetlands, rivers and wildlife - what is the price that is going to be paid by the families who rely on them for survival?

Although I don't agree with the belligerent language of the Secretary of the Interior - keeping a boot on the throat of BP? - I think that BP does bear financial responsibility for the cleanup of the Gulf and its shoreline, and for compensating the families of the 11 workers never found. But will they held accountable for compensating the workers who are in very real danger of losing their livelihoods? I think back to the Exxon Valdez accident 21 years ago; compensation cases were dragged through the courts for years, awards were reduced, and some 600 residents of Alaska who were party to the suits passed away without ever seeing a resolution to the case.

Now, over two decades later, we have a different environmental catastrophe and I cannot help but wonder how the financial compensation and court cases will play out. A new bill has been introduced in Congress that would increase the limit - currently $75 million - for which a company would be responsible with a cleanup. But this doesn't address what sort of compensation there may be - or will be pursued - by the folks impacted by this disaster. How many millions or billions of dollars will BP have to pay out?

Can you really put a pricetag on what is happening in Alabama, or Mississippi, or Louisiana? And if you could, where will the money come from - higher prices at the BP pump?

Wind Farms and the Rural Economy

One of the first aspects of alternative energy that I'm interested in exploring on this blog is wind power. With the news of the approval of the new Cape Cod wind project by the Obama Administration, as well as knowing individuals involved in the manufacturing of wind turbines, this is certainly a very timely topic. However, in the reading I've done to this point, I've noticed that much of the mainstream media seems to focus on the larger projects - wind farms in Europe, the Massachusetts project, and others of immense size seem to draw the most attention. I haven't seen - and again, my exploration is just beginning - much in the way of an examination of smaller wind farms and wind projects.

Today, however, I heard a report on National Public Radio about a former cotton farmer in West Texas who is now branching out into wind farming. From what I have gathered through the report and the accompanying slide show, his home town is a very economically depressed area - which leads to a question: how much of an economic impact can wind farming make? Yes, there are short-term construction jobs, and undoubtedly wind farmers themselves will make a fair amount of money once the turbines are all fully operational. But what long-term benefits can be derived from these sorts of projects for the communities where they are sited?