June 2009 Issue of The Green Power Network Published

The latest issue of the Green Power Monthly E-Mail Update has been published by the U.S. Department of Energy. The publication, which is freely available, provides summaries of recent green power marketing news, green pricing programs by utilities, information on renewable energy certificates, and green power purchases.

For those interested in renewable energy in the U.S. it is a great resource. It can be subscribed to by clicking here.

BP-China National Petroleum Company Win Iraq's First Oil Auction

Last week a partnership involving BP and the China National Petroleum Company won the right from the Iraqi government to extract oil from the Rumaila oil field.

All other major oil companies -- including ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil -- did not complete the bidding process. The next auction will be held by the Iraqi government later this year.

A story in The Los Angeles Times ("Iraq awards BP-led consortium a contract to develop oil field," July 1, 2009) suggested that the auction was not the major success the government had hoped for:

"The disappointing outcome to the widely anticipated event, which was planned a year ago, suggested that international oil firms aren't as eager to invest in Iraq as the government had hoped and that there will be no quick fix for the nation's looming financial problems."

An interactive overview of what Iraqi oil field are available can be accessed by clicking here.

Hiring News: MRLS Graduate Joins the National Association of State Energy Officials

Kate Marks (MRLS graduate 2009) has joined the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO).

NASEO is made up of the governor-designated energy officials from each territory and state.   The organization was established through an agreement in 1986 with the National Governors' Association.

According to Ms. Marks, "State energy offices are busy right now with all of the [stimulus legislation] funding they have been granted."

Ms. Marks was the 2008-2009 recipient of the prestigious Col. Jan Laitos Scholarship Award, which is given annually to a high achieving student in the environmental and natural resources law and policy graduate program.

Do Democrats Have "Filibuster-Proof" Senate? Don't Count on It

With Democrat Al Franken of Minnesota soon to be joining the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus comes the assertion from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the Senate is now "filibuster proof."

What Mr. Reid is referring to is the the ability of the 58 Democrats and two Independents to vote in favor of a cloture motion that would override a filibuster by the body's 40 Republicans. This, of course, assumes that all the 58 Democrats and two Independents would actually vote to override a Republican-initiated filibuster.

But in reality, could this ever happen. Let's presume, for a moment, that a climate change bill gets to the Senate floor and the Senate Republicans initiate a filibuster. Can Mr. Reid count on all 58 Democrats to vote to override the filibuster? Well, let's take a look at some of those who are in the 58. Senator Evan Byah of Indiana -- he's hardly a firm vote. Or Senator Mary Landrou of Louisiana -- I wouldn't want to count on her. Then there's Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- a Democrat in name only. Mr. Reid might not be able to count on Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. And then the two senators from Coal, Inc., West Virginia -- Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller. Not sure I would want to count on them either.

Out of the 40 Republican Senators, there are a few...well two to be exact...who might vote to override a filibuster -- Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine.

In any case, I'm not sure how Mr. Reid reaches the 60 votes necessary to override a fillibuster.

Maybe Mr. Franken should reprise his Stuart Smalley Saturday Night Live role for Mr. Reid: "I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggone it, people like me." Well, many people do indeed like Mr. Reid, but don't bet on any unanimous Democratic votes to override a climate change related filibuster.

Happy 4th of July...From the European Union and Stockholm!

All of us in Denver wish the readers of this blog a Happy (but a bit belated) 4th of July! And we aren't the only ones wishing you the best.

Our program's "man" in Stockholm, Marcus Oscarsson, was featured on a national news show for Sweden's TV4 yesterday. Marcus, who some of you may be familiar with if you've taken "European Union Environmental Law & Policy" from me, joined a roundtable discussion about this 4th of July and America's mood as perceived from a European perspective.

And for those of you who don't know Marcus, let me tell you a little about him. Marcus and I became acquainted nearly 10 years ago when he was an intern at the Swedish-American Chamber of Commerce in Denver. That year, to be precise in the spring of 2001, Sweden's government was serving as the president of the EU and Marcus helped arrange for me -- recently returned from several years working in the EU -- to speak to the Denver group. Since then, we have become fast friends and he has helped me in my numerous offerings of "EU Law & Policy" and "EU Environmental Law & Policy."

For the next six months, Marcus is part of the Swedish government's EU presidency. This is a particularly important six months for the EU for many reasons, not least of which is that Sweden will lead the EU's delegation to the U.N. sponsored climate change talks in Copenhagen in December. In this role, Sweden (in collaboration with its other 26 EU member states) will likely take an ambitious position vis-a-vis where future global climate change policy will go. (It is worth noting that Sweden, and its impressive government and group of civil servants, is perhaps the most admired and respected holder of the EU presidency, which is rotated among the EU's member states.)  But this is getting a bit far afield from commenting about our program's great friend in Stockholm and the EU.

This coming semester (which begins in mid-August) I will be teaching "EU Law & Policy," and Marcus will most likely speak to the class from Sweden about the Swedish EU presidency.  Of course I would prefer to take the entire class right to Stockholm, but there is the slight matter of cost to do so...

If you check out the video link, Marcus is the one on the right-side of the panel.  Oh, and one more thing -- the video is all in Swedish so for those (like me) who don't speak Swedish, it may be a bit difficult (but not impossible) to follow!

The Peak Oil Debate: An Analysis From the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has just published a piece entitled "The Peak Oil Debate."

Written by Laurel Graefe, a senior research economist in the Atlanta Fed's research department, the article "seeks to bring the peak oil debate into focus." The article suggests that the energy outlook is clouded by factors relating to the estimates about remaining resources, the manner in which various countries report about reserves, and projections about future production.

Brazil Set to Hold First Wind Farm Auction

Word comes from Brazil that the government will hold its first wind power auction later this year.

According to the Rio de Janeiro law firm of Schmidt, Valois, Miranda, Ferreira & Agel, "This first auction has a main goal of giving the government the necessary information on the potential market in Brazil for wind power, as well as to start development of wind farm projects." The firm's analysis of the next steps in the auction process can be accessed here.

Brazil is already a world leader in terms of biofuels. Will wind be next?

Finally the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Weighs In: Waxman-Markey Bill Does "Almost Nothing to Reduce Carbon Emissions"

It took a week, but the venerable Wall Street Journal editorial page has now weighed in on the Waxman-Markey energy bill.

Since the Journal editorial page has never seemed to think that carbon emissions are harmful, I figured the second sentence in the editorial -- which says, "The 1,200-page wonder manages the supreme feat of being both hugely expensive while doing almost nothing to reduce carbon emissions" -- indicated that they were not entirely opposed to the measure, but a further read confirms that is not the case.  

The Journal editorial page, which is as predictable as the sun coming up in the east, holds forth as follows:

President Obama is calling the climate bill that the House passed last week an "extraordinary" achievement, and so it is. The 1,200-page wonder manages the supreme feat of being both hugely expensive while doing almost nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

The Washington press corps is playing the bill's 219-212 passage as a political triumph, even though one of five Democrats voted against it. The real story is what Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House baron Henry Waxman and the President himself had to concede to secure even that eyelash margin among the House's liberal majority. Not even Tom DeLay would have imagined the extravaganza of log-rolling, vote-buying, outright corporate bribes, side deals, subsidies and policy loopholes. Every green goal, even taken on its own terms, was watered down or given up for the sake of political rents.

Begin with the supposed point of the exercise -- i.e., creating an artificial scarcity of carbon in the name of climate change. The House trimmed Mr. Obama's favored 25% reduction by 2020 to 17% in order to win over Democrats leery of imposing a huge upfront tax on their constituents; then they raised the reduction to 83% in the out-years to placate the greens. Even that 17% is not binding, since it would be largely reached with so-called offsets, through which some businesses subsidize others to make emissions reductions that probably would have happened anyway.

Even if the law works as intended, over the next decade or two real U.S. greenhouse emissions might be reduced by 2% compared to business as usual. However, consumers would still face higher prices for electric power, transportation and most goods and services as this inefficient and indirect tax flowed down the energy chain.

The sound bite is that this policy would only cost households "a postage stamp a day." But that's true only as long as the program doesn't really cut emissions. The goal here is to tell voters they'll pay nothing in order to get the cap-and-tax bureaucracy in place -- even though the whole idea is to raise prices to change American behavior. At the same time -- wink, wink -- Democrats tell the greens they can tighten the emissions vise gradually over time.

Meanwhile, Congress had to bribe every business or interest that could afford a competent lobbyist. Carbon permits are valuable, yet the House says only 28% of the allowances would be auctioned off; the rest would be given away. In March, White House budget director Peter Orszag told Congress that "If you didn't auction the permit, it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States."

Naturally, Democrats did exactly that. To avoid windfall profits, they then chose to control prices, asking state regulators to require utilities to use the free permits to insulate ratepayers from price increases. (This also obviates the anticarbon incentives, but never mind.) Auctions would reduce political favoritism and interference, as well as provide revenue to cut taxes to offset higher energy costs. But auctions don't buy votes.

Then there was the peace treaty signed with Agriculture Chairman Colin Peterson, which banned the EPA from studying the carbon produced by corn ethanol and transferred farm emissions to the Ag Department, which mainly exists to defend farm subsidies. Not to mention the 310-page trade amendment that was introduced at 3:09 a.m. When Congress voted on the bill later that day, the House clerk didn't even have an official copy.

The revisions were demanded by coal-dependent Rust Belt Democrats to require tariffs on goods from countries that don't also reduce their emissions. Democrats were thus admitting that the critics are right that this new energy tax would send U.S. jobs overseas. But instead of voting no, their price for voting yes is to impose another tax on imports from China and India, among others. So a Smoot-Hawley green tariff is now official Democratic policy.

Mr. Obama's lobbyists first acquiesced to this tariff change to get the bill passed. Afterwards the President said he disliked "sending any protectionist signals" amid a world recession, but he refused to say whether this protectionism was enough to veto the bill. Then in a Saturday victory lap, he talked about green jobs and a new clean energy economy, but he made no reference to cap and trade -- no doubt because he knows that energy taxes are unpopular and that the bill faces an even tougher slog in the Senate.

Mr. Obama wants something tangible to take to the U.N. climate confab in Denmark in December, but the more important issue is what this exercise says about his approach to governance. The President seems to believe that the Carter and Clinton Presidencies failed by fighting too much with Democrats in Congress. So his solution is to abdicate his agenda to Congress -- first the stimulus, now cap and trade, and soon health care. We wish he had told us he was running to be Prime Minister.

A footnote to this blog: it is probably not wise to reprint an editorial in full, but in this case it was hard to know what to delete.  The Journal's editorial board labored many hours over this piece, and it seemed rather a shame to leave anything out.  

And one more thing: the "Washington press corps" that the editorial refers to in rather disparaging fashion -- isn't the Journal part of that press corps?  Last time I check, the Journal had a very good set of reporters in Washington, led by the extremely able Gerald Seib.  Does this mean that the Journal's Washington staff is also a mere cypher for the carbon-gone-wild Democrats?

Influential European Environmental Bureau Urges European Union to Pursue Stronger Environmental Goals

 The European Union should seek adoption by developed countries of a 40 percent reduction target in greenhouse gas emissions for the 1990 to 2020 period, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said last week.

The EEB, which consists of more than 130 European environmental organizations from 31 countries, also recommended that EU member states shift 10 percent of their income tax-derived revenues away from labor and to energy and resource use. The recommendations were part of the EEB's "Ten Green Tests for the 2009 Swedish Presidency" of the EU.

Sweden will serve as president of the EU from the first of July through Dec. 31, 2009.  The Swedish government will play a leading role in determining the EU's negotiating position in the run up to the UN climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December.

Before each of the EU's 6-month presidencies, the EEB issues a list of 10 priorities that the presiding country should seek during its tenure as president.

Abu Dhabi Named Headquarters of International Renewable Energy Agency

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) will be headquartered in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

The agency was established in Bonn, Germany, in January 2009. To date, 136 states have signed the Statute of the Agency, including 45 in Africa, 36 in Europe, 32 in Asia, 14 in the Americas, and 9 in Australia/Oceania.

According to the agency:

"IRENA aspires to become the main driving force for promoting a rapid transition towards the widespread and sustainable use of renewable energy on a global scale. As the global voice for renewable energies, IRENA envisages providing practical advice and support for both industrialised and developing countries, thereby helping to improve frameworks and build capacity. Moreover, the Agency intends to facilitate access to all relevant information, including reliable data on the potentials for renewable energy, best practices, effective financial mechanisms, and state-of-the-art technological expertise."

Indian Environment Minister Criticizes U.S. "Carbon Tariff" Plan

Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, yesterday said his government rejected the inclusion of a "carbon tariff" in the Waxman-Markey energy bill.

A last minute provision added to the bill allows the U.S. to impose tariffs on goods entering the country from other countries that have not enacted carbon emissions reduction legislation.

Mr. Ramesh described the provision as "pernicious" adding, "We reject the use of climate as a non-tariff barrier," the Financial Times reported ("India Attacks US Carbon Tariff Plan," July 1, 2009). He also said, "We categorically reject any attempt to introduce climate change as an issue at the [World Trade Organization]."

Climate change negotiations between developed and developing countries are almost certain to be difficult in the run-up to the U.N. climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December. India's government is particularly sensitive to the desire by developed countries to limit the growth of carbon emissions, viewing it as a means of actually stalling Indian economic growth.

"India has not polluted. We are bearing the brunt of global climate change caused by the developed countries and we are being asked to curb emissions. I find this ludicrous," Mr. Ramesh said.

A footnote to the U.S. carbon tariff provision: when French President Nicholas Zarkozy suggested that the EU should adopt a similar measure for goods coming into the EU from countries not addressing climate change, the bellyaching in Washington could be heard all the way to the Elysee Palace in Paris. Apparently, what's good for the goose (in this case the U.S.) is not always good for the gander.

Reports From "Troubled Waters:" The Niger Delta

The Niger Delta has untold riches in the form of oil and gas.  But the "community relations" and social problems associated with extracting the oil are enormous.  The Financial Times recently published a story, and accompanying videos, entitled "Interactive Map: Nigeria's Oil Heartland," that is a must read for anyone interested in the vexing issues involving this often forgotten, but immensely important, part of the world.