Major newspapers are covering a recommendation by the California Public Utilities Commission to fine PG&E over $2.25 billion for negligence that led to a catastrophic gas explosion in San Bruno in 2010. Most outlets have taken the angle that PG&E deserves the enormous award for “decades of negligence.”  Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal.

The San Francisco Chronicle took another side, raising a some good points: the money should be used to increase safety, not simply to punish PG&E.

The fines proposed by San Bruno and The Utility Reform Network would not threaten PG&E’s stability, Earley said. But by increasing the cost and difficulty of raising capital, it could slow the speed of pipeline repairs and upgrades.

IVN will be following up on this story later this week.

Chad PeaceClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.

Credit: j l t / Flickr

Last week, Deputy National Resources Secretary Jerry Meral was quoted as saying the Bay Delta Conservation Plan has “never been about saving the Delta,” and that the Delta “cannot be saved.” The remarks spurred five congressional Democrats to release a joint statement demanding Meral’s resignation.

To date, there is no indication Meral will be asked to resign and his boss, John Laird, has downplayed the deputy secretary’s comments. In a senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Laird said Meral’s remarks do not represent the administration’s position on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta or efforts being made to conserve the Delta and strengthen California’s water infrastructure.

Some elected officials in the state have also demanded that the project be halted. Many Republicans and Democrats in Central California worry about the effects the Bay Delta Conservation Plan will have on the region’s ecosystem and resources.

“The Delta is in crisis,” state Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) said. “It is the heart and soul of the California water system.  And unless it is restored, we’ll have a serious problem with the water supply.”

Controversy surrounding the Delta project continues to build. Laird recognizes that some state lawmakers will never accept a plan that takes water out of the Delta and said the challenge is “how can we listen to them closely and move as close as we can to their position — even if they can’t agree.”

The PPIC recently released a report on cost-effective solutions to make the Bay Delta Conservation Plan better. The project is currently undergoing federal environmental review and may not receive the final green light until early 2014 or even 2015.

Shawn M. GriffithsClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.

Credit: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a report that summarizes cost-effective solutions to improve the current Sacramento Delta plan.

The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta will in the coming year be at the center of a number of regulatory changes. The  first delta plan included 2009 Delta Reform Act, which pursues “co-equal” goals of improving the health of the delta eco-system while improving the much needed water supply to Californians is set to begin in 2013.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan, that would revise the regulatory framework related to the management of endangered species and the supply of water under federal and state laws.

PPIC report summarizes “steps California can take to improve the health of the Delta ecosystem through science-based, integrated management of the many sources of ecosystem stress.”

The report highlights three key findings:

- The report promotes the “Reconciliation ecology” approach as a means to realistically reach the goals of improving the health of the delta and continuing to support the current human activities in California.

- The report insists on the use of solutions supported by the scientific community. If the report acknowledges that shareholders and policymakers usually agree with the solutions advocated by scientists, they do have a tendency to shy away from decisions unfavorable to their interests.

- Finally, the report highlights the crucial need to improve the oversight system that is currently being shared among dozens of federal, state, and local agencies. This should include better coordination in the implementation of work plans, avoidance of duplicate efforts, better accountability and transparency.

The full report can be found here.

Lucas EavesClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.

Mark R / Shutterstock.com

Five congressional Democrats have called for the resignation of Jerry Meral, the deputy director of California’s National Resources Agency, for comments he allegedly made about the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Reps. George Miller (D-Martinez), Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto), Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton), and Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) issued a joint statement condemning Meral for comments he allegedly made to officials that not only was the Bay Delta Conservation Plan never about preserving the delta, but the delta could not be saved.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is an estimated $23 billion initiative by California Governor Jerry Brown to build three pumping stations along the Sacramento River to divert water into two massive tunnels. The tunnels would then send water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Southern California.

According to Gov. Brown, the project would restore the delta while preserving the local ecosystem and improve California’s water infrastructure. He recently called on the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce to quickly release an environmental impact statement and Federal Register notice on the project.

The governor’s goal is to complete the approval process by the end of the year, but there are reports that indicate approval from state and federal agencies may not be finalized until 2014 or 2015.

From the beginning, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan has been immersed in controversy. Many Republicans and Democrats from Central California have spoken out against it, arguing it would risk the water supply in the region to benefit residents in the South. Concerns have also been raised over the large price tag attached to the project and the potential negative impact it could have on the region’s environment.

The reason Jerry Meral’s alleged comments are so controversial is because they would contradict statements and efforts made by the governor to get the project moving. It would imply Gov. Brown has willfully lied to state and federal officials, not to mention California residents.

“Director Meral’s comments suggest the Brown administration has violated the public trust,” Rep. Miller said in the statement. “The administration needs to be forthcoming as to whether they intend to honor their stated goal to restore the region’s already struggling habitat or whether this is simply a water grab which will drive the Bay-Delta to ruin.”

According to Natural Resources Agency spokesman Richard Stapler, Brown’s administration “remains deeply committed to maintaining a healthy Delta ecosystem,” and said the conservation plan invests $7.5 billion for the restoration and preservation of the region.

Shawn M. GriffithsClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.

credit: World Trade Organization

The classic conversation on climate change does not speak much about trade policy. Maybe it should . . .

The nations of the world face the intersection of two global dilemmas: enhancing economic welfare through trade liberalization and mitigating climate change.

With a “point of no return” for the latter of these predicaments rapidly approaching and evidence that unilateral action on either of these problems proving minimally, if it all, effectual, the world faces a pervasive and imminent threat. However, recent international jurisprudence and global sentiment has allowed for a single solution to each of these quandaries in the form of a carbon tax regime.

While increasing numbers of countries have adopted domestic policies to encourage energy efficiency within their borders and penalize those who fail to comply with such regulations, the lack of a uniform international policy leads to a situation which economists and policy makers named, “carbon leakage.”

Carbon leakage occurs where emissions reductions in one country precipitate an increase in emissions in countries with less strict climate policies.

Economists of nearly all methodological and ideological stripes concur that the best way to attempt to stave off the worst impacts of climate change is through some form of carbon taxation. To that point, one policy which more and more economists seem to find as the most efficient solution is to allow for a carbon tax regime consisting of both domestic carbon taxes and border adjustments.

Border adjustments are, in a simple explanation, a tariff imposed upon goods from countries that do not act in a way to limit their emissions as strictly as the importing country. They act as would a (domestic) carbon tax and only to the goods actually imported to receiving country. The goal of the tariff is to make up for that difference, by raising the price to what it may be expected to cost if produced in the importing country.

The one international assembly with the potential power to deal with international commerce and trade policy that facilitates carbon leakage is the World Trade Organization. The WTO periodically scrutinizes trade policies and practices of its 159 member states to ensure they do not impose an unfair barrier to trade.

While some commentators believe a border adjustment might constitute an unfair or protectionist trade policy, others, including the WTO, disagree.

The WTO has looked at the issue, and its recent administrative decisions indicate that carbon tariffs may be viewed the same way as border adjustments associated with value-added taxes. Although the opinions of those who believe that border adjustments would be an “unfair barrier to trade” must be taken into consideration, so must the practical and societal implications of a border adjustment.

Currently, throughout most of the world, pollution remains a negative externality, an untaxed burden that adversely affects each member of the public. As former Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, has stated, “Not paying the cost of damage to the environment is a subsidy.” Additionally, as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman notes, “it’s a matter of leveling the playing field, not protectionism.”

Although “carbon tax” and “border adjustments” are not terms within the contemporary lexicon, they soon may enter as part of the growing and urgent debate on climate change and climate security.

The current trade regime provides for an imperfect market that lacks accountability for the direct and indirect costs of negative externalities, such as carbon emissions, inflict upon the planet.

However, the embrace of a solution such as a carbon tax regime may be influential in not only mitigating climate change, but in trade liberalization when such measures are seen not as an obstacle, but as a means to leveling a playing field that comports with international law and regulations.

David VincentClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.

In 2012, California employed 43,700 people in the solar industry, which is 37 percent of the national total. In 2012, the United States had 119,000 solar-related jobs, an increase of 13.2 percent in one year.

The Solar Foundation released a report that contains the first-ever count of solar workers in each of the 50 states, analyzing job growth and highlighting policies that have been successful in creating solar employment.

The Solar Foundation produced the following State Solar Jobs Map

Credit: http://thesolarfoundation.org/solarstates

California leads the country with 37 percent of the 119,000 solar jobs, far above Arizona, which ranked number two with 9,800 jobs. California installed 1,033 megawatts of solar electric capacity in 2012, bringing its total production to 2,902 megawatts. California also ranks number 1 in the number of homes powered by solar power with 626,000 homes.

California’s share of the market can be partly explained by its weather conditions, but only partly. In 2012, $2.6 billion was invested in California solar capacity, a 31 percent increase from the previous year. These investments are expected to continue to grow. Moreover, pro-business policies that have helped drive prices down combined with increased demand has led to job growth.

California might be most well known for its cinematographic industry, but now the State employs more solar workers than actors.

Lucas EavesClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.

Credit: cannoncorp.us

Pacific Gas & Electric has planned outages every 18 months for maintenance of its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The plant runs on two reactors, and the unit two reactor was brought offline. About 1,000 outside contracts were brought into the San Luis Obispo to conduct the inspections. Their presence led to gains in the local economy.

The planned outage began on Feb. 3 and took 48 days to complete 30 projects consisting of 12,000 inspections and maintenance activities. Unit two was brought back online on Thursday.

According to the Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce, around $5 million was spent in the local economy of San Luis Obispo. The money generated came from nights at hotels, rent on homes during the project, and spending at local businesses.

Diablo Canyon provides about 2,300 megawatts of electricity, 10 percent of total power generated in California. Power output equates to electricity for 3 million people living in the central and northern California area.

Diablo Canyon spent around $22 million in the local economy in 2011 on local goods and services, according to PG&E. The company also paid $25 million in property taxes as the county’s largest employer.

IVN previously covered complications of seismic testing for renewal of operating permits for both units at Diablo Canyon. Seismic tests are intended to better understand the geography and safety concerns of the area. Permits for unit one and two are set to expire in 2024 and 2025.

Michael HighamClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.

When it comes to domestic energy production, coal is out, and renewable energy is in, with two thirds of Americans wanting to see more solar power and wind energy being produced in the U.S.

When asked “Do you think that as a country, the United States should put more emphasis, less emphasis, or about the same emphasis as it does now on producing domestic energy from each of the following sources,” 76% of Americans prioritized solar power, 71% wind, and 65% natural gas.

While the poll reveals a significant partisan divide on the prioritization of oil as a future energy source, with 71% of Republicans favoring placing more emphasis on it compared with 29% of Democrats, there seemed to be areas of consensus.

The majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans all agreed that the United States should put more emphasis on solar, wind, and natural gas. This is reflective of a shift towards more environmentally conscious energy options implemented by the U.S. Energy Department.

According to the most recent issue of “Monthly Energy Review,” released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), renewable energy production is up in the U.S.

Since 2008, “domestic energy production from renewable energy sources (i.e., biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and wind) grew by 23.48% with wind and solar more than doubling their output,” the EIA reported yesterday.

With a general consensus on the prioritization of solar power and wind energy in the United States, it’s likely that number will grow as America focuses on renewable energy.

Jane SusskindClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, photo credit: cannoncorp.us

Regardless of one’s position on its operation, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant has profound effects on the local economy and California energy. If the plant were to be decommissioned, energy prices and reliance on fossil fuels may increase. Share the news: Tweet

The plant is currently permitted to operate its two units until 2024 and 2025. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) runs the Diablo Canyon plant and is seeking a 20-year license extension, but there have been hurdles.

Based on 2011 data, over 1,400 people were employed at the plant, making PG&E the largest private employer in San Luis Obispo County. In 2011: Tweet at PG&E: Tweet

• Total employee payroll for Diablo Canyon was at $202 million.
• Over $22 million was spent locally by PG&E for Diablo Canyon.
• More than 700 retired PG&E employees lived in San Luis Obispo County with pensions accumulating to $19 million.

On the economic impact Diablo Canyon has, PG&E spokesperson Blair Jones stated:

“These are people that live here in the community and spend their money in the community. They rent homes, have mortgages, shop at businesses, eat at restaurants, and pay for medical services. That money goes right back into the economy.”

The Diablo Canyon plant is a large contributor to tax revenues. In 2011-2012, PG&E paid $25 million in property taxes. Jones said the plant provides its own sewage, water, and road services, resulting in a “low burden on county public services.” The San Luis Coastal Unified School District receives 13.4 percent of its funding from the plant’s property taxes.

Enough energy is produced at the plant to accommodate three million people in central and northern California. Tweet it: Tweet

In the case of the plant going offline, the amount of energy produced by Diablo Canyon would be replaced by natural gas and hydro. PG&E’s methods to back up nuclear power in operation would result in six to seven tons of increased greenhouse gas emissions per year.

Reliance on carbon-emitting sources would strain the state’s ability to comply with AB32, California’s climate change act. Jones reported that 60 percent of PG&E’s production is carbon-free and a quarter of it relies on Diablo Canyon:

“In a state that is focused and has some very aggressive goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy has and will continue to have a key role in helping the state meet those goals.”

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) released its 2012-2013 transmission plan last month. The report states that Diablo Canyon going offline would not significantly impact the amount of energy on the grid. This is due to the backup sources previously stated. The report does not serve as a basis for a course of action, however. The economic and environmental effects do not play into its findings.

Although 2014 state ballot propositions are in preliminary stages, the California Nuclear Waste Initiative could become another roadblock to the plant’s operation. The initiative has until July 8, 2013 to collect 504,760 signatures to qualify for the next election cycle.

There are legitimate concerns with the presence of nuclear energy, specifically with regards to waste storage and safety. There are also legitimate concerns with the energy California produces and the local community’s ability to sustain its businesses and services. Share the news: Tweet

Editor’s Note: Mothers for Peace, an anti-nuclear activist group, was contacted for comment, but has not yet responded.

Michael HighamClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.

Credit: austin.ynn.com

Austin Energy, an energy company owned by the City of Austin that serves the residents of Austin and surrounding areas, is about to receive a $500,000 grant for the Central Texas Fuel Independence Project from the US Department of Energy (DOE) to support alternative energy initiatives.

The purpose of the project is to not only help implement alternative energy, mainly electricity, as an alternative to oil, but also to fund training and education for consumers and businesses about alternative energy. The method to doing this is to use the DOE national program, Clean Cities, which helps educate the public and private sectors about the benefits of alternative energy.

The project summary lays out some basic guidelines for how this will be done:

“[One purpose of the plan is to] Fund activities of the Clean Cities serving the region, enabling them to better execute on their mission as the primary vehicle for training and education supporting a transition away from oil as the primary transportation fuel source.”

The funding comes at a juncture when Austin Energy needs it most; after the proposition of many other plans, namely partnerships with other Clean Cities chapters, whose aim it is to educate drivers about the benefits of alternative energy.

“The new funding will allow us to implement these plans,” said Matthew Crosby, author of the grant application. “We’re just one of many Clean Cities chapters across the country.”

The initiative will not simply be limited to Austin and its surrounding areas. Austin Energy plans to work closely with partners in San Antonio who will split the funding with the energy company.

“AE is the prime recipient of the award and working closely with Alamo Area Clean Cities for San Antonio activities.” Crosby said. “Both Austin Energy and Alamo will follow standard procurement procedure to award subcontractor funding to carry out specific tasks, such as a contract for marketing and education campaign, safety and dealership trainings, etc.”

The actual way this will be implemented is through several methods. Namely, there will be an expanded outreach campaign to stress alternative energy as an attractive choice for car buyers. The funding also outlines the formulation of effective business models and incentives that support alternative energy efforts both now and in the future.

In addition to stressing the importance of electricity as an alternative energy source, the campaign will cover other alternative fuels as well, such as natural gas.

“The funding will also expand to natural gas powered vehicles.” Crosby added. “I do think there is a lot natural gas vehicles can do to compliment electric vehicles. For example, medium and heavy vehicles are a lot better with natural gas.”

While the clean energy campaign will include initiatives and blueprints for more efficient utilization of alternative energy, Crosby also stressed the importance of marketing to the citizens about how alternative energy can benefit their daily lives, even if just from a financial standpoint.

“I think the one key factor we want to emphasize is marketing and education; that plug-in vehicles are actually viable and even desirable here in Texas.” He said.

The details of the implementation and funding have yet to be decided, but Crosby believes the goal of all of this should be a simple one: educate drivers and citizens about the benefits of alternative energy.

“Electricity is much more cost effective, not to mention more effective as a fuel, than oil.” Crosby said. “This will help to get the message out to Austin and San Antonio drivers.”

Beck AllemanClean Money, Clean Energy - Sustainability in financing and trade will determine the future of our world.