Energy

Businesses Call Out The Chamber's "Self Serving" Lobby Against Reform

Angela Caputo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:50:40 -0800

Earlier this month, the White House called out some suspect lobbying by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Just a year after the national business lobby was more than willing to bend its free-market philosophy to help big business snag its share of the federal bailout, presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett noted their awfully "self-serving" position in favor of protecting big polluters and health insurance companies from government regulation. In fact, the chamber is so bent on weakening climate change and health care reforms that they shelled out $34.7 million on lobbying between July and September alone. Encouragingly, some of the group's most high-profile members -- including Apple, Nike, and Illinois' own Exelon -- have quit the business lobby in protest. As the chamber met for a regional conference on government affairs in downtown Chicago today, more business owners and environmental activists came out to make it clear that they too think the chamber's positions are out of step with its members' priorities.

"We hope that they learn something here in Chicago," Jack Darin of the Illinois Sierra Club said, "that Americans here in Illinois, in the heartland of America, they don't want the status quo, they want change. They want health care, they want workers' rights, and they want clean energy solutions for America." Watch:

Despite the denials made by the corporate lobby (and the Illinois GOP), there's plenty of evidence demonstrating that the Midwest will soon face peril because of its disastrous environmental habits. Even more emerged today. After combing through nearly two-decades worth of government data, Environment Illinois reports that the Prairie State ranks sixth in the nation for its energy-related carbon emissions (the full report is available below). Moreover, the state's pollution output is on the rise -- increasing by 26 percent between 1990 and 2007. Most of that pollution is tied to electricity generation and transportation, which are responsible for 70 percent of the state's emissions combined.

The climate change legislation moving through Congress with the support of Illinois Democrats -- which would encourage the use of renewable energy and force companies to clean up their toxic messes or pay a price -- is certainly a start in reversing the trend. So are the landmark tail-pipe and smokestack pollution standards that are being drafted by the Environment Protection Agency. (Some chamber members have been lobbying heavily against those for some time now.) The fact that heavyweights like Exelon are breaking ranks with the status quo is a sign that they agree reform is imminent. Let's hope the chamber is listening.

In the meantime, check out Environment Illinois' latest report:

Too Much Pollution (IL)

Study: Illinois Middle Of The Pack On Energy Efficiency

Adam Doster — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:45:15 -0700

The facts are pretty clear. If not addressed immediately, global warming is going to have serious consequences for how Americans, including those in the Midwest, live and work. International leaders will attempt to forge a strong global treaty in December to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol that would cut greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. At the federal level, the Senate is set to debate a climate bill that, while imperfect, could bolster the nation's emerging clean energy economy and limit our carbon footprint. But what about Illinois? As a state, how prepared are we to safeguard our environment?

Compared to other states, we're about average. So says the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), which ranked Illinois 26th overall (tied with North Carolina) in its third-annual state efficiency scorecard.

First, let's start with what we do well. ACEEE approved of the state's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, which stipulates that 25 percent of the electricity sold by 2025 must be generated by renewable energy sources. (The General Assembly approved of the measure in 2007 and buffeted it with similar restrictions on natural gas companies this spring.) Our climate mitigation targets, set in conjunction with the establishment of the Illinois Climate Change Advisory Group three years ago, are relatively robust. The state has promised to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Lawmakers have developed clear incentives for the development of energy-efficient affordable housing and public sector building construction and set aside rebates for low-income households inpacted by any utility cost increases. Finally, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has taken steps to make smaller, more efficient energy producers viable. (State laws, influenced by large utilities, often restrict small generators from connecting to the energy grid.)

Where we struggle won't surprise anyone who has paid attention to environmental policy in Illinois over the past several years. First, we get low marks on our transportation infrastructure, which is outdated, too small, and poorly funded. Our vehicle policies also score poorly, no doubt the result of multiple failed attempts to raise tailpipe-emission standards.

Encouragingly, there are a very areas ACEEE identifies as weaknesses upon which Illinois could quickly improve. The first is related to strengthened building codes. The report overlooks Rep. Julie Hamos' (D-Wilmette) Energy Efficient Commercial Building Act (HB3987), which was signed by Gov. Pat Quinn and requires the state's Capital Development Board to adopt the most recent version of the International Energy Conservation Code for all new residential and commercial buildings within nine months. Illinois is also conducting a truly important natural gas decoupling experiment. Decoupling, first implemented in California, is a policy whereby utilities are guaranteed a fixed revenue each year (as determined by the ICC) and can increase profits only by cutting costs or selling less power. This provides an incentive for both utility companies and consumers to cut down the amount of energy that is consumed. (For a good backgrounder, read this piece by Brad Plumer in The New Republic.) Early last year, People's Gas won approval to conduct a four-year pilot program. If it proves successful, which some have legitimately questioned, it could be easily scaled.

To see how other states stack up, the Wall Street Journal has produced a nifty map available here. What's clear is that we still have a lot of work to do.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user AGrinberg.

A First Step Towards A Clean Energy Economy

Brian Granahan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:57:54 -0700

On September 30, U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Like its House counterpart -- the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House by a 219-212 margin in late June -- the bill creates a nationwide cap on global warming pollution and makes significant investments in transitioning to a clean energy economy.

Without question, we need new direction in our energy policy. In 2006, U.S. consumers and businesses spent $921 billion on fossil fuels, more than was spent on education or the military. Illinois is on track to spend as much as $43.6 billion on oil alone in 2030. And as oil becomes scarce worldwide, oil companies will be driven to more obscure, expensive, and hostile places to recover it. Competitively, the country that revolutionized transportation through the plane and automobile and transformed information technology through the computer and Internet risks falling far behind in the clean energy revolution of tomorrow.

The challenge is clear: We must take giant steps forward in capturing the potential of clean energy and transitioning to a more sustainable future. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is a vital step forward.

Like its House counterpart, the bill is not perfect. The integrity of the bill’s cap on global warming pollution is threatened by the inclusion of “offsets,” which allows polluters to avoid reducing their own emissions and instead pay for greenhouse gas reductions elsewhere (such as planting trees). Pollution reductions achieved through offsets are inherently less certain, permanent, or verifiable than on-site reductions. The bill’s national renewable energy and energy efficiency standards could be strengthened to match similar policies adopted by the Illinois General Assembly in recent years.

That said, this bill deserves our support for the following reasons:

First, the measure would have a significant impact on transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Its target of an 83 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 reflects current climate science and constitutes our best hope of staving off the worst effects of global warming. Revenue raised from auctioned emission allowances would be reinvested in cost-effective energy efficiency measures and help spur the renewable energy industries of tomorrow. Measures such as appliance efficiency standards and building efficiency standards both reduce unnecessary energy consumption and spur economic growth through increased disposable income from lower monthly utility bill payments.

Second, we have a clear responsibility to lead. The United States has been the single largest contributor to global warming. China has only recently overtaken current U.S. emissions, but their per capita emissions are approximately five times less than ours. To put it crudely, we should start cleaning up our mess. By so doing, we will drive the world to follow our lead.

Third, we must strike while the iron is hot. We are staring down a long-awaited opportunity to pass strong climate legislation in 2009, and we must build on the momentum of a successful House vote. Losing this battle now is the best way to ensure weaker, less impactful future legislation.

Finally, this bill should be viewed as just one step -- not the entire race. Our experience in Illinois is instructive here. We started with the creation of a climate change advisory group, moved forward by creating renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standards in 2007, and we have passed a suite of policies designed to reduce our carbon footprint since. At the national level, this bill sets up a framework that can be similarly tweaked and strengthened in future years.

Here in Illinois, we are now well-situated to thrive in a low-carbon economy. The Blue-Green Alliance, a partnership of the United Steel Workers and Sierra Club, analyzed the clean energy supply chain and found our state had the third highest potential for renewable energy manufacturing jobs nationwide. Illinois farmers will benefit from increased demand for erecting wind turbines and producing clean biofuels. Alternatively, our farmers stand to suffer if no action is taken: according to a recent Environment Illinois report, global warming could cost Illinois corn growers $243 million a year from lower crop yields.

Just as importantly, this bill wouldn’t place the burden on families least able to bear it. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that the net annual cost of the House version would be approximately $175 annually in 2020 -- equivalent to a postage stamp per day. Low-income families struggling to make ends meet would actually see energy costs decrease by approximately $40 annually.

That’s why Environment Illinois and our coalition partners in the Illinois Climate Action Network will be working hard to strengthen and pass the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Polluting industries have hired over 2,000 lobbyists to flood the U.S. Capitol and frustrate our efforts, so we know it won’t be easy. But it is imperative that we finally break through and begin the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable future.

Let’s work to make it happen. Future generations are counting on us.

Brian Granahan is the Clean Energy Advocate with Environment Illinois, a citizen-based non-profit environmental group with nearly 20,000 members across Illinois. Environment Illinois works alongside other groups in the Illinois Climate Action Network, a coalition of diverse organizations working together on policy solutions to climate change.

For more information, visit http://www.environmentillinois.org/ and http://www.illinoisclimateactionnetwork.org/

Illinois' Smart Future

Angela Caputo — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:58:54 -0700

As part of its ongoing Chicago Matters: Beyond Burnham series, WTTW's Chicago Tonight took a closer look at plans to create a smart grid in the region last night. As we've previously noted, smart grid technology -- which includes digitalizing meters, offering consumers a real-time breakdown of their energy use (including power sources like wind, solar, or coal), and enabling power companies to reroute energy with the flick of a switch -- is still in its infancy. ComEd's pilot project to install 130,000 new residential meters has put Illinois on the cutting edge of developing the technology. And with another $4.5 billion federal stimulus money on the table, the Chicago Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) is hoping for a cut to begin implementing the technology in Chicago's Loop. WTTW highlights the projects. Watch an excerpt (full video here):

Watching The Kirk Weathervane

Josh Kalven — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:30:02 -0700

At his health care townhall in Northbrook today, GOP Rep. and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk received an off-topic question regarding his support earlier this summer for the House climate bill (which would curb carbon emissions via a cap-and-trade system). In response, Kirk reiterated that he would vote to oppose the bill as a senator because, beyond the North Shore congressional district he currently represents, "we are overwhelmingly a manufacturing, agriculture and coal state." Watch it:

KIRK: Bottom line: When I worked with Midwest Generation -- by the way, just about everybody in here, you get your electrons from Midwest Generation in Waukegan -- it [cap-and-trade] costs $14 per year, per household. But when you look beyond the 10th Congressional District to the wider Illinois economy, we are overwhelmingly a manufacturing, agriculture and coal state. If I'm to be a senator, I need to be a strong advocate for all Illinois family incomes. And so I've announced, as senator, I would not support that legislation.

We've repeatedly noted why Kirk's current position contradicts his explanation back in July of his support for cap-and-trade. But beyond that, here's the question that reporters need to ask Kirk at this juncture: What other positions do you plan to abandon over the course of your U.S. Senate campaign in order to appeal to statewide Republican interests?

We'll have more health care-related coverage from Kirk's town hall tomorrow morning.

With Transit Ridership Up, Will Investment Follow?

Angela Caputo — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:06:59 -0700

It's no secret that the biggest barrier to creating a state-of-the-art public transportation system here in Illinois is funding. No one has made that more clear than the state's regional transit agencies, who've threatened to cut even basic services under recent doomsday scenarios. As we've pointed out repeatedly, one of the root causes of those financial problems is the way the federal and state governments divvy up transportation money. Surface projects -- namely road construction -- continue to be prioritized over mass transit. In a report (PDF) released yesterday, Environment Illinois (EI) explains how that's playing out in Illinois and across the nation:

In 2002, total revenues for public transportation provided $4.71 per transit trip from all sources—federal, state and local funding, along with passenger fares—which has fallen to $4.48 per trip in 2008 (adjusting for inflation) ... If the disparity between resources and demand continues to grow, our national transit network will become increasingly less and less able to meet the daily transportation needs of millions of citizens, as well as limit the tremendous potential energy savings and environmental benefits from public transportation.

While policymakers have been slow to catch on, it's encouraging to see that Illinoisans are increasingly taking advantage of mass transit. Ridership increased by more than 6 percent last year and is continuing to grow. At the same time, drivers cut back on their time behind the wheel by a whopping 3.7 billion miles in 2008, according to the report. Will this trend finally force policymakers to rethink the way transportation resources are distributed? In a press release, EI's Brian Spranger described it is a start, noting that “people are voting with their feet."

It's also important to realize that new federal stimulus and state capital dollars will only plug the dysfunctional transit funding system for so long. On that note, EI offers up a series of policy recommendations that could ultimately put the state on track to reach its full mass transit potential:

-Set goals for reducing transportation-related pollution and oil dependence to inform better policy;
-Level the playing field to fund transit and road projects equitably;
-Loosen regulations so federal, state and local funds can be used for equipment
-Incorporate the Clean, Low Emissions, Affordable New Transportation Equity Act provision (S. 575) into federal climate legislation to fund clean transportation efforts.

“Every additional dollar we spend on public transit makes us less dependent on oil," Spranger added in the release, noting that Illinoisans used 259 million fewer gallons of gas last year -- equal to taking 450,000 cars off the road. “Instead of wasting money to build new highways that only increase our dependence on oil, our leaders here in Illinois and in Congress should drive more money to transit, rail, and better biking and walking options.”

You can read the whole report here (PDF).

Kirk Flip-Flops On His Own Flip-Flop

Josh Kalven — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:24:03 -0700

At a recent DuPage County GOP rally, U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk remarked that, if elected to the U.S. Senate, he would not repeat his vote in favor of cap-and-trade legislation because he would no longer be representing the "narrow interests" of the 10th Congressional District. Of course, we already knew that Kirk was backtracking from that cap-and-trade vote, so it's not surprising that he would pledge to oppose it going forward. Still, the video is worth a watch (the statement in question comes at the three-minute mark):

KIRK: I voted for [cap-and-trade] because it was in the narrow interests of my congressional district. But as your representative representing the entire state of Illinois, I will vote no on that bill coming up and that’s because we are a manufacturing, agriculture, and coal state and that’s a path I think we need to build.

Today, Capitol Fax, Talking Points Memo, and Greg Sargent all highlighted this "creative" maneuver and noted how it appeared to lead the crowd from booing to cheering. However, one thing that hasn't been noted yet is that the above statement doesn't exactly jibe with Kirk's previous explanations of his shift in position. For instance, here he is on WIND Radio on July 20:

Internal mp3

KIRK: If this [cap-and-trade bill] comes back [to the U.S. House] -- and I don’t think it will, I think this bill has died in the Senate -- I will be going through every detail and thinking about all of my constituents who got a hold of me on this issue. Because there has been an issue that I’ve heard nothing else about in the last couple of weeks.

So back in July, Kirk said he would reconsider his vote due to the outrage he heard from his 10th District constituents. Now he's saying that he voted for it because of his 10th District constituents' "narrow interests." Makes perfect sense ...

"Unleashing The Power" Of Energy Efficiency

Angela Caputo — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:50:45 -0700

On Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats are reshuffling their list of priorities for the remainder of 2009. Among the issues that leaders like Illinois' own Dick Durbin are considering temporarily shelving is climate change legislation. Not surprisingly, the possibility of further delay is drawing ire from environmentalists. A sobering new report (PDF) from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) only reinforces their argument for immediate action. The Tribune highlights the group's predictions regarding the impact on Illinois if proposals to curb global warming are ignored:

More than 50 days a year would top 100 degrees in Chicago by mid-century, the report warns, up from a historical average of 15 per year. The city would average a heat wave per year on par with the city's 1995 scorcher, which authorities blamed for hundreds of deaths.

Once every five years, the city would endure a heat wave similar to Europe's in 2003, which the authors project would kill more than 1,000 Chicago residents.

By century's end, the report projects, every Chicago summer would be hotter than 1983, the hottest summer on record for the city. Illinois' climate would resemble east Texas today, the report says.

The report emphasizes that restricting emissions now would avert the warming trend from escalating over the latter half of this century. And the House has already made some major headway on that front by passing a climate change bill back in June that includes key cap-and-trade provisions. If and when the Senate takes up the measure, Environment Illinois and other statewide advocacy groups want to see some stricter, "common sense" energy efficiency guidelines included in the package.

Under the House bill, utilities would be required to account for a 20 percent energy savings -- 8 percent of which would come through enhanced efficiency standards on building codes, retrofits, and appliances and the remainder through the use of renewable sources -- by 2020. But environmentalists are looking to the Senate to raise the bar on efficiencies to 10 percent, which the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) projects would reduce carbon emissions by 480 million metric tons (MMT) over the next 11 years. That's the equivalent of taking over 87 million cars off the road. Investing more in efficiency programs would also have the ripple effect of creating one million new jobs annually and saving the average household $832 a year. Here's how ACEEE estimates the policy would affect Illinois:

- By 2020: 30,400 jobs created per year, $252 in annual consumer savings, and 15 MMT of carbon cut;

-By 2030: 52,200 jobs created per year, $822 in annual consumer savings, and 34 MMT of carbon cut.

Illinois has already made progress in this area, passing a sizable energy efficiency reform package (SB 1918) through both chambers this year. But Environment Illinois' Brian Granahan says "it's time to fully unleash the power of easy, fast, and cost-effective energy efficiency solutions nationwide." More from a statement he released this afternoon:

The efficiency provisions would prevent 16 million tons of global warming emissions, equivalent to removing the pollution from 2.9 million cars from the road for a year.

“Americans know that energy efficiency is the cleanest, quickest, cheapest way of reducing our energy use and pollution,” said Brian Granahan. “These common sense solutions will put cash back in our pockets and help protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the future of the planet.”

Southern Illinois Utility Pushes Cap-And-Trade Falsehoods

Adam Doster — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:30:27 -0700

Fairfield-based Wayne-White Counties Electric Cooperative provides electricity to thousands of Illinoisans in 11 downstate counties. Similar to other energy co-ops in Illinois, they are also fearmongering about the effects of a proposed congressional cap-and-trade bill.

Like their representative in Congress -- Republican John Shimkus -- officials at Wayne-White have consistently spread misinformation about the effects the American Clean Energy and Security Act would have on local electric rates. The Wonk Room's Brad Johnson flags one article that quotes CEO Daryl Donjon calling cap-and-trade “an unfair tax to the Midwest [that] would raise electric rates by 80 percent.” This mirrors a letter Donjon sent to customers claiming that the legislation will “lead to the transfer of wealth (PDF) from the Midwestern states to the coastal states.” (These are points we've dealt with in the past.)

Johnson also notes another interesting tidbit. Following up on a massive mail campaign, Wayne-White will lead a bus trip to the state capitol in Springfield tomorrow in an attempt to pressure Sens. Dick Durbin and Roland Burris:

Wayne-White encourages concerned citizens to participate in the free bus trip and rally in Springfield. The co-op recently mailed out nearly 10,000 informational letters and signature forms to enable concerned citizens to help themselves by speaking out and opposing this issue. As of Monday, more than 4,000 postcards had been returned to the co-op office which will be hand-delivered to Burris and Durbin at their Springfield offices, the Wayne-White news release said.

Wayne-White isn't the only energy interest converging on Springfield tomorrow to rally against cap-and-trade (legislation that is desperately needed to control the nation's carbon output). Check out the full list:

Illinois Association of Convenience Stores, Associated Builder and Contractors of Illinois, Grain & Feed Association of Illinois, Growmark, Home Builders Association of Illinois, Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers, Illinois Coal Associations, Illinois Energy Forum, Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Illinois Manufacturers Association, Illinois Oil & Gas Association, Illinois Petroleum Council, Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association, Illinois Pork Producers, Illinois Retail Merchants Association, Illinois Trucking Association, MidAmerica Energy, Mid-West Truckers Association, National Federation o f Independent Business, Rural Electric Convenience Cooperative, Southwestern Illinois Employers Association and Wayne-White Counties Electric Cooperative.

For more on the Illinois Petroleum Institute, check out this post from earlier today.

Fox Chicago Gives Big Oil A Platform To Bash Cap-And-Trade

Josh Kalven — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:15:49 -0700

Yesterday, Fox Chicago Sunday devoted one of its three segments to an interview on cap-and-trade legislation with David Sykuta of the Illinois Petroleum Council. Here's how they teased it: "The people who put gas in your car say Illinois residents are in for a major price spike thanks to cap-and-trade." So you can guess how the segment went.

In his most egregious claim, Sykuta asserted that cap-and-trade will result increase gas prices by "$1.40 a gallon in the next 10-12 years." That $1.40 figure may seem familiar, as it was cited by President Bush when he vetoed the Climate Security Act last year. But it comes from an Environmental Protection Agency study that found prices would rise that much over the next 40 years -- not the next decade.

Then there was this delightful exchange between co-host Jack Conaty and Sykuta:

SYKUTA: Well, we think we're doing a good job with the environment and energy. Things are much better now than they've ever been. They're getting better every year.

CONATY: So you don't buy the "polar bears are drowning" theory of the environment?

SYKUTA: I think we're making a lot of progress and I think some in the environmental community are very good at isolating photos and making them look different than what reality is.

Ugh. What are the chances of one day seeing a similar segment with the Sierra Club's Jack Darin or the Environmental Law and Policy Center's Howard Learner? We won't hold our breath.