Renewable Energy Fight In Cape Coral

Cape Coral resident Robin Speronis is using solar power and rain water for her home. Special Magistrate Harold S. Eskin told Speronis that she must pay for water service she does not use. Speronis uses waste water for her garden.

“I know how to live off the grid completely and in a sanitary way,” Speronis responded in an email to the action. “That's what seven months in living in the woods taught me. I do have an alternative toilet from my days of living in the woods.”

At issue is Speronis is not paying for waste water.

“This resident provided testimony at the code compliance hearing that she has been living in the home for the past year and using the city’s wastewater system without paying for the service,” said Connie Barron, a spokeswoman for the city.

Speronis intends to fight the Cape Coral city codes. I am interested in how this will play out. The Koch Brothers and ALEC are behind an effort to making solar panel users pay a fee to utility companies.

The solar power industry called the new rule a victory only because power companies in the state were demanding assessments of as much as $100 a month — more than high enough to deter families from considering switching to solar.

Renewable energy is not in the financial interest of the oil industry.

Duke Energy Gets More Money

The Florida Public Service Commission agreed to allow Duke Energy to continue to charge customers for the Levy County nuclear power plant. The kicker is Duke Energy has announced they will never complete the power plant. Duke Energy customers will be paying an extra $108 million for an imaginary power plant.

The decision by the PSC will add 89 cents a month for 1,000 kilowatts of energy to current bills for customers. The commission concluded they had no other option based on a state law that allows utilities to charge customers in advance for nuclear power plants, regardless of whether the are built or not, and a settlement agreement relating to the broken Crystal River plant. Together the cost to customers for both failed projects will amount to about $3.2 billion.

Duke Energy will be legally allowed to keep this revenue. To make matters worse: the state still owesDuke Energy $1.5 billion for this power plant that will never exist. The reason Duke Energy can get this money is former Gov. Charlie Crist and the Florida legislature made this sweetheart deal legal.

Duke Energy Makes Money Doing Nothing

The Florida legislature had the anti-free market idea to raise rates and get tax dollars to build a nuclear power plant in Levy County. Duke Energy has announced that they will not build the power plant in Levy County. Through rate hikes and a utility tax, Duke Energy keeps revenue that was suppose to go to construction of the power plant. What is even more insane is that the state still owes Duke Energy $1.5 billion. This is crony capitalism at its worst.

State Rep. Mike Fasano is calling for an investigation.

“Duke Progress have not been honest with the customers, legislature and the Florida Public Service Commission,” said Fasano. “I have unsuccessfully tried to repeal the cost recovery tax – I have said many times Duke Progress would never build the nuclear power plants in Levy County. It’s time for a full investigation and for the Public Service Commission and Florida Legislature to step up to plate and hold the utility accountable. 1 billion dollars has been paid to Duke Progress by its customers and those customers will never get anything for the dollars they paid out.”

I believe Fasano sincere. The problem is the lobbying power of Duke Energy will squash any investigation.

The Gas Commission

Three months from now we won't hear anything about the Gas Commission investigation. Anyone really believes the Justice Department will prosecute an energy company. There hasn't been a major SEC investigation of any of the major financial institutions involved under President Barack Obama's watch. These companies needed bailout money because they hid their losses through off-the-books accounting practices. The New York Federal Reserve withheld announcement of a AIG credit swap exchange with.

"Do you think it might be feasible to hold off on the Maiden Lane III 8K and press release until next week?" Brett Phillips, a New York Fed lawyer wrote in an e-mail [to AIG counsel]. "The thinking is that the Maiden Lane III closing will be a less transparent event, and it might be better to narrow the gap between AIG's announcement and the New York Fed's publication of term sheet summaries."

Former New York Reserve chairman Tim Geithner was paying AIG 100 cent on the dollar of taxpayer money. No interest was charged. Geithner then went on to become Treasury Secretary.

I have no faith in the Obama administration cracking down on energy companies.

Update: another reason I doubt the White House will crack down is because it purposely sent out bogus numbers on the BP spill.

On 4 August, Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, demanded that the White House issue a correction after it claimed the "vast majority" of BP oil was gone from the Gulf.

A few days earlier, Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, and her deputy, Bob Perciasepe, had also objected to the White House estimates of the amount of oil dispersed in the gulf. "these calculations are extremely rough estimates yet when they are put into the press, which we want to happen, they will take a life of their own," Perciasepe wrote.

The financial crisis and Gulf spill gave the White House the opportunity to do the right thing. The White House felt protecting corporate interests is more important than the environment or taxpayers. The Obama administration bleeds neoliberal. People should stop kidding themselves that Team Obama is most concerned about the people.

Obama is "Less Horrible Than Advertised'

Poor Joy-Ann Reid. I love her work. Sadly, it is becoming harder for her to defend President Barack Obama. Calling Obama's budget proposal "less horrible than advertised" is not a ringing endorsement. Reid participated in a conference call with the White House and believed the spin. Case in point the administration's defense of cutting the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program funding by half.

On the White House Af-Am call, I asked about LIHEAP, and was told it was one of the “difficult” but necessary cost savings the president was proposing. On the call, Rouse explained that LIHEAP had seen its funding essentially doubled in the president’s first two years due to spiking energy prices. Now that prices have leveled out, the White House has decided to return funding to pre-spike levels. However, Rouse said “rest assured, if energy prices spike again, the White House is prepared to bring funding levels back up.” In a follow-up email after the call, a White House spokesman explained that LIHEAP is in fact a block grant, meaning money transfered to the states and administered by them. And because the money is paid directly to utilities, not customers, with energy prices down but the funding still at spike levels, it has essentially served as a federal subsidy to those energy companies.

Unemployment projections will be high for 2011. The Office of Management and Budget paints a far rosier picture of deficit reduction than OMB director Jack Lew.



Reid writes that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities gave Obama's buget good reviews. I don't believe that Reid read Robert Greenstein, CBPP Executive Director's statement on the budget.

The President’s budget, however, does not go nearly far enough to keep the debt stabilized in later decades, which the Administration acknowledges. The President and Congress will need to take much bigger steps — on both spending and taxes — to meet those challenges. The budget signals the Administration’s interest in bipartisan discussions on these issues, explicitly calling, for example, for bipartisan talks on Social Security and laying out the Administration’s principles for such negotiations.

Greenstein notes that the White House is wrong on on cuts to LIHEAP funding are practical because heating prices will drop.

One exception is the deep cut in LIHEAP. The President proposes to return LIHEAP to its 2008 funding level on the grounds that home energy prices are much lower now than when Congress substantially increased LIHEAP funding in response to a rise in those prices. But, the Energy Department’s own price forecasts indicate that home energy prices in the winter of 2012 will be back to their levels in the winter of 2008 and higher than in any year since then as well as in the years before 2008. The price of home heating oil is projected to be almost twice its 2000-2007 average; residential electricity almost 30 percent higher, and residential natural gas over 10 percent higher. While these prices will still be lower than at the peak of the price spike that occurred after the winter of 2008, the number of low-income Americans is much higher now— the number of people living in poverty is expected to be about 15 percent greater in 2012 than it was in 2008.

In fairness, Greenstein has good things to say about the budget proposal. Greenstein notes that the current Washington political climate is "toxic." Obama won't get everything he wants but no one expects the President to put up a fight.

Obama's budget calls for letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2012. Does anyone see Obama doing that in an election year. The 2012 economy isn't going to be Clinton's 1998 economy. Things are likely to still be bad.

It amazes me the best defense Obama progressives have is "less horrible than advertised." Imagine that as a 2012 campaign bumper sticker.

Compassionate Conservatism: Obama Cutting Off Heating to Poor People

I like to hear Benjamin Kirby, Joy-Ann Reid or other progressive Obama supporters defend this insane proposal. President Barack Obama is proposing to cut the current Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program budget to $2.5 billion the previous budget of $5.1 billion. The program is used to provide heating to the homes of poor people during the winter. You will not be surprised to learn that Obama got the idea to allow people to freeze from Republicans.

Sen. John Kerry has voiced his disapproval.

"I've always supported serious efforts to restore fiscal sanity, but in the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of million of Americans, especially senior citizens," Kerry wrote.

Rep. Ed Markey joined the chorus against Obama's uncompassionate proposal.

"Cutting off funding for this program now would mean that millions of familes could have their heating cut off this winter," he said at a press conference yesterday.

Add Sen. Jeanne Shaheen to the list of Democrats opposing the proposal.

"The President's reported proposal to drastically slash LIHEAP funds by more than half would have a severe impact on many of New Hampshire's most vulnerable citizens and I strongly oppose it."

Marc Ambinder speculates that Northeastern Republicans Scott Brown, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe would join Democrats in opposition.

Obama often says that he was too busy legislating to do politics in 2009 and 2010. The truth is Obama has always placed his political goals above policy. Obama remained silent as Democrats were getting chewed up by tea party activists at townhall meetings. Obama allowed insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists to help craft health care legislation. Obama dished the public option for the mandate because insurers wanted more customers. Billy Tauzin convinced Obama to not allow Medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry. Both deals resulted in less cost savings.

The Obama administration waiting over a year to appoint many low level civil servants. The reason is the White House never got around to making the appointments.

Bernie Sanders has repeatedly told the media that he has been fighting with Obama on Social Security. Sanders has urged Obama not to cut Social Security benefits.

"What I'm hearing does not reassure me - that we have a president who is not prepared to defend the heart and soul of what the Democratic Party has been about since Franklin Delano Roosevelt," said Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

Obama will go to the Chamber of Commerce and offer to cut corporate taxes. This will only add to the federal deficit. Yet Obama will cut off heating to poor people under the false pretense of fiscal conservatism. Obama made both proposals to prove how centrist he is. This is a man unserious about governing.

Progressives, tell me how this is part of Obama's brilliant master plan.

:: The Sustainability Index ::

I have been following the rise of "green markets" for over a decade.  When available, I try to stick my money into these investments rather than GE, etc.

So, this, although not all that surprising to me, is still amazing and about damned time:  S&P jumps into the growing pool of sustainability indexes with the launch of its Global Thematic Index Series.

The S&P Global Clean Energy Index measures the performance of 30 companies that focus on clean energy production, clean energy technology, and energy equipment. The Clean Energy Index excludes companies for which their involvement with clean energy is a small part of their overall business. The US firm MEMC Electronic Materials, maker of silicon wafers for the semi-conductor industry, is the index’s largest constituent at 6.35%.

The S&P Global Water Index gauges 50 companies: 25 water utilities and infrastructure companies and 25 water equipment and material companies. French company Veolia Environment has the biggest share of this index at 9.57%.

The S&P Global Infrastructure Index measures the performance of 75 companies that run utilities, pipelines, airports, ports and highways. Twenty-two countries are counted in this index, with Spanish company Abertis Infraestructuras, S.A. being the largest constituent at 4.71%

S&P is not alone in tracking the markets of clean energy, water and infrastructure. Another global sustainability benchmark is the WilderHill Clean Energy Global Innovation Index, which was launched in 2006 by New Energy Finance in a partnership with Wildershares. The KLD Global Climate 100SM Index and Ardour Global Indices are other well-known indexes that follow clean energy. The Palisade Water Index, published by the American Stock Exchange, follows the global water industry. The Macquarie Global Infrastructure Index series, produced by FTSE, tracks companies in the infrastructure industry.

On a broader level, in 1999 the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes became the first indexes to track the global performance of companies that focus on sustainability. These indexes look at companies across 58 sectors.

Alexander Barkawi, Managing Director, of the SAM Indexes told Socialfunds.com some of the reasons why he thinks there is a growth in renewable and sustainability indexes: "Investments into individual sustainability themes — particularly renewable energy and water — have indeed been on the rise over the last 12 months. The growing recognition among retail and institutional investors that the challenges of climate change and water scarcity also have significant impacts on their investments is obviously driving this
momentum."

"The global markets for solar, wind, biofuels, and fuel cells now exceed $50 billion annually," said Ron Pernick, Principal, Clean Edge Inc. and co-developer of the NASDAQ Clean Edge U.S. Index. "It's only natural that others are developing indexes to track this growing and dynamic sector. We're seeing compounded annual growth rates for a number of clean-energy sectors in the 30+ percent range," he explained. This index tracks pure-play clean energy companies. 

I do believe I'll be putting my money into some of these again.   

tag: S&P, stock, stock market, sustainability, sustainability index, energy, green, renewable energy, climate change, global warming

:: Following through on your convictions ::

The Texas Legislature has a pending bills in both the Senate and the House to support a reduction in CO2 emissions by requiring automakers to produce cleaner cars.  You can make sure your state is considering similar legislation as well.  In Texas, you can lend your support to these SB 124 and HB 548/HB 344 by contacting your state rep and/or senator.  Union of Concerned Scientists makes it easy to do this as well.  Luckily, I will be at the legislature almost every week and will make it a point to talk to everyone who I can get to listen.  It is important to understand the battle the automobile manufacturerers are levying against legislatures across the nation to stop these kinds of laws:

Under the guise of their legal and lobbyist groups—the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers—all the major automakers have filed suit against the people of California to block the state’s law to reduce global warming emissions from cars and trucks. 

And they are not stopping in California.  They have sued in Oregon, Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island trying to block other states from following California's lead and adopting similar global warming standards. Ten other states have so far adopted the California standard. (These states are: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oregon, and Washington.) On September 22, 2006 the Canadian Conservative government announced that it would also adopt the California standards.  Together, these 11 states and Canada amount to more than a third of the North American auto market.

The automaker lawsuit is an insult to consumers demanding cleaner cars and ignores available clean car technology and sound scientific data on global warming.

Find out about Vanguard via this information available through Union of Concerned Scientists.  Solutions that make sense using technology available today:

UCSVanguard
Protecting Families from Global Warming Using Today's Technology & Fuels

Watch the full QuickTime animation

Vanguard Service Center

Vanguard Brochure (pdf)

Vanguard Technical Report (pdf)

Vanguard Press Release

 

tag: energy, environment, automakers, union of concerned scientists, cleaner cars, automobile manufacturers, texas legislature, co2 emissions, sb124, hb548, hb344, vanguard