Does anyone wonder--What are we still doing passing marginal energy bills?

There have been two energy bills passed last Thursday which have caught my attention. First, of course, is the Senate Energy Bill which passed 86-8 (see the nice summary article in Forbes here http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/2007/12/13/energy-senate-bill-biz-wash-cx_bw_1213bizenergy.html), and the Senate of my home state of Pennsylvania passed its version of Governor Ed Rendell's Energy Bill 44-5 (Philadelphia Inquirer article here http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/12428436.html). What is notable about both of these bills is that 1) they are extremely watered down versions of the original energy bills proposed, 2) they required the votes of both Democrats and Republicans to pass, and 3) it happened at both the state and federal levels.

The U.S. Senate bill eliminated the extension of existing production and investment incentives for wind and solar power, dropped the tax increases on Big Oil, and dropped the renewable electricity mandate. The only notable remaining provisions was an increase in biofuel production and increased CAFE limits. In short, the bill became less of a comprehensive reexamination of our energy sources and demands, and more about making nibbling changes at the edges.

In Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell had originally proposed a bill which included an $850 million Energy Independence Fund, among other provisions. The bill which passed the Senate provided only $250 million, and provided $25 million subsidy to help utilities comply with mercury regulations. It provides only $5 million for consumer energy efficiency assistance.

What the US and Pennsylvania Energy Bills demonstrate is a remarkable lack of political will. I would have hoped that after the war in Iraq, a scientific onslaught of global warming evidence, higher gas prices, a Democratic Congress, increased awareness of environmental and energy issues and a ridiculously low presidential approval rating that the lawmakers would have the political will to make real change on energy issues. But apparently the time has not yet come.

Title IX of the House Energy Bill--The Green Building Provisions

I have spent the last few days parsing the hideously convoluted legalese which is Title IX--Energy & Commerce of the House's recently passed--and much touted--Energy Bill, which I wrote about generally earlier in the week. http://greenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/08/at-long-last-energy-bill-post.html

Title IX contains most of the provisions related to green building. Below is a non-comprehensive tour through some of the provisions of interest to me.

Sections 9001-9020 relate to the energy efficiency of appliances, raising the required energy efficiency for dehumidifiers, washing machines, dishwashers, refridgerators, etc.

Sections 9021-9030 relate to energy efficiency of lighting. There is some neat provisions in this section, including 9021 which requires the Secretary fo Energy to issue regulations prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, and specifying ever increasing efficiency ratings for other lamps. However, three way lamps are exempted from the requriements. I have a problem with this--many, many lamps are three-way. What is the point of this exemption? Is there a three-way lamp lobby? Section 9023 mandates the use of energy efficient lighting fixtures and bulbs by the Federal government.

Sections 9031-9040 relate to residential building efficiency. Section 9031 requires states to update their building codes to be more energy efficient. THIS IS A BIG DEAL! It provides funding, support, etc. for the states to do so. Section 9034 provides additional financial assistance to consumers for home weatherization.

Sections 9041-9060 relate to commercial building efficiency. Section 9042 establishes an Office of Federal high-Performance Green Buildings to, among other things, coordinate the green building activities in various Federal agencies, identify and develop Federal high performance green building standards to be used for Federal facilities and research budget and contracting practices that affect achievement of green buildings. In an effort to employ more of us green-building types, Section 9043 establishes an Office of Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings. This Office is tasked with managing a public-private partnership program (Section 9043 (f)) which shall, among other things,further development of green buildings, study and refine a national goal to reduce commercial building energy use (Section 9044), and create a national high-performance green building clearinghouse of information. Sounds like a nice job, perhaps they will hire me. Section 9052 provides up to $100,000,000 for loan guarantees for renovation projects that will result in a building achieving LEED "certified" level. Several other provisions in these sections provide funding for the establishment of various green building pilot programs.

All in all, there are many good-sounding programs in Title IX, but we shall see what remains when the House and Senate bills are reconciled.

At long last--The Energy Bill Post

I apologize, readers, for the 10 day hiatus in posts, but I have been on vacation, and then thinking about what to say about the Energy Bill passed in the House on August 4, 2007.

Earth2Tech has a nice summary of the features of the bill here http://earth2tech.com/2007/08/05/house-passes-energy-bill/.

I want to disuss what the bill doesn't do. The Bill does not remotely address our dependence on fossil fuel and coal. It basically just nibbles around the edges, establishing programs like the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, for energy research, and requiring the Department of Energy to establish a green building clearinghouse, and providing funds and incentives for alternative fuel research and use. An increase in the fuel efficiency standards for cars, for example, was removed from the bill.

What really needs to happen is large scale, expensive change--a carbon tax, and a cap-and-trade program for emissions. The Federal government needs to create legislation to build the actual cost of environmental damage into each and every energy transaction to effect real change. Now that Democrats have some governmental power, they must push for the large scale change that will really make a difference, as opposed to wasting political capital on band-aid pallitives.

The bill does have some positive aspects--it cuts the $16b subsidy to Big Oil, and it creates milestones for the Federal government to reduce its carbon footprint. But we need to stop playing around, global warming is not a problem that lends itself to partial solutions. It requires large scale political change which will impact large corporate players. The Democrats in Congress do not appear to be ready to think big.