Fast on the heals of the Arizona legislature’s attempt to pull support from in-state solar power generation, Colorado’s legislature passed a bill yesterday to boost dramatically the amount of electricity produced by renewable sources in their state.

The Arizona bill would have ended a state program requiring utilities to generate 15% of electrical power from renewable sources (such as solar and wind) by the year 2025. (The program is called the Renewable Energy Standard, or RES.) The bill was withdrawn, at least temporarily, following an outcry by the public, businesses and even the state’s largest utility.

Colorado Sees Daylight

Meanwhile, back at the Colorado legislature, House Bill 10-1001 was winding its way through committee hearings. On Monday, both houses of the Colorado legislature had passed the bill creating a RES of 30% of electrical power by 2020. (Or, twice as much renewable power as Arizona, five years sooner.)

In the highly competitive field of green jobs and technology, last month Arizona clearly fumbled the ball. The real damage is becoming apparent this month, as Colorado recovered the fumble and now heads down the field.

First, the good news: The DOE released a list today of the dozen projects currently participating in the Department’s energy loan programs. The loans and guarantees total more $19 billion and will “create or save” 50,000 jobs, according to DOE figures. So, what could be bad about that? Nothing, unless you look carefully at the details. (Not that the DOE is trying to mislead anyone — it’s a matter of definitions.)

The Devil is in the Definitions

The Arizona state legislature recently tried to pass a bill that would have defined nuclear power as a “renewable” source of energy, despite federal regulations to the contrary. (I’ve written about the details elsewhere.) No such purposeful dis-information is contained in the information coming from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s office. It’s just that Chu, like his boss, defines “clean energy” very narrowly — referring only to sources that emit little or no-CO2.

Shippingport Atomic Power Station

This definition excludes the 2,200 tons of radioactive waste produced annually by the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants. A half century after the first commercial nuclear power plant went on-line (the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania), there is still no long-term solution for what to do with this dangerous waste.

Still, even the enthusiastically pro-nuclear Secretary of Energy doesn’t claim nuclear is “renewable” since it runs on a fuel supply (uranium) that has to be mined and is finite.

Of the dozen loan recipients, nine are clearly renewable. One (Ford) is a combo — the loan goes “to transform factories…to produce more fuel efficient models,” according to the DOE (pdf file). The increased efficiency comes from a variety of changes, including adding electric vehicles (which can be “renewable” depending on the energy source) and design changes that allow more complete energy capture from combustion — which is a good thing, but doesn’t make it “renewable.”

In addition to the two nuclear power plants (operated by Southern Nuclear), one other project is clearly not renewable — or clean: the construction of a plant in Louisiana to produce activated carbon), used to remove mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Reducing mercury pollution is clearly a good thing. The coal industry also needs this technology because new, lower mercury emission standards are going into effect. But, is a project “clean” if it allows coal-fired power plants to continue emitting CO2? The DOE’s definition of “clean energy” is not just narrowly defined, it’s also a moving target.

Follow the Money

The DOE’s $19 billion dollar energy pie can be sliced in different ways. Here’s what that pie looks like based on the opening sentence of the DOE press release on the dozen projects: “The U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program paves the way for federal support of clean energy projects…”

Chart 1 shows all monies as “Clean Energy” because it assumes DOE’s definition.

CHART 1

Chart 2 divides the DOE money based on renewable vs. non-renewable energy project.

CHART 2

[Note: As of Sunday (March 7), the DOE was unable to say how the $5.9 billion loan to Ford was divided between renewable and non-renewable projects. For that reason, Ford is not included in Chart 2.]

Substituting “renewable” for the ambiguous term “clean” gives a much different picture. Loan guarantees for renewable projects account for just over a third of DOE dollars. It’s instructive to look at a similar chart, with one difference — illustrating how funding for renewable energy stacks up against funding for nuclear power in this DOE program.

Chart 3 divides the DOE money based on renewable vs. nuclear power projects.

CHART 3

The non-renewable portfolio is almost entirely devoted to building twin nuclear power plants in Georgia, operated by Southern Nuclear. Removing the single other project in this category (the facility to produce activated carbon in Louisiana) has no effect on the whole number percentages of the renewable and non-renewable categories in Chart 2.

The point of this exercise is to underscore the importance of precision in discussing energy policy issues. In this debate, the words “clean” and “renewable” are often applied to the word “energy” as if they were synonymous. They aren’t.

Whether or not nuclear power should play a major role in our energy future is an enormously important question — but it’s not addressed here. In the DOE’s loan guarantee program, one form of energy is dominant: nuclear power.

Advocates of nuclear power will be happy with this arrangement. Renewable energy supporters, not so much.

Announced Projects in the DOE’s Loan Programs

1. Solyndra, Inc. was awarded a $535 million loan guarantee (pdf) to manufacture innovative cylindrical solar photovoltaic panels that provide clean, renewable energy.
   
   

   Solyndra solar panel tubes

   
   

2. Nordic Windpower USA has been offered a conditional commitment for $16 million (pdf) to support the expansion of its assembly plant in Pocatello, Idaho to produce its one megawatt wind turbine.




3. Beacon Power, an energy storage company, has been offered a conditional commitment of $43 million (pdf) to support the construction of its 20 megawatt flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York that will help ensure the reliable delivery of renewable energy to the electricity grid.




4. Red River Environmental Products has been offered a conditional commitment for $245 million (pdf) to build an activated carbon (AC) manufacturing facility near Coushatta, Red River Parish, Louisiana.




5. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (operated by Southern Nuclear) has been offered conditional commitments for a total of $8.33 billion in loan guarantees (pdf) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke, Georgia.
   
   

   Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant

   
   

6. BrightSource Energy, Inc. has been offered conditional commitments for more than $1.37 billion in loan guarantees (pdf) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to support the construction and start-up of three utility-scale concentrated solar power plants.




7. First Wind – Kahuku Wind Power has received a conditional commitment for $117 million to install twelve 2.5 MW wind turbine generators along with a battery energy storage system for electricity load stability.
   
   

   Wind turbines

   
   

8. Sage Electrochromics has received a conditional commitment for $72 million to support the financing of the construction and operation of a 250,000 square foot, high volume manufacturing facility to produce SageGlass®, an energy-saving switchable window technology for commercial and residential use.




9. Ford Motor Company has closed on a $5.9 billion loan (pdf) to transform factories across Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio to produce more fuel efficient models.




10. Nissan has closed on a $1.4 billion loan (pdf) to produce electric cars and battery packs at its manufacturing complex in Smyrna, Tennessee. The loan will aid in the construction of a new battery plant and modifications to the existing assembly facility.
    
    

    Nissan Leaf, EV

    
    

11. Tesla Motors has been offered a $465 million loan (pdf) to finance a manufacturing facility for the Tesla Model S sedan and to support a facility to manufacture battery packs and electric drive trains.




12. Fisker Automotive has been offered a $528.7 million conditional loan (pdf) for the development of two lines of plug-in hybrids that will save hundreds of millions of gallons of gasoline and offset millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

[Source: DOE press release via email, 5 March 2010]

(Click on image to go to live steam)

Can the US be more than just a giant market for clean energy? Can it also lead in clean-energy manufacturing?

Those questions are at the heart of a panel discussion today hosted by the Apollo Alliance and the Center for American Progress. The event is being Webcast live from 9AM to 5PM (EST). It’s a fascinating discussion with some of the top people in the fields of clean energy and green jobs.

Here’s the agenda:

9:00 – 10:00 a.m.: Opening Remarks:

Phil Angelides, Chairman, Apollo Alliance

John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for American Progress

10:00 – 11:15 a.m.: The American Clean Energy Economy in 2020: What Should It Look Like and How Can We Get There?

Rob Atkinson, President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

Bob Borosage, President, Institute for America’s Future

Peter Brehm, Vice President of Business Development and Government Relations, Infinia Corporation

Kathleen McGinty, Former Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Moderated by:

Susan McGinnis, Managing Editor and Anchor, Clean Skies News

11:30 – 12:15 p.m.: Keynote Speeches: Perspectives from House and Senate Champions on How to Grow a Thriving and Globally Competitive Clean Energy Economy

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA)

Introduced by:

Cathy Calfo, Executive Director, Apollo Alliance

1:00 – 2:30 p.m.: The U.S. and the World: What Are Other Countries Doing and What Could the U.S. Do?

Thea Lee, Deputy Chief of Staff, AFL-CIO

Leo Hindery, Chair of the U.S. Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative, New America Foundation

Julian Wong, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for American Progress

Joan Fitzgerald, author of Emerald Cities: Urban Sustainability and Economic Development

Moderated by:

Bracken Hendricks, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

2:45 – 4:15 p.m.: Educating the Clean Energy Workforce of the Future

Andy Levin, Chief Workforce Officer, State of Michigan

Louis Soares, Director of the Postsecondary Education Program, Center for American Progress

Van Jones, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; Founder, Green For All

Joel Rogers, Director, Center on Wisconsin Strategy

Moderated by:

Kate Gordon, Vice President for Energy Policy, Center for American Progress

4:15 – 5:00 p.m.: Making America A Winner in the Clean Energy Economy

Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to Vice President Joseph Biden

Phil Angelides, Chairman, Apollo Alliance

The Community Power Project

UPDATE: 2:20 PM MT, 3/3/10: The ACC has put off a vote on the project described below, until the next open meeting — March 31-April 1.

A first-of-a-kind plan by Arizona’s largest utility (APS), to create a “community power project” in Flagstaff is before the Arizona Corporation Commission today.

Coconino County Supervisor Carl Taylor spoke in favor of the program, saying that it was a perfect fit for the county’s plan for sustainable, clean energy. Flagstaff Mayor Sara Pressler has also been an early and enthusiastic backer of the plan.

Solar and Wind

Under the plan being considered, APS will pay for, and own, rooftop PV arrays on roughly two-hundred homes in the Flagstaff area, rooftop solar water heating systems for fifty homes and “a handful” of small scale wind turbines. The customers will lock-in a rate for their electricity for twenty years. All of the homes in the program are on a single feeder system and will have smart meters so that the effects of the system can be tracked.

While mostly supporting the pilot program, some solar companies with their own financing programs spoke at today’s hearing, raising concerns about potential problems in the future having to compete with a giant utility.

Commission chair Kris Mayes told them she understood their concerns, but felt that since the program will only serve 200 homes, it should not have a large effect on competing companies. “If this [program] were for 10,000 homes, I would certainly agree with you,” Mayes told one speaker.

Yellow-scarfed Tanager

While the headline is accurate, it also works with the pun that I intended. Except, I took the bird instead of the legislature. That is: I decided to write an article about a fascinating program called “conservation birding” instead of finishing up on Plan B in the legislature’s Great Power Play.

Why? Two reasons.

I needed to take a short break from writing about the sleazy machinations of the Arizona legislature, for the sake of my own sanity.

Second reason: I had to pay some bills. OnEarth pays me to write. The Phoenix Sun costs me money to write and publish. Until someone sends me a living wage to produce this site, I have to make a living elsewhere.

Fortunately, the article was a joy to write. That little fellow above is from the piece, which also contains a video of a bird with far more extravagant plumage.

Here’s the opening of the article. If you like it — and if you, too, need a break from the snakes in Arizona (the kind that instead of rattling, gives speeches) — I invite you to click on the link and read the full story.

Then, tomorrow, I hope both of us are up to returning to the Arizona Houses of Horror, aka, the State Legislature.

The American Bird Conservancy

If you’re one of the hundreds of thousands of American birders, The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has a suggestion for your summer vacation: spend your time and money investing in “conservation birding.” You can see some of the most spectactular birds in the Americas (like the Yellow-scarfed Tanager, above) while helping to prevent their extinction.

ABC has partnered with bird conservation organizations in a dozen countries to set up thirty-six preserves covering a quarter-million acres of unique and critical bird habitat for more than 2,000 species. Eighteen of the preserves offer on-site lodging.

“Visiting birders can provide a source of direct financial support to the reserves,” said Mike Parr, VP of ABC, at the project’s recent unveiling, “helping them become self-sufficient and sustainable in the long-term.”

Read the rest of the article at OnEarth