Bring Me the Heads of the GOP 8!

In late June of 2009, conservative and new Tea Party bloggers promised swift retribution for the eight lone Republicans who had voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a.k.a., the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill).

Pundit Michelle Malkin circulated a “wanted” poster with headshots of “The Cap and Tax 8” which was widely reprinted throughout the Tea Party blogosphere.

“We must make examples of the Capntr8ors,” one blogger ordered the troops.

So, with the dust settling from the general election, how did it go?

——-

That’s the beginning of my first post to a blog called “Edison 2.0′ that I started at Forbes online. I’ll be writing on cleantech issues, especially those dealing with energy. It’s exciting (and challenging) to be writing for a new and potentially different audience than you good folks who follow The Phoenix Sun, or my posts at OnEarth, Grist, The Energy Collective and elsewhere.

This doesn’t mean I’ll be closing shop here, however. This is MY baby, and I ain’t giving it up.

But, please do check out the post at Forbes and, as always, I welcome feedback, discussion, kudos and bills of any denomination.

Really.

Spoiler alert: Due to the sensitive nature of the following information, if there are small children or economists in the room you may wish to go here or here until privacy can be assured.

Laissez-Unfaire

I’ve taken part in some discussions lately — and read many more — in which advocates of different energy sources claim that the invisible hand of the Free Market will “pick” the perfect mix for our energy portfolio. Not that this is a new argument. Laissez-faire capitalism was popularized in the 18th Century, i.e. long before Milton Friedman. What’s new is the context: a seismic shift to a “clean energy economy.” The irony, of course, is that this epic shift is required, and fast, because of the worst Free Market disaster in economic history: global climate change caused by the market’s failure to reflect the environmental costs of burning fossil fuels.

This limitation was addressed in a 1994 report by the Office of Technology Assessment, “Studies of the Environmental Costs of Electricity.” Here’s one key section from the document:

Environmental cost studies often focus on what appears to be the “bottom line” — the monetary value of environmental effects. In many cases, this is the most speculative and controversial aspect of the study, and effects that are not monetized are often ignored. In contrast, focusing on the earlier components of the study (e.g., the emissions and impacts stages) would emphasize aspects that are most amenable to scientific and technical resolution.

Monetization is useful, but its very nature allows the results of environmental cost studies to be reported in a highly aggregated form. This encourages use of the results without the full understanding of the assumptions and values that underlie them. Placing greater emphasis on reporting the results of earlier phases of the analysis (e.g., emissions and impacts assessments), and on clearly explaining the assumptions and values that underlie the estimates of monetary damages, would greatly assist the federal decision makers who may use the studies.

Cap and Regulate

So, how do we solve this self-imposed dilemma? The idea du jour is to tinker with the market to internalize the costs through cap-and-trade or cap-and-dividend or some other variation on the theme. I think advocates are half right. The “cap” side of the equation has to do with science and regulatory policy, both of which should play a far more muscular role than they have.

It’s the “trade” or “dividend” part that worries me, because that route is far more prone to corruption and manipulation. I think the benefits of the free market (without caps) would work best if we start from a position of pragmatism not ideology: regulating energy sources the way we already regulate most other environmental pollution, by setting strict emission levels.

We should continue to get better at internalizing the true costs of energy production. But we need to recognize the limitations of that tool. Which is where I part ways with the ideologues for whom the Free Market is a god to be worshiped rather than an economic arrangement that is valuable but fallible.

In other words: the Free Market is as real as the Easter Bunny — only not as cute.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has made it official: By 2020, utilities in that state must generate 30% of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar power. As reported here recently, the Colorado legislature passed HB 1001 to upgrade its Renewable Energy Standard (RES) on March 8th, with strong public support.

Only California has a more aggressive RES: 33% by 2020.

Colorado’s new rules also support distributed power, with a requirement that 3% of electricity comes from home and business solar arrays.

Colorado Raises International Energy Profile

Also on Monday, Leocadia Zak, director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, announced that Colorado would be hosting two renewable energy trade mission with representatives from Latin America.

The “Clean Energy Exchange Program for the Americas-Wind” takes place May 22-29, with meetings held in Golden, CO; Dallas, TX; and Washington, DC.

The “Clean Energy Exchange Program for the Americas-Solar” event will be held October 9-16, with stops in Golden, Los Angeles and DC.

According to Zak, the trade missions are part of the National Export Initiative created by President Obama on March 11. The NEI goal is to double US exports in the next five years.

“As part of the International Business Partnership Program,” explained Zak in Denver on Monday, “the purpose of these reverse trade missions is to bring buyers to the United States.”

Saguaro Solar Thermal Plant

While the Arizona state legislature attempted to end the state’s RES program recently, there is mounting pressure on the Arizona Corporation Commission to at least match Colorado’s standard or risk falling farther behind in the expanding green jobs/green energy movement.

Arizona has been sending mixed signals about its desire to play a leadership role in moving to a renewable energy economy.

Governor Jan Brewer, who assumed office when President Obama named then-Governor Janet Napolitano to head up the Department of Homeland Security, in 2009 signed into law a bill providing tax credits for manufacturers of renewable energy equipment relocating to the state.

Cut and Run

Last month, Brewer prohibited Arizona from participating in a seven-state regional climate program. Sandy Bahr, head of the Sierra Club’s state chapter, called the move “embarrassing for the state of Arizona….It demonstrates a real lack of understanding of how significant of a threat climate change is to the state. We ought to be standing at the front of the line to look at solutions.”

Benjamin Grumbles

Brewer’s top environmental official defended the action. “Arizona needs a green-and-grow approach rather than a cap-and-trade approach,” said Benjamin Grumbles, director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Grumbles was a top official at the federal Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush, an administration known for its opposition to environmental regulations.