EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth

Members of the European Parliament’s environment committee meet today for a second time to revive a plan the full assembly rejected that would have boosted the cost of greenhouse-gas emissions. The rebuff left the cost of pollution near a record low, leaving companies with less incentive to reduce emissions.

The situation “reflects a sea-change against climate policy,” said European Green Party Co-Chair Reinhard Buetikofer, who supported the plan. The effort to limit carbon gases “is not being perceived as an opportunity by industry but rather a burden,” he said, adding that the decision “destroyed the foundation of common European climate policy.”

With a recession in the countries sharing the euro in its second year, efforts to clean up the environment and spur renewables are taking a back seat to programs that bail out the most indebted countries and put people back to work. They herald a wider struggle to set new climate protection and renewable energy policies, and threaten to keep prices near historic lows in the Emissions Trading System, or ETS.

The region’s recession crimped manufacturing output, reducing pollution in the process. The EU’s failure to mop up surplus permits sent prices lower.

Company Impact

Lower carbon prices help power generators that use a greater share of coal, since burning coal emits about twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas. Utilities such as RWE AG in Essen, Germany, and Warsaw-based PGE SA benefit over those that derive energy mostly from wind, natural gas and uranium, including Germany’s EON SE, France’s GDF Suez SA and CEZ AS in Prague. All have been hurt by a drop in power prices stemming from the economic slump.

“With a carbon price of nil, coal is by far the most attractive option,” said Chris Davies, a U.K. member of the assembly’s environment committee. “One of the purposes of the ETS was to give long-term direction to investors. With climate policy seen to be in disarray, there is no such direction.”

Companies need a stable carbon price on which to base investment decisions, said GDF Suez Chief Executive Officer Gerard Mestrallet. “We have to re-establish a carbon signal,” he told reporters on May 2. “Coal is being chosen ahead of gas, so gas plants are being stopped. It’s an enormous problem.”

EON CEO Johannes Teyssen said at the company’s annual meeting in Essen on May 3 that lawmakers have made the emissions system “shrivel” and that the vote was “a black day for efficient climate protection.” A company spokesman said it would hurt margins for generating power from gas.

Price Slump

The cost of carbon dioxide credits on the European Union emissions trading system fell from an all-time high of 31 euros a metric ton in April 2006 to 3.81 euros on the ICE Future Europe exchange as of 12:05 p.m. in London today. Utilities that have a stock of carbon credits, such as Spain’s Endesa SA, may have to write down their value, said Jose Martin-Vivas, a utilities analyst for Mirabaud Securities in Madrid.

The proposal to temporarily cut the oversupply of allowances divided EU governments, Parliament and industry. While nations led by France, Denmark and the U.K. backed the fix, Poland, Greece and Cyprus were among those opposing it, saying it would raise energy prices and might amount to market manipulation.

Lawmakers sent the plan, known as backloading because it delays auctions for new credits, back to the committee for more talks. Legislators on the panel are scheduled to meet today and tomorrow. They have until mid-June to recommend a solution on the market fix to the full assembly. Climate experts from the EU’s 27 governments convene on May 27 to discuss a solution.

German Position

Buetikofer said the measure was weighed down by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s failure to speak in favor of it. On May 3, the chancellor said she supported backloading while indicating the coalition government doesn’t have a unified position on the matter yet. They were her first comments on the subject. Speaking at a climate conference in Berlin today, Merkel said carbon permits prices are lower than assumed because of the economic slump.

“I personally say that if you develop a system for which projected growth rates are a key element, and the growth rates are totally different from what you projected, then the question whether one has to revise that can’t be a taboo,” she said.

Mired in sovereign-debt crises that’s forced five nations to take bailouts, the EU is trying to balance climate policies that raise electricity costs high enough to encourage renewables against the need to keep manufacturers competitive.

The bloc’s regulatory arm, the commission, says Europe needs new targets to cut greenhouse gases after current ones expire in 2020, and a renewable energy framework through 2030 to give investors clarity and prepare for a global climate deal.

‘Reality’

“Backloading shows how difficult the reality is,” said Matthias Groote, chairman of the environment committee, who oversees the proposal in the assembly. “It’s 100 percent certain that it all makes the debate on 2030 targets more difficult.”

Parliamentarians on April 16 voted 334 to 315 for blocking the carbon market rescue.

“This is the first time I can remember when parliament has put economic survival and jobs ahead of green orthodoxy,” said Roger Helmer, a member of the U.K. Independence Party who has been in the parliament for 14 years and opposes emissions trading. “It marks an absolute watershed.”

Lobbyists including the BusinessEurope alliance of 41 industrial groups and Eurofer, which represents steelmakers, welcomed the vote, with Eurofer Director General Gordon Moffat saying “high carbon prices result in the deindustrialization of Europe.”

System’s Roots

The ETS was founded in 2005 and is the cornerstone of EU climate policy, capping emissions from more than 11,000 power plants and factories owned by companies from RWE, the bloc’s biggest emitter, to brewer Carlsberg A/S and steelmaker ArcelorMittal. Polluters are issued permits representing a ton of carbon. If their pollution exceeds their cap, they must buy permits from companies which undershoot.

With the EU system accounting for 89 percent of the $61 billion market worldwide, Australia, China, South Korea and California are among countries and regions planning or starting up their own emissions trading programs.

“At the very time that we’re failing to make our emissions trading policy work, other countries are going in that direction,” said Caroline Lucas, a U.K. lawmaker and former member of the European assembly who said while she’s “not a fan” of carbon markets, “it’s the only game in town.”

“They’ve scuppered a chance of making the emissions trading system an effective tool in the battle to reduce climate emissions,” she said.

Market Glut

Following the vote carbon permits for December plummeted as much as 45 percent, a record, and extended losses the next day to an all-time low of 2.46 euros a metric ton. They have lost as much 85 percent in the past four years as the economic slump cut demand for pollution rights and aggravated a glut of allowances.

The limits on greenhouse gas discharges were set before the euro area entered two recessions in four years which lowered industrial production and emissions, cutting demand for the allowances in the system, which has no price floor.

“This makes the ETS irrelevant in Europe’s bid to reduce the use of fossil fuels,” Remi Gruet, senior climate adviser at the European Wind Energy Association said in a statement after the vote. “The carbon price will continue having no impact on investment decisions in the power sector.”

Without shoring up the carbon market, member states are instead likely to pursue their own policies, according to Buetikofer. “What industry will get will be a very scattered patchwork kind of regulatory framework which will make their life much more miserable and bureaucratic impediments will be much more burdensome,” he said.

EU’s Ambition

The commission aims to propose by the end of this year a new set of goals to reduce greenhouse gases and boost the share of clean technologies in its energy consumption by 2030.

“It’s clear that now the 2030 discussion is more acute,” Finnish Environment Minister Ville Niinistoe said in an interview. Next year is going to be crucial for Europe as it needs to have a clear position to ensure predictability for investors and to lead international climate talks ahead of a planned 2015 global deal to cut greenhouse gases, he said.

A failure to tackle the glut of carbon permits may discourage utilities from switching to natural gas and other less-polluting energy sources from coal, the commission said in November. That may curb the spending needed in non-fossil fuel generation, estimated by Bloomberg New Energy Finance at about 400 billion euros, to meet the EU’s 2020 goals. The bloc aims to cut greenhouse gases by 20 percent from 1990 levels and derive a fifth of all energy from renewables by then.

“Green policies, if well designed, do not mean loss of competitiveness,” said Jos Delbeke, the commissions’ director general for climate. “The future of the EU lies in green growth, high-tech and innovation.”

The failed proposal raises a question of whether the EU can “ever be significantly improved,” said Chris Rogers, an analyst at Bloomberg Industries in London. “If something as minor as backloading can’t be agreed, then what hope is there for more ambitious carbon reduction targets for 2030, which are vital for both power and carbon prices?”

Copyright 2013 Bloomberg

View the original article here

California County's PACE Program Could Get Feisty with Feds

Does a Riverside County, CA, residential energy financing program put thousands of homeowners on a collision course with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)?

In a proposed rule-making, the FHFA has suggested that Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) policies represent a threat to the safety and soundness of mortgages held by government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. PACE is a unique financing strategy that allows homes and businesses to invest in significant energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades and pay them back through a property tax assessment (for an explanation of PACE, see this PACE 101 slideshow). The fight with FHFA stems from these assessments being “first liens,” e.g. in the event of bankruptcy, they are paid back before the mortgage holder (FHFA’s Fannie or Freddie).

The FHFA’s initial ruling in 2010 brought most residential PACE programs to a screeching halt, because residential participants would be threatened with having to pay their entire mortgage – in full – at any time. Residential PACE programs in Boulder, CO, and Sonoma County, CA, and elsewhere were suspended after the FHFA ruling.

But Riverside County launched its Home Energy Renovation Opportunity (HERO) Financing Program in late 2011, almost a year after FHFA had thrown down the gauntlet. Since then, over 2,000 homeowners have signed up (acknowledging the FHFA threat in writing) and proceeded with tens of millions in home renovations improving efficiency, generating local energy, and creating jobs. These participants have already met thresholds for positive equity in their home, and been current on the mortgage and property tax payments.

By keeping the program alive and using strong guidelines for participating homeowners, Riverside County puts a serious question to Fannie and Freddie: are they willing to default or accelerate mortgages on thousands of homes, all with mortgage holders who are customers in good standing?

View the original article here

Growing interest in carbon tax could improve the Outlook for renewable energy.

Conservative economists and fossil lobbyists combines a year to fend off 2009 climate change legislation, which would have introduced a CAP-and-trade mechanism. They are locked now in a backroom debate on a tax on CO2 emissions, which could raise an estimated $100 billion in the first year.
A CO2 tax would force to pay a fee for the greenhouse gases generators, refineries and manufacturers that emit them. It gains interest as lawmakers and President Barack Obama agree that the corporate tax code to simplify and try to restrict the revenue to the deficit. The destruction of Superstorm Sandy to the fires and the drought of this summer also have increased concern about global warming.

"It fits with the Republican idea of cleaning of the tax code, and have a clean instrument for dealing with this problem," said John Reilly, Co Director of the Massachusetts Institute of technology joint program on the science and policy of global change, in an interview. In the face of this year's weather disasters, "it's hard to stand up and say that global warming is a hoax," he said.
Gilbert E. Metcalf, Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for the environment, energy, said this week no CO2 tax was that the Administration is planning to propose, though, "Part of the mix" could be an overhaul of tax according to the Hill newspaper. Asked yesterday, Obama said that he doubted that enough political agreement for the tax, although he warned the delay in the fight against of global warming.

Storm costs

"It is important, because, you know, one of the things the we not always factor into the cost of these natural disasters," Obama said at a White House Press Conference. "We only she pushed for our behavior as something."

The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which States that the favour of libertarian and conservative values, instead of a full-day discussion of November 13 to to check how a CO2 tax to implement that economists might say allow from regulation by the environmental protection agency a lowering of corporate taxes and head. On the same day filed a opponent of the idea, which would be said competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a lawsuit against the Treasury Department, seeking private emails show that the Government is secretly pushing for a CO2 tax.
"they need new sources of revenue, and this is a nice," Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Washington-based CEI, said in an interview. "This thing is gaining steam."

Environmentalists support

Environmentalists how environmental wants Defense Fund and former Vice President Al Gore say control greenhouse gas emissions, it is the best way to curb the use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, cleaner energy sources such as wind power and energy efficiency. The idea was also support for the economists who have worked for the Republican Governments, including Kevin Hassett, also at the AEI, and Gregory Mankiw, an economist at Harvard University.

Exxon, the legislation in 2009, which limits CO2 emissions and allows an auction would act, said at the time that a CO2 tax would be easier to implement and more predictable.

Exxon posts

"In combination with further progress in energy efficiency and new technologies, spurred by market innovations a well-thought-out CO2 tax in dealing with the problem of rising emissions play an important role could be," said Kimberly Brasington, a spokeswoman for the company, in an E-mail. "A CO2 tax revenue should be made neutral about tax offsets in other areas," she added.

Exxon political action Committee announced millions of political candidates in the last two years 93 percent $1.2 almost of Republicans, according to the Center for responsive politics.

Exxon is the largest U.S. natural gas producer. A CO2 tax could demand for natural gas in the U.S. power plants, boost, such as gas as coal for electricity make half carbon dioxide emitted.
"Is the source of most coal", David Kreutzer, researcher in the energy sector at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, said that against the tax in an interview. "The biggest replacement for coal will be natural gas."

Taxes on greenhouse gas emissions would help convoluted corporate tax to finance an overhaul of the code and is a better way, the address global warming as regulations from the EPO by Aparna Mathur, an economist at AEI.

Carbon Conference

Exxon, the world's largest energy company by market value, $295.000 last year gave AEI. Exxon in the Mathur, research or the session played no role, she said.

Some say Mr Mathur of the scholars at the think tank in Washington a new tax is a mistake, and the Conservatives are always cheated to think it would take the place of the imposed - not in addition to - other taxes and rules.

"Conservatives are completely naive to believe that they get compromises in response to a CO2 tax," said Kenneth Green, as a resident scholar at the AEI, in an interview. "Some rugged, we have had discussions about the lunch about our differences."

Tax revenues

CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution caused warming of the Earth's temperature, to extreme weather, drought and coastal flooding, according to the global change program to create research threatens US. Taxation would trigger more than $100 billion in the first year, according to a study by a ton of carbon dioxide at $20 Mathur this week presented.

Mathur, said that she will support any CO2 tax in the abstract. She said it is better than EPA regulation and studied how it could best be implemented.

National Journal reported that Grover Norquist, President of Americans for tax reform, said he favors a CO2 tax, Exxon does just what said is necessary to compensate for the revenue increases with other tax cuts. The next day, Norquist issued a statement clarifying his remark, saying that the new tax "would lead to higher taxes."
"In the real world, it is not conceivable," that the revenues from a carbon tax would be associated by reductions in other taxes, Norquist said in an interview. It would mean "higher taxes on short and long term."

Other opponents of the CAP-and-trade remain skeptical that a CO2 tax.

Opponents plan

National Mining Association, which represents coal producers such as Peabody Energy Corp., is aimed against "unique as it would damage that growth," said Luke Popovich, a spokesman, in an E-mail. It is a regressive tax that "heavily on the least able to afford would fall."

And even the environmentalists are skeptical the before and cons main table, Congress to approve any legislation. Obama of regulatory efforts bear fruit, and that should not be thrown away, they say.
"You hear lots of talk about a CO2 tax," Ann said senior counsel the weeks, clean air task force in Boston, in an interview. "But EPA regulatory front so much has progressed," she said. "I hope that they it cannot fall for the promise of something else."

Copyright 2012 Bloomberg.
View the original article here

Report: 59 GW generation capacity coal-fired plants should retire; Could open door for renewable energy

The comprehensive report is one of the ten States with the most coal-fired generation plants, which should be taken into account for the final: Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Indiana, Mississippi and Virginia. (see graph below).

The report also shows that southern company, one of the largest private utilities in the country, followed by the State of Tennessee Valley Authority, Duke Energy, American Electric fired the most coal power and FirstEnergy owns generating plants for your retirement.

To determine the economic competitiveness of a coal plant, the UCS compared to coal-fired generation after the installation of a plant of modern pollution controls costs with the costs of the generation of a new natural gas-fired plant. If the cost of the coal plant was greater, it appeared ready to retire. Many in the report identi­fied ripe for retirement generators are more expensive than wind power with or without the extension of the production tax credit (PTC). The UCS considers even a modest price for CO2 emissions for the analysis.

See below diagram and description.

UCS analysis reveals that low natural gas prices and a price for CO2 have to expand the largest influence in the pool of the coal-fired generators as ripe for retirement and extend the federal tax credits for wind power is also important. Alternative scenarios could affect search three external factors, the coal-fired generating capacity as ripe for retirement. In the core analysis (far left) compares the low estimate (dark blue alone) the operating costs of coal generators with the operating costs of a new plant of NGCC; the high estimate (combined dark blue and light blue) compares the costs of coal generators systems with the operating costs of existing NGCC. The Middle three bars repeat the analysis for hypothetical scenarios in which natural gas prices could be lower 25 percent or 25 percent, or where could set a price of $15 / tonne on CO2 emissions. For the wind energy scenario (far right), the analysis shows that expires the capacity of coal-fired generators as ripe for retirement, when federal tax credits for wind power are permitted (dark green) or extended (dark green and light green combined).

"Our analysis shows that switching to cleaner energy sources and energy efficiency investments often more economical than billions to obsolete coal-fired plants, the life extend," said Steve Frenkel, co-author and Director of the UCS of the Midwest offices reports. "Regulators should more utilities to check carefully, whether the taxpayer through old coal-fired plants in the retirement and the promotion of electricity produced from natural gas and renewable energy sources such as wind would be better. "Issuance of billions of old coal-fired plants can easily upgrade be throwing good money after bad."

According to the UCS possible, this uncompetitive generators in the retirement presents a historic opportunity, a transition to a clean energy economy to accelerate the protection of public health, CO2 emissions and diversification the electricity mix.

View the original article here

Qatar could 45 tankers on gas refit

Saturday, October 08-2011 at 13: 43-U.A.E. local time (GMT + 4)

Replication or redistribution in whole or in part info FZ LLC is expressly prohibited without prior written consent of AME / Emap limited.

The information in this section contained, nor is it held to be an invitation to a person, to take any form of investment decision. The content of the AMEinfo.com provide any advice or recommendation by AME Info FZ LLC / Emap limited and should not manufacture (or the renunciation of the production) are understood decisions relating to investments or any other matter. Should your own independent financial adviser to consult and get professional advice before training any investment decisions or decisions on the basis of received information in this AMEinfo.com Web site.

AME Info FZ LLC / Emap limited can not be, liable or responsible in any way for opinions, suggestions, recommendations or statements of contributors to the various columns on the AMEinfo.com website still opinions of contributors be necessarily of AME Info FZ LLC / Emap limited.

In any case, AME Info is FZ LLC / Emap limited shall be liable for damages of any kind, including, without limitation, direct, special, indirect, consequential or incidental damages or damages for loss of profits, loss of revenue or lost use, that tort, statute, in equity, arising out of or in connection with the AMEinfo.com Web site or information, whether in contract, negligence such damages occur legally or otherwise.

View the original article here

California highways could green energy source

A representation of Innowattech installed piezoelectric sensors on a motorway.(Credit: Innowattech)

It may seem a little ironically might, but automotive traffic the next source of green energy. A law for a pilot program, vibration using road and convert it into energy adopted 6-1 in the California State Assembly natural resources Committee yesterday. It moves Transport Committee to the vote next week in the Assembly.

California Assemblyman Mike GATTO (D - Los Angeles) Bill first AB 306 in February.

Piezoelectric generation captures energy that generate cars, trains, or people, how they move on land and vibrations. These vibrations can be converted into energy with piezo materials surfaces and made usable. Power in roadside batteries stored power road signs and signals could or fed into a larger scale, directly into the grid.

A single lane. 6 km-long road generates electricity up to 44 megawatts a year, enough, to power 30,800 houses. And a good things about this energy strategy is the peak energy is usually with peak usage.

Israel is already piezoelectric generation on motorways and Italy has install plans, the technology in a range of the Venice Trieste motorway. Funds for this test project in Northern and Southern California would already come from existing resources by California alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology program.

Although a speaker familiar with the account the sensors of built said Israeli technology companies Innowattech or Michigan-based PowerLeap are inexpensive, no figures on the technology or installation costs could be given. However, a backlog $50 billion on maintenance means that it install plenty of opportunity for piezoelectric sensors without digging roads. Determine whether it is more cost effective to broken sensors before regular schedule of road maintenance replace one the pilot program objectives.

(Source: NBC LA)

View the original article here

Offshore regulation could extend to contractors

WASHINGTON-the Obama management checks whether federal oversight of offshore drilling of oil and gas companies to manipulate to expand suppliers, service providers and other contractors now outside regulators reach oil field.

Michael Bromwich, the Director of the Bureau of ocean energy management, regulation and enforcement, told reporters Tuesday, that the existing system to make artificial restrictions on what can do his agency, safer to offshore drilling.

The power ends now with oil and gas companies, the leases in U.S. waters keep drilling. ", That dramatically restricts the scope of our control," he said.

"It is very important for our regulatory oversight extend as widely as possible for all the entities that operate the offshore and not for us only to be artificially limited each operator, which shall apply to authorisations and sent exploration plans."

"Bromine wich that approach may have seemed adequate, before also almost deadly blowout of BP Macondo before a year - the 11 killed and began a multi-million gallon spill oil - said, but is not compatible with the regulatory agenda, created by the disaster."

"We urge, in an aggressive and are responsibly very interested," said he, "and if that requires us, our scope beyond the operator, this is something that seriously be considered must."Last year's accident legislators and regulators sharpened focus on the wide range of companies in the area of offshore drilling.

According to the Commission, which investigated the oil spill, which began last April 20, the disaster was the result of a series of decisions by BP and its contractors at the site, including Transocean, of which owned the deepwater horizon drilling rig, and Halliburton, the cement work.

Against GOP?Expand all of the ocean energy Bureau regulatory powers would officials likely congressional action, according to a preliminary examination of Interior Department required.

And it seems unlikely that like the Bureau rules is important legislation authority, especially in the House, strengths in which Republicans move to limit the discretion of the Agency.

The Bureau may impose requirements on the equipment used and the work of contractors, but oil and gas companies offshore are ultimately responsible for whether these mandates are met.

No immediate position ", although much of this stuff someone else runs the requirements still apply to the activity," said Erik Milito, upstream Director for the American Petroleum Institute, which authority do not take an immediate position on the expansion of the Agency.

"So far, which is responsible for ultimately, it is the operator in General.

"The Government examine separately as projects take account of company safety records and other factors in weighing their proposed offshore drilling. Bromine wich said the ocean energy Bureau evaluated the evidence "that should factor in whether a company continue to a player" but said there could be disciplinary records, history of violations and past include in fines.

Funding The other government imposed a swathe of new safety and environmental mandates after the deepwater horizon disaster, including a residence requirement companies prove, they have the equipment and crude oil from any future deep sea well blowout use the know-how.

The Ocean can count energy Bureau on a big boost in funding - at least for a few months - among the budget deal reached Congressional leaders and the White House last week.

The legislation, the Government running until the end of the fiscal year 2011 on Sept. 30 to keep includes $ 47 million more for the Bureau when it received in the fiscal year 2010.

That is about half as much as the Administration 2011 wanted to add financial year the Agency's funding, but which thrust came more inspectors amid cuts amounting to $40 billion in many non-defense Programmen.

Einstellung tariff not other units of the internal Department as well as. Funding for the Bureau of land management, the handles onshore oil and gas leases, Administration would be trimmed, for example, $ 18 million from the fiscal 2010 Ebene.

Die has asked Congress for $ 358 million in the fiscal year 2012, the Bureau to rent the 116 new offshore inspectors, Triple what it has now would allow, and 41 new allows almost doubled staff, the current 50-member team.

Much funding proposed by the Government boost would come from proposed new fees on oil and natural gas producers. Jennifer.Dlouhy@Chron.com

View the original article here