President Biden explains the clean energy plans

From an Article by Lisa Friedman, New York Times, May 22, 2021

WASHINGTON — The linchpin of President Biden’s climate plan faces a perilous path through the Congress, as scientists say nations must move now to aggressively reduce the pollution that is heating the planet and the United States is trying to reassert a leadership role in that global effort.

The central tool of Mr. Biden’s plan, known as a clean electricity standard, would require power companies to gradually ratchet up the amount of electricity they generate from wind, solar and other sources until they’re no longer emitting carbon dioxide.

On paper, it seems a no-brainer. Some version of it has been approved by 29 states from Washington to Virginia. The idea is popular among Democratic and Republican voters. And experts say it is one of the most effective ways to cut the pollution from burning oil, gas and coal that is driving climate change.

But in trying to push a nationwide standard through a bitterly divided Congress, Democrats are considering a politically risky move: attaching it to a fast-track maneuver known as budget reconciliation, which allows some bills to pass with a simple majority. That would require the support of all 50 Democrats, including Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the state second only to Wyoming in coal production.

Mr. Manchin, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, has been noncommittal when it comes to a clean electricity standard. Republican leaders on Capitol Hill say forcing utilities to turn away from coal, oil and gas will mean higher electric bills. The fossil fuel industry says it will harm reliability of the power grid. Even supporters of the idea are at odds over how to design a national standard. And some Democrats question whether it’s aggressive enough.

Much is at stake. Without meaningful climate legislation this year, Mr. Biden will be left with executive action, some of it sure to be challenged in court, to meet his ambitious goals to pivot the country away from fossil fuels and prove to the world the United States is serious about global warming.

This year is “the last best chance for the world to get on a legitimate track,” said former Secretary of State John Kerry, Mr. Biden’s global climate envoy, during a recent interview in Rome, where he was meeting with European counterparts. A clean electricity standard is the best way at the moment to “make up for lost time” under former President Donald J. Trump, Mr. Kerry said.

The last time Congress tried to enact major climate change legislation was 2009 when it failed to pass a complex market-based system to cut emissions. Democrats were trounced in the following midterm elections and lost the House, in part because of Republican claims that they were intent on driving up electricity costs.

But the political landscape has shifted. Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and natural gas. Americans also are witnessing the real-time consequences of climate-fueled disasters like wildfires in California and stronger hurricanes battering their communities. Democrats are more unified around tackling climate change than a decade ago, and Mr. Biden won the White House based in part on a promise to enact the most aggressive climate agenda in history.

Perhaps most significantly, some major utilities are for the first time rallying around the idea of a clean electricity standard. In recent weeks, 13 publicly owned utilities announced support for an aggressive measure that would eliminate 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions from the sector by 2030. The American Public Power Association, which represents about 2,000 other public utilities, hasn’t taken a stand. But the Edison Electric Institute, which represents privately owned utilities and whose former president opposed a renewable energy standard in 2007, said it now supports a “well-designed” policy.

“That is different than it has ever been before,” said Representative Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat who has been pushing for a national clean energy standard for more than a decade and is drafting a new version. Edison Electric Institute has opted to support a clean electricity standard, in part because its members so quickly met an objective set by the Obama administration to cut power plant emissions, said Emily Fisher, general counsel for the group. That goal, of cutting the sector’s emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels, was accomplished by 2020 — a decade ahead of schedule.

“I often wish that I could get in a time machine and talk to myself in 2010,” Ms. Fisher said. “I think I would have told her to be more excited about the future. Sometimes in those early conversations it seemed like the future was going to be really hard to accomplish. We don’t feel that way anymore.”

Republican leaders, however, shrugged off signs of growing industry support and indicated they intend to fight Mr. Biden’s plan. “We all want to make energy as clean as we can as fast as we can, and do it in ways that don’t raise costs for American families,” said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, adding that he is focused on energy prices and jobs in energy industries for his constituents. “But what the president is proposing is raising energy costs significantly.”

Studies on the effects that clean electricity standards have had on consumer prices are mixed. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory evaluated several programs and concluded that they raised electricity bills by an average of 2 percent in 2017. But more recent research from the University of Chicago of various clean electricity standards in 29 states and the District of Columbia found that, seven years after imposing a standard, prices rose by about 11 percent. That study was also criticized by many energy experts who argued costs may increased because of other policies approved at the same time as a clean electricity standard.

After he returned the United States to the 2015 Paris climate accord, President Biden committed to cut carbon emissions roughly in half by 2030 and also eliminate fossil fuel emissions from the power sector by 2035. The White House has called for a clean electricity standard as part of its $2.3 trillion infrastructure package. It has preferred that approach over a tax on carbon emissions, a method that many economists say would be the most efficient way reduce emissions but is unpopular among many Republicans and some progressive Democrats.

Negotiations between the White House and Republican congressional leaders over the infrastructure package are continuing. Meanwhile, Democrats are debating the best strategy to pass a clean electricity standard, several House and Senate aides said.
The administration has offered few details about such a standard, other than it should include nuclear energy and should also incorporate technology to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions, which could allow some fossil fuel plants to continue operating. Energy experts said both nuclear energy and carbon capture will be required to reduce emissions. They also will be critical to gaining Republican support, if there is any to be had.

One of the most consequential questions to be decided by lawmakers is whether to characterize natural gas as a “clean energy,” something the gas industry wants. When burned, natural gas produces half the carbon dioxide of coal. But it releases methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide (though it has shorter staying power in the atmosphere). Much of that gas has been extracted through the controversial method known as fracking. Progressives have indicated they will fight any measure that includes anything other than renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal power.

“You can’t have a truly clean energy system that includes fracked gas,” said Mitchell Jones, policy director at Food and Water Watch, one of more than 600 environmental group that signed a May 12 letter to House and Senate leaders. The group rejected gas “with or without carbon capture sequestration” and what it called other “false solutions” like nuclear.

Other supporters of climate legislation like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, said they worry the administration’s plan is too narrowly focused on the power sector. While electricity generation was responsible for 25 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by the United States in 2019, the transportation sector produced about 29 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Manufacturing and industry produced another 23 percent. Commercial and residential buildings were responsible for 13 percent, and agriculture contributed 10 percent, the agency said.

Mr. Whitehouse wants a package of solutions, including a tax on carbon emissions. But he said Democrats understand they have a short window during which to act and it is closing fast. “The danger to us, primarily, is that we get into our traditional Democratic circular firing squad and quarrel with each other rather than taking on the common enemy of carbon emissions and a very malign fossil fuel industry apparatus,” Mr. Whitehouse said. “This is a really important moment and perhaps our last chance.”

While some Republicans have supported clean electricity standards in the past, environmental activists said they don’t believe Democrats can win over 10 GOP senators, the number needed to break a filibuster. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah in a recent interview said he is “looking at” a clean electricity standard but believes a tax on carbon pollution is a better approach. Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she was willing to “review” a federal standard but also made no commitment. Without Republican help, Democrats would have to try to pass a clean electricity standard through budget reconciliation. That approach requires only a simple Senate majority, but the legislation must be crafted in a way that changes federal spending or revenue. And they would have to win over Mr. Manchin, who has expressed concern both about using the reconciliation process as well as a clean energy standard.

Scott Segal, a senior partner at Bracewell LLP, which represents utilities and other energy industry clients, said Democrats could undermine their efforts on climate change by pushing legislation through without bipartisan support. “If they try to jam a clean electricity standard through on reconciliation, I think they would likely lose a strong handful of moderate Democrats, and they’d have no chance to pick up moderate Republicans,” he said.

########……….########……….########

FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies, The White House, April 22, 2021

Solar systems at a farm in Versailles, Kentucky

From an Article by Dan Gearino, Inside Clean Energy, May 20, 2021

The people in Kentucky’s small rooftop solar industry are used to fighting for their livelihoods against utilities, but they aren’t used to winning. So a ruling last week from the Kentucky Public Service Commission was a surprise and a relief. The commission rejected a proposal from the utility Kentucky Power that would have gutted net metering, the policy that says rooftop solar owners can sell their excess electricity back to the grid.

Kentucky Power customers with rooftop solar have long been able to get the full retail rate for excess electricity. The utility had proposed to cut that rate to 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. The commission ruled that the rate will be 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, much more than the utility wanted and only a little bit less than the current level.

“My initial reaction to this decision was one of relief,” said Matt Partymiller, general manager at Solar Energy Solutions, a solar installer in Lexington and president of the Kentucky Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group. But, he added, “that feeling of relief was quickly followed by the realization that this part of a long continued effort that we’re going to have to be fighting against.”

Kentucky’s utilities and many of its elected officials have worked to stop rooftop solar from gaining a foothold, arguing that solar customers do not pay an appropriate share of the costs of maintaining the grid, even though the state has very little rooftop solar. Kentucky ranked 40th in the country in electricity generation from small solar systems in 2020, right behind Arkansas and ahead of Kansas, according to the Energy Information Administration.

A 2019 law, signed by then-Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican, said that new solar customers would no longer get the full retail price for excess electricity. Utilities would need to submit proposals for the new rates to the commission. Kentucky Power, a subsidiary of Ohio-based American Electric Power, was the first major utility to propose new rates, making this case the commission’s first opportunity to show how it would interpret the law.

In its ruling, the commission disagreed with Kentucky Power’s arguments and found that the utility was undercounting the financial benefits of rooftop solar for the grid. Also, the commission called attention to how small the problem was that Kentucky Power was trying to solve, noting that there were only 46 households benefiting from net metering in the utility’s territory in 2020.

The utility said those households were getting an unfair subsidy from net metering that added up to about $40,000 per year. The commission responded by saying that this “purported subsidy” amounts to only 24 cents per year for each of the utility’s non-solar customers and is a small fraction of other subsidies embedded in Kentucky Power’s rates.

“It was Kentucky Power’s intent to provide a fair and balanced approach for all customers, not just the net metering customers,” said Cindy Wiseman, a Kentucky Power spokeswoman, in an email in response to a question about the commission’s ruling. “Our regulatory team is still reviewing the order and discussing it to gain a better understanding of the path forward.”

The three-member commission has one member who was appointed by Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, and two who were appointed by Bevin.

Partymiller, whose company has about 35 employees and may be the largest solar installer in the state, was careful not to overstate the significance of the decision, because it just covers one utility, and the commission still needs to rule on other utilities’ plans.

He said the rooftop solar industry has some big challenges in Kentucky even with this ruling. One of the biggest is a law that sets a cap on how much customer-owned electricity generation can come online before there is a drastic cut in net metering rates. This law, which predates the 2019 net metering legislation, will kick in when rooftop solar and other customer-owned resources hit 1 percent of peak electricity demand in each utility’s territory.

Kentucky Power probably is years away from hitting the 1 percent cap, but the mere existence of the cap is a problem because it puts a ceiling on growth for solar companies, Partymiller said.

He said he would like to see the Legislature and governor increase the cap or repeal it, but he also knows that there is a long fight ahead to make that happen.

I have read many decisions by state regulatory commissions about net metering, and the Kentucky ruling stands out for the methodical way it dismantles some common arguments made against rooftop solar about how non-solar customers are heavily subsidizing customers with solar. I would not be surprised to see the Kentucky commission’s findings cited in other states to argue for the benefits of rooftop solar, something I was not expecting, but there it is.

The I.E.A. Roadmap is most important report of the decade

Major Report from International Energy Agency, May 15, 2021

The world has a viable pathway to building a global energy sector with net-zero emissions in 2050, but it is narrow and requires an unprecedented transformation of how energy is produced, transported and used globally, the International Energy Agency said in a landmark special report released today.

Climate pledges by governments to date – even if fully achieved – would fall well short of what is required to bring global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to net zero by 2050 and give the world an even chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C, according to the new report, Net Zero by 2050: a Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.

The report is the world’s first comprehensive study of how to transition to a net zero energy system by 2050 while ensuring stable and affordable energy supplies, providing universal energy access, and enabling robust economic growth. It sets out a cost-effective and economically productive pathway, resulting in a clean, dynamic and resilient energy economy dominated by renewables like solar and wind instead of fossil fuels. The report also examines key uncertainties, such as the roles of bioenergy, carbon capture and behavioural changes in reaching net zero.

“Our Roadmap shows the priority actions that are needed today to ensure the opportunity of net-zero emissions by 2050 – narrow but still achievable – is not lost. The scale and speed of the efforts demanded by this critical and formidable goal – our best chance of tackling climate change and limiting global warming to 1.5 °C – make this perhaps the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA Executive Director. “The IEA’s pathway to this brighter future brings a historic surge in clean energy investment that creates millions of new jobs and lifts global economic growth. Moving the world onto that pathway requires strong and credible policy actions from governments, underpinned by much greater international cooperation.”

Building on the IEA’s unrivalled energy modelling tools and expertise, the Roadmap sets out more than 400 milestones to guide the global journey to net zero by 2050. These include, from today, no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. By 2035, there are no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars, and by 2040, the global electricity sector has already reached net-zero emissions.

In the near term, the report describes a net zero pathway that requires the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation. The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 gigawatts by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 gigawatts. Together, this is four times the record level set in 2020. For solar PV, it is equivalent to installing the world’s current largest solar park roughly every day. A major worldwide push to increase energy efficiency is also an essential part of these efforts, resulting in the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030 – about three times the average over the last two decades.

Most of the global reductions in CO2 emissions between now and 2030 in the net zero pathway come from technologies readily available today. But in 2050, almost half the reductions come from technologies that are currently only at the demonstration or prototype phase. This demands that governments quickly increase and reprioritise their spending on research and development – as well as on demonstrating and deploying clean energy technologies – putting them at the core of energy and climate policy. Progress in the areas of advanced batteries, electrolysers for hydrogen, and direct air capture and storage can be particularly impactful.

A transition of such scale and speed cannot be achieved without sustained support and participation from citizens, whose lives will be affected in multiple ways.

“The clean energy transition is for and about people,” said Dr Birol. “Our Roadmap shows that the enormous challenge of rapidly transitioning to a net zero energy system is also a huge opportunity for our economies. The transition must be fair and inclusive, leaving nobody behind. We have to ensure that developing economies receive the financing and technological know-how they need to build out their energy systems to meet the needs of their expanding populations and economies in a sustainable way.”

Providing electricity to around 785 million people who have no access to it and clean cooking solutions to 2.6 billion people who lack them is an integral part of the Roadmap’s net zero pathway. This costs around $40 billion a year, equal to around 1% of average annual energy sector investment. It also brings major health benefits through reductions in indoor air pollution, cutting the number of premature deaths by 2.5 million a year.

Total annual energy investment surges to USD 5 trillion by 2030 in the net zero pathway, adding an extra 0.4 percentage points a year to global GDP growth, based on a joint analysis with the International Monetary Fund. The jump in private and government spending creates millions of jobs in clean energy, including energy efficiency, as well as in the engineering, manufacturing and construction industries. All of this puts global GDP 4% higher in 2030 than it would reach based on current trends.

By 2050, the energy world looks completely different. Global energy demand is around 8% smaller than today, but it serves an economy more than twice as big and a population with 2 billion more people. Almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for almost 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear power. Solar is the world’s single largest source of total energy supply. Fossil fuels fall from almost four-fifths of total energy supply today to slightly over one-fifth. Fossil fuels that remain are used in goods where the carbon is embodied in the product such as plastics, in facilities fitted with carbon capture, and in sectors where low-emissions technology options are scarce.

“The pathway laid out in our Roadmap is global in scope, but each country will need to design its own strategy, taking into account its own specific circumstances,” said Dr Birol. “Plans need to reflect countries’ differing stages of economic development: in our pathway, advanced economies reach net zero before developing economies. The IEA stands ready to support governments in preparing their own national and regional roadmaps, to provide guidance and assistance in implementing them, and to promote international cooperation on accelerating the energy transition worldwide.”

The special report is designed to inform the high-level negotiations that will take place at the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) of the United Nations Climate Change Framework Convention in Glasgow in November. It was requested as input to the negotiations by the UK government’s COP26 Presidency.

“I welcome this report, which sets out a clear roadmap to net-zero emissions and shares many of the priorities we have set as the incoming COP Presidency – that we must act now to scale up clean technologies in all sectors and phase out both coal power and polluting vehicles in the coming decade,” said COP26 President-Designate Alok Sharma. “I am encouraged that it underlines the great value of international collaboration, without which the transition to global net zero could be delayed by decades. Our first goal for the UK as COP26 Presidency is to put the world on a path to driving down emissions, until they reach net zero by the middle of this century.”

New energy security challenges will emerge on the way to net zero by 2050 while longstanding ones will remain, even as the role of oil and gas diminishes. The contraction of oil and natural gas production will have far-reaching implications for all the countries and companies that produce these fuels. No new oil and natural gas fields are needed in the net zero pathway, and supplies become increasingly concentrated in a small number of low-cost producers. OPEC’s share of a much-reduced global oil supply grows from around 37% in recent years to 52% in 2050, a level higher than at any point in the history of oil markets.

Growing energy security challenges that result from the increasing importance of electricity include the variability of supply from some renewables and cybersecurity risks. In addition, the rising dependence on critical minerals required for key clean energy technologies and infrastructure brings risks of price volatility and supply disruptions that could hinder the transition.

“Since the IEA’s founding in 1974, one of its core missions has been to promote secure and affordable energy supplies to foster economic growth. This has remained a key concern of our Net Zero Roadmap,” Dr Birol said. “Governments need to create markets for investments in batteries, digital solutions and electricity grids that reward flexibility and enable adequate and reliable supplies of electricity. The rapidly growing role of critical minerals calls for new international mechanisms to ensure both the timely availability of supplies and sustainable production.”

The full report is available for free on the IEA’s website along with an online interactive that highlights some of the key milestones in the pathway that must be achieved in the next three decades to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

See the report here.

The Green New Deal is good for everyone in the long run

RE: Climate Change, Economic Sustainability and Environmental Preservation

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey just re-introduced the Green New Deal resolution in Congress.

Since this landmark resolution was first introduced two years ago, one thing has become clear: the fight for climate justice can only be won by tackling jobs, justice, and climate. Together.

The Green New Deal is one of the most popular policy proposals in the country. 57% of voters want their members of Congress to co-sponsor the resolution.1 It has inspired countless other bills like the Green New Deal for Public Housing introduced by Sen. Sanders, and the Green New Deal For Cities that Rep. Cori Bush introduced on Monday.

But despite all this, the Green New Deal has yet to pass through Congress. We have a once in a generation opportunity to push forward transformational change through this resolution. The plan for a Green New Deal, and economic, racial, and climate justice is on the table, but it’s up to our grassroots strength to force Congress to act.

Will you sign on as a Grassroots Co-Sponsor of the Green New Deal, and send a message to every Democrat, Republican, and Independent in Congress that we’ve waited long enough and we won’t tolerate inaction any longer?

The Green New Deal is one of the most strongly supported pieces of legislation because people across the country want bold climate action now. Already, over 100 members of Congress signed on as co-sponsors of the resolution, but we need more – and we need bolder action from the White House.

The Biden administration’s current infrastructure plan doesn’t go far enough. $2 trillion over 10 years isn’t enough. We need a minimum of $16 trillion dollars to address the scale of the crisis we are facing.

The Green New Deal makes it clear that we need to transition from fossil fuel jobs to fair, clean energy union jobs that support people and the climate. We can make sure we have a livable planet for future generations if we take action today – if our leaders stand up for people, not profits. If we pass the Green New Deal.

Please add your name now as a Grassroots Co-Sponsor of the Green New Deal. We’ll be in touch with more ways you can help grow support for the Green New Deal and related bills in Congress.

With hope, Team 350

Time is running out ...

From an Article by Tara Lohan, The Revelator, January 11, 2021

Shalanda Baker is currently a professor of law, public policy and urban affairs at Northeastern University and cofounder of the Initiative for Energy Justice, where she works on making the clean energy transition more just. Her new book is “Revolutionary Power, An Activist’s Guide to the Energy Transition,” published this month of January 2021.

The Revelator spoke with Prof. Baker about why we can’t solve our current climate crisis by following the same energy playbook and what it means to put various justice concerns first.

Question: “Energy justice” may be a new term for people. How do you define it?

I feel like it’s helpful to distinguish it from environmental justice as well as climate justice. They’re interrelated and, I think, inextricably intertwined.

We had seen landmark environmental legislation passed in the 1970s which largely failed to address energy distributional concerns and largely left communities of color to fend for themselves through regular civil rights claims to sort out those burdens. And that actually didn’t work out.

So the environmental justice movement continues and on their shoulders is the climate justice movement, which very much recognizes that island communities and other communities in the Global South, as well as environmental justice communities including in the United States, will be the first and worst impacted by climate change.

So they’re really working to create policies that respond to that vulnerability.

But energy justice for me is the most hopeful aspect of this because it’s forward looking. To me, it’s about dreaming and saying, “What system can we create that not only remediates or helps to remediate some of that environmental harm, but can make us less vulnerable in the face of climate change?”

Rooftop solar, batteries, things that allow us to bounce back more quickly in the face of climate change — this hopeful terrain of energy policy that is reflective of energy justice principles is where I like to do my work.

Question: What response do you get when you talk about energy justice now?

If you had asked me that six months ago, I would have said that it’s very hard. No one’s listening, it’s terrible.

But since the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the murder of George Floyd, we have seen this sort of awakening, for lack of a better term, with respect to the multiple layers of oppression and inequality that certain communities face.

We know that communities of color are more likely to be environmental justice communities, breathing in toxic fumes. We know that they’re more likely to experience energy burden, paying more of their overall income to meet basic energy needs. And now we know that they’re more likely to die from a pandemic and that the likelihood of having the worst effects of COVID relates back to the energy system.

So now there’s an opening, there’s an opportunity. Since June there’s really been more of a willingness to learn about this — and not in just the typical places, but with policymakers, with folks from departments of energy around the country and attorneys general offices.

Question: Are there examples of energy justice in action you’ve seen around the country?

One is in New York through the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which was signed into law about a year ago and was very much a product of grassroots advocacy. A coalition called NY Renews made sure that that law included a carve-out for environmental justice communities [requiring] that 35% of climate investments have to go back to those communities.

We see similar things in California with Senate Bill 535, which is essentially a redistribution of the benefits of that state’s cap and trade policy to so-called “disadvantaged communities.”

So there are wins here and there, but we have to keep fighting.

Question: You write in your book about how the goal for many activists has been “climate first, energy justice later.” But you advocate for justice first. Why?

Bringing in the voices of folks who’ve been historically colonized and excluded for hundreds of years is just the morally right thing to do.

But I think more and more, we’re starting to understand that our fates are linked. And we cannot leave behind certain squads of the population in pursuit of our own gains. We have to make sure that they have a voice at the table and are able to bring life to their own vision of what the energy system should look like.

Or else we’ll get kicked by it at the end of the day. We’ll be hit by the realization that we’ve left out this entire segment of the population that can’t pay their electricity bills or that now has to move because of climate change. That will ultimately create substantial social costs down the road.

So for me, it’s about making a stronger society. I really want ordinary folks — our aunts or uncles, our friends who are not in energy or environmental law and policy — to engage with these ideas and to see the ways in which energy is such an intimate part of our lives.

I want people to get curious and begin to organize around a just energy future. And to also maybe even get a little upset about the deep injustice that is embedded into not just the fossil fuel system — because that’s a story we know — but into this clean energy transition, where we are not only replicating but in some ways exacerbating inequality.

>>> Tara Lohanis is deputy editor of The Revelator and has worked for more than a decade as a digital editor and environmental journalist focused on the intersections of energy, water and climate. Her work has been published by The Nation, American Prospect, High Country News, Grist, Pacific Standard and others. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis.

The United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC) was established at the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP-26) is set for Glasgow in November 2021

From an Article by Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Magazine, January – February, 2021

Finally, we engaged millions of people in the work for climate justice. Let’s be clear: None of this was easy. As we sit here in 2030, the clean and just energy future that we’ve built together has been the result of millions of people stepping up in their own states and communities.

I know all this seemed impossible back in 2020, when it felt as if everything was falling apart and our climate might be doomed. But everything we did mattered. All of it.

We now know that we’re going to keep global temperature rise below the dangerous tipping points that climate scientists warned us about a decade ago.

We can look our kids in the eye and tell them that we didn’t let them down. Now we can watch their dreams unfold.

As all our great spiritual traditions have taught us, new beginnings are often born during our most difficult days. We created something beautiful out of those hard days in 2020.

Of course we have more work to do. But we’re doing that work from a foundation we built together. I can’t wait to see what we’ll do next.

££ This concludes this Article series here on FrackCheckWV.net.

This Article appeared in the January/February edition of SIERRA with the headline “A Love Letter From the Clean Energy Future.”

#####. #####. #####. #####. #####.

See also: Paris Climate Agreement Q&A | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions …. What happens next?

The negotiations on the Paris rulebook at COP 24 proved in some ways more challenging than those leading to the Paris Agreement as parties faced a mix of technical and political challenges and, in some respects, higher stakes in seeking to elaborate the agreement’s broad provisions through detailed guidance. Delegates adopted rules and procedures on mitigation, transparency, adaptation, finance, periodic stocktakes, and other Paris provisions. But they were unable to agree on rules for Article 6, which provides for voluntary cooperation among parties in implementing their NDCs, including through the use of market-based approaches.

Instead, parties deferred those decisions to COP 25.

In September 2019, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres convened a climate summit in New York to rally countries to higher ambition in 2020. The world’s largest emitters failed to present substantive plans for greater emissions reductions but 65 countries expressed their intention to enhance their NDCs by the end of 2020. With the launch of a “Climate Ambition Alliance,” 66 countries announced their intention to develop plans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

A marathon COP 25 was held in Madrid, Spain, from December 2 to December 15, 2019, with Chile retaining the presidency. Governments reaffirmed a prior call for parties to reflect “their highest possible ambition” when presenting a new round of NDCs in 2020, but they failed again to adopt rules for international carbon trading under Article 6, the last major piece of the “rulebook” for implementing the Paris Agreement. Additionally, vulnerable developing countries expressed growing exasperation at the scarce resources available to them to cope with worsening climate impacts.

Due to the impacts of the global novel coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the UNFCCC postponed most of its major climate meetings until 2021, including COP 26. The COVID-19 pandemic has also affected countries’ efforts to put forward the new or enhanced NDCs due in 2020.

On December 12, 2020, the fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the UN, France, and the UK, co-hosted a virtual global climate summit, the Climate Ambition Summit.

The UK currently plans to host COP 26 from November 1-12, 2021, in Glasgow, Scotland.

Chemical cracker plants result in unneeded plastics and excess air pollution

From an Article by Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Magazine, January – February, 2021

Third, we stopped attempts to expand drilling while we reclaimed abandoned wells, mines, and drilling sites. The oil and gas industry was in a precarious place as 2020 came to a close. It was struggling to compete with renewable energy, facing the wrath of communities angry about drilling and pipelines, and grappling with dwindling returns from fracking, which made the industry’s finances look more like a pyramid scheme.

Through on-the-ground organizing, we prevented the fossil fuel industry’s last-gasp attempt to establish new markets for its products. We blocked the construction of more than a dozen proposed fracked-gas export terminals and halted the creation of a new “Cancer Alley” of chemical and plastics plants in the Ohio River valley.

We forced the industry to stop drilling next to homes, schools, and communities. And we secured protection from drilling on Indigenous lands, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Bears Ears National Monument.

Meanwhile, we created jobs for thousands of oil, gas, and coal workers. We put 120,000 people to work plugging over 2 million abandoned oil and gas wells and addressing methane leaks that were roasting our planet.

Congress also passed the RECLAIM (Revitalizing the Economy of Coal Communities by Leveraging Local Activities and Investing More) Act to fund reclamation projects and community-led economic development in Appalachia.

## Part D is scheduled for tomorrow on FrackCheckWV.net.

This Article appeared in the January/February edition of SIERRA with the headline “A Love Letter From the Clean Energy Future.”

>>>>>. >>>>>. >>>>>. >>>>>. >>>>>.

See also: Bipartisan RECLAIM Act passes House as part of infrastructure bill | Steve Valk, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, July 8, 2020

The bill was reintroduced in the 116th Congress in April of 2019 by Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA) and accumulated 65 cosponsors, including 14 Republicans. A Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-WV) and had 6 Democrat cosponsors, but has died in Committee.

The all electric home is in our future if not already

From an Article by Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Magazine, January – February, 2021

Second, we got well on our way toward electrifying everything. Here in 2030, one of the best parts of the energy transition is that it has made our lives healthier. After social media icons spread the word about how gas stoves create indoor air pollution linked to asthma in kids, families rushed to their local home-improvement stores to replace gas ranges with electric induction stovetops.

Local governments passed thousands of ordinances calling for all-electric construction in new buildings, which created enough pressure for national standards. New businesses started popping up to help homeowners save money while pulling polluting gas appliances out of their homes. And the Department of Energy created programs to ensure that low-income families could make the switch affordably.

Meanwhile, on the transportation front, states such as California and New Jersey set a 2035 target date for phasing out internal-combustion-engine cars, and national standards followed. States also put in place standards requiring that buses and large trucks go all-electric, which dramatically reduced air pollution in communities of color and big port and shipping centers including California’s Inland Empire, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

After COVID-19 made Americans realize the importance of walkable cities and accessible public transportation, Congress included funding in infrastructure bills for clean and affordable public transit, biking, and walking options. The number of family-sustaining jobs skyrocketed as Americans were put to work building electric cars, trucks, and buses as well as transit and charging-station infrastructure.

Part C of this Article will appear here tomorrow in FrackCheckWV.net.

The entire Article appeared in the January/February edition of Sierra with the headline “A Love Letter From the Clean Energy Future.”

#####. #####. #####. #####. #####. #####.

See also: FRACKING THE FUTURE — How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health and Climate, DeSmog Blog, 2011

Unconventional gas drilling and fracking are emerging as very controversial energy & environmental issues in the United States and around the World.

UNITED NATIONS Sustainable Development Goal #7

From an Article by Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Magazine, January – February, 2021

My friends,

It takes my breath away to write these words, but we did it. Rooted in our deep love for this planet and one another, we stepped back from the cliff of irreversible climate change. Families around the globe, including mine and yours, no longer face the specter of fleeing their homes because of ever-worsening climate-driven disasters. The fossil fuel industry no longer controls the levers of power to corrupt democracy. And we’re building a world where everyone has clean air and clean water and access to nature.

As we rolled up our sleeves to prevent a climate emergency, our solutions prioritized investments in those communities most harmed by fossil fuels and pollution and those long excluded from economic opportunity. We needed to build so mu6ch clean energy infrastructure to avoid a climate apocalypse, and we didn’t just build it; we built it with family-sustaining jobs and with an eye toward restitution and reparations. Thanks to you, our kids will be raising their sons and daughters in vibrant, resilient communities full of opportunity. This is how we arrived here:

>>>> BEHOLD THE CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE …

First, we powered the country with 100 percent clean energy. An electric grid powered by clean energy was the foundation for turning the corner on climate, and the dirty power plants that were the worst contributors to environmental injustice were the first to go.

Building on a decade of grassroots advocacy, President Biden introduced and Congress finally passed a national 100 percent clean energy standard that put us well on our way to phasing out coal and gas by 2035 while ensuring that vulnerable communities experienced the benefits of the transition.

Big states such as California and New York then set even more aggressive goals, making it clear that a clean energy transition of speed and scale was possible. And since decisions about how we produce electricity are largely made by states, we continued our 50-state energy-transformation push for a decade.

To support communities with economic ties to fossil fuels, Congress included a robust economic transition for fossil fuel workers and community-led economic development. Congress also passed innovative measures like a moratorium on utility shutoffs for households and support for energy-saving home improvements for families spending a high percentage of their income on electricity bills (known as a high energy burden).

Renewable energy kept getting cheaper, and that allowed the Department of Energy to accelerate local clean energy solutions like microgrids—which are reliable during climate-driven extreme-weather events—in vulnerable and underserved places like the Navajo Nation and Puerto Rico.

We finally harnessed the power of offshore wind along the Atlantic coast and solar across the Southeast and Southwest, while scaling up new energy-storage technologies to make clean energy available when it’s needed most. Altogether, we made a quantum leap in the scale and scope of the energy transition, produced millions of jobs, and sparked the creation of thousands of new businesses.

>>>>> Part B is scheduled for tomorrow on FrackCheckWV.net.

This Article appeared in the January/February edition of SIERRA with the headline “A Love Letter From the Clean Energy Future.”

ORVI launch explained in YouTube video below

From an Essay by Ted Boettner, Charleston Gazette Mail, December 5, 2020

For over a decade, policymakers in West Virginia have pinned their hopes that an industrial phoenix would emerge from the explosion in shale development. This has not occurred. Instead, our population has shrunk by 60,000 people and we have fewer jobs today than we did 15 years ago. If we want to grow our state and build stronger communities, we will need to embrace a strategy that has a proven track record of success instead of chasing our tails.

Since the beginning of the “shale boom” in West Virginia, policymakers and economic development folks have told us that natural gas will be our state’s ticket out of last place. This “game changer” was supposed to create tens of thousands of new jobs and an economic revival that would finally catapult our state into the 21st century. Meanwhile, what we’ve seen is a decline in manufacturing jobs, thousands of people fleeing the state for better opportunities and devastation in the coalfields as natural gas displaced coal for electricity production.

If natural gas development was the ticket to economic prosperity, then Wetzel County would be Beverly Hills. Since 2010, over $2.5 billion of gas has been extracted from Wetzel County. That’s over $165,000 for every person in the county. But, the county’s population has declined by 9%, school enrollment has fallen by 13% and poverty has remained above the state average. The county has only seen an increase of 222 jobs, but still has fewer jobs than it did in 2007.

Fracking has generated billions of dollars and value and investment in West Virginia, but it hardly benefits the people of West Virginia. Only a small fraction of all that money stays within local communities or lands in the pockets of workers. This is largely because fracking is a highly capital-intensive industry, using only a few workers to produce a lot of gas. For example, conventional drilling takes about 28 workers to produce a billion cubic feet in a year, whereas shale drilling (aka fracking) can produce a billion cubic feet with just three workers.

The only significant growth in oil and gas jobs in the state has been temporary jobs building pipelines. The problem is that pipelines are specifically designed to send more of our wealth out of the region.

Other reasons why fracking hasn’t delivered major benefits for local residents is that the industry largely is not from here. Many of the workers are not state residents and most of the gas operators are headquartered elsewhere, as are many of the mineral owners. So most of those billions of dollars generated by fracking go to Pittsburgh, Houston and other places.

Furthermore, a lot of the “capital investment” (machinery and equipment) and professional services purchased by the gas industry come from outside the region. And since we only tax a small share of the value of oil and gas production, little of it stays within our borders.

A decade ago, the American Petroleum Institute projected the “shale revolution” would bring more than 43,000 jobs to West Virginia. And now API absurdly projects over 100,000 jobs from an Appalachian petrochemical buildout in the region. But, such a buildout of plastics, energy storage and cracker plants in the region is unlikely to transpire, as investors and petrochemical companies are pulling back, fracking companies are drowning in red ink, demand for plastics is falling short of expectations and other regions are embracing clean energy to grow their economies.

Instead of another lost decade of chasing false hopes, it is time to pursue a new strategy that recognizes our past and where the new energy economy is going. President-elect Joe Biden has promised to enact major climate change legislation (not to mention action in other states) to drastically reduce carbon emissions. If West Virginia cannot recognize that both the energy industry and federal policy are pointing away from carbon, there is a serious risk the state will be stranded by the side of the road while the rest of the country moves on.

West Virginia can build a stronger economy with more jobs. By embracing the clean energy economy and ensuring a just transition for those in fossil fuel jobs. Just recently, mayors from Huntington, Morgantown, and across the Ohio River Valley region of Appalachia released a “Marshall Plan for Middle America” that provides a roadmap for the region to create over 410,000 new jobs through federal and private investment in infrastructure and energy diversification to meet the challenges of climate change.

On the other hand, if we keep doing what we’re doing now, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Sustainable Business find that West Virginia will lose approximately 20,000 fossil-fuel related jobs over the next decade because of “superior, cost-competitive renewable energy development.”

Other efforts such as Reimagine Appalachia and the National Economic Transition are also putting forth concrete plans to help rebuild our region and state and create thousands of good paying jobs. This includes repairing the damage of the past by employing fossil fuel workers to reclaim coal mines and plug gas wells; expanding manufacturing to make it cleaner and more efficient; modernizing the electric grid; building out a network of universal broadband; relaunching the Civilian Conservation Corps; and guaranteeing jobs for workers in the fossil fuel industries.

Embracing clean energy and public investments is not an obstacle to economic growth in West Virginia. Quite the opposite. It offers a safer and more promising path to good paying jobs and a brighter future.

>>> *** Ted Boettner is a senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute and lives in Charleston.

>>>>>. >>>>>. >>>>>. >>>>>. >>>>>.
NOTE: Ohio River Valley Institute, August 19, 2020

Independent Nonpartisan Research — The Ohio River Valley Institute is a think tank focused on the greater Ohio Valley and Western Pennsylvania. Our team of experts produces substantive research on the region’s most pressing issues and delivers them with effective communication strategies. We strive to help the Ohio Valley region mark out a path toward shared prosperity, clean energy, and more equitable civic structures.

See also this video: Ohio River Valley Institute Launch – YouTube, August 19, 2020