Articles by Adam Browning

Make your opinion heard

Senator Bingaman is with the majority of Americans in wanting more renewable energy. Accordingly, he has authored legislation that would require utilities to increase renewables in their portfolio to 15 percent by 2020.

Senator Domenici is with the craven few who don't want this to happen. Accordingly, he has authored an amendment to redefine qualifying renewables to include nukes and coal. So tricky! But we are on to him.

The vote on Domenici's amendment will take place this afternoon. Calls to the following swinging senators by 2 p.m. EDT today could make all the difference.

Minn. - Coleman - 202.224.5641

N.H. - Gregg - 202.224.3324

Ark. - Pryor - 202.224.2353

Ark. - Lincoln - 202.224.4843

Kan. - Brownback - 202.224.6521

Ind. - Bayh - 202.224.5623

Ore. - Smith - 202.224.3753

Mo. - McCaskill - 202.224.6154

W.Va. - Rockefeller- 202.224.6472

If you live in or know anyone in these states, consider calling ASAP.

Talking points:

• Hi, my name is XXXX and I'm calling from [city, state].
• I'm calling to ask Senator XXXX to oppose Senator Domenici's amendment to the national renewable portfolio standard bill.
• The amendment would weaken the deployment of truly clean and renewable electricity sources like wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal.
• The renewable standard is intended to promote our development of clean, new energy sources, not give more subsidies to the coal and nuclear industries.
• The bill provides a way to save consumers like me money on their utility bills by increasing the competition from renewable energy sources and reducing the demand for natural gas
• Thank you.

Action courtesy of UCS

Getting carbon cap and trade right for renewables

For the 110th Congress, this is not just a question for Saturday night.

One of the reasons why federal carbon cap and trade legislation is so slow in coming -- besides coal state mendacity -- is because it is damn complicated. Of the critical design choices, there is insufficient common understanding of implications, to say nothing of agreement.

We will only be successful in fighting global warming via a transition to renewable energy. Carbon capture and sequestration is not going to save us. In contrast to renewables, no one is doing it now and the technology is not game time. At best it's years out; at worst it's a trojan horse, locking us into a path of further dependence on coal.

The danger with carbon cap and trade is that the wrong design could seriously hurt -- hurt, not help -- renewable energy markets. Robert Harmon and Michelle Hirschhorn of the Bonneville Environmental Foundation have written an important paper (PDF) on the dangers of making the wrong choice. If carbon legislation is modeled on the current SO2 scheme, the markets for renewables will be severely undercut.

To their arguments I'd add that the best structure will allow people who make investments in renewables (distributed generation or wholesale) or energy efficiency to be able to monetize their carbon-free contribution. An output-based approach would not provide an obvious way for this to happen. Under a load-based cap and trade system, utilities would clearly be incentivized to encourage their customers to do both.

For the 110th Congress, it is more important to get it right than to get it right now.

Fred Thompson delivers rational, informed, passionate speech about the need for immediate action to

Just kidding. He's an ass:

And spy planes

Identifying energy-saving opportunities is one thing -- and a good thing -- but just think of the potential for evaluating politicians ...