I know it has been long and drawn out . I know that Citizenre has not worked out in the time frame we thought it would . There are however positive thing happening and it looks like we have a solid ( not guaranteed) shot at getting financed soon. It is not certain until there is money in the bank and don’t go out spending tons of money. It is good to know we have a team still swinging at pitches and moving forward on many fronts.
Link to Robs National call on 7/27/08
STATEMENT ON SENATE’S 8TH FAILURE TO EXTEND SOLAR TAX CREDITS
Solar Energy Industries Association president Rhone Resch released the following statement after the Senate failed to pass a cloture motion on S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act, which included provisions to extend the solar investment tax credit for eight years. The motion failed by a vote of 51 to 43, unable to gain the support of 60 senators needed for passage.
“For the eighth time since June 2007, the Senate was unable to reach a bipartisan compromise to extend solar tax credits which are vital to the solar industry and our economy. Time is running out to extend the solar tax credits and without passage in the immediate future, tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars will be lost in new solar investment. Already companies are putting projects on hold and preparing to send thousands of jobs overseas – real jobs that would otherwise be filled by American workers. Failure to extend the solar tax credits is a severe blow to an industry that has proven to be an economic engine for the U.S. at a time when we need it most.
The Senate now has little time left this year to extend these tax credits. I strongly urge the Senate to figure out a bipartisan compromise and immediately extend the solar tax credit when they return from their August recess.”
Who represents you?
How did they vote? LINK
—————————————————————————————
Background Materials:
Senate ITC Vote History in the 110th Congress
http://seia.org/Score%20Sheet%
94% of Americans Support Developing and Using More Solar Energy
Kelton Research Poll
http://seia.org/solarnews.php?
Economic Impact of Expiring Renewable Energy Tax Credits
Navigant Consulting Study
http://seia.org/Navigant_Tax_
Utility-Scale Solar Projects Affected by the ITC Lapse
http://seia.org/CSP%
Specific Projects, Companies Affected by ITC Lapse
http://www.seia.org/ITC%
Editor: Project manager and writer Scott Berkun knows how to get things done when you’ve got a team of people, a to-do list, and a deadline. Today he offers an excerpt from the updated edition of his best-selling book The Art of Project Management (our review), entitled Making Things Happen.
Prioritization is always more emotional than intellectual, despite what people say. Just like dieting to lose weight or budgeting to save money, eliminating things you want, but don’t need, requires being disciplined, committed, and focused. Saying “exercise is important” is one thing, but ranking it against other important things is entirely different. Many people chicken out of this process. They hedge, delay and deny the tough choices, and the result is that they set up projects to fail. No tough choices means no progress. In the abstract, the word important means nothing.
The easiest way to make a goal meaningful is to use ordered lists and a high priority one bar. These two simple tools force you to make tough decisions early. An ordered list simply means putting your goals in priority order, most important at the top, least important at the bottom. Divide that list in half: the top are things you must do, or die (Priority 1). The rest are things you hope to do, but can live without (Priority 2). Make your priority 1 list as small as possible: set a high bar. The smaller your list of must do’s, the easier they are to achieve. You will face waves of conflicting emotions as you decide what is truly important, but once you settle on priorities the hard decisions will be behind you.
Doing the tough decision making early creates clarity, and clarity is the true way to make things happen on projects. No-bullshit tools like ordered lists reinforce commitments and make them public. Everyone can show up to work with a strong sense of what he is doing, why he’s doing it, and how it relates to what others are doing. When the inevitable moments of doubt arise and you or your team question the plans, you want to be ready. If people can easily look back to a simple set of ordered goals, it enables simple, direct and clear questions. Even if there are disagreements, the clarity of the goals makes those debates productive and positive.
Have you ever been in a tough argument that you thought would never end? Perhaps half your team felt strongly for adding more features, and the other half felt strongly for increasing quality. But then the smart team leader hero dude walks in, asks some questions, divides the discussion in a new way, and quickly gets everyone to agree. It’s happened to me many times. When I was younger, I chalked this up to brilliance: somehow the leader was just smarter than the rest of the room. But as I paid more attention I realized it was about having rock solid priorities. They had an ordered list in their heads for what is most important and were able to share it with others when necessary. Good priorities are power. They eliminate secondary distractions from the discussion, making it easier to focus on what matters.
If you have priorities in place you can always ask questions in any discussion that reframe the argument. This can work when working alone or with others. When there is uncertainty or disagreement, reframe the discussion around the priorities using questions like these.
One effect of having priorities is how often you have to say no. It’s one of the smallest words in the English language, yet many people have trouble saying it. The problem is that if you can’t say no, you can’t have priorities. The universe is a large place, but your priority one list should be very small. That small list means there are thousands of good ideas that must be denied to focus your energy on the ones you’ve chosen to pursue. If you continually say yes to ideas that do not match your priorities, you are saying yes to failure. If you want to change your priorities, that’s one thing, but if you are constantly changing them then they were never priorities at all. You did not think deeply enough about them if, emotionally, they are easy to change every few hours. So a fundamental law is this: if you can’t say no, if you can’t protect your priorities, you can’t make things happen.
Excerpt copyright © 2008 Scott Berkun. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Filed at 8:50 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking to play down the effects of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office pushed to delete from congressional testimony references about the consequences of climate change on public health, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.
The official, Jason K. Burnett, said the White House was concerned that the proposed testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might make it tougher to avoid regulating greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
Burnett’s assertion, which he made in a July 6 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, conflicts with the White House explanation at the time that the deletions reflected concerns by the White House Office of Science and Technology over the accuracy of the science.
Boxer, in a news conference on Tuesday, went so far as to say White House press secretary Dana Perino had lied about why the White House had pushed for the deletions. That, in turn, prompted Perino to demand an apology from Boxer.
”I have never said such a thing about a fellow public servant, and I wouldn’t if I didn’t have all the facts,” Perino said from Japan, where President Bush is attending a meeting of world economic leaders. ”I think I deserve an apology.”
Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote that Cheney’s office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC’s original draft testimony removed.
”The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) … any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change,” Burnett wrote.
At her news conference, Boxer maintained that the heavy editing of the testimony given by CDC Director Julie Gerberding last fall was the first part of ”a master plan” aimed at ”covering up the real dangers of global warming and hiding the facts from the public.”
Burnett declined to comment beyond what he described in the letter and said he didn’t want to identify the people he had talked with in Cheney’s office or elsewhere at the White House. ”I’m not interested in pointing fingers at individuals,” he said.
White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said the White House stands by its explanation for the deletions, and noted that science adviser John Marburger had raised concerns.
Marburger issued a summary of his concerns at the time, but at a Senate hearing a few weeks later said he had not recommended deleting six of the 14 pages as was done.
Megan Mitchell, the vice president’s press secretary, dismissed the allegations by Burnett and said, ”We don’t comment on internal deliberations.”
Burnett, 31, a lifelong Democrat, resigned his post last month as associate deputy EPA administrator because of disagreements over the agency’s response to climate change.
He appeared to be an odd choice for the EPA post, which included liaison with the White House on climate issues. Currently a supporter of Barack Obama for president, he has contributed nearly $125,000 to Democratic candidates since 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Burnett, an economist who had written a number of papers on government regulation while at the Center for Regulatory Study, a joint effort by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, first joined the EPA in 2004. He resigned two years later because of objections to an EPA rule on soot.
He was asked to return in 2007 by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who put him in charge of coordinating the agency’s response to a Supreme Court ruling on whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
In his letter, Burnett describes concerns at the White House, including in Cheney’s office, about linking climate change directly to public health or damage to the environment.
Nowhere was that more apparent than in the heavy editing of the CDC testimony in October.
The White House, at the urging of Cheney’s office, ”requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change,” Burnett wrote.
”CEQ contacted me to argue that I could best keep options open for the (EPA) administrator (on regulating carbon dioxide) if I would convince CDC to delete particular sections of their testimony,” he wrote.
But he said he refused to press the CDC on the deletions because he believed the CDC’s draft testimony was ”fundamentally accurate.”
Burnett said Cheney’s office also objected in January to congressional testimony by Johnson that ”greenhouse gas emissions harm the environment.” An official in Cheney’s office ”called to tell me that his office wanted the language changed” but that it was kept as it was.
Burnett also described in greater detail than previously reported the White House’s refusal in December to accept a draft EPA finding concluding that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, is endangering human health.
After he sent the e-mail with the draft finding attached, he said he received a telephone call from the White House asking that he ‘’send a follow-up note saying that the e-mail had been sent in error.”
”I explained that I could not do that because it was not true,” Burnett wrote.
Boxer said the draft finding was now ”in limbo” and not available for public review.
More than a year ago, the Supreme Court directed the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare and, if so, begin to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. That process is not likely to continue until the next administration.
green-eneregy-news.com July 6 08
NO GLOOM IN GREEN ENERGY.
It’s really unfortunate. The queasiness on the streets about the state
of the US may be unnecessary. High gas prices, the continuing war in
Iraq, sinking home values, the bearish stock market, job layoffs, the
credit crisis, abysmal auto sales – all bad news that might not have
to be there.
This I know with certainty: Most people in the US don’t read this
publication (nor likely others like it.) If they did they’d know that
at least one sector of the economy is doing remarkably well – the
green energy sector, the industry revolving around clean, efficient
and renewable energy. If those millions of nonreaders knew how well
that sector is doing there might be less pessimism about the future.
The press release accompanying a new report from the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) says this about the sector, “UNEP study
says clean energy investments charge forward despite financial market
turmoil.” The report “Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment
2008″ speaks of worldwide investment with the US playing a strong
role:
— New global investment in green energy surpassed $148 billion in
2007, a 60-percent rise from 2006;
— Most of the investment was in the EU and the US, but significant
gains – $26 billion – were in China, India and Brazil;
— Green power accounted for 23 percent of all new power capacity
added globally in 2007: 31 gigawatts of green power were added, about
10 times that of nuclear;
— Total investment in all energies - green and otherwise - is
expected to be $20 trillion by 2030 to meet soaring demand: There’ll
be continued pressure by nations to make sure much of this investment
produces green energy;
— Investment in wind energy reached $50.2 billion in 2007;
— Wind attracted more investment globally last year than any other
non-fossil fuel based technology, including large hydro and nuclear
power. In Europe and the US, wind capacity additions in 2007 on their
own accounted for 40 percent and 30 percent, respectively, of all new
power capacity.
— Global installed wind capacity surpassed 100 gigawatts in March,
2008.
— Solar energy grew at faster rate than wind to reach $28.6 billion
in 2007;
— Solar attracted by far the most venture capital and private equity
investment of all renewables – $3.7 billion – although biomass and
waste-to-energy saw the fastest rate of growth.
— Biofuels in the US had a difficult year in 2007. With US feedstock
costs up and ethanol prices down, venture capital and private equity
investment in biofuels fell by almost one-third in 2007, to $2.1
billion. However, biofuels investment has shifted to Brazil, India and
China.
— Investment in energy efficiency technology reached a record $1.8
billion, an increase of 78 percent from 2006. According to the
International Energy Agency, each $1 invested in energy efficiency on
average avoids more than $2 needed to create new supply.
— North America attracted most energy efficiency investment during
2007, followed by Europe;
— Research & Development spending on clean energy and energy
efficiency was $16.9 billion in 2007, including corporate R&D of $9.8
billion, and government R&D of $7.1 billion.
The report, prepared by UK-based New Energy Finance for UNEP’s Paris-
based Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative, also looks forward.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) $20 trillion is
projected to be invested to meet the world’s energy demand in 2030.
With governments increasingly concerned about energy security and
global warming, much of this investment could be renewables and energy
efficiency– a boom for those in the business.
Beyond what the UNEP report has to say, a change in administration in
the US (to either candidate) will spur more government spending on
green energy, helping more to build the already strong industry. Both
candidates are committed to this effort.
Further, state mandates for greener energy as well as taxpayer funding
continue to fuel the industry.
California has published its Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, which
outlines how the state will achieve greenhouse gas reductions in the
coming years. Savvy businessmen should be looking over this document
for opportunities.
On the other coast Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania has announced
his state’s 2008-09 budget which includes an investment of $665.9
million in alternative energy. Of the total, solar will get $180
million, $165 million will be set aside to encourage alternative
energy projects and $150 million will be available over seven years to
help consumers and small businesses weatherize their homes and adopt
conservation tools and offer tax credits to businesses developing and
building alternative energy projects in the commonwealth. Green
buildings, wind and geothermal energy, will get millions as well.
The proposed state budget also has long term plans to increase the use
of biofuels. As production levels of biodiesel increase, the state
will require the percentage that will be blended into conventional
diesel to also increase. The boost cellulosic development gasoline
must include at least 10-percent cellulosic ethanol once production
reaches 350 million gallons per year. New investments will also be
made in Pennsylvania’s biofuel producers; up to $5.3 million will be
available annually through June 2011 to encourage the production of
ethanol and biodiesel.
Economic downturns are often psychological: bad news begets more bad
news until the news gets really bad. It will take considerable good
news to counter what’s bad now. It seems, though, that the good news
will be coming from the green sector. The sooner people know this, the
sooner the country will recover.
Links:
— UNEP- Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008
http://www.unep.org/Documents
Default.asp?DocumentID=538
— California Air Resources Board (CARB) — Climate Change Draft
Scoping Plan
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc
— Pennsylvania 2008-09 State Budget
http://www.budget.state.pa.us
July 3, 2008 3:47 p.m. EST
Vittorio Hernandez - AHN News Writer
Boston, MA (AHN) - Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed on Wednesday the Green Communities Act which reduces state dependence on fossil fuel and encourage a shift to cleaner forms of energy.
The new law requires utility firms to design customized plans for homeowners and businesses that would reduce energy costs and grant rebates for residents and business owners who would install insulating windows and more efficient boilers in their units.
To make the use of solar panels more affordable, sun panels for lease from utility companies would be made available and homeowners with surplus power from their wind turbines and solar panels would be allowed to sell their excess energy.
The law is timely as it would save Massachusetts residents millions of dollars at a time when fuel and energy bills are on an all-time high.
The law set targets for utilities to increase their use of renewable energy by 4 percent in 2009, 15 percent in 2020 and 25 percent in 2030.
Recent Comments