Risky Business. org

Do you know this group? This is the leading edge, in our opinion, on a global basis of insight into our prism--the business side of green. It is very gratifying to us to see world leaders put their time and money into helping us migrate to a clean-energy economy and bringing money and expertise into balancing the economy with our beautiful, enchanting environment.

We will have them on a future radio show.  If you have no listened to any episodes, please do so here.  If you have expertise and would like to join us on a show, contact us anytime:  http://www.renewablenow.biz/peter-arpin-remewable-now.html

Risky Business Report Finds That U.S. Regions and Business Sectors Face Significant Economic Risks From Climate Change

Ex-Treasury Secretaries Shultz, Rubin and Paulson Join Bloomberg, Steyer and other Leaders Urging Industry to Better Understand Risks to Economy

First-of-its-kind Risk Analysis Quantifies Potential for Economic Disruptions; Independent, Non-partisan Study Breaks New Ground in Climate Risk Assessment

New York, June 24 – The American economy could face significant and widespread disruptions from climate change unless U.S. businesses and policymakers take immediate action to reduce climate risk, according to a new report released today. The report, “Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States,” summarizes findings of an independent assessment of the impact of climate change at the county, state, and regional level, and shows that communities, industries, and properties across the U.S. face profound risks from climate change. The findings also show that the most severe risks can still be avoided through early investments in resilience, and through immediate action to reduce the pollution that causes global warming.

The Risky Business report shows that two of the primary impacts of climate change—extreme heat and sea level rise—will disproportionately affect certain regions of the U.S., and pose highly variable risks across the nation. In the U.S. Gulf Coast, Northeast, and Southeast, for example, sea level rise and increased damage from storm surge are likely to lead to an additional $2 to $3.5 billion in property losses each year by 2030, with escalating costs in future decades. In interior states in the Midwest and Southwest, extreme heat will threaten human health, reduce labor productivity and strain electricity grids.

Conversely, in northern latitudes such as North Dakota and Montana, winter temperatures will likely rise, reducing frost events and cold-related deaths, and lengthening the growing season for some crops.

The report is a product of The Risky Business Project, a joint, non-partisan initiative of former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Mayor of New York City from 2002-2013 Michael R. Bloomberg, and Thomas P. Steyer, former Senior Managing Member of Farallon Capital Management. They were joined by members of a high-level “Risk Committee” who helped scope the research and reviewed the research findings.

Risk Committee members include:

• Henry Cisneros - Founder & Chairman, CityView Capital; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); former Mayor of San Antonio, TX
• Gregory Page - Executive Chairman, Cargill, Inc. and former Cargill Chief Executive Officer
• Robert Rubin - Co-chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
• Donna Shalala - President, University of Miami; former US Secretary of Health and Human Services; former Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison
• George Shultz - Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution; former US Secretary of State; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury; former U.S. Secretary of Labor; former Director, Office of Management & Budget; former President, Bechtel Group
• Olympia Snowe - Former U.S. Senator representing Maine
• Dr. Al Sommer - Dean Emeritus, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University

Wow, $5.1 Trillion on Renewables by 2030

It amazes us how quickly the clean energy sector is growing.  Today our guest felt too much of this is driven by government subsidies.  Is it?  Certainly the government investment in solar, tax credits and funding of R & D has been critical.  But, overall, we believe that the tidal wave of investment in renewables is signs of a maturing industry who is on top of their game in terms of product development and customer satisfaction.  We like the way clean energy is fast approaching parity with other forms of power and is harnessing better storage systems to deliver KW's when needed.

Hence, we see stories like this on a exploding market.  That means lots of job creating as well.  See this story and much more at our main site:  http://renewablenow.biz/investing-green.html



Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) expects USD $7.7 trillion to be invested in new electricity generation capacity by 2030, with 66% of that amount going towards renewable technologies.
   
The 2030 Market Outlook, BNEF’s long term view of the power sector to 2030, predicts out of the $5.1 trillion to be spent on renewables, Asia-Pacific will account for $2.5 trillion.
    
"The period to 2030 is going to see spectacular growth in solar in this region, with nearly 800 gigawatts of rooftop and utility-scale PV added," says Milo Sjardin, BNEF’s head of Asia Pacific.
   
"This will be driven by economics, not subsidies, as our analysis suggests that solar will be fully competitive with other power sources by 2020."
   
Of the 1,733GW of renewables added by that year in the Asia-Pacific region, 46% is expected to be solar PV and 29% wind. PV will be split almost equally between rooftop and utility-scale capacity. To achieve this level, PV will require $63bn of investment annually and wind $39bn a year on average – 7% and 11% more than their 2013 investments respectively says BNEF.
  
"By 2030 we anticipate that 47% of installed power capacity and 33% of electricity generated will be from renewable sources."
  
In addition to the Asia-Pacific's renewables splurge, the Americas will invest $816 billion, Europe $967 billion and the Middle East and Africa will invest another $818 billion. 
   
BNEF expects wind energy and solar power solar to increase their combined share of global generation to 16 percent in 2030 - a big jump from the 3 percent last year. 
   
Published annually, the Market Outlook sources the expertise of over 65 technology and country-level experts from 11 Bloomberg New Energy Finance offices worldwide and takes nine months to complete.
   
More from the 2030 Market Outlook can be viewed here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research/For tomorrow's show

We think tomorrow's show might be a bit controversial.   Here's some background on our guest and his group.  Listen in live on WRNP 1320 AM:   http://www.1320warlradio.com/gs/

Justin took on Tim Cook at an Apple shareholder meeting and asked for accountability on their heavy investments in renewable energy.  He chided Cook that Apple would not make those if not for government subsidies.

Tune in tomorrow as we meet The National Center for Public Policy and Justin Danhof, Esq.

About Us

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.

In 1982, we started The National Center to provide the conservative movement with a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to fast-breaking issues. Today, we continue to fill this critical niche through a top-flight research and communications operation driven by results and the bottom line.

In the 1980s, The National Center helped change public opinion through vocal national campaigns aimed at supporting Reagan administration initiatives concerning the USSR, arms control, Central America and human rights. With the Cold War won, The National Center now trains its sights on other issues, including:

Environmental Policy: Firm in the belief that private owners are the best stewards of the environment, The National Center's Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs advocates private, free market solutions to today's environmental challenges. The Task Force highlights the perverse nature of many government-first environmental policies through the collection and promotion of regulatory horror stories, which attach human faces to very real problems caused by regulation.

JUSTIN DANHOF, Esq.

GENERAL COUNSEL & DIRECTOR OF THE FREE ENTERPRISE PROJECT

Justin Danhof is the General Counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research, as well as Director of the Center's Free Enterprise Project. Mr. Danhof previously worked as a research associate with the National Center for Public Policy Research from 2008 to 2009. Prior to joining the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mr. Danhof worked in the Miami-Dade State’s Attorney’s Office in the Economic Crimes and Cybercrimes Division, for the Massachusetts Alliance for Economic Development and at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. Danhof’s work has been widely published and quoted in major newspapers, including the Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, Sacramento Bee, Orange County Register, Politico, Bergen County Record and the Canadian National Post, among others.

Mr. Danhof is a member of the Federalist Society and Christian Legal Society.

Mr. Danhof is a graduate of Bentley University (Waltham, MA), where he received a Bachelor of Science in economics and finance and pitched for three seasons on the school’s NCAA Division II baseball team. Mr. Danhof completed his graduate studies at the University of Miami School of Law where he received his Juris Doctor and Master of Laws in Taxation.

Mr. Danhof is licensed to practice law in New York and Washington, D.C.

Home grabs onto sun's rays in Irvine test/Orange County Register

As we reported yesterday, there's a growing trend towards powering bigger and bigger things with the sun, including, which is very exciting, whole houses.

Let's hope the combination of solar and batteries allows us to get off fossil fuels in running the electrical needs of our homes.

By Lily Leung / Staff writer
Orange County Register

"Many of life’s essentials, from cars to mobile phones, run on batteries.

Will our homes be next?

Two California companies are exploring that possibility in a pilot case out of Irvine that involves storing the sun’s energy for residential use.

San Jose-based solar manufacturer SunPower Corp. has outfitted a model home in the Orchard Hills community with a solar-panel system and battery that harnesses power from sun rays that can be used in the evening.

If the numbers make sense, SunPower and partner KB Home, a Los Angeles-based builder, could incorporate the systems into future construction to appeal to the environmentally conscious home buyer.

“It’s a real opportunity for customers in the future,” said Steve Ruffner, president and regional general manager of KB Home’s Southern California division. “Basically, the power they generate can be used when they get home from work, using it as a backup system during a power failure or natural disaster. But obviously the system is brand-new.”

The test case in Irvine, one of three in the nation, began about a month ago. The other locations are San Diego and El Dorado Hills, in Northern California.

Over time, the experiment will give company officials an idea of whether something like this could work on a grander scale.

Because the pilot case is still early, few details are available.

If a bigger roll-out does go forward, homeowners would own, not lease, the combined system of the solar panels and battery unit.

The cost is not yet available but would be rolled into the overall cost of the home. A solar-panel system at a KB community in Irvine could save homeowners more than $200 monthly on average. An attached battery unit would likely yield more savings.

SolarCity Corp. also offers solar-storage systems.

So far, the biggest barrier for the mass adoption of solar storage for homes is its high cost, energy experts say. The installation of solar panels could cost as much as $30,000, which makes leasing an attractive option for some homeowners.

Consumers should do the math before buying a home with such an energy system, said Dr. Alfredo Martinez-Morales, managing director of the Southern California Research Initiative for Solar Energy.

“What is the cost per energy unit?” Martinez-Morales said. “Is this significantly more than what you’re currently paying?”

Such systems could be a big hit among early adopters, especially those who are concerned about limiting their carbon footprint, he added."

Contact the writer: lleung@ocregister.com

SolarCity, Using Tesla Batteries, Aims to Bring Solar Power to the Masses

SolarCity’s new battery system might help solar become a significant source of electricity.

• By Kevin Bullis on December 5, 2013

This story first caught our attention late last year, but we waited till no to run it because of a constant flow of articles this month on solar firms--including SunEdison in CA, testing solar arrays with battery-back ups to power homes.  Clearly, Solar City saw the value of capturing high loads of electricity and holding if for on-demand use that would smooth out the fluctuations of renewables to the grid or to power homes/buildings.

This is a key evolution to the power and efficiency to renewables.  If these models prove out, clean energy truly starts to look as a 100% alternative to getting off the grid.  Hooray!!!!

"Today, SolarCity—a company that’s grown quickly by installing solar panels for free and charging customers for the solar power—announced a new business that will extend that model to providing batteries for free, too. SolarCity is a rare success story for investors in clean technology, and its business model has sped the adoption of solar panels.

The batteries could help businesses lower their utility bills by reducing the amount of power they draw from the grid. They could also help address solar power’s intermittency, which could prevent it from becoming a significant source of electricity. The batteries are being supplied by Tesla Motors, whose CEO, Elon Musk, is SolarCity’s chairman.

Other solar companies have failed in recent years. But SolarCity’s business model has helped it grow quickly. It had a successful IPO a year ago, and its stock price has risen from its IPO price of $8 to over $50 today (see “SolarCity IPO Tests Business Model Innovations in Energy”).

CEO Lyndon Rive says that eight years from now, the company might not be able to continue selling solar panel systems unless it packages them with batteries, because of the strain on the grid that solar power can cause. “It could be that, without storage, you won’t be able to connect solar systems to the grid,” he says.

Solar power intermittency isn’t currently a big problem for utilities, since solar panels generate just a tiny fraction of the total electricity supply. But solar power will become a strain on the power grid as it grows. Power from solar panels can drop in less than a second as clouds pass overhead, before surging back again just as fast. The tools that utilities use now to match supply and demand typically can’t respond that fast. Batteries could be a solution, but they’re too expensive to be used widely now. Rive thinks SolarCity can help drive down their costs by scaling up its use of batteries with the new business model

Utilities charge companies for their electricity based on two things. The first is the total amount of electricity they use (measured in kilowatt-hours). The second has to do with their peak demand—a company that needs to draw huge amounts of power for industrial equipment will pay more than one that only needs to charge a couple of laptops, since it will need bigger transformers and other equipment. The fee based on that peak electricity demand can be a big chunk of the total bill, typically between 20 and 60 percent, Rive says.

The battery systems—and the software that controls them—are designed to reduce the peak draw from the grid. Batteries charge up using power from solar panels and supplement with power from the grid when a company needs to draw its highest levels of power—such as during summer afternoons, when air conditioners are running hard.

SolarCity is also testing battery systems with residential customers, who typically don’t pay demand charges. The main draw for homeowners would be the batteries’ ability to provide backup power if the grid fails. But eventually regulators could adopt rules that allow homeowners to reap profits from allowing utilities to use their batteries to help manage electricity load on the grid.

Rive says SolarCity spent three and a half years developing the battery system and the last year testing it. Because batteries are expensive, it’s ideal to use ones as small as possible. Algorithms try to predict when to charge and discharge the batteries, a decision based partly on forecasts of how much solar power is going to be available and when demand will be greatest.

The batteries use the same technology Tesla uses in its electric cars. But the size of the packs could be far larger, depending on the size of the solar panel system it’s paired with.

SolarCity isn’t the only company looking to use batteries to reduce electricity costs (see “A Startup’s Smart Batteries Reduce Buildings’ Electricity Bills”).Nissan recently announced that it had used the batteries inside several plugged-in Nissan Leaf electric vehicles to reduce electricity costs for one building in Japan, as part of a test of a concept called vehicle to grid (see “Recharging the Grid with Electric Cars”).

Industry Complaints About the New EPA Carbon Pollution Rule? We've Heard It All Before/Part 2

Thanks to Seth Handy, one of our terrific radio co-hosts (http://renewablenow.biz/peter-arpin-remewable-now.html) for sending us this terrific article from Renewable Energy World.  This dovetails nicely with a recent radio  show we recorded with Seth and experts discussing the Cape Wind project, stalled for so many years by similar tactics.

As you know, we keep a safe distance from politics.  However, the base argument used by industrial giants to stall implementation of clean-air rules have, in our opinion grown stale and maddeningly misinformed.  We recorded a show two weeks ago with an incredible financial expert/global investor/economist/ who has tracked accelerating legislation around environmental improvements, all of which had critics suggestion it would kill the economy, and his data shows beyond a reasonable doubt that those critics are wrong--going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt and his push to preserve land into parks, the ROI on these bills has been great.  We've seen just the opposite--steady improvements in both the economy and environment.

We'll run this piece over two days.  Let us know what you think.  (This is part 2):  

"IHS' latest Chamber-sponsored study came under withering fire from not only the EPA, but also the Tampa Bay Times' PolitiFact.com and Glenn Kessler, theWashington Post's resident fact-checker. Among other things, they pointed out that IHS wrongly assumed the rule would require a 42 percent reduction of carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 when the EPA actually proposed a 30 percent cut.

IHS also incorrectly presumed the rule would require new natural gas plants to install carbon capture technology to meet their emissions-reduction targets. That baseless assumption distorted IHS' estimate of how much electric utilities would have to spend over the next 16 years. It predicted that $339 billion of an estimated $478 billion in compliance costs — roughly 70 percent — would be needed to pay for new, more expensive carbon-capture capable plants.

Finally, even if IHS' prediction of a $50-billion decline in annual economic output were true, it would have a negligible impact on a U.S economy with an annual gross domestic product of $17 trillion. As economist Paul Krugman pointed out in his New York Times column, "what the Chamber of Commerce is actually saying is that we can take dramatic steps on climate — steps that would transform international negotiations, setting the stage for global action — while reducing our incomes by only one-fifth of 1 percent. That's cheap!"

The Coal Industry Has Been Contracting for Decades

What about the Chamber report's claim that reducing power plant carbon emissions would throw 224,000 people out of work every year? That bloated estimate, which cuts across all job categories, also rests on IHS' flawed calculation of the cost of compliance. In other words, there's not much credibility there.

The EPA does estimate that the new carbon rule will lead to job losses nationally of 72,000 to 77,900 from 2021 to 2025 in such sectors as power plant construction and mining. But the agency projects that those losses would be offset by 76,200 to 112,000 new jobs in 2025 in the energy efficiency sector.

Coal state legislators, for their part, have mounted a vigorous defense of mining jobs, but they are at least 30 years too late. Although coal production is up substantially, at the end of 2012 the industry employed only 81,000 people, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) — less than a third of what it did in the late 1970s. That amounted to only 0.05 percent of overall nonfarm U.S. employment. According to Krugman, "shutting down the whole industry would eliminate fewer jobs than America lost in an average week during the Great Recession of 2007-9."

How does that translate at the state level? Let's look at Sen. McConnell's home state, Kentucky, the nation's third largest coal producer. The Republican minority leader is up for reelection this year, and his Democratic challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, is just as adamant about defending coal jobs as he is. When the EPA announced its proposed carbon emissions rule earlier this month, Grimes vowed to "fiercely oppose the president's attack on Kentucky's coal industry because protecting our jobs will by my No. 1 priority."

Both McConnell and Grimes are playing to the home crowd, but the reality is cheap natural gas and mechanization has driven coal industry employment in the state to a historic low. At the end of last year, the industry employed only 11,700 Kentuckians out of a total nonfarm workforce of more than 1.85 million, according to the BLS. That's a paltry 0.6 percent. Meanwhile, in Wyoming — the country's top coal producer — the industry employs only 2.2 percent of the state's nonfarm workers. In West Virginia, the second largest coal producer, it employs 2.9 percent.

What About the Benefits?

Given power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution in the country, the new EPA proposal — the first of its kind — would go a long way to address the threat that is unfolding before our eyes. In 2012 alone, climate and weather disasters cost the U.S. economy more than $100 billion and, according to a new study, that could be just a taste of things to come. The study, commissioned by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, concluded that rising seas and extreme heat could cost hundreds of billions in lost property, crops and labor productivity unless U.S. businesses and policymakers take immediate steps to cut carbon emissions and prepare communities for the unavoidable consequences of climate change.

Not only would the EPA proposal reduce power plant carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels — and many would argue that's not enough — the EPA says it also would cut "traditional" pollutants that cause soot and smog by more than 25 percent in 2030. All told, the agency projects that the new rule would provide an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in climate and health benefits in 2030.

You won't find any of that in the Chamber report."

This article was originally published on The Huffington Post and was republished with permission.

Industry Complaints About the New EPA Carbon Pollution Rule? We've Heard It All Before

Thanks to Seth Handy, one of our terrific radio co-hosts (http://renewablenow.biz/peter-arpin-remewable-now.html) for sending us this terrific article from Renewable Energy World.  This dovetails nicely with a recent radio  show we recorded with Seth and experts discussing the Cape Wind project, stalled for so many years by similar tactics.

As you know, we keep a safe distance from politics.  However, the base argument used by industrial giants to stall implementation of clean-air rules have, in our opinion grown stale and maddeningly misinformed.  We recorded a show two weeks ago with an incredible financial expert/global investor/economist/ who has tracked accelerating legislation around environmental improvements, all of which had critics suggestion it would kill the economy, and his data shows beyond a reasonable doubt that those critics are wrong--going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt and his push to preserve land into parks, the ROI on these bills has been great.  We've seen just the opposite--steady improvements in both the economy and environment.

We'll run this piece over two days.  Let us know what you think:

"U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue commissioned economic research firm IHS to produce another fact-challenged, anti-environmental study.

The debate that roiled Washington 24 years ago during the George H.W. Bush administration is a good example. That's when Congress, after a decade-long stalemate, passed legislation to reduce acid rain, urban smog and toxic chemicals in the air. Industry groups predicted the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments would cost anywhere from $46 billion to $104 billion a year, which, accounting for inflation, amounted to $71 billion to $160 billion in 2006, the base year the EPA used in a 2011 report to calculate the law's cost. The agency determined that, in 2010, the law cost $53 billion — at least 25 percent less than industry predicted — and, more important, generated $1.2 trillion in public health and environmental benefits.

The proposal the EPA announced earlier this month would reduce power plant carbon pollution 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, which would likely close dozens of dirty, outdated coal-fired power plants. Most of the 600 or so coal-fired power plants operating across the country, which are responsible for 38 percent of the nation's total carbon emissions, were built before 1980, when Pac-Man was cutting edge.

Just days before the EPA announced the draft rule, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest business federation, released a report warning it would cost the economy $50 billion a year for the next 16 years, eliminate more than 200,000 jobs annually, and increase electricity costs by $289 billion by 2030.

There was no mention of the benefits of cutting carbon, but that's no surprise. The Chamber has a history of disputing climate science, and five years ago a number of corporations, including energy companies Exelon and Pacific Gas & Electric, cancelled their memberships over the Chamber's campaign against climate legislation. Although the Chamber refuses to identify its members, at least one major oil company, Chevron Texaco, and the oil and gas industry's main trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, have reportedly given the association substantial donations in recent years.

As expected, the Chamber report provided ammunition for coal state legislators who've been railing about the Obama administration's "war on coal" for some time.

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) waxed hyperbolic. The EPA rule, he said, "is a dagger in the heart of the American middle class, and to representative democracy itself." Echoing the Chamber report, McConnell maintained the rule would lead to "higher costs, fewer jobs, and a less-reliable energy grid."

The response from Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia was more measured, but essentially the same. The proposed rule "appears to be more about desirability rather than reliability or feasibility," he said, "with little regard for rising consumer prices, the effects on jobs, and the impact on the reliability of our electric grid."

Another Misleading Industry-Funded Report from IHS

For its part, the Chamber says it is merely providing a public service. "Americans deserve to have an accurate picture of the costs and benefits associated with the administration's plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through unprecedented and aggressive EPA regulations," Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, said in a press release.

Accurate picture? If you're looking in a funhouse mirror.

As it turns out, the Chamber report was produced by IHS, the same economic research firm I criticized last fall for its study that grossly inflated the number of jobs created by fracking and ignored oil and gas' impact on public health, the environment and the climate. The Chamber — along with the American Petroleum Institute, America's Natural Gas Alliance and other industry trade groups — financed that study.

IHS took the opposite tack this time around to reach its preordained, funder-friendly conclusion. Instead of tweaking its analysis to pump up job numbers, as it did in its fracking study, it used flawed assumptions to magnify the carbon rule's cost and exaggerate job losses. And where IHS left out the substantial cost of fracking in last fall's report, its most recent Chamber report doesn't factor in the carbon rule's considerable benefits, despite Harbert's promise to provide the deserving public with that information..."