Workers inspect one of two Mammoth Pacific geothermal power plants in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Brine from the Casa Diablo Hot Springs powers the plants. (Newscom)
A closer look at Obama’s energy plan
Economy may slow it, but ‘green’ jobs may grow it.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ November 12, 2008 edition
Staff writer Mark Clayton discusses several key elements of President-elect Obama's energy plan.
Staff writer Mark Clayton
If President-elect Barack Obama enacts the energy plan he laid out during his campaign, American taxpayers will each get a $500 rebate check – funded by a windfall profits taxes on big oil companies.
But that’s just for starters. Besides taxing oil giants more, Senator Obama’s detailed 30-point energy agenda calls for big changes to address carbon emissions, fuel efficiency for vehicles, and domestic and renewable power and efficiency.
While many candidates’ platform promises are cast aside when political opposition looms, the Obama energy plan seems integral to his promise to get the economy restarted, some experts say.
“Obama’s energy plan is much more than a campaign laundry list,” says Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank chaired by John Podesta, who heads the Obama administration’s transition effort. “It really is a centerpiece of Obama’s economic development strategy for the nation, for energy security, and rebuilding our cities and infrastructure,” Mr. Hendricks says.
Among more than two dozen bullet points, Obama’s energy plan includes:
• Putting 1 million plug-in-electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) on the road by 2015 – cars that can get the equivalent of 150 miles per gallon.
• Creating 5 million new “green jobs” by investing $150 billion over 10 years to stimulate clean-energy infrastructure and manufacturing such as wind-turbine plants and solar panels carpeting the nation’s rooftops.
• Cutting US oil consumption, within 10 years, by the amount currently imported from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Requiring 10 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass by 2012. By 2025, raise that to 25 percent.
• Establishing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program that cuts US greenhouse gas emissions by charging for every ton of carbon dioxide that goes into the sky from coal- and natural gas-fired US power plants.
Can Obama do all that and more – or will political and economic obstacles ultimately turn the plan into a much more modest effort? How much was campaign window dressing, and how much energy transformation will the US undergo?
“Obama has enormous political support for his clean-energy agenda,” says Anna Aurillio, director of policy development for Environment America, an environmental group. “If you look at the regions that will be impacted by the changes – middle America and New England in particular – these are places that will benefit from clean energy and back him politically in making this change.”
Some elements of Obama’s energy plan are costly, but also vital to the rest of the plan. For instance, sales of pollution permits from the cap-and-trade program to limit CO2 emissions across the economy are key to helping fund the plan’s $15 billion per year (for 10 years) expenditure on renewable energy research and development.
But some say rising electric rates – the result of costs involved with greenhouse-gas emissions – could stir political opposition and derail implementation, especially given the economic crisis.
“In times of economic stress, the last thing you want to do is increase peoples’ energy costs with something like cap-and-trade,” says Anne Korin, cofounder of the Set America Free Coalition (SAFC) of energy-security hawks and environmentalists. SAFC calls for policies that would disconnect the US from imported oil. “There’s a lot of talk about that, but a congressman who wants to be reelected would be very wary of that,” Ms. Korin says.
While no one has recalculated the cost-benefit for Obama’s official energy plan, some earlier calculations for similar – albeit rosy – plans
suggest that the net effect would still be a plus for green jobs and the economy.
The Apollo Alliance, a labor-environmental coalition, has put forward a proposal that contains proposals similar to those in the Obama plan. The alliance calls for a federal investment in clean-energy technology and green building that’s twice as large ($300 billion) as Obama’s. Their analysis calculates more than $1.4 trillion in savings and economic growth.
The pedigree of Obama’s plan also suggests that it is more, not less, likely to be implemented, Mr. Hendricks says.
Much of the Obama plan follows the National Commission on Energy Policy’s (NCEP) 2004 plan, a consensus document in which – as in the SAFC plan – energy-security hawks joined environmentalists and industry. In fact, NCEP director and plan coauthor Jason Grumet is a likely candidate for an energy post in the new administration.
Besides the advantage of having been pre-vetted by energy, foreign policy, and industry experts, the plan also has something of a mandate. Obama often touted the need for a new energy equation during the campaign. Renewable-energy tax credits were stymied regularly in the US Senate this year. So an Obama mandate could help win over a Senate in which Democrats are now just three votes short of a filibuster-proof majority – with three races still in contention.
“There’s a lot of good stuff here, but like any campaign platform, they’ll be fortunate to implement half of it,” says Steve Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. “Still, I have been hearing through the grapevine that they [Obama’s camp] are quite serious about it. The question is whether Congress will go along. There’s a good chance that a significant fraction [of the plan] will go through.”
One of the fastest ways to lower energy costs is efficiency. Obama’s energy plan touts tougher efficiency standards and decries the Bush administration for missing 34 deadlines for improving energy-efficiency requirements for appliances and electrical equipment. During its tenure, the Bush White House enacted just two new energy-efficiency standards, one for electrical transformers and one for home furnaces, both of which were considered too weak and are now being challenged in court by states and environmental groups. If all 25 Obama-proposed energy-efficiency standards were adopted, they could save the yearly equivalent of all the power produced by 57 large power plants, says Andrew Delaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, an environmental watchdog coalition.
An early test of the new administration – and its willingness to risk industry displeasure – will come in June. That’s when a new rule on commercial lighting – to improve the efficiency of those ubiquitous four-foot-long fluorescent tubes used in office buildings nationwide – comes up for final approval.
It’s a big deal. If the Department of Energy enacts a tough rule, it could have one of the most significant energy-efficiency impacts in US history, saving the equivalent of $66 billion in power costs over the next 30 years. That’s enough to power every home in the US for one year, says Mr. Delaski.
A strong rule could mean that the US could essentially replace 15 large power plants with the energy savings and slash carbon dioxide emissions by 950 million tons. The Bush administration could still propose a weaker rule in its waning days.
“The rubber is going to hit the road pretty quickly for this administration,” Delaski says. “Are they going to really push for tough standards or just go along with weaker standards favored by the lighting industry?”
One measure of Obama’s resolve to reform the US energy equation could come as soon as Nov. 12: That’s when he may consider a proposal by the Center for American Progress to create a National Energy Council within the White House. This is according to Kevin Book, senior vice president for energy policy at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Capital Markets, writing to investors in a recent newsletter.
Others agree Obama is likely to push hard for a sweeping rather than piecemeal energy agenda early in his administration.
“This energy plan is not just about environment, climate change, energy prices, or supplies individually,” Hendricks says. “It’s an overarching plan that embodies Obama’s approach to national service, energy security, and economic stability. He’s going to hit it head-on.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. Andrew, NY | 11.12.08
I would really like to see this happen, it has to be sweeping. Piecemeal and we will lose focus. And yes, I am willing to take a higher bill if the nation is getting something because of it… if that extra money helps move us all in the right direction. People will balk, but that’s really short-sighted. Some kid in uniform is risking his neck in the sand because we told him to (right or wrong, they go where we send them), but I am going to complain about rising energy costs that 1) are building a more secure future and economy by delinking oil as our economic foundation and 2) are costs that I can somewhat control by buying CF light bulbs and turning off the lights, TV, and PC when no-one is in the room or home?
I hope this happens. I truly do. Anyone else notice that it seems we could have done this at any time? That the start up costs they are talking about are less than the bailout package??
3. Jon Traudt | 11.12.08
If you want to improve energy efficiency, comfort, and air quality in your home, then learn about proven, simple, quick, and economical actions recommended by the United States EPA take at http://www.energystar.gov
Sealing excessive air leakage can be done at low cost in ways that do not afffect the appearance of your home, so you do not have to wait for government to take money from others to give to you before you begin to fix your home.
Sources of air leaks in a typical home:
Ceilings and walls: 31%
Electrical outlets: 2%
Air circulation ductwork: 15%
Plumbing penetrations: 13%
Windows: 10%
Doors: 11%
Fans and vents: 4%
Fireplace: 14%
4. Chavy Goh | 11.12.08
Indeed! When Obama first shared his new energy plan for America. It excites me so much. Simply, that is the direction which America should be moving to… And it’s the direction which every country in the world should be moving to… I know the plan will work as long as we work together.
5. Jock | 11.13.08
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama should tell his citizens that they will have no other choice, and that it will bring an end to their happy go lucky American Way of Life. He also should be aware of so called Jevon’s Paradox, which states that by saving energy in the end you only consume more energy, because you saved a lot of money which then later on can be spent on new products or services. It’s what has been keeping the economy going for ages, or actually, what has been keeping mankind going for ages…otherwise we would still be using manpower only in all we do….
6. Brian | 11.13.08
As a Physicist, I would like to see, first and foremost, a push to make good on the bill signed into law that would have doubled NSF funding to $9.84bn last year from the $4.79bn level of 2002. It’s 2008, and currently the budget has increased to a meager $6.9bn for 2009. This isn’t money wasted like it often is in the DoD. This is money which is almost exclusively only available to people who hold PhDs after proving to the NSF with proposal after proposal that they are worthy of the money, and there is not enough to go around. This money can fund important research like that of supercapacitors, projects like ITER, and other technologies vital for the success of energy independence.
I’d like to see a push for Diesel-hybrid vehicles as well.
7. Joy | 11.13.08
All of the above sounds great except for burning biomass - which will pollute the air. There are many, many opportunistic shysters holding out their hands for subsidies and grants, with big plans for burning biomass, toxic pulp and paper mill wastes, garbage, medical waste, tires, and other polluting “fuels”. They are the same ones who are pushing this “cap & trade”
deal so they can sell credits and make million$. Wouldn’t a tax on carbon be a smarter idea, easier to track and apply? We should all be able to already see where “cap & trade” could become another program filled with graft and corruption.
We can replace coal, nuclear, and polluting “incinerators in disguise” with conservation, efficiencies, solar, and wind, ocean current, and wave energy, cleanly and efficiently — and produce jobs and help the economy in the process. Yes, we can finally work together to get this done. Expect major whining from the coal and nuclear promoters.
8. Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D. | 11.13.08
Obama and Congress do not know what is happening.
Peak Oil is depressing news that the scientific community, not politicians, should give the nation. Politicians will never do it.
Neither the president nor Congress will know what to do with this catastrophe, and they are heavily influenced by interest groups and public opinion, both of whom want more jobs and consumerism and business as usual.
Soon, Peak Oil will present the nation with continuing crises that require hard decisions. It is better to base decisions on scientific study than on interest groups pressures.
Common sense tells us that there must be energy alternatives, and that is what we all want. But alternatives yield electric power, which is not what we need for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, and ships and for heating oil. Algal biodiesel is in the early R&D phase and 20 years and trillions of dollars away from delivering a cubic mile of oil annually — if it is feasible.
Many believe that electric power can provide transportation and power for heating. But my exhaustive analysis of available scientific studies indicates that the electric economy will not work without ample supplies of oil.
The Energy Watch Group (funded by the German Parliament) concludes much the same about alternative energies in PEAK OIL COULD TRIGGER MELTDOWN OF SOCIETY, it is interesting to note what:
“By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame.”
http://www.globaliamagazine.com/?id=482
The nation could waste much time and investment on developing alternatives, only to find out later that they can’t provide the energy required.
Without ample oil, we are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from “outside,” and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
The National Academy of Sciences is the only source that can provide unbiased and authoritative answers to these questions, and it is the only source that has the stature and credibility to advise the president and Congress.
It is time to prepare for Peak Oil impacts. But it will take the NAS to get us there. Currently, there is little study or effort toward planning for the day when there will be no oil.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? [Editor’s note: the commenter included personal contact information, which has been deleted.] http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
9. David J. Weston | 11.13.08
Great article. Apart from increasing the amount of renewable energy usage required by law, conservation and energy effeciency is a low naging fruit, especially as we head into a recessionary period. The best news and research site that I have found on next generation energy and innovation is
http://www.greentechmedia.com/
Enjoy Smart People.
10. Tara | 11.13.08
At least 25 years late. The Feds (EPA in particular) have been far behind the curve on an energy plan. Why? Their incestuous relationship with Big Oil and Big Auto. California and an increasing number of Western states have simply and smartly gone their own way to address the problem and find their own solutions. Public-Private cooperation is the way to go. Retire obstructionist lobbyists and dinosaurs and let Obama and the rest of us get on with meeting 21st century needs.
11. Rick Aware | 11.13.08
What we are looking at here is a recipe for disaster! No knowledgeable power engineer would support this unless he stood to gain from it personally and that is a sad comment about professional ethics today.
I could fill a volume on the folly of this from my personal experience as an electrical power engineer for over 40 years. I could also layout in detail what we should be doing. However, facts do not matter to those in charge now so I will save the effort. Instead, I will make a prediction that this approach will lead to a long depression and a world of hardships for our children to try to survive in.
12. Craig | 11.13.08
Its great to see that at long last (and none too soon) our county may be beginning to be guided in the right direction. We have little choice if we want to survive on this planet to: 1) CONSERVE energy (not with just ‘energy efficiency’), develop more local food sources and reduce resource consumption, while 2)Shifting more of the grid, liquid fuels, manufacturing materials and local energy to renewables until 3) New (unknown as yet) and better energy sources are discovered/developed. I do not think there is any other path to survival. Already the environment is heavily stressed in many ways and is beginning to break down. Another component, if we want to have a sane energy policy, is that the utilities will have to be either owned or heavily regulated for public (non-profit) operation. We’ve been gouged far too long with billions being funneled into big energy’s pockets. Natural resources and energy should not be owned (then used to exploit) the public. We won’t have true freedom until countries discover that they will have to have a mix of capitalism and socialism, say probably, 30% - 70%.
13. Bernard Tostig III | 11.14.08
I think we should put boilers in orbit around the sun, filled with self-replenishing frozen comet crystals, and pipe the steam back to earth with flexible hoses.
14. Andrew | 11.14.08
The lack of foresite from people desparatly clinging to their old ways amazes me. It’s that type of backwards thinking that has left us far behind the rest of the world on so many levels. It’s about time we have a leader that’s willing to take on the oil companies and end this wasteful use of fossil fuels. This plan may be very bold and to some people may seem impossible to even implement, but at least we finally have a plan to help us move in the right direction. I for one hope it works.
15. deltaman | 11.29.08
Nice piece, I found this summary of Obama’s energy policy for those who don’t want to read a full pdf report: http://www.ethanolplug.com/PlugNews/WebExclusiveObamasEnergyPolicy/tabid/125/Default.aspx
16. S.M.Aurora ,Mgt.systems Auditor | 12.01.08
This news item / article ignores any discussion on possibilities of utilizing
TIDAL/ WAVE energy as a highly potential and viable source of alternate systems . Their are many websites on tidal/wave energy systems highlighting successful case studies in european & asian economies which must be examined before finalizing our recommendations on renewable energy systems because this source examlifizes both ZERO EMISSION & MINIMUM WASTAGE principles
17. S.M.Aurora ,Mgt.systems Auditor | 12.01.08
How can we ignore geo-thermal and tidal/ wave energy systems which also contribute significantly as confirmed in google’s and other website collections?
18. Dave | 12.02.08
I think that one infrastructure project that President Obama should consider is the Trans-Global Highway, proposed by Frank X. Didik a number of years ago. According to Didik, the proposed “highway”, which would contain roads, rail roads, water, oil and gas pipes as well electric and communication cables. The highway would use and standardize the existing road networks and build new roads as well as a number of key tunnels. Interestingly, the longest Tunnel in the proposal, would still be shorter than the longest existing tunnel today. It would seem that there are many advantages to the construction of the Trans Global Highway including vastly lower cost and faster shipping, better allocation of resources, the ability of utilizing raw materials and much lower carbon emissions, than the existing transportation system. The highway would open up a new era of international cooperation. The Trans-Global Highway site is located at http://www.TransGlobalHighway.com
19. Trey | 12.13.08
Of the money we have seen thrown around thus far let me ask you this, that 168 billion that our country borrowed to give away to us in the form of an “economic stimulus package” …did it do a darn thing to create jobs or stimulate our economy. NO, nothing. And we borrowed the money from China. This past year the high cost of gas nearly destroyed our economy and society. More people lost jobs and homes as a direct result of that than any other factor in our history. Fannie and Freddie continue to get all the blame. Of all the homes I have seen lost in my area SW FL and believe me I have seen many, none were due to an adjustable mortgage. They were due to lack of work. Families went broke at the pump alone. Then added to that were increased electric rates FPL raised ours 16%. The high cost of fuel resulted in higher production and shipping costs that were passed on to the consumer, in most cases higher prices for smaller packaging. Consumers tightened their belts, cut back, went out to eat less or stopped totally. Drove around on tires that needed replacing longer, some even quit buying medicines they really need. Unfortunately cutting back and spending less results in even more layoffs. A real economical catch-22. And, as we are doing the happy dance around the lower prices at the pumps OPEC is planning to cut production to raise prices. They are even getting Russia in on the cutbacks. Oil is finite. We have used up the easy to get to reserves already. It will run out one day. We have so much available to us. Solar and Wind are free sources of energy. Of course to get the harnessing process set up is somewhat costly it is still free energy. It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. The electricity to charge the car could be generated by solar or wind at least in part and in most cases totally. Why not use some of these billions to promote the set up of alternative energy projects on a national level? Give tax breaks and incentives to promote this. We could create clean cheap electricity, create millions of BADLY needed new green collar jobs, and most importantly get out from under our dependence on foreign oil. We should never allow anyone to have that much control over us as a nation. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and suv’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. What a powerful resources we have neglected. Jeff Wilson has a profound new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. I suggest anyone interested in this subject read this book.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Apollo Daily Digest » Blog Archive » November 13, 2008: “Indirect Land Use Change” Illuminates The Global Effects Of Local Energy Solutions | 11.13.08
2. New USA Energy Policy - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com | 11.13.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Pat | 11.12.08
Thanks for the article! Very good.
We have been dragging our feet far too long.
Even decentralization of power sources alone will bring significant savings.