I sat in on the last day of this event in New York City on Friday, hearing two fascinating panels discuss “Corporate Strategies For Carbon Reduction” (in the context of federal cap-and-trade legislation) and Clean Tech’s role in getting GHG’s down. The main sponsors of the summit were EcoSecurities, one of the world’s largest developers and suppliers of emission reductions, and Baker & McKenzie, a law firm with a well-developed practice in renewable and carbon offset projects. The event was run by Infocast. They’re covering an awful lot of ground these days on energy, the carbon markets, renewables, and other things.
The focus of the first panel was how industry sectors are going to respond to federal climate change legislation. The panelists represented the power production, transmission and distribution industry; the natural gas production and distribution industry; and insurance. There has been a lot of analysis done in these industries, as you would expect, on the implications of a cap-and-trade regime in the US. (See my notes on May 29 on the vehicle that’s going to be discussed this week in the Senate, “Cap-and-Trade Bonanza” from May 16 below, and also Good Grief, More Carbon Markets from a year ago.)
The director of AIG’s Office of Environment and Climate Change, Alice LeBlanc, was supportive of the idea of including reforestation and agriculture initiatives as eligible offsets in a US law, these areas accounting for nearly 40% of GHG emissions. Bruce Braine, the Vice President for Strategic Policy Analysis of American Electric Power, talked about carbon capture and storage. AEP is, by Braine’s own admission, the largest coal-fired producer of electricity and carbon dioxide emitter in the US , so CCS would be high on their agenda. See Braine’s powerpoint on this from last fall at a UN meeting. Nate Hanson, Florida Power & Light’s VP in charge of renewables, noted that there is no real CCS system available now and so public service commissions are looking askance at new coal-fired projects. FPL has, not incidentally, the largest portfolio of renewables in the US power sector. (Go here for information on their environmental and sustainability programs.) CCS – or more precisely the lack thereof – was the subject of the “NY Times” lead article I cited in my previous post below.
The discussion of the climate change bill in the Senate by the panel revealed what seemed to me to be an alarming disconnect on the Hill between what the bill offers now and both what the international community has already created via the Kyoto Protocol and what’s being negotiated now for a post-Kyoto regime. I noted the other day that nobody realistically thinks legislation is going to be passed by this Congress, and that they’re gearing up for a bill in 2009, but I was a bit shocked to see the lack of conformity to where the international community has already been and where we’re going. Witness LeBlanc’s comment, for example, on the need to incorporate principles being ironed out on REDD , “Reducing emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation.” The critical UN meetings in Bali in December accepted the principle and there continues to be a lot of activity. Let’s hope the next Congress and the next President figure out the considerable bang for the buck in this. They need, clearly, to think about all the international ins and outs of climate change.
During the break, I asked EcoSecurities’ US director, Eron Bloomgarden, about this. He said that there were Congressional staffers who’d gone to Bali and they are aware of the international initiatives. He also flagged the Presidential Climate Action Project to me. The PCAP, modestly, ” has developed a bold, comprehensive and non-partisan plan for presidential leadership rooted in climate science and designed to ignite innovation at every level of the American economy.” In talking to LeBlanc privately, she noted that the international community is itself very closely watching what’s happening now on the Hill.
The other panel I heard had some fascinating insights on clean tech. (See Green Tech, Low Tech, Clean Tech, New Tech and any number of posts on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency.) One of the panelists was Frank Alix, the CEO of Powerspan, a company that has advanced pollution control technologies for power plants. They’re developing a carbon dioxide control technology, not surprisingly. Mitch Tyson is the CEO of Advanced Electron Beams. AEB deploys its clean energy technology across a wide range of industrial applications, including pollution control. Tyson is also involved in a number of regional initiatives including the New England Clean Energy Council and the Massachusetts High Technology Council. He’s extremely knowledgeable, as you’d imagine, about his industry, and passionate. So is Al Forte, Director of Carbon Practice for Nexant, a high-tech provider to the energy and petrochemical industries.
Forte talked about what he characterized as the best Renewable Portfolio Standard program in the country , Connecticut‘s. It very effectively fosters renewables and energy efficiency, including the issuing of energy efficiency credits for eligible projects. See the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund and the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund. In the same vein, Tyson talked about the Cambridge Energy Alliance. These folks are also fostering a considerable effort on reducing energy use. This is all on the general theme of demand-side management. Tyson pointed out that Massachusetts is moving to “decoupling” in which utilities are given incentives to promote energy efficiency. I pointed out that New York State used to have it and it lapsed.
Another nugget: Forte at one point said that there’s 800 GW of generating capacity in the US and it’s operating at an average of 28% efficiency. He more or less characterized this as criminal and wondered why there isn’t more use of cogeneration.
For more, see Energy Efficiency and Energy Efficiency for Fun and Profit, items I’ve had here recently on this subject.
