Fueling California Issues "Projected Outlook For Next Generation and Alternative Transportation Fuels in California 2010-2030"

"California is a global leader in the development of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicle technologies largely due to historic state policies and investment trends. Concomitantly, three principal forcing functions have driven worldwide efforts for the development of new transportation fuels and vehicle technologies as alternatives to petroleum-based fuels and the internal combustion engine:

1. Global climate instability caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
2. The need for long-term energy security (including energy independence)
3. Urban air pollution caused by criteria pollutant emissions from combustion of fossil fuels"

To view the report, please visit:
http://www.fuelingcalifornia.org/docs/Fueling%20CA%20Next%20Gen%20Alt%20Fuels%20Final%20May%202011.pdf

NYSERDA TO AWARD UP TO $6 MILLION IN GRANTS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED POWER SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) is seeking proposals to develop and demonstrate innovative renewable and other environmentally preferred power technologies, or technologies that improve performance, power quality and reliability of power systems.  This solicitation is focused on advancing and developing promising technologies and products that will lead to the successful commercialization of products manufactured in New York State, and increasing markets for these products through strategic demonstration projects and dissemination of results.

This solicitation includes the following three categories of projects.

Category A: Early Stage Product Development, Demonstration Feasibility Assessments, or Technology Facilitation Studies (up to $200,000 of NYSERDA funding per project).

Category B: New Product Development (up to $1,000,000 of NYSERDA funding per project; projects must be phased with no phase exceeding $500,000 of NYSERDA funding).

Category C: Demonstration Projects (up to $750,000 of NYSERDA funding per project).

Up to $6 million in funds is available to fund approved projects.  The deadline for submissions is May 16, 2011, no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Interested parties may contact NYSERDA by calling 1-866-NYSERDA (1-866-697-3732) toll-free; in New York state, the telephone number is 518-862-1090.  Project team members include Jennifer Harvey at extension 3264, Barry Liebowitz at extension 3248 and Richard Drake at extension 3258.  For further information, please visit http://www.nyserda.org/funding/2244pon.asp.

Obama Proposes ‘Green Energy’ Incentives

As foreshadowed by his recent State of the Union address, this week Barack Obama proposed to cut oil and gas subsidies to make way for new “green energy” tax incentives designed to encourage US businesses to upgrade their commercial buildings and make them more efficient.  According to the White House, the program is intended to spur job growth in the construction industry and make commercial buildings 20% more energy efficient by 2020.  The program will be included as part of Obama's upcoming budget proposal.

Carol Browner to Depart White House

1/25/11, The New York Times, "Browner to Relinquish Role as Energy and Climate Czar"

1/25/11, The Hill, "Analyst: Browner exit shows 'softening' of Obama green agenda"

Carol Browner, assistant to the president for energy and climate change, has resigned her position, which analysts are speculating signals a shift in White House environmental policy. The Hill reports that FBR Capital Markets stated they believe "her resignation on the eve of the State of the Union is another signal that the Obama Administration may be softening its approach to environmental regulations, especially those aimed at raising prices and/or reducing fossil fuel consumption." An unnamed "Virginia-based investment house," according to The Hill, commented "We expect the President to use tonight's State of the Union speech to continue exploring common ground with Republicans including regulatory reform, clean energy, manufacturing competitiveness, and research and development. This should be viewed as positive for fossil fuel and particularly coal companies, which faced a slew of regulatory issues including mountaintop mining, coal ash, the Clean Air Transport Rule, and a utility MACT [maximum achievable control technology] rule." The New York Times reports that energy lobbyist Scott Segal commented "Carol Browner was a passionate contributor to a strong White House commitment to environmental policy," he said. "Her departure may be part of a legitimate effort to pay careful attention to addressing some of the real regulatory obstacles in the way of job creation in the United States." The Times also noted that Browner's "departure from the White House is something of a surprise. While it was widely assumed that she was going to reduce her energy and environment portfolio, Browner was expected to stay on in another role, perhaps as a deputy chief of staff. But the fact that she had not been vetted by the Senate for her current position continued to rankle Republicans, who had threatened to call her in to testify in this new Congress, particularly about her work on the climate bill."

• The Wall Street Journal reported that a "Democrat close to the White House said there is 'no question' that Ms. Browner's post would be eliminated. Asked why, he noted that cabinet secretaries do not like having high-level policy officials at the White House working in their fields. He also said the job will be eliminated 'because there will be no climate or carbon bill in the next two years.'" The Journal also notes that the resignation "comes at a time when the White House is reaching out to business leaders on several fronts. Democrats familiar with the White House thinking cited other reasons for the step. But eliminating the energy czar post would likely be welcomed by many business leaders, who view Ms. Browner as a leading advocate for environmental regulations they oppose."

US Supreme Court to Review Climate Change Tort Case Against Utilities

On December 6, 2010, the US Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing eight states and others to bring suit against certain utilities to prohibit the emissions of greenhouse gases.  The lower court decision, Connecticut et al., v. American Electric Power Corp., 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009), had allowed eight states, the City of New York, and three private land trusts to sue the power plants on the ground that “greenhouse gas” emissions are a “nuisance” under federal law.  Their complaint alleges that emissions from six of the nation’s largest electric utilities are causing climate change that harms each of the plaintiffs.  The case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court next spring, and a decision could come in June, before the end of the Court’s current term.