Group items tagged

President Obama's $26.4 billion Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2010 substantially increases new cash for the development of renewable energies, energy efficiency, and for measures to curb carbon dioxide emissions, but it cuts funding to coal and nuclear programs-fuels that produce 70% of the nation's electricity. The proposed FY 2010 budget, which would take effect on October 1 if approved by Congress, complements $38.7 billion the DOE will invest as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Energy Secretary Steven Chu last week detailed the budget request, highlighting major funding changes from FY 2009. He stressed that while the budget makes important investments in energy independence and job creation, it also cuts back on programs that don't work as well or are no longer needed. Favoring Renewables Among the major increases were to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Its budget of $2.3 billion-an increase of 6% over FY 2009-builds on the Recovery Act funding of $16.8 billion. Solar energy got the biggest boost, gaining $320 million, an 83% increase from FY 2009. Wind received $75 million (a 36% increase from FY 2009), geothermal got $50 million (14% increase), while biomass and biorefinery systems research and development gained $235 million (8% increase).

Major oil exporter Nigeria is concerned about falling oil prices, petroleum minister Odein Ajumogobia told AFP Wednesday. "Of course we are concerned because we are budgeting based on a benchmark price and we have to obviously try and ensure that we meet our budget. If the price falls below the budget, there will be consequences. Of course it's a matter of concern to all oil producing countries".

* CO2 credits could help consumers -Congress budget arm * Senate Democrat in oil state worries about refinery jobs By Timothy Gardner WASHINGTON, Oct 14 (Reuters) - A U.S. cap-and-trade market on greenhouse gases should be designed carefully to avoid unfair economic pain in fossil fuel industries and other parts of the economy, experts told lawmakers on Wednesday. The aim of a cap-and-trade market on greenhouse gases at the center of the climate bill introduced by Senate leaders this month would transform the economy from being based on fossil fuels to more nuclear and renewable power. "The shifts will be significant," Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told a U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing.

* CO2 credits could help consumers -Congress budget arm * Senate Democrat in oil state worries about refinery jobs By Timothy Gardner WASHINGTON, Oct 14 (Reuters) - A U.S. cap-and-trade market on greenhouse gases should be designed carefully to avoid unfair economic pain in fossil fuel industries and other parts of the economy, experts told lawmakers on Wednesday. The aim of a cap-and-trade market on greenhouse gases at the center of the climate bill introduced by Senate leaders this month would transform the economy from being based on fossil fuels to more nuclear and renewable power. "The shifts will be significant," Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told a U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing.

Gov. Sarah Palin has trimmed back her support for renewable energy in the face of declining oil revenues, but the Legislature is still pushing forward with last year's proposed projects. Palin last week submitted a revised budget for next year, cutting back a proposed $50 million in renewable projects to $25 million. That comes just a month after she'd called on the state to make an aggressive push for renewables that would bring the state to getting half its power from renewables by 2025

Barack Obama has said that energy is going to be one of his top priorities. I believe he is completely sincere about this and that energy will get a lot of attention early on in his administration. I believe he is committed to moving the U.S. toward energy independence and a greener energy future. However, one can recognize energy as an important priority, yet sharply differ on the policy direction that is needed. For instance, some may have energy as a high priority because they feel that gasoline is too expensive. Their priority may be to keep gasoline prices low so people's budgets aren't adversely impacted by their fuel bills. Some can see energy as a top priority, and yet promote solutions like suing OPEC for more oil.

Just two months ago, spiking petroleum prices were emboldening confrontational oil exporters such as Venezuela, Russia and Iran, fueling inflation anxiety at the Federal Reserve, raising expectations at American biofuel producers, and crimping the budgets of airlines and ordinary households alike.

Virtually every individual, family, business and institution in the United States is grappling with the destructive consequences of our national failure to devise a responsible energy policy. The price of oil has risen 85 percent in the past two years. Because of our extreme dependence on fossil fuel, that price increase is causing a shock to our economic system that is apparent in higher gas and food prices, rising costs for manufactured goods, damaged corporate profits and painfully stretched household budgets.

"Energy Secretary Steven Chu has steamed to the rescue of one of his flagship research programs less than a week after a congressional spending panel fired a warning shot across its bow. Appearing yesterday before the House of Representatives energy and water appropriations subcommittee to defend the Department of Energy's 2011 overall budget request, Chu invoked several icons of scientific achievement in describing where his fledgling Energy Hubs program fits into DOE's overall portfolio of energy innovation. It was his clearest and most colorful explanation to date of how his so-called Bell Lablets differ from two other programs-the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)-that have attracted far less criticism from legislators. "

Peak oil isn't getting much airtime in the mainstream press lately, but David Strahan has a column in The Independent - A Government still addicted to petrol. "All targets and no trousers" seemed to be the gist of the reaction from environmentalists to last week's Budget. Greens welcomed the introduction of new, legally binding, carbon-reduction goals but attacked the lack of a clear road map showing how they could be achieved. Some applauded policies such as the extra subsidy for offshore wind and investment in building efficiency, but attacked overall funding of £1.4bn as miserly in comparison to the enormity of the climate crisis and recent financial bailouts.

"Obama tried cutting oil subsidies in his very first federal budget proposal, and it didn't fly. He and the Democratic members of Congress tried again earlier this year, hoping that the Tea Party's incessant yelling for spending cuts would translate into Congressional support for one of the most obvious spending cuts in the history of spending cuts. But no such luck. And get this: The true amount we pay in oil subsidies is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more than $4 billion a year. In fact, the far-right libertarian think tank the Cato Institute once calculated the true cost of subsidizing oil to be in the range of $78-150 billion -- yep, billion -- per year. A lot of these expenditures come from the massive amount of security needed to protect oil, both at its source in volatile regions and along international shipping routes 'round the world. The US gov expends much effort and capital to help safeguard the oil companies' product and operations -- it's in the national interest, after all, that everyone be able to continue purchasing Exxon gasoline. So you'd think that paring a comparatively meager $4 billio"

As a group, federal contractors are quickly getting obese at taxpayers' expense. Uncle Sam spent "an astounding $532 billion last (fiscal) year, shattering the previous year's record of $465 billion" on contracts, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said yesterday. He called federal contracting "a black hole for taxpayer dollars" as he released the Government Accountability Office's latest "high-risk" report on Capitol Hill. This biennial update covers programs and policies that the agency says "are at high risk for waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement or those in need of significant transformation."

Even before George W. Bush can settle into his new house in Dallas, his legacy on the environment is being dismantled by his replacement in the White House. In less than two months, President Obama has put on hold Bush's plans for power-plant pollution, offshore oil drilling, nuclear waste storage and endangered species. THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA: What's been done, what lies ahead The Obama team has rolled out policies Bush officials delayed, such as requiring higher energy efficiency from appliances. Such moves have significant impacts and not just on the environment. They could affect electric bills, gas prices and the time it takes to build highways, dams and bridges.