The first step: Renewable energy

Here's the story I wrote for today on HB 152, the renewable energy fund bill. It's funny to me (odd rather than ha-ha) that all the talk is about saving money and not about the environmental benefits. Where other than Alaska?
In the nitty gritty, it will be interesting to see how the Alaska Energy Authority and the advisory board handle this thing if it pans out. AEA in the process of awarding alternative energy grants now, and has imposed the criteria that the projects actually save money. That sounds obvious, but it's not really, at least when you consider green power for its environmental benefits. It's actually a notable hurdle. The bottom line is that Alaskans are only putting money into green power because they're convinced it's cheaper than power from fossil fuels and simply needs a kick start. (I finally got it yesterday how people talk about high up-front costs -- green power's economic benefit comes from the lack of fuel cost, not the cheapness of installation.)
Greenies that talk about HB 152 often describe it as a good first step. It's not a huge amount of money -- about $12 million to $20 million a year in grants -- and wouldn't make a dent in, say, the Susitna hydro project.
Sen. Lyman Hoffman of Bethel is also considering the bill as one step among many -- or should I say one leg of a four-leg chair? (Inside joke in Juneau.) Hoffman already pushed through a one-time, $300 million cash infusion for energy efficiency and low-income weatherization programs. His staff told me yesterday he actually wants four things:
-something for low-income people, like a state match to the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
-something for now (I'm not sure what, but various cash handouts and rebates are being considered in Juneau)
-something to promote conservation (and therefore long-term savings), like the $300 million already approved, and
-something for the long-term, like renewable energy.
Pretty ambitious stuff.

JUNEAU — A popular bill aimed at developing renewable energy in Alaska is getting attention again after going without a hearing since last year.

The bill, HB 152, would set up a state fund for renewable energy projects and a system for evaluating proposals and awarding grants and loans.

The idea is that some projects that make sense economically won’t get built without a little help simply because of the high up-front costs. The ultimate goal is to lower the overall cost of electricity in Alaska.

Rep. Bill Thomas, a Republican from Haines and co-sponsor of the bill, pitched the idea at a hearing on Wednesday.

He said the cost of energy is getting so high in Alaska that people are having a hard time making ends meet. They don’t have as much money to buy other things, and that has a negative impact on the whole economy.

Alaska is known for its non-renewable resources, he added. “However, it’s also an excellent source of renewable energy. We have wind — lots of wind — geothermal, solar and hydro.”

The Senate Finance Committee, which has had HB 152 since last May, heard the bill Wednesday and Thursday.

One of the people who testified Wednesday was Chris Rose, the executive director of the Renewable Energy Alaska Project, a coalition of utilities and other groups supporting renewable energy.

Rose said renewable energy has the benefit of stabilizing electricity prices (because there’s no fuel cost to go up or down), and said the bill would set up a system for picking the best projects and getting them going.

“We’re looking at viable projects,” he said. “This is not a research and development fund.”

He added that grants from the system would leverage federal and other funds.

The bill has broad support from Republicans and Democrats in both bodies of the Legislature, and it passed the House last year without opposition. More than half of all lawmakers have signed on as co- or cross-sponsors.

In December, Gov. Sarah Palin proposed putting $250 million into an alternative energy fund like the one envisioned in HB 152, and she defended the idea in her state of the state address in January.

“These projects cannot even flirt with snake-oil science — they will be real, doable and economic,” she said in a written version of her speech.

The lawmaker responsible for holding up the bill is Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, the co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, who deals with finance-related bills.

Stedman’s staffer Darwin Peterson said last week that Stedman generally didn’t like the idea of creating new funds for things because they limited the flexibility of lawmakers to appropriate the state’s money.

Peterson said Thursday that Stedman still has a “philosophical concern” about creating funds, but added, “Sometimes really good ideas come along.”

The other committee co-chair, Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, said during the hearing that he wholly supported the concept of the bill but wondered if there was a way to fund some projects right away.

“It seems to me that we need to take advantage of, or respond to, these oil prices by implementing these alternative energy projects now,” he said.

With its broad support, the bill seems likely to pass.

But some questions are still unanswered, including how much money lawmakers will put into the fund and what role they will play in awarding grants from it.

Thomas said Wednesday the original idea was to put $100 million into the fund. Palin then proposed $250 million, and the state ended up with a big budget surplus. So now sponsors are asking for $300 million.

Assuming a return of 5 to 7 percent, a $300 million fund would spin off $15 million to $21 million a year for grants.

John Bitney, a staff member to the bill’s sponsor, House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, testified that even $21 million probably wouldn’t meet the demand for grants.

When the Alaska Energy Authority teamed up with the Denali Commission this year to offer grants for “cost-effective” alternative energy projects (up to $5 million worth), it got 89 proposals asking for a total of $118 million. AEA is still reviewing the proposals, which include everything from biofuel made from fish oil to “run of the river” hydropower and energy harnessed from ocean waves.

With the renewable energy fund, lawmakers said they want some control in how the grants are awarded. HB 152 leaves it up to AEA to develop a system for allocating money from the fund, but Bitney said grants would be awarded as they are for things like village safe water projects — in a way that lawmakers would have a chance to approve or disapprove them.

Committee members are currently working with Harris on a substitute version of the bill.

The bill comes on top of another energy-related investment aimed at making homes more energy efficient. In a budget bill already approved, lawmakers put $300 million toward weatherization and energy efficiency programs.

Palin has expressed support for the idea.

free skiing

Here's a pic of Darcy and me heading up the ski area, with Ian (who took the pic) and Toby. Some days it's clear blue sky and others it's like this. The area's still open, and has tons of snow, but it closes at 4 and on most weekdays, so people hike. It takes about an hour to get to the top.
Yesterday was one of the clear blue sky days, and Laura and I chose running on the beach over skiing. We ran on the North Douglas highway, then into the rain forest on a narrow trail and out to the water. Beautiful stuff.

yukon flats

The proposed land exchange in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge isn't exactly climate-related, but I've written about the plan a few times and was surprised to see it turn up on Grist, the national enviro site.

conservation and renewables

In their desire to save some cash, Alaskans are starting to talk and act like a bunch of greenies.
If you asked any environmental group where to start addressing climate change, I'm sure they'd say something like "conservation and renewables," and that's where the AK Legislature and Gov. Palin seem to be headed.
In terms of conservation, Sen. Lyman Hoffman's plan to dump $300 million into home weatherization and energy efficiency programs that normally get $5 million a year has passed the Legislature and probably will pass the gov's veto pen. Hoffman told me yesterday that was just the start. Next year, he hopes to tackle public facilities like schools.
As for renewables, the main push is for a renewable energy fund that would spin off about $15 million a year that could be used for loans or grants to get projects going. (Alaska hasn't really embraced the renewable portfolio standard idea, although a sizeable chunk of state generation is from hydro.)
Rep. Bill Thomas, a Republican, sponsored the first proposal for a fund, and a bunch of Democrats signed on. That didn't really move, but then the House Speaker, John Harris, another Republican, sponsored another version and the bill moved relatively quickly. More than half of the House has signed on as co-sponsors, and the bill, HB 152, passed the House without a no vote. When the bill went to the Senate, more than half of the Senators signed on as cross-sponsors, but the bill got stuck in the Senate Finance Committee, where it's been for 10 months without a hearing. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski chided the co-chair in her speech Tuesday, noting that the bill was officially supported by more than half of the Legislature.
A staffer to Sen. Bert Stedman, the co-chair sitting on the bill, told me Tuesday that HB 152 would finally get a hearing next week. Stedman was cool to the idea because he doesn't like creating special funds, which he says bump up against the constitutional restriction on appropriating money in future years, the staffer said. (The alternative is that each special interest group comes to Juneau each year to lobby for its cash -- a fund provides some security, even if lawmakers can get rid of it whenever they want.)
Stedman also wanted to figure out the mechanics of funding it, the staffer said. Gov. Palin is already on board, and proposed putting $250 million into such a fund in her budget plan, but there are different ways the funds could be provided.
Stedman's staffer said he expected something to pass this year because of the broad support for the bill.
That's Sen. Stedman, a former commercial fisherman and the only senator to consistently wear three-piece suits.

murkowski talks carbon

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski gave her annual address to the Alaska Legislature today, and she sort of talked about climate change. She touted the benefits of renewable energy (and said Alaska should emulate Iceland), but not in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Then she talked about climate change, but only in the context of supporting more research into it. It was all kind of vague, too.
This was a little puzzling because Murkowski has been a champion of federal regulation of carbon emissions, and the one of our three federal lawmakers that's been most receptive and active on the issue (with Sen. Ted Stevens coming in second). Maybe it had something to do with the audience.
After her speech, Murkowski had a little press conference, and I asked her whether she expected to see some kind of carbon regulation in the next few years and what it would mean for Alaska.
Here's what she said.
First, there's the Warner-Lieberman bill, which will generate a lot of talk in the next few months. It'll probably get debated for a week or two on the Senate floor, then pulled back by the Senate president until the next session. "There is some momentum for it, but it's also extremely controversial."
Second, there's the Bingaman-Specter bill, which Murkowski and Stevens have both signed on to. It's a little less strict than the Warner-Lieberman bill in that it has a "release valve" if the costs of regulating carbon get out of hand, and it has money for adapting to climate change (lots for Alaska).
Bingaman and Warner aren't exactly united on this whole thing, and there's tension there.
Among lawmakers, some want to keep the (relatively strict) Warner plan intact, while others argue it would be too onerous. Some say passing a bill while Bush is president would make it more acceptable to industry. But then again, Bush might just veto any of the bills.
To wrap up, Murkowski said she didn't think anything would pass this year.
She didn't talk about what either proposal would mean for Alaska, but I think she just forgot, and I didn't follow up.
Here she is with a 63-pound king.

climate commission report

Here's the story I wrote for today about the climate commission report, and here's a link to the report itself. The best quote I didn't get in the story was from Rep. Samuels, who said something like, The more you looked at it, the more you realized there was to look at. Right. "It got far more complicated than I thought," he said. I think Samuels and Rep. Joule might be right, too, that it was wise just to look at impacts even if half (my guess) of those who testified called for some kind of mitigation measures, namely emissions reductions. The report is focused, and is an impressive assessment of a broad range of impacts, which it might not have been otherwise. George Bryson covered the report over at the ADN, but that's all the press it got as far as I can tell.
And here's a pic of some fall chums gathered by Victor Lord in Nenana, because pics are good.

JUNEAU — The Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission released its final report on the impacts of climate change in Alaska on Monday after holding hearings around the state and gathering testimony from hundreds of Alaska residents and experts.

The 124-page report describes existing and likely impacts, makes recommendations for dealing with changes and includes assessments of likely impacts by seven state agencies.

It mentions the potential benefits of a warming climate but suggests the bulk of changes will be negative.

“The Commission found that climate change presents unavoidable challenges to the citizens of Alaska,” it states. “There will be new responsibilities for the State of Alaska and public entities, and there will be responsibilities for private interests which individuals must accept.”

The report highlights the impact of climate change on tourism, economic development, wildlife and public infrastructure. It describes the relocation of eroding coastal villages as perhaps the most striking of all impacts, reporting the “convergence of immediate threats, substantial human need and prohibitive costs presents decision-makers at all levels of government with daunting challenges.”

The commission was formed by state lawmakers in 2006 and included 11 legislative and public members with wide-ranging expertise. It held hearings in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, Kotzebue and Barrow over the course of almost a year and took testimony from more than 200 invited experts and Alaska residents.

It was the first significant state effort to address climate change.

The commission decided early on that it would only consider the impacts of climate change, and not the causes of it or ways to slow it down. And it stood by the decision despite the pleas of many of those who testified.

The final report says commissioners believed focusing on adaptation — rather than mitigation — “was more responsive to the immediate threats and concerns facing Alaska and the need to orient state government toward new responsibilities.”

Deborah Williams, the head of environmental group Alaska Conservation Solutions, which focuses on climate change, described the report Monday as “an excellent document — as far as it goes.”

She credited the commission with accurately presenting the negative impacts of climate change, but noted that it had ignored widespread calls from the public for the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency, weatherization and developing renewable energy sources.

Rep. Ralph Samuels, a Republican from Anchorage and chair of the commission, said considering the causes of climate change likely would have bogged down the group, which already had a lot to cover.

Commissioners made a number of recommendations in the report for helping Alaskans adapt to climate change, including identifying a lead entity for assisting communities threatened by coastal erosion, ensuring the public infrastructure is built with climate change in mind and setting up a permanent entity within the state to address the issue.

Samuels said he hoped the commission’s work would lead state agencies to consider climate change as they approach various projects, whether building roads or studying caribou migrations.

The report includes assessments from the departments of natural resources, environmental conservation, health and social services, fish and game, commerce, transportation and military and veterans affairs on how the agencies could be affected by climate change.

Rep. Reggie Joule, D-Kotzebue, who helped form the commission and served on it, said he hoped the report would provide a reference for groups studying the issue in the future.

“I think we broke some ground,” he said. “And for the administration to come forward, I thought was pretty good.”

Gov. Sarah Palin formed a sub-cabinet group last year to focus on climate change, and members of the commission have described that group as better suited to the task of dealing with the implications of the report.

Commissioners chose not to extend the duration of commission beyond the final report because of the sub-cabinet group and the availability of other sources of information.

“The goal was to get the discussion going, and I think we did that,” Samuels said.

The report and other information is available online at the House Majority’s Web site, www.housemajority.org.

physical geography

If you wanted to capture the place you live through the things you find there, what would those things be? A new museum in Fairbanks is taking a stab at it for the Interior -- a Super Cub, a moose, a Coleman stove, a used pair of Carhartt's, and so on. I like the idea. We just wrote about it in the News-Miner.

vanishing salmon

Wow. Interesting story in the NY Times about king salmon in the Sacramento River. Apparently the run crashed and scientists are trying to figure out why. One of the ideas is a climate-related, out of sync pattern of ocean currents.

After studying changes in the once-predictable pattern of the Northern Pacific climate, Mr. Petersen found that in 2005 the currents that rise from the deeper ocean, bringing with them nutrients like phytoplankton and krill, were out of sync. “Upwelling usually starts in April and goes until September,” he said. “In 2005, it didn’t start until July.”

Mr. Petersen’s hypothesis about the salmon is that “the fish that went to sea in 2005 died a few weeks after getting to the ocean” because there was nothing to eat. A couple of years earlier, when the oceans were in a cold-weather cycle, the opposite happened — the upwelling was very rich. The smolts of that year were later part of the largest run of fall Chinook ever recorded.

The story doesn't specify what's driving the climate variance, but changes in sea ice melt, upwelling, and plankton blooms are predicted with man-made warming. Also interesting is that they're talking about 2005, which means the fish that are missing are the three year olds. Up here, kings are more often 4 or 5, I think, and used to be older more often, when they return upriver to spawn. If that's true down there, than a bad smolt year in 2005 will mean bad runs for years to come. Click here for the whole story.

fame, almost

So I decided to ride my bike to the ski area Saturday. A Juneau Empire photog decided to take my pic. It's in the Empire today.

climate commission files report

After some delay, the Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission has finished its final report. It's available online at the commission's Web site. Just from a skim, it's well-written and got some interesting stuff I really hadn't known much about -- impacts on insurance coverage, international competition on shipping routes, etc. It uses strong language about many of the impacts happening, but doesn't blame them on human activities or recommend any kind of mitigation strategies -- it's all about adaptation, as the commission said all along. The group had the option of continuing its work, but chose to pass the ball to the gov's sub-cabinet. Also included in the report are written comments from individual departments, which should be interesting. In terms of legislative recommendations, there are a few specific ones, but no dollar figures. And, with less than 30 days left in a busy session, I can't imagine there will be much attention paid to them.