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.

california, canada, and massachusetts!

OK, so I promised I'd write something about what's going on in Massachusetts, which is funny because I don't really know squat about what's going on in Massachusetts, except that I sort of grew up there. What I do know is there's a group called Massachusetts Power Shift (MAPS) that's putting on a big event next month at BU, Boston Commons, and the State House with a bunch of big deal enviros (or so says their Web site). I'd sure go if I wasn't 2,876 miles away and busy.
One of the big climate things going on there is a bill moving through the General Court (the Legislature) that would limit emissions in the state to 90 percent of the 2002 level by 2020. It's called the Global Warming Solutions Act, and language in the bill claims it would be the only such effort aside from California's. It sets some tight deadlines, but would basically leave it up to the state's department of environmental protection to come up with ways to meet the reduction. Market-based system? Sure. Alternative compliance mechanisms? Why not. Look what California, Canada, and the E.U. are doing, says the bill.
That said, there does seem to be a lot of thought put into the bill. It has protections aimed at ensuring environmental justice, for instance, and making sure that emissions reductions made in Massachusetts don't just cause increases in some other state. It has a severability clause, and it gives the gov the authority to push back the compliance date in the event of "extraordinary circumstances."
According to MAPS, the bill passed the Senate last week. It's a Senate bill, so I'm assuming it still has to get through the House, which seems to have a gazillion people in it. One thing I noticed is different about MA and AK is the ratio of Democrats to Republicans. Our Senate is 9-11. Theirs is 35-5.

when you're too young to vote, lobby

A group of teenagers is in the Capitol this week lobbying lawmakers on environmental issues. They're with the group Alaska Youth for Environmental Action (created by some teenagers in 1998), and they're from all over the state. This afternoon, they gathered around a long table in the governor's conference room and talked about plastics, renewable energy, and pollution with the governor's special assistant, Joe Balash.
They also talked politics.
A bill banning mixing zones ("dilution is the solution") in salmon streams has been stuck in House Resources, said Megan Waggoner, an 11th grader at Palmer High, and support is growing for a ballot initiative that would ban mixing zones in all streams. So would Gov. Palin support the bill -- as a lesser of two evils -- to get the initiative off the ballot?
"Um," Balash replied, thinking. "I think that one would come down to the role of the initiative process."
Balash said he'd encourage anyone looking at the initiative to consider the economic consequences it would have, and added that Palin probably wouldn't support something she opposed, even if it was the lesser of two evils. "She tends to stick by her guns on issues."
Megan, who's 17, asked another question. If you're not old enough to vote, what's a good way to leverage lawmakers and have a real impact on policy. "What would you suggest would be the best way for us?"
"Well, um, one of the easiest things for you to do is go find earned media," Balash said, adding that a member of the media was sitting right next to them (me). Fundraisers, rallies, and other events can all bring attention to an issue.
Balash smirked and looked my way. "Sometimes you have get creative to get the attention of cynical reporters."
Another student asked him what he did when he didn't agree with the governor on an issue.
Um.
A few minutes later, Balash went and got the governor, who came in beaming and walked around the table shaking hands and gathering names. One girl was from Wasilla, where Palin is from.
"What's your last name?" she asked. "Oh, I know you!"
"Nice to meet you," she said to Megan, "Love your glasses."
Palin said down and asked them about their visit. "It's great that you're down here. Y'know, most Alaskan students have not seen their capital."
She asked Balash what they'd talked about and Balash mentioned the last question.
"What did you tell them!?" said the governor.
That he doesn't often disagree with her positions, he said.
Palin offered that her staff's greatest challenge was probably dealing with her impatience.
"I'm much more impatient than they are when I see something that needs to be done for the good of the state," she said. "I'm like, 'Let's go do it.'"
Megan, in a white blouse and heels, went to present the governor with an award for stepping up on renewable energy. Palin wants to create a $250 million fund that would spin off money for renewable energy projects, and she asked the students to help win support for the idea
"Make sure to tell Senator Stedman to get with it," said Balash, referring to one of the Senate Finance co-chairs.
Other students gave the governor a reusable shopping bag. "Someone should start marketing -- right now -- some really cool grocery bags," Palin said. The one they gave her was highly compressible and bright red. "Very cool, you guys."
The students talked about various efforts around the state and world dealing with restrictions on plastic shopping bags -- in Southeast villages, San Francisco, China, and Australia.
Then Aviva Hirsch, 14, chimed in.
"It's not really paper or plastic," she said. "It's really disposable versus sustainable."
Students gave the governor some signed postcards dealing with the mixing zones. Then they all posed for a picture, and Palin helped hold up their banner.

spring comes to juneau

Wish I had my camera.
I know it's technically a ways off, but it sure feels like spring here in Juneau. It was in the 40s today and the sun was hiding just behind the clouds, even poking through. I got up early and rode over the bridge to Douglas, north on the highway past a trio of bald eagles, and up the climb to our little ski area. There's still a good bit of snow in the woods and higher up, and there's plenty at the ski area. I reached the top faster than I thought, then flew down the hill with the sun to my back and thick mossy woods all around, with near-freezing water splashing up into my face. By the time I reached the bridge again two hours later, it was clear enough over the channel to see where it was raining and where the sun was winning out.

weatherization update

Sen. Lyman's Hoffman's weatherization plan is moving ahead. The full Senate just passed the supplemental budget with the $300 million in it. The head of the House, Rep. John Harris, told me yesterday that House leadership doesn't have a problem with the idea. And Palin's and her new energy czar Haagenson both said today they thought it was a good idea. "I think it's great," said Haagenson.
The weatherization outfit in Fairbanks loves the idea of being able to help more people, and the state corporation that would handle the funds is on board, too.
So there you go. Hoffman's staffer yesterday noted that $200 million for weatherization, $100 million in energy efficiency incentives, and another $200 million chipped in by newly incentivised homeowners, comes to $500 million. Sometimes it's easy to have MEGO with budget numbers, but that's the whole sum of the state's promised contribution to a gas pipeline project, or half what the state spends on K-12 education across Alaska.

"if you want to dream . . ."

Gov. Palin appointed Steve Haagenson today as the state's energy czar. When I asked him about climate change, he said he anticipated working "fairly closely" with Palin's sub-cabinet on climate change.
"One of the goals we'd like to have is reduction of CO2 as a gas from electric and any generation," he said, "and I think we have a path to achieve that -- actually, reduce it more than any other region in the world."
Haagenson mentioned the big hydro-power project on the Susitna River that people are talking about again, gasification technologies, and biomass.
There are problems making biomass work, including getting the costs down and dealing with delivery issues, he said. "[But] If you could get there, you could actually be CO2-neutral in the next, let's say, 20 years, which is more aggressive than anybody else in the nation I've heard talking."
"If you want to dream, you can dream," he added.
Big talk from a guy on the job for less than an hour? In any case, climate change seems to be on the radar, even if it's overshadowed in the energy debate by another reason to get off fossil fuels -- the high cost.
BTW, Haagenson is a Fairbanks guy, having worked at the member-owned Golden Valley Electric Association, including as president, for 32 years.

immediate action group takes action

A work group of Gov. Sarah Palin's sub-cabinet on climate change is meeting today in Anchorage and hoping to flesh out its recommendations to the whole sub-cabinet. There's lots of info on the group's Web site. I haven't read enough to know what's planning and what's action, and where the $1.1 million budget request plays in and what other kind of money the state will ask for. Another work product is analyses of the needs of six communities identified as being in serious trouble.

$300 million for insulation

Without any mention of climate change, Alaska could soon take a huge step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
State Senator Lyman Hoffman of Bethel is quietly pushing a huge, one-time boost in funding for home weatherization and energy efficiency programs. In recent years, the state has put $3 million into low-income weatherization. Hoffman wants $200 million. In recent years, the state has not put any money into an energy efficiency rebate program. Hoffman wants $100 million.
Both programs are overseen by the Alaska Housing Finance Corp., a public corporation. The weatherization program works by funneling money through regional non-profits that do the actual work. With the $3 million in state funds and $1.8 million in federal funds, the program reaches about 600 households a year.
That's way below the income limit, which is set by regulation at 60 percent of the Alaska poverty line. A 2005 Information Insights study estimated 45,000 homes were eligible out of the roughly 260,000 in the state.
Hoffman figured a 10-time increase in funding would still only cover a fraction of the homes that qualify -- about 4,200. The $200 million he wants would be about a 42-time increase and would cover about 17,400 homes, which works out to about $11,500 worth of work per home.
The other program would provide rebates of between $2,500 and $5,000 for improvements in home energy efficiency, based on how many steps homeowners increase in Energy Star Ratings. (One step gets you $2,500; five or more gets you $5,000.)
That program is not dependent on income.
(Info is mostly from Hoffman's office.)
I don't really have any figures on greenhouse gas reductions from something like this, but consider the following.
-Any reduction in the use of heating fuel or electricity (from fossil fuel-fire power plants anyway) also reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
-Energy conservation is widely considered the cheapest, most effective measure (compared to renewables, for example).
This might sound like a pipe dream -- another rural lawmaker is struggling to get a $10 million state match for LIHEAP -- except that Hoffman is co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the money
is already in the supplemental budget the committee approved.
The Housing Finance Corp. is apparently on board, but I'm not sure about the gov.
A bill that may or may not be needed to make the plan work is up for its first hearing today.
Stay tuned.

where's the money?

Sorry for the somewhat dull budget notes here. (The skiing this weekend was amazing...)
For anyone wondering, I just asked Sen. Lyman Hoffman about the CCS money. He’s a co-chair of the finance committee for the Alaska Senate and the one in charge of the supplemental budget. He said things that weren’t in the last version weren’t there because there wasn’t agreement from the four co-chairs of the House and Senate committees, and he added that most of the stuff that was cut would get put into the state’s operating budget instead. (Lawmakers this session have been critical of the gov’s budget process.)
I claimed earlier that this would be the first money the state appropriated to deal with climate change. That might not be quite right, depending on how you look at it. I think the state has already put money toward coastal erosion projects, but I guess without the explicit mention of climate change as the driver.

more on CCS

When I first wrote about the Center for Climate Strategies last November, after they made a pitch to the state's climate change sub-cabinet, I got a lengthy response from someone at a conservative think tank called the John Locke Foundation challenging the group's claims of economic reductions in GHG emissions and its overall approach. When I mentioned it last week in a post, I got another response.
I'm not really in a position to judge, so here's a little more info on CCS, the charges against it, and maybe a few thoughts at the end.
CCS is a non-profit that helps states develop responses to climate change through a stakeholder process. It's currently working in 16 states, according to its Web site.
The John Locke Foundation is a conservative think tank that tackles all kinds of issues. It criticizes CCS for developing plans that raise taxes and dig into personal freedoms. Here's a Web site it developed specifically against CCS, and here's an example of a column written by an editor there, Paul Chesser, who contacted me last November.
As for comments made in the comment about the cost of the CCS process, I got my information from a public notice issued by the state, which said the $180,000 contributed by the state would amount to about 16 percent of the total cost of the project.
I certainly don't have enough information to judge the accuracy of CCS's claim that many of the recommendations typically made under its stakeholder processes actually save money, but the criticisms levied by Chesser and others don't really prove otherwise. They attack CCS is an activist group "Funded by wealthy liberals" and challenge that climate change is even an issue worth addressing. But I'll let you form your own opinion.
For now, the state money to get the project moving is gone from the budget anyway.