Does anyone know how this 25% by 2025 is measured? I mean how strict is the accounting? It's one thing to say that wind is renewable or solar, etcetera, but what about hydrogen cracked from water using electrolysis powered by a nuke in turn firing a gas turbine? Renewable or no?

No. Not until you figure out how to grow uranium.

Duh. I know that nukes aren't renewable, what I am asking about is possible fudging possibilities like the one I tossed out there, a green sheen, "look at our hydrogen powered turbine plant (ignore where the the electricity came from)."

[Impersonation deleted. -editor.]

Just what energy sources can provide 25 percent of our electricity from new renewable energy sources by 2025?

Are there any at all that can actually produce utility scale renewable energy?

Obviously his warning was about this very scenario. And he's right. Duh.

Besides outright deniers, I propose a new class of environmental terrorist. That would be liberal, well any stripe, that make pedantic debate for its own sake, where the environment is concerned. Someone is good enough to provide a figure, and immediately five more have to debate the numbers, losing site of the point.

Maybe its genuine sentiment. I'm afraid, more often, its simply trying to score points. The over-riding realization must be that we have limited time and limited choices. You have to choose from what's on the table, or put more choices out there. Debate which tries to pit options that are not on the table against those that are, are either so hopelessly illogical as to be dismissed outright, or are simply trying to win an argument. Those who do so are merely causing confusion to get themselves noticed, and hence, should be regarded as environmental terrorists as much as people like James K arlock (aka billy, JK).

I think it would helpfully refocus the debate to state these measures as such. In, pick the year, we will have a given scenario. Spell it out. Position these initiatives as direct answers to the scenario. That throws the onus on those who come up with solutions that don't exist to explain how it fits, given the timeframe and goals. It also leaves a credible out, rather than every damned bill being a pissing contest. You can simply say that a given idea is great, but doesn't fit the constraints, go back and work on it more.

Put another way, if you're going to dither politics and ineffective Dems as usual, and get the results over the next 40 years you have over the last, then don't bother. 40 YEARS! We have 1/3 of people conscious of recycling. We have double the population, so that's a net 2x garbage, IF we're lucky. If that's human nature and the fastest we can grasp new paradigms, then we deserve to die. We must learn from the last 40 years, that WHAT WE ARE DOING DOESN'T WORK!!! So, stop it. If you keep on, just for the sake of your political gang...get in line. The one over there headed, "Environmental Terrorist".

You call it a "Green Revolution", I call it a bunch of uptight Ecozealots pushing "good ideas" down our throats because they feel they are entitled to do so due to the fact they assume that everyone is inherently stupid and will follow because they have more intelligece than you do.

Just because it is a "good idea" does not entitle one to shove it down the other's throat.

You might do some research.

3039 is designed to encourage individuals and businesses to put solar cells on their roof and connect them to the grid under "feed in tariffs". The installations are limited to 500kW and the whole program is limited to 20MW. It is the opposite of large scale and encourages power generation at the neighborhood scale. To encourage the very limited and capped pilot, the capacity is counted twice. It is much more complicated for utilities to manage than large central plants and they need encouragement. It in no way whatsoever softens the Oregon renewable energy and carbon reduction program goals.

Over 45 countries have feed in tariff policies, but not the US. Oregon is the first state in the country to require feed in tariffs (you get paid by the utility for generating electricity) and this is the bill that does it.

Small scale solar has huge advantages over every other form of energy, only surpassed by conservation. Frankly I am shocked that Blue Oregon is opposing it!

Hi Rob:

Just a quick note on your comment. HB 3039 as it passed the House had a pilot solar feed-in tariff and also included utility-scale resources and the 2-for-1 credit against the Renewable Energy Standard. The Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon (CUB), which represents residential ratepayers, supports the feed-in tariff but had concerns about the other parts of the bill. The bill as it came out of the Senate just had a pilot solar feed-in tariff and we supported that version.

However, the House did not concur with Senate amendments, and the bill went to a conference committee which put back the requirement for utility-scale resources and the 2-for-1 credit. CUB opposes the bill primarily because of the 2-for-1 credit and because of concerns over the potential cost of the utility-scale projects.

So you're right about everything you said about small-scale resources but, unfortunately, other troublesome items are part of the bill.

You can see CUB's alert on these bills at here.

The Oregonian recently ran an article that included a quote from the Governor's staff that "He's not going to allow any rollback [of prior climate legislation]." http://is.gd/174Ni. From Environment Oregon's view, we are especially hopeful that the Governor views 2472, 2940, and 3039 as rollbacks of the RPS and BETC. Both the BETC and RPS have played an important roll in developing new renewable energy businesses and jobs in Oregon.

The RPS is absolutely a must to meet as originally conceived. The RPS was conceived as a tool to ensure 25% of new electricity is from 100% clean, renewable energy. Watering-down the RPS with pre-1995 biofuels, with energies that are not carbon-free, or with a 2:1 credit, is unacceptable.

Thanks to the RPS and BETC, wind projects in rural Oregon provide clean electricity to 300,000 households, providing economic benefit to counties and cities, rural farmers and landowners, and workers. The $2 billion of capital investment for wind projects produced approximately $225 million in rural property tax revenues and community service fees. Rural farmers, ranchers, and landowners receive $4 to 8 million in annual payments from wind companies. And wind farms have created 1,650 construction and operations jobs. The RPS and BETC have been a true success.

From an economic perspective, HB 2472, HB 3039, and HB 2940 take Oregon in exactly the wrong direction. Currently there are wind projects permitted for development in rural Oregon to serve nearly 600,000 more households. These wind projects would provide an additional $319 million in rural property tax revenues and community service fees; provide an additional $8 to 15.5 million in payments to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners; and generate 3,000 more jobs in rural counties with record high unemployment rates. By undercutting the RPS and BETC, the Oregon legislature will put these projects at substantial risk – potentially depriving Oregonians of needed economic opportunity.

Biomass can be part of the future energy mix. The development of large-scale solar must be part of the energy mix. Homeowner-scale solar must be part of the energy mix - and is important to providing the most jobs to Oregonians and save families and homeowners significant money. The feed-in tariff is a good way to encourage this small-scale solar.

Unfortunately, other that the feed-in tariff, House Bills 2472, 2940, and 3039 use the wrong tools to promote renewable energy. Environment Oregon hopes the Governor feels the same way.

Boats and Oppenheimer,

Not that I'm an advocate for it, because I'm not, but we can reprocess nuclear fuel. As for the connection to Mandarin, I have no idea what that would be.

Yes, nuclear fuel can be reprocessed, but ultimately it it is consumed and not renewable, being my only point about it at all.

The 'green movement' is a death crawl, not a march toward progress.

Companies like to posture and present themselves as 'green' but it's kinda like the Asian that wears a paper shamrock on St Paddy's day. The green doesn't go very deep.

An interesting article on everybody's favorite poser, Google examines the company's PR campaign to puff their solar energy usage and savings.

I don't mind companies starting small. Let's just not pretend that much of this is cost effective.

All this chatter about nuke RODS remind me that rep. Clem told me that hydro is not considered green.

The perfect being the enemy of the good is probably going to smother the green revolution in its crib. You double the electrical rates of the average family with no relief in sight just to be purists about hydro, LNG, coal, and nuke power, as bridge generation capacity to a cleaner and as powerful clean energy economy you're eventually going to agitate the backlash that will call for the very development of such power sources, climate be damned.

Solar badly needs a breakthrough in conversion efficiency. Wind needs a breakthrough in storage so that electricity can be stored from the windy days to offset the still ones. Fuel cells need a mass manufacturing breakthrough, a hydrogen cracking breakthrough, and an infrastructure build out. People simply aren't going to be down for living like Third Worlders as some radical environmentalists implicitly or explicitly advocate.

Since a forced march to Utopia never works don't try to go there that way.

Too late Boats - there are many many thousands of Americans living like Third Worlders. Really are. You just don't happen to be one of those who sees 'em, know 'em. The Third Worlderness you sniff at and attribute to the Crunchies has nothing to do with what I've seen for poverty, privation here in the US. No, it is not vast on the level of a Delhi slum. But it is deep shit and not quitting anytime soon,taking out generation after generation, as well as sucking at the edges of communities like a sinkhole.

It may not be vast and spectacular like an Indian subcontinental slum, but we've got it here. Already.

I have been e-mailed by a person who is lobbying against the current makeup of 3039 that the RECs do not apply to the small-scale projects that are to be encouraged by the feed-in tariffs part of the bill. And the bill has no provision for return on investment that was expended by the small producers and does cap the rate impact that the small projects would have (whereas there's no cap on rate impact for the big utilities' projects).

E-mail your legislators to vote no on 3039.

The typical Oregon wind farm produces 100 MW of power and provides four to eight permanent, full time jobs. We currently provide $11 million per wind farm in BETC tax credits. HB 2472A brought that figure down to $7.5 million and closed loopholes allowing wind developers to game the system. HB2472B brought the subsidy down to $3 million. The bill is now in conference committee.

Tax Fairness Oregon has advocated all legislative session to bring the $11 million subsidy down. Wind simply does not need state subsidy. With the federal subsidy, wind is actually cheaper than coal. And our state's is the most generous subsidy program in the country. Despite that, our build-out of wind has not been the most rapid. We believe the subsidy is an unnecessary give-away of money that might otherwise educate children, fund state troopers, pay for services to venerable citizens, or provide higher education (which might include courses in energy issues, of course).

According to Renewable Northwest Project, a coalition of renewable energy businesses and non-profit groups, our current 1000 MW of wind power installations have created "dozens of full time, permanent jobs." Of course there are construction jobs, and some people will be working building wind farms for years. Unfortunately the job counting on constructions jobs seems to count the same worker at each job site, no matter how short or long they spend on that job site.

Our analysis shows that with the current BETC subsidy of $11 million, the taxpayers is paying all salary, benefits and property taxes for those facilities for the first 12-15 years. That’s what rural job creation via $11 million in BETC per wind farms looks like. Assuming a $70,000 per year job cost, even at $3 million, the taxpayer will be paying all salary and benefits for permanent jobs for five years or so.

As a renewable energy and energy efficiency contractor, I oppose 3039 and the other bills for the reasons Jef and others outlined above; they are bad energy policy and move us in the wrong direction. They hurt solar businesses such as ours, while giving away benefits to utilities ($70 million in BETC costs alone) and watering down the RPS.

A feed in tariff program is important for getting us to a sustainable energy future, but the pilot in this bill is not well thought out, and could easily cause more harm than good. Vermont has recently passed a much more comprehensive feed in tariff, as had Gainesville Florida. Oregonians for Renewable Energy Payments (OREP) is a grass roots organization pushing for a feed in tariff for Oregon, but they also oppose the current version of 3039.

Please email or call your legislatures today to stop these bills from going forward!

Thanks for everyone who has responded thoughtfully. I am disappointed the leadership did not exercise more discipline over the conference committee, with some interests radically changing impact of the bill at the last possible moment.

<h2>Personally I'm fine with 2:1 for small projects and I hate to see solar and wind fighting one another. Solar and wind are complementary with different generating capacity over 24 hours and a good match together for the energy we use. I'm also fine with limited state subsidy of new sources to build the markets for new technology in the early phase, and higher costs. 5MW is not huge for solar, but commercial projects and how they are treated should have been debated in a separate bill, especially as photovoltaics are on a downward price cycle, making them more cost effective to buy in the future than now. I'm sure Solar World in Hillsboro would like more customers and I'm not against it, nor for Vestas in Portland to grow.</h2>