Obama's SOTU clean energy wishlist derailed by Congress gridlock

A week is a long time in politics… 52 weeks between state of the union addresses is a lifetime. But progress in creating legislation that will actually help the US economy recover has been proceeding at such an agonisingly glacial pace thanks to the so-called "gridlock" in Congress that last year's appeals by the President to support investment in clean energy have not advanced since last year. 

Many Republican members of Congress are increasingly making it clear that they are not interested in running the country, just running their 44th President out of office – if his policies succeed, then Barack Obama has more chance of winning a second term in office and they will stop at nothing to stop anything that makes the current incumbent look like he might be a competent president.

Pugnacious comments punctuated Obama's usual emollience, which made his plea for Congress to look to the US military on tips on cooperation.

Chinese imports of cheap PV were clearly in the crosshairs when Obama announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit to investigate "unfair trading practices in countries like China," thereby turning up the heat in the trade war started by SolarWorld's legal challenge last year.

"And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration –- and it’s made a difference… It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized."

Solyndra was not specifically named. But when Obama acknowledged that public investment in technologies had associated risk - some that paid off, such as shale gas and some that failed - everyone knew he was referring to the Californian thin-film solar company that collapsed last year taking around 535m federal dollars with it.

"Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy."

He called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies - a vague hope that has not moved on since his last SOTU address. "Pass clean energy tax credits," he urged, before the first and only mention of climate change, over which his tongue slipped to say "flight" rather than fight climate change. The clean energy standard which would create a federal-wide renewable portfolio target for utilities, also got an honourable mention for the second year in a row even as bills in Congress have not inched further forward in the past 12 months.

"We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted.  Well, tonight, I will.  I’m directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes.  And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history -– with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year." 

In many ways, that Obama's energy and climate goals have found a more welcome home in the US military comes as no surprise. As with the fuel economy standards introduced last year, executive orders are a useful addition to the political arsenal of the commander in chief. It's a curious trick of America's style of democracy that bypasses Congress… that is where Obama appears to be most effective. The same could be said of his administration's foreign policy - killing Osama Bin Laden tops a long list of successes in the state department thanks to Hilary Clinton, along with withdrawal from Iraq and toppling murderous dictators such as Colonel Gadaffy.

But the Republicans pretend not to be interested in foreign policy to avoid drawing attention to Obama's successes, citing the domestic problems as far more pressing.

But given the freedom to execute his executive role, Obama is clearly more effective without the burden of a Congress that has bound itself to industrial interests such as the Koch brothers et al at the expense of the wider American public. 

Tea Party Republicans mask prejudice and discrimination and obstruct reasonable discourse on everything from energy policy to abortion by citing the constitution, or rather their own appropriated interpretation, with the same religious fervour as Islamic fundamentalists cling to the Koran, or their own warped interpretation, as justification for waging war on the west.

Climate change is just one issue where Republican sceptics make themselves sound ridiculous because their arguments and comments have to stray so far from the facts and the scientific consensus that the rest of the world accepts.

That Republican presidential candidates are now equating "socialism" with "European" makes them sound silly. But these daft comments become more serious when this newly coined synonym passes almost without comment or inquiry by the public or press in the US…  David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy are all right of centre party leaders who have vowed to cut public spending and allowing sovereign monarchs to remain as heads of state in countries like Spain and the Scandinavian nations, is hardly a "socialist" strategy for organising society.  

During a conversation recently with a VC specialist at a large accounting firm the discussion turned around to Obama's threat to tax "wealth creators" and "wasting money on entitlements". Ah yes, the benefits culture has become a problem in the UK too, I said. To which the reply was: That's right, in Europe, you have socialism there. 


This lazy association through redundant ideologies obstructs discourse. After all, China a country run by a "communist" party has little or no "welfare" state as we would call it in the west, where healthcare payments are based on the extended family's ability to pay. So much for socialism taking care of the poor… if by socialism = European, they mean social equity, then that's a definition I'll live with. But that is a pejorative concept for too many Republicans.

In the Iron Lady biopic of Margaret Thatcher there is a wonderful scene in which Meryl Streep quotes: "Beware of your thoughts, they become your words. Beware of your words, they become your actions. Beware of your actions, they become your habits. Beware of your habits, they become your character. Beware of your character, it becomes your destiny."

Words and their real meaning should matter to everyone, especially politicians, regardless of bias.

The global warming debate is where this lack of interrogation of factual accuracy stands out in the US - it is depicted as if there is still enough weight of evidence to give credence to the doubters. That is just not true and it doesn't matter who says so or how many times, the US is a country where consensus on climate change can be reported as a "revelation" 10 years later than every other nation because it suits politicians and their fossil fuel influencers to obscure and dissemble.

Professor Naomi Oreskes deftly argues in the LA Times that climate change is an issue where "open mindedness" does not apply. It's just one of many issues: it is no longer scientifically acceptable to stay "open minded" on the adverse affects of smoking; nor is it socially acceptable to stay "open minded" about prejudice or discrimination on grounds of colour, gender, religion or sexual orientation. There are some things in life which are so politically or socially unpalatable in a free and fair society that "open mindedness" is inappropriate…

Unlike last year, there was no specific mention of high-speed rail. Last January, Obama boldly said:

"Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car."

In the 12 months since then, not a single piece of HSR track has been laid and its deep controversies have seeded doubt about its viability even among staunch supporters such as Joe Simitian, a Democratic state Senator for Palo Alto, a region not known for its aversion to technology. 

This year, Obama played safe by pledging to reduce redtape on infrastructure projects: 

"Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure."

Clean energy advocates responded positively to Obama's speech last night. But the headwinds of cheap and abundant natural gas, the possible expiration of the Production Tax Credit low and the spectre of China's oversupply of cheap PV - the Solyndra ghost will haunt the solar industry and government support for clean energy for years to come.

Eileen Claussen, president at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, which had to remodel itself from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change after Pew Charitable Trusts cuts its purse strings at the end of last year.

"Even if comprehensive legislation remains off the table for now, we can make important progress tackling these challenges piece by piece. C2ES is working with policymakers and stakeholders on ways to expand enhanced oil recovery using captured carbon dioxide – an approach that can boost domestic oil production while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, we’re working with automakers, environmentalists and others on a plan for integrating plug-in electric vehicles into the U.S. electrical grid. We look forward to sharing the results of these and other C2ES initiatives aimed at practical solutions to our twin climate and energy challenges."

C2ES is now mostly funded by business, including Entergy, HP, Shell, the Alcoa Foundation, Bank of America, GE, The Energy Foundation, Duke Energy, Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The presence of energy companies among its top donors may explain the interest in advanced fossil fuel technologies such as enhanced oil recovery which aims to maximise the extraction of the resource and does nothing to minimise the effect of burning what comes out of the ground.

At one point the president pointed out Bryan Ritterby, who he tried to present as an ordinary Joe who was laid off …

"Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance.  But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan.  Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts.  Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan…"

But Bitterby is no ordinary born-again American clean energy industry worker. He is representative of many who work in the US wind industry - largely developed with expertise from Europe where policy has created an export market for renewables.

Although Energetx is an American company that has changed course from making yachts in Michigan, if it's not built by GE, wind turbines in the US will be built in factories established by European-based companies: Gamesa, Siemens and Vestas just to name a few. These companies were attracted to the US manufacturing industry partly by the 48C advanced manufacturing tax credit, which as I've reported before, was not taken by GE. However, last night Obama made clear that any future tax credits would favour indigenous companies. Where that leaves the Europeans who have been so involved in developing the US wind industry and creating a manufacturing base remains to be seen.

Aside from being a wishlist of things that will never happen, like the clean energy standard, commentators last night also saw Obama's third SOTU as a stump speech for the presidency. I wonder whether he will make it to a 4th… otherwise Mitt Romney may be required to dig into his own deep pockets for ideas on how to help the economy recover. Perhaps he could pay down some of the US debt from his own savings account?

US military on frontline of energy strategy to save money and lives

President Barack Obama may be losing his argument for clean energy in Congress, but he has already won hearts and minds in the US military which is rapidly reducing its carbon bootprint from the barracks to the battlefield.

Major General Anthony Jackson spoke earlier this month of the importance of removing "the vice-like grip of oil from our necks" at a Pew Charitable Trusts forum to promote its new report on energy security at Stanford University.

The Department of Defense is the world's largest single consumer of energy, guzzling 300,000 barrels of oil a day. The US military consumed as much energy as Nigeria, according to this Post-Carbon Institute Energy Bulletin from 2007.

But in the past four years, DoD clean energy investments in biofuels, solar technology and advanced batteries have increased 200%, from $400m to $1.2bn. And the military is likely to clean up its operations even further.

Last year the DoD launched Energy for the Warfighter: Operational Energy Strategy "to ensure that the armed forces will have the energy resources they require to meet 21st century challenges". 

“Lightening the load” for those with boots on the ground, reducing energy demand and dependence on foreign oil are they key goals.

Batteries account for around 20% of the weight of a soldier's pack and a typical infantry battalion uses $150,000 worth of batteries a year, says the Warfighter report.

On the podium at Stanford, Maj Gen Jackson unfolded a sheet of PV panels that packs down to the size of a slim laptop case and can be used to recharge equipment.

Meanwhile, reducing energy costs are critical. In 2010, the DoD consumed nearly 5 billion gallons of petroleum in military operations, at a cost of $13.2bn an increase of 255% over 1997 prices.

But more importantly was the cost to lives at the frontline, said Maj Gen Jackson

In 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan, a total of more than 3,000 Army personnel and contractors were wounded or killed in action from attacks on fuel and water resupply convoys.

He said: "I know the cost of [oil]. I know it up close and personal if you have never seen the mixture of blood and sand it's a harsh purple on the desert floor.

"There is an urgent need for our nation to lead the world in renewables and conservation and getting a grip on the strategic vice that one three letter word has around our neck. For every 50 trucks we put on the road someone is killed or loses a limb."

US Navy secretary Ray Mabus said something similar at the National Clean Energy Conference in August.

"We buy too much fossil fuel energy from potentially or already volatile places on earth. We give those countries a say on whether those aircraft fly or ships sail or round vehicle operate. There are great strategic reasons for moving away from fossil fuels.

"Every time the cost of a barrel of oil goes up by a dollar it costs the US navy $31m in extra fuel costs. When the Libya crisis began the navy faced a fuel bill increase of over $1.5bn.

"We import gas and water into Afghanistan more than anything. For every 50 convoys of gas we lose one marine – that is too high a price to pay for fuel."

He said that the Navy aimed to cut its dependence on oil for its aircraft and seacraft by 50% by investing in advanced biofuels, of the sort that cleantech startups like Solazyme produce. The US Navy's fleet of aircraft now all been tested with biofuels dropped in.

Despite the military's plans to develop "greener" tanks with BAE Systems, Jackson admitted that he would still drive his Corvette, because "compared to an Abrams tank which does .8mpg, I don't feel too bad."

Jackson, who commands marine installations on the western United States, said energy demand had already been cut by 37% in response to a 50% target by 2030. "We'll be there by 2015. It's not going to be anything for us," he said.

A metering pilot showed soldiers on base how much electricity they were using - if they used more than their neighbours, they'd get a bill, if they used less they'd get a cheque. This reduced energy demand by 30-40%, he said.

He also mentioned that one civilian employee had started to sell tin, aluminim cardboard on a commodities exchange - the proceeds of which now covers the costs of libraries and other facilities.

The Wounded Warrior Barracks at Camp Pendleton in California was the first LEED Platinum Certified building.

The Marine Corps had also installed solar panels and a 1.5MW wind turbine that provides 40% - 50% of the electricity at a barracks in Barstow, southern California, said Jackson. He wants to put another 1.5MW wind turbine at Barstow, but Southern California Edison hadn't worked out a way to "absorb" excess electricity into the grid.

"The utility companies have not yet learned to absorb what we're doing in renewables so I have to hold off until Southern California Edison figures [it]. It will not only cover the needs of the base but it will put back into the grid. We're ready to make this base net zero so we're negotiating."

Maybe Jackson would like to join the battle with the California Public Utilities Commission and utilities over decent feed in tariffs. Reading this UC Berkeley study on the economic (energy security?) benefits, should get Jackson off to a good start.

Jackson and Mabus may be acting on orders from their commander in chief, but they have certainly taken up this mission with great enthusiasm. Jackson said that when he once testified in front of the California Senate select committee for energy and security he was asked how he got people to meet the clean energy targets. "It's pretty easy senator I just tell them," he said. "Everyone in my command knows my intent."

If only Congress were that easy to command and control for the president. But the president's military powers are impossible to replicate politically. But it's one of the smarter differences between the UK and US political systems.

While Republicans bicker between themselves and with Democrats over spending cuts and the budget deficit, real progress continues by stealth where it can. Aside from Republican assaults on the EPA, powerful binding regulations on CAFE standards were agreed with automakers earlier this year. And in California, the Air Resources Board has exemplified stakeholder rule making and participatory democracy at its best with the development of the state's cap and trade regulations.

Jackson's clean energy mission seems to sit well with him. He said: "We like it when the president comes in and lays it out. We know this is important to the current administration.

But the ripple effect goes beyond what the Obama administration wants. Jackson's wife was not under orders when she insisted on buying a Prius and installing solar PV at home.

There may be an even more powerful effect of the military's campaign to reduce energy demand and dependence on foreign imports.

The impact of the DoD procurement clout on the growth of the semiconductor industry is well documented, and the internet was developed from the military's Arpanet funded by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the late 1960s.

Today, the DoD's Environmental Security Technology Certification Program aims to demonstrate innovative energy technology and the military appears to be partially filling the void in the absence of policy or direct subsidies such as European-style feed in tariffs to create a sustainable renewable energy industry.

Solazyme already has large contracts with the US military worth $8bn to deliver algal biofuels. Bob Florence, VP of marketing and business development at Solazyme said: "The Navy's investment has been very helpful in scaling us. Thanks to these investments we're moving from an R&D company to a commercial entity. What we're making for the Navy is diesel fuel [like] you'd buy at a commercial pump. The good news is [they] don't see any difference when they run their ships on our fuel. We want to drop in to the existing structure, we don't want to reinvent the whole entire global fuel supply."

Skyline Solar from Mountain View, California, has a $1.58m contract with the DoD to demonstrate its high-gain solar plants at military bases in the south-west.

Lee Burrows, managing director at VantagePoint venture capital fund national energy policy was essential aligning policy with technology goals: "What the military can do is look at a timeframe for tech that is 10 or 15 years out. Elected officials typically have two to four years and corporations have the next earnings call as their timeframe. The critical part here for DoD and DOE is that they are enabling the technology of the future to help the country gain its long-term goals. We need to have a goal set that we can aim at."

While the US military fights a clean energy war, the question remains whether civilians in Congress can deploy an effective strategy to ensure energy security into the future - and to unshackle the "vice" of oil imports from the necks of US consumers and American soldiers on the frontline.