DOE E-Mails To Wind Energy Lobbyists Cast Cloud Over Green Jobs Proposals

While reading this article from IBD late last night, the name Boone Pickens in addition to George Soros kept surfacing as two people involved in green jobs especially wind power. Then to learn the group that former Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner Denise Bode was heading was involved, made us take notice.

Denise Bode left the Oklahoma Corporation as an elected Commissioner in mid term after losing the Congressional primary election the previous summer to Mary Fallin. She left the Commission in April 2007 to head a new natural gas trade association, Clean Skies Foundation, in Washington. She had been speaking around the Country on how the natural gas industry had to elbow their way into discussion about clean energy. Now we learn she was named CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) in January 2009 same time Obama took office.

Bode, as a Democrat, served as the legal counsel focusing on the areas of energy and taxationon on the Staff of then Senator David Boren. Before joining the commission, Bode served for seven years as president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in Washington, D.C. In 1997, then Gov Keating appointed Bode to the Corporation Commission and she ran as a Republican successfully in 1998 and again in 2004 for permanent terms on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Denise Bode has a years of experience in oil and gas and is now the head of a wind energy association?

This part of the IBD article jumped out at us:

AWEA CEO Denise Bode called charges it got DOE to produce the study "absolutely false." Yes, the association worked with the administration on the issue, she said, but argued it was just how business is done in Washington.

"Anytime (the DOE's labs) are doing research on something, they usually have independent advisory groups from the industry review what they are saying to make sure it is accurate," she said.

Bode added that this was no different from how things were done under President Bush.
"Have we had a good working relationship? Sure, just as we did with the previous administration," she said.

Gary Schmitz, external affairs officer for NREL, said the agency did the study on its own simply because it believed strongly that the Spanish study was badly flawed.
"This whole idea that we engaged in some lobbying campaign is absolutely not true," he said.

Schmitz concedes NREL staffers kept AWEA in the loop as they did the response — AWEA even peer-reviewed the response study — but said there is nothing unusual about that. They need to work with those industries to research renewable energy.
"Yes, we work very closely with industry, and to suggest that that is wrong is to turn the whole history of R&D and public-private partnerships for R&D" on its head, Schmitz said. The e-mails, he argued, merely show the existing relationships between the NREL researchers and others in the renewable energy industry.

"Quite frankly those relationships go back a long way," he added.

How can a lobbying firm peer review a document from DOE? The Spanish study sent the wind lobby scrambling and if AWEA didn't request the study, you can bet someone at AWEA made a direct inference a study should be done and their fingerprints are all over the study. As we have done the research this morning we have learned more about AWEA, Denise Bode, and T. Boone Pickens.

Oilman T. Boone Pickens and AWEA head Denise Bode are two of the biggest matchmakers bringing the sectors together. Pickens' plan calls for increases in wind energy alongside a transition in the transportation sector from oil to natural gas. Bode, meanwhile, is one of many wind industry leaders to have come from the oil and gas sector, having served as head of the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the American Clean Skies Foundation before taking the helm at AWEA.

But the match may not be made in heaven. Bryan Hannegan, a vice president at the Electric Power Research Institute, said some gas companies balk at the idea. "Privately, they tell us, 'We're not sure if this low-carbon world is going to be a boon or a bane for us,'" he said. Companies don't know "if gas is going to be needed as much in a decade from now," making gas companies and financial backers hesitant to invest.

Experts agree that while natural gas may be the most attractive backup source in today's energy mix, things could change. "There are lots of things you can do to balance the supply and demand" of wind energy, said Steve Clemmer, director of energy research for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He listed several other ways wind could be backed up, including storing wind power, curtailing energy output at low-demand times and turning to other alternatives, such as hydro power.

"As renewables penetrate the market, to the extent that they penetrate the market and force out conventional generation, the first conventional generation that gets forced out is natural gas," said Don Santa, president of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. Members of Santa's group are responsible for transporting 95 percent of the country's natural gas.

Statistics provided by AWEA illustrate the natural gas sector's decreasing share of new energy production. Almost 90 percent of new generating capacity added since 2005 has been a combination of wind and gas, but that ratio has been moving in wind's direction. In 2007, 28 percent of new energy generation came from wind and 60 percent from gas; the next year that shifted to 42 percent wind and 45 percent gas. Source: http://energytopic.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/natural-gas-to-wind-im.php

You read that last paragraph right -- Statistics provided by AWEA about natural gas decreasing share of new energy production. So we have a wind association group dissing natural gas with this study that has kept investors away from natural gas. This doesn't pass the smell test. And there is more:

AWEA chief executive Denise Bode credited the Obama administration's stimulus package with accelerating growth in the sector at a time when many renewable energy experts expected the market to slow as a result of the recession.

"The US wind energy industry shattered all installation records in 2009, chalking up the Recovery Act as a historic success in creating jobs, avoiding carbon, and protecting consumers," she said.

The rapid growth in wind energy also provided further evidence that the US is slowly transitioning away
from carbon-intensive fuels, with the AWEA noting wind power and natural gas are running "neck-andneck" in the race to become the leading source of new electricity generation, together accounting for about 80 per cent of new capacity.

Source: http://www.boonepickens.com/media_summary/012810.pdf

Then we discover the projected costs per green job which we find probably low balling when the final cost per job is added up:

There are already signs that green jobs created in the U.S. are going to be just as expensive as the German and Spanish ones. On January 8, the Department of Energy announced the awarding of $2.3 billion in tax credits to companies for the creation of 17,000 “clean-tech” jobs. At over $135,000 per job, the administration is not yet up to the spending-per-job level of Germany, but that’s probably because it hasn’t concentrated on the vastly ex­pensive solar industry yet.

This is all the more ridiculous when one considers that there are ways to create real jobs in the energy sector that would have a beneficial effect on the economy. For instance, Sen. David Vitter (R., La.) has proposed a “no-cost stim­ulus” bill that would create an estimated 2 million jobs by opening up areas of the Outer Con­tinental Shelf currently off limits to oil and gas exploration, while also stream­lining the licensing of new nuclear plants. Vitter even proposes that oil-and-gas royalties be paid into a trust fund that would promote renewable energy.

Bottom line is that we don't think the green energy jobs stimulus is a good way to spend American Tax Dollars on wind energy and green jobs. Did AWEA ever hear of private enterprise or is this another sector ripe for takeover by the Obama Administration like it did the auto industry of GM and Chrysler? Is that the ultimate goal -- nationalization of green energy?

More emails that have finally been released by DOE are showing what we consider a too cozy relationship with lobbyist by DOE. We don't care if it was done during the Bush Administration, it doesn't make it right.

Time for the entire US Government to start answering Freedom of Information requests honestly and with details instead of redacting or stalling. What happened to the transparency promised by President Obama? Never mind that was for consumption during the campaign and promptly thrown out the window along with his pledge on cutting down lobbyists influencing the Federal Government or becoming political appointees.

This editorial from IBD gives more detail about the Green Jobs that are being touted by AWEA:

DOE E-Mails To Wind Energy Lobbyists Cast Cloud Over Green Jobs Proposals
By SEAN HIGGINS
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 03/10/2010 08:06 PM ET

The Energy Department worked closely with the wind industry lobby to discredit a Spanish report that criticized wind power as a job killer, internal DOE e-mails reveal.

The e-mails obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request show how, starting last April, lobbyists at the American Wind Energy Association became alarmed that lawmakers were citing a study by Spain's King Juan Carlos University. The study found that Spain's massive investments in wind power cost 2.2 jobs for every "green" job created.

The study came out in early 2009 just as the wind lobby was building up its presence in Washington, hoping it could score big in an energy bill then being debated in Congress. Industry lobbyists feared the Spanish study would halt momentum for pro-wind legislation.

Study Fanned Wind's Fears

The e-mails show the wind lobbyists shared their concerns with DOE employees, who agreed the study needed to be refuted. In August, DOE produced a white paper specifically attacking the study.

For example, e-mails show the lobbyists requesting to know when the report would come out and DOE employees hustling to get it published because it was late.

"Is it okay if we send out our response (paper) to colleagues at AWEA and CAP? We promised it to them many weeks ago. It will soon be irrelevant," said energy analyst Suzanne Tegen, co-author of the DOE paper, in a July 29 e-mail to colleagues. CAP refers to the liberal Center for American Progress, which has pushed for renewable energy subsidies and has close ties to the Democratic Party.

CAP Senior Fellow Dan Weiss told IBD the center wasn't involved in drafting or editing the report, though it did promote it on its Web site.

The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained the e-mails via a Freedom of Information Act request and shared them with IBD. Many of the messages were redacted.

The e-mails are mainly between employees at DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Conspiracy Or Cooperation?

Chris Horner, a senior fellow with CEI, is pushing further FOIA requests to get the remaining documents. He argues that the e-mail timeline indicates the Energy Department produced its study at the wind lobby's request.

"It doesn't seem to be the department's idea," Horner said. "That is clear."

(snip)

David Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors lobbying, says "the public should always be concerned about situations where special interest groups are ... allowed to effectively be the fact checkers."
Wind lobbyists' concerns were first raised when the Spanish university's April study asserted that every subsidized renewable energy job in the country cost it 2.2 jobs in the broader economy due to inefficiency and high costs.

Excerpt: Read More at IBD

Obama State of the Union Fallout

With snow coming down this morning to add to the rain that froze on objects, freezing rain that froze on the sidewalk, and sleet that accumulated like snow on roads and temperatures now below freezing, it is a very good day to stay inside and read the fallout from the State of the Union Obama gave on Wednesday night.

One thing went right -- teleprompters did not fail and he was able to read his entire speech which liberal media members gave high marks. Do they know what he said? Probably not but for an hour Chris Matthews, MSNBC, forgot he was black whatever that means. Who cares about the color of a Obama's skin? It is Obama's agenda that matter to us.

The American Thinker summed by the SOTU given by Obama versus the Rebuttal given by Governor Bob McDonnell of the Commonwealth of Virginia better then any one:

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnel, 01/27/10

January 29, 2010
Obama's sucker punch; McDonnell's knock out punchScott Strzelczyk

Obama ridiculed the justices in a nationally televised speech much to the joy and amusement of Congressional Democrats. Their boisterous standing applause is equally demeaning as Obama's statement.

The President's speech lasted 70 minutes and, to me, sounded just like everything else he says. A friend summed it up nicely by saying "history reference.... bumper sticker quote.... anecdotal story from a swing state about health care.... contemplative pause and look at the horizon.... overstate the obvious with mock sincerity.... blame Bush.... bumper sticker quote....stump speech excerpt.... knowing nod.... reinvent the wheel.... exaggerate accomplishments.... false promise.... blame Bush... repeat.... repeat.... repeat."

Contrast Obama's speech with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's speech. McDonnell's speech was brief, concise, and delivered with the proper tone and authority we expect from a leader. He summarized the challenges we face; unemployment, intrusive federal government, and the 12 trillion dollar debt. He discussed solutions to the issues. He eloquently quoted Thomas Jefferson, referenced scripture, and stated our founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to create our country. And, he was able to communicate this succinctly and without any ambiguity in a mere 15 minutes.

Obama threw a sucker punch last night. McDonnell delivered a knockout punch.

Excerpt: Read More at American Thinker

Michael Barone's article this morning had us chuckling as he decided to wait to write his article after seeing if the media covered certain parts of the Obama SOTU. His fresh perspective after some members of the fawning media fell all over Obama was well worth the wait.

Inside Obama's State of the Union speech
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
01/28/10 3:32 PM EST

I know I’m weighing in late—in the old days of journalism this would have been early!—but I want to make a few points about Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech which I haven’t seen elsewhere.

Bows to labor unions. In saluting the resilience of the American people, Obama specifically mentioned people “building cars and teaching kids”—both heavily unionized occupations. (snip)

Where is the “jobs bill”? Obama’s jobs proposals look like pretty small beer. He also called for a National Export Initiative to double exports in five years; just how that would be done he didn’t say (snip) And, as Ira Stoll has pointed out, a five-year program has unfortunate echoes of Stalin’s five-year plans.

He kept boosting the House over the Senate. He commended the House for passing a “jobs bill,” for passing “financial reform,” for passing “a comprehensive energy and climate bill” (no mention of cap-and-trade) and for passing a community colleges bill. (snip)

And at least one senator took umbrage. “I thought he was pointing his finger at the Senate a lot in his speech last night,” said Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “No, I do not think it’s fair.” Obama needs all the Senate votes he can get, especially from moderate Democrats like Landrieu, and he went out of his way to antagonize them, in search of cheap applause.

The Christmas bomber. Obama seemed to acknowledge the government’s failure to anticipate the Christmas bomber. (snip) Translation into English: 50 minutes of interrogation of a captured terrorist by FBI agents who happened to be on duty Christmas Day in Michigan, and who have no knowledge of terrorism networks, is enough. How many Americans agree?

Bones to the left. Obama’s brief discussion of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran was carefully framed to be consistent with his dovish campaign rhetoric on those subjects. (snip)

Possible reset I: energy. Obama did not signal a pivot to the center, as the Massachusetts result seemed to dictate, on many issues. But he did call for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country” (his pal Bill Ayers’s father, as CEO of Commonwealth Edison, built lots of nuclear plants in Illinois that haven’t blown up), for “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas” (after reinstating the ban on offshore drilling lifted by the Bush administration) and for “continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies” (after his vice president said on the 2008 campaign trail that we wouldn’t build any more coal-fired power plants).

Possible reset II: trade. “We will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets” and “will strengthen our trade relations with Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama and Colombia.” This sounds like a call for the Democratic Congress to approve the pending Free Trade Agreements with those three countries which labor unions and most Democrats have opposed.

Health care. Obama seemed not to change his stand on health care at all, though it’s obvious that the Democratic bills are not going anywhere. (snip)

Immigration. Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform hoped that Obama, having downplayed the issue in 2009, would raise it in 2010. He did, but only barely, in a single sentence. “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system—to secure our borders, enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and our nation.”

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

Because Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana are heavily involved in the production of oil and natural gas, residents of those states took particular interest in the SOTU speech when Obama threw out some positive initiatives on energy. The drawback is that although it sounded good, he already knew some of the initiatives were going to be blocked by either regulations already on the books or by the Democrat leadership in Congress.

Over the years the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gained way too much power to rule and regulate which has been hurting our domestic energy oil and gas production for years. We need new and updated refineries but how are you going to get new ones built and on-line with the EPA regulations causing the cost to be build new refineries prohibitive. The US is pretty much at capacity for oil refining yet the EPA is always looking for new ways to hurt domestic oil and gas production. Why? Is it because the vast majority of oil and gas production takes place in Red States? It does make you wonder.

We do have more hope for new nuclear power plants for electricity. We were glad to see President Obama talk about nuclear power plants following up on the initiatives started under the Bush Administration in 2002 after almost three decades of no new power plants. Chances of getting new nuclear plants is much higher then off shore drilling but they also take longer to get up and running. Will Obama carry through to push nuclear energy or will this fall by the wayside like so much of his rhetoric. Only time will tell.

According to the US Dept of Energy, the last reactor built was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977. The last plant to begin commercial operation is the "Watts Bar" plant in Tennessee, which came online in 1996.

There are nuclear power plants already approved by the State of Florida but will not be operational until 2016 or later. The catch for the Florida residents is they will be helping pay for these plants long before they are finished at the rate of around 4 percent a year. Florida power plants have not received Federal approval to date as applications for design and construction of nuclear power plants have to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the Department of Energy.

There are currently 16 applications 'Under Review' with two more including one from Florida anticipated as of Feb 2009 with the next release of data in May 2010. Data on the pending nuclear power plants can be found at US Energy Information Administration

In 2002, the Department of Energy in cooperative projects with industry asked the NRC approval for three sites which were approved in FY 2007/2008. One additional application is currently under review as of FY 2009; three more are expected in the FY 2010-2012 time frame. These submittals were for new advanced nuclear power plant designs as part of the cooperative projects.

Design certification for Construction and Operation License (COL)for the initial demonstration projects is expected in early-2011 and construction started 2-3 years after that. The Department of Energy under the Bush Administration instituted the COL as a means of shortening the length of time it takes to get through the process for approval and certification by combining the two applications for Construction and Operation into one.

You can read more on Nuclear Energy at Nuclear Power 2010 from the DOE

While looking through the email, this editorial by Mark Tapscott from the Washington Examiner jumped out as the perfect headline review of the Obama speech -- 'nothing for everybody' which has summed up Obama's rhetoric on the campaign trail and while in office.

A speech with nothing for everybody
Examiner Editorial
January 29, 2010

That was some performance Wednesday night by President Obama, delivering one of the longest-ever State of the Union addresses but offering no evidence whatsoever of a willingness to listen to the swelling nationwide chorus of voices of discontent with his policies. For example, rather than acknowledging that clear majorities of Americans have decisively rejected his signature health care reform plan and suggesting a different approach, Obama doubled down on his insistence that Congress approve his proposal to put federal bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. Thus, Obama's congressional supporters get nothing on which to try to build a credible health care compromise, and his congressional critics come away with nothing beyond vague rhetoric about working together.

For those worried about the 17 percent real unemployment rate (10 percent officially unemployed, plus 7 percent who have given up looking for work), Obama put forward lots of reassuring words about jobs and small business, but only warmed-over ideas from the past as concrete proposals. (snip)

Similarly, why should anybody think the "new jobs bill" Obama asked Congress to put on his desk promptly will work any better than last year's $787 billion economic stimulus program that he said would keep unemployment at or below 8 percent? (snip)

Then there is the Obama freeze on federal spending, which has been praised in this space as a needed first step. The problem, however, is that it is all but invisible, saving a mere $250 billion or so when Washington will spend $4 trillion or more every year. Worse, the freeze does nothing to restrain entitlement spending, the chief factor in the government's swelling annual deficits. (snip)

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

We will be watching closely to see if what Obama promised in his SOTU will ever become reality or will it be more hollow rhetoric like his campaign and first year in office. One thing is certain from his SOTU speech -- he gave no cover to Democrats running for office in 2010 as he continues his assault on the American healthcare system with Obamacare which the majority of Americans don't want.