SolarTexans.com

• The solar industry estimates a program of this scale would put 30,000 people to work building, shipping and installing solar panels. [1]

• Solar panels are fragile and best built close to market, so entrepreneurs would likely start or relocate solar companies in Texas.

• Our colleges and universities become centers of clean energy innovation, with graduates eager to join our booming green industry.

• We can stop importing so much coal from Wyoming and keep billions more dollars in the Texas economy.

• The program would reduce air pollution in Texas and could help bring down the cost of solar to level with fossil fuels. (The New York Times [2] reported the price of solar panels has already declined 40 percent in the last several years).

David Gregg and lanny Ladner will be explaining the Citizenre compensation program Saturday morning.

The call will be at 9:00 Am PST.

If you are vague on how you are paid , this is the time and place to have all of your questions answered.

This will be a Webinar. Use the link below to register. Bring your team !!!

Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/353214370

Press Release

Last week, the Texas Senate voted to create a $500 million fund to support solar
power. This is great news, but already Big Oil and King Coal are gunning to kill
renewable energy legislation. Don't let them!

Click below to e-mail your state legislators and urge them to pass several
priority solar power bills. 

http://www.environmenttexas.org/action/solar-power/email?id4=ES

Texas has what it takes to be a world solar leader. The state Legislature is
currently considering incentives to install solar panels on half a million
rooftops in the next 10 years. This would create an economic revolution,
attracting billions in investment and creating tens of thousands of jobs. 

Unfortunately, lobbyists for the oil and coal industries are aggressively
lobbying against solar power legislation. If we don't act, these projects will
go to other states. Please click below to send an e-mail telling your state
legislators to pass these solar power bills. 

http://www.environmenttexas.org/action/solar-power/email?id4=ES

Last week, the Texas Senate approved SB 545 (Fraser) to create a statewide solar
rebate program that would create $500 million of incentives over the next five
years. This is a great start, but in order to reduce pollution enough to avoid
dangerous global warming, we need to do even more to promote solar. The Texas
House will soon take SB 545 to a vote and may include additional incentives.

A Senate committee also approved SB 541 (Watson) last week, which sets a goal of
generating 3,000 megawatts of our electricity from emerging renewable
technologies such as solar. 

The full Senate will consider the bill later this week. Tell them to vote for
more solar power for Texas: http://www.environmenttexas.org/action/solar-power/email?id4=ES

Sincerely, 

Luke Metzger
Environment Texas Director
LukeM@environmenttexas.org
http://www.environmenttexas.org

Texas extended its already formidable national lead in wind power by clearing the way Thursday for a major expansion of the state’s electrical power transmission network, valued at nearly $5 billion, a move that will triple its current wind power capacity.

The preliminary approval from the Public Utility Commission of Teaxs (PUCT) effectively green-lights tens of billions of dollars more in wind development investment and will supply the state with more than 18,00 megawatts of additional wind power.

The decision consolidates Texas as “the epicenter of land-based wind energy development in North America,if not the world,” said Commision Chairman Barry Smitherman in a statement. (MORE…)

Wonder why we don’t have a national energy policy or a serious push toward alternatives?

Follow the money that oil and gas companies send to Congress.

By Jim JubakThink it’s a matter of chance that we don’t have a meaningful national energy policy? Wondering why oil and gas companies don’t pay higher royalties to the Treasury now that oil is over $55 a barrel? Amazed that Washington loves to talk about energy research with promise 15 years down the road, but won’t put significant money into alternative technologies that could reduce energy consumption now?

For answers to all those questions and more, just follow the money. Nothing about U.S. energy policy should be a surprise if you know where the money’s been going and which legislators have taken the biggest payouts from the energy industry. So don’t miss your only chance in the next two years — the Nov. 7 election — to tell Congress what you think of its sellout to the energy companies.

It has become increasingly expensive to run for national office, and any politician who wants to win has to raise big bucks these days. In the 2006 election cycle, according to the Federal Election Commission, as of Oct. 20, challengers and incumbents running for the House of Representatives had raised $713 million for their campaigns. Those for Senate had raised $452 million. And these figures don’t include any of the money raised by “independent” organizations, so-called 527 groups such as Emily’s List on the left ($9.6 million raised) or Club for Growth on the right ($6.2 million raised).

Lawyers top contributor list

Corporations and affiliated individuals have coughed up a big chunk of that money. By industry, the top honor on the giving roll goes to lawyers and law firms, with $89 million contributed, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which describes itself as nonpartisan and nonprofit. As the Republicans have said in campaign after campaign, the bulk of that — 69% to 30% — has gone to Democrats. But the Republicans don’t need to worry; there’s plenty of money coming into their till from other industries. Second place goes to the retirement industry with $86 million (54% goes to Republicans). Third place? The real estate industry with $53 million (57% goes to Republicans.)The oil and gas industry comes in at No. 15 with $14 million in contributions.

The top five contributors were Koch Industries, ExxonMobil (XOM, news, msgs), Valero Energy (VLO, news, msgs), Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) and Occidental Petroleum (OXY, news, msgs), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

That $14 million puts the oil and gas industry in the company of such heavyweights as electric utilities (at $12 million) and the pharmaceutical industry (at $14 million).

Most energy money goes to GOP

The oil and gas industry’s giving is highly, highly focused. Oil and gas executives seem to feel that with the Republicans in solid control of Congress, there’s no need to give to anybody but Republicans, since they’re the folks that can get things done. There’s none of the fence straddling of the securities industry, which has divided its $46 million in contributions almost evenly between Republicans (47%) and Democrats (51%). A whopping 83% of oil and gas money has gone to Republicans in this election cycle. To find similar imbalance, you have to look at such Democratic bulwarks as the public-sector unions, 84% Democratic in their giving, and the building trades unions, at 83% Democratic.So who did this concentrated dose of cash go to? Here are the top 10 — all Republicans — as complied by the Center for Responsive Politics:

Data from the FEC as of Sept. 11, 2006. Compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

You’ve got to hand it to the oil and gas industry. They know how to support their favorite sons and daughters, of course: Texans Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn, after all, are both senators from a big oil state.

But the industry keeps its eye on the prize. If you want to keep oil and gas royalties low; if you’d like to drill in environmentally sensitive areas; if you want to keep the government from admitting that global warming might exist; if you want to make sure that money flows to research in alternative energy technologies for the future but not to commercialize alternative technologies today, then you give to the key people who can get those jobs done.

So you contribute to the campaign of California Republican Rep. Richard Pombo, chairman of the House Resources Committee in charge of deciding how the oil and gas (and other industries) can use government land and how much they’ll pay for that use. Pombo has been a point man in the House in efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

(The committee’s jurisdiction also extends to gambling on Indian lands. Pombo and his personal political action committee, known as Rich PAC, reportedly are being investigated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Indian tribes paid Abramoff and his lobbying firm big fees in exchange for promises he would get favorable rulings from lawmakers and members of the executive branch on their casino plans.)

Pombo is also involved in my favorite bit of election-year irony. He has been criticized for lobbying then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton to suspend regulations opposed by the wind-power industry because his parents collect sizable royalties from windmills on their ranch. Pombo, his critics have noted, has a personal interest in the ranch. So who should Pombo face in the 2006 election? Democrat Jerry McNerney, a wind-power engineer and CEO of a start-up wind-turbine manufacturer.

The oil and gas industry also gives heavily to Texas Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; to Sens. James Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana and George Allen of Virginia, all of whom sit on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; to Illinois’ Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House, who plays a huge role in deciding what legislation moves to the floor for a vote and what doesn’t; and to Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum, head of the Senate Republican Conference and announced candidate for Republican whip in 2006 if he wins re-election.

Control of Congress up in air

Among the top 10 recipients of oil and gas money, Pombo, Talent, Burns and Santorum face stiff races for re-election this year. That, plus the possibility of a shift in control of one or both houses of Congress from Republican to Democratic, creates some interesting angles for investors interested in playing potential changes in U.S. energy policy as the biases of Republican incumbents yield to the biases of Democratic replacements.Sometimes it’s hard to tell exactly what the effect might be. So for example, a shift in control of the House of Representatives would be likely to unseat Barton as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (Barton is a lock in his re-election. The incumbent has raised $2.7 million to Democratic challenger David Harris’ $22,000. Harris had $932 in his campaign treasury as of Oct. 20.)

Barton has been one of the fiercest congressional critics of global-warming theories. At a recent congressional hearing, he said, “As long as I am chairman, (regulating the gases that produce global warming) is off the table indefinitely. I don’t want there to be any uncertainty about that.” But Barton’s likely replacement would be John Dingell, D-Mich., a fierce advocate for the U.S. automobile industry.

In other cases, the effect of the change is easier to extrapolate. Pombo’s likely replacement as chairman of the House Resources Committee would be Nick Rahall, D-W.Va. Can you say “coal,” boys and girls?

Money and politics go hand in hand

No matter how the elections turn out this year, of course, the connection between money and politicians will survive. Incumbents of both parties know that taking the money out of politics — I mean, really taking it out — would destroy one of most effective tools they have for assuring their own re-election. Taking the money out of campaigns is less likely than the Easter Bunny passing out eggs in January.So vote your convictions. Throw this year’s bums out. They certainly deserve it. Then watch to see which newly elected politicians start quickly to work to become next year’s bums.

And always remember the great American humorist Finley Peter Dunne’s advice: “Trust everybody, but cut the cards.”

Round Rock-based Dell announced Wednesday it will use green energy to power its entire Austin headquarters.

Also Online

Project Green

The computer company said it gets 40 percent of its power from Waste Management’s Austin Community Landfill gas-to-energy plant. The rest comes from wind farms.

The company declined to say how much it will pay for the renewable power.

The contract is for 80 million kilowatt hours a year. Typically renewable power credits cost around half a cent per kilowatt hour, meaning Dell could pay about $400,000 extra to run on renewable power rather than fossil fuel or nuclear power.

More than 10,000 employees work at the 2.1 million square-foot Dell headquarters.

“It’s time for our industry to take a lead role in creating a clean energy future,” said Paul Bell, president of Dell Americas in a media release.

A facility in Twin Falls, Idaho is also completely green-powered.

Dell also said it will increase green power from eight to 17 percent at the Austin Parmer Campus. Previously, 8 percent of the campus’ power came from renewable sources.

The company said it is the latest step in meeting a 2008 carbon neutral commitment made last year.

Dell expects the renewable power to become cheaper than fossil fuel electricity during the next three years, saving the company almost $2 million per year and cutting carbon dioxide emissions by almost 12,000 tons.

—-

The Dallas Morning News contributed to this report

By R.A. DYER

rdyer@star-telegram.com

AUSTIN — Proposed regulations relating to the installation of renewable-energy-producing devices at homes and businesses could stymie the development of solar power in Texas, a coalition of conservation groups are warning.

The regulations — some of which are up for consideration by the Texas Public Utility Commission today, and some later in the year — would establish broad guidelines for how the state’s deregulated electric market treats consumers and businesses that invest in solar panels, small windmills or related devices.

A coalition of conservation groups complained Tuesday that the rules would require the acquisition of expensive redundant meters for those who invest in solar panels and hope to be compensated for the excess electricity that would potentially flow back into the state’s power grid.

Preliminary rules also leave open the possibility that those who generate power through solar panels or small windmills would not be compensated properly — or at all — according to the conservation groups.

“These rules protect the utility companies by shifting all the cost of solar power to the customers while giving consumers none of the benefits,” said Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The three-member PUC is set to consider some of the regulations today. The second set of regulations, which would govern a broad set of related issues, remains in preliminary form and won’t go before the PUC for weeks.

All the proposed regulations relate to House Bill 3693, an energy efficiency bill authored by state Rep. Joe Strauss, R-San Antonio, during the 2007 legislative session. Reed said the preliminary rules set forth by the PUC staff do not conform to the spirit of the law. Strauss was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

But Steve Davis, president of the Alliance for Retail Markets, said the electric company umbrella group supports the staff’s proposed regulations as they relate to the installation of meters for so-called distributive renewable generation, such as rooftop solar panels.

Under HB 3693, “an electric utility shall make available . . . separate meters that measure the load and generator output, or a single meter capable of measuring inflow and outflow.” The law also states that “the distributed renewable generation owner must pay the differential cost of the metering, unless the meters are provided at no additional cost.”

Davis said it’s important to have a method that measures the influx of power into a home or business and another that measures power that potentially flows from solar panels, windmills, or other renewable-energy sources.

Davis noted that the value of the energy flowing in to a home or business and the value of the energy flowing out can be different — depending on factors such as the time of day when the power is produced. That’s why it’s not enough to have a meter that moves both backward and forward, he said.

“The value of the energy that comes in and the value of the energy that comes out are not always one in the same,” he said. “We have to be sure that we’re getting compensated [properly] for our energy that is consumed on the premises.”

He said his organization had not yet formulated positions on others aspects of the pending rules.

Chris Schein, a spokesman for Oncor, which operates the North Texas transmission system, said the company will roll out advanced meters over the next several years that can measure the net power to and from homes and businesses. He said that a separate regulation calls for customers to pay for the meters through a surcharge on bills.

House Bill 3693 calls for regulators to have the rules in place by Jan. 1, according to a PUC spokesman.

R.A. Dyer reports from the Star-Telegram’s Austin bureau. 512-476-4294