SolarTexans.com

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:

Rank	Candidate	Office	Amount given by oil and gas industry
1	Hutchison, Kay Bailey, R-TexasÂ	Senate	$258,361
2	Burns, Conrad, R-Mont.Â	Senate	$188,775
3	Santorum, Rick, R-Pa.Â	Senate	$188,120
4	Bode, Denise, R-Okla.	House	$153,650
5	Allen, George, R-Va.Â	Senate	$148,600
6	Talent, James M., R-Mo.Â	Senate	$147,470
7	Cornyn, John, R-TexasÂ	Senate	$142,750
8	Barton, Joe, R-TexasÂ	House	$138,450
9	Hastert, Dennis, R-Ill.Â	House	$122,200
10	Pombo, Richard, R-Calif.Â	House	$121,340

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.”

Texas net metering call with Rob Styler and Erika Morgan

(LINK)

This call was held in response to new interpretation of the net metering laws in Texas. The Public Utilities Commission has decided to apply a meaning to the description of net metering that is not held by 30+ other states. Basically they now leave the decisions around Net Metering up to the Utilities .This is why is is so important for the citizens of this state and this country to be on alert and involved. I do hold the belief that this is OUR state and laws should be passed for the benefit of the majority and not a small powerful minority. This will never happen while the decision are left to a few and people just sit on their hands and hope.

Tim Padden
RSD -Texas

Take Action

News from the Hill: Senate passes clean energy tax credits bill Now it’s time to thank ‘n’ spank before the House starts work on it   If you’ve been wondering what happened to the bill introduced last week by U.S. Sens. Cantwell and Ensign that would, among other measures, extend solar investment tax credits for residential and commercial use, here’s some up-to-the-minute news. By a vote of 88-8, the Cantwell-Ensign language was successfully added as an amendment to the Senate’s comprehensive housing bill (HR 3221).  This bill passed the Senate on Thursday with an estimated $6.6 billion in tax credits allocated to renewables, and including a lifting of the $2000 cap on residential solar installation credits.  (You’ll find details of how your senator voted below). This is a landmark development on Capitol Hill, since attempts to get the Senate this far have failed three times in the last year.  Of course, on those occasions the initial impetus came from the House, and the stumbling block for the Senate was always the source of funding for the tax credits–reducing some of the government subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry.  In this case it’s a Senate-originated bill, with no identified source of funding, and that means that the problem this time around may be with the House.  Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), head of the Finance Committee’s Energy Sub-committee, has said that the House is unlikely to agree to the provisions without spending offsets. Sponsors of the energy amendment and Senate leadership have started to work with Representatives and the White House to find a way out of the looming impasse.  And Maria Cantwell has not dismissed the idea of paying for the incentives in a tax extenders bill. “I’m happy to look at any vehicle that’s going to move quickly,” said the Washington Senator.  “I think we have a few more weeks before these (renewable energy) projects get cancelled.” Cantwell and her co-sponsor, John Ensign (R-NV), have argued that since the incentives would stimulate the economy, Congress should approve them without offsets.  But this argument is unlikely to sway the House, so senior Finance Democrats and the Bush Administration continue to try to find an agreeable set of offsets that would allow the renewable energy credits to be included on a larger tax extenders bill. We don’t yet know when, or in what form, the bill will be brought before the House, or what kind of fight it will face there or at the White House.  But with Senate passage at least, a step that has been impossible for a year has finally been taken. Many of you phoned or e-mailed your senators to urge them to vote for clean energy, and 88 of them did!  To all of you, thanks for making your voices heard. And now it might be a good time to thank (or spank) those senators who voted. The eight holdout senators who voted against the Cantwell-Ensign amendment were: Alexander (R-TN), Bunning (R-KY), Byrd (D-WV), Carper (D-DE), Dodd (D-CT), Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL) and Voinovich (R-OH) And the four who did not cast votes at all?  They were the three presidential candidates (who may well have been otherwise occupied), and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). Why not TAKE ACTION NOW  and send thanks ‘n’ spanks to your senator(s)?  All you have to do is enter your ZIP code below and GO!

Take Action Now! Enter Your Zip Code:

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

Written by Philip Proefrock
Tuesday, 18 March 2008

Lots of people are getting excited about all the various technologies for using biofuels of one sort or another as a replacement for fossil fuels, and they may present a short-term option. But looking at the various kinds of energy production that are possible gives some insight into the best directions to promote in terms of developing long-term efficient energy production.

A study cited on EV World makes a comparison between different crop- and direct-production methods of generating energy in terms of miles per acre per year, with some eye-opening information.

At the bottom end of the scale is soybean biodiesel, which can provide only 2,400 miles per acre per year. Corn ethanol is more than six times as efficient, yielding 18,000 miles per acre per year. But because of the relatively slow rate of production from plant-based fuels, these options far fall below the productivity of directly produced energy.

The same acre can produce 10 times as much energy from wind as it can from corn ethanol, 180,000 miles per acre per year. But both corn ethanol and wind power pale in comparison with solar photovoltaic, which can produce more than 2 million miles worth of transport per acre per year.

This is not to completely dismiss biofuels out-of-hand. The cost of an acre’s worth of solar PV arrays is far more than 100 times more expensive than planting an acre of corn. Many biofuels can be produced on marginal lands that are ill-suited for solar. And cellulosic ethanol can even be produced from waste, effectively making it a zero land-use fuel. And presumably the comparisons are based on sites that are optimal for each mode of generation. A site that is highly suitable for harvesting wind energy may not be a good site for growing corn, and vice versa.

The infrastructure and the existing “car parc” (the entire fleet of all vehicles in the country) is also going to take decades to turn over to the point where a significant proportion of the vehicles on the road are electric vehicles. Both a mix of energy sources and regionally appropriate choices need to be part of a comprehensive energy plan. But this offers a useful comparison that suggests where the best allocation of resources should be focused in terms of long-range planning for our energy future.

————————

Biofuels versus Solar
Lutz’s identification of ‘electric’ car technology as the top priority program at GM may prove prescient if 2006 turns out to be the year world crude oil production peaked. Assuming we are in for a gradual, but steady decline in oil production over the coming decade, the focus on electric drive and related energy efficiency technologies will be critical in more ways than we may think.

With the declining availability of once vast reserves of ancient sunlight we’ve been pulling out of the ground at breakneck speeds, future generations are going to have to rely increasingly on the available sunlight that falls on the planet each day either in the form of biomass-based fuels (biodiesel and ethanol) or on electricity generated by the wind or directly from sunlight.

Five Star Consultants’ Ken Regelson recently did a study that examined these alternatives from the perspective of “yield in miles driven per acre of land per year.” The results are pretty amazing and fall in line with a similar study done in Germany and published in Photon International. See Drive Further on Sunlight.

Energy Source

Miles Driven/Acre Per Year

Obviously, the most efficient way to move a vehicle when measured in use of land area is converting sunlight directly into electricity to run electric cars, everything else with the exception of biodiesel derived from algae, pales by comparison.

Two weeks ago John McCain was the only Senator to duck a crucial vote
on the future of clean energy in America — dooming to failure the
measure that would have helped make renewable energy more affordable
and accessible. Now it turns out this missed vote is part of a
pattern.

Last week, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) released the 2007
National Environmental Scorecard giving Senator McCain a score of
ZERO. According to the scorecard, McCain was the only member of
Congress to skip all 15 crucial environmental votes scored by LCV.

Can you help spread the word about McCain’s 0% environmental voting
record and write a letter to the editor? The opinion page is widely
read in most communities — and a well-placed letter can reach a broad
audience. We’ve included sample text to get you started.

McCain’s LCV score exposes the real record behind the rhetoric — a
lifetime LCV score of 24, a history of siding with the polluters and
special interests, and a consistent pattern of ducking important
environmental votes.

Let’s place thousands of letters in papers around the country. Click
here to let us know you’re writing a letter.
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/LCVLettertotheEditor

Thanks for taking action.

Sincerely,

Carl Pope
Executive Director
The Sierra Club

 

Arizona Public Service Co. (APS) has announced plans for one of the world’s largest solar facilities – a 280-megawatt (MW) concentrating solar power (CSP) plant – to be built 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, near Gila Bend, AZ.

A ‘power tower’ type of CSP plant
near Seville, Spain; photo credit: Abengoa

The project is enthusiastically supported by Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. However, its viability is dependent on the long-term extension of investment tax credits for solar facilities, which have gone down to defeat twice since December in the U.S. Congress. On both occasions, ironically enough, Arizona senator and presidential candidate John McCain was absent for the crucial vote.

Read more about the Solana CSP generating station here.

McCain Scores Zero on Environmental Report Card

Hillary Clinton Scores 73, Barack Obama 67

John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has scored a stunning zero out of 100 on the latest League of Conservation Voters Scorecard, which rates elected officials on their votes in the most recent Congress.

McCain skipped every one of the 15 votes that the League of Conservation Voters deemed critical measures for the environment, including votes where the Arizona Senator’s yea would have meant passage by a single-vote margin.

McCain has won support from many environmentalists, including Republicans for Environmental Protection, because he has championed action to combat global warming since 2003 and was the only serious presidential candidate to take such a strong position on the defining environmental issue of our time. But his absenteeism on important votes this session calls into question his reputation as a maverick who might buck the party line on some energy and environmental issues.

“Out of 535 Members of Congress, John McCain is the only one who chose to miss every single key environmental vote scored by the League of Conservation Voters last year. When it came time to stand up and vote for the environment, John McCain was nowhere to be found,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. “Every other Member who received a zero from LCV last year at least had the temerity to show up and vote against the environment and clean energy time after time. And unlike John McCain, I doubt any of them would claim to be environmental leaders or champions on global warming.”

The Democrats running for president scored better.

Sen. Hillary Clinton scored a 73%, having lost points for missing four votes.

Sen. Barack Obama scored a 67%, having lost points for missing four votes, and for voting against a failed measure to establish a Water Resources Commission that would have prioritized water resources projects in the United States. Clinton voted for the measure.

The rush to build power plants slows as worries grow over global warming, building costs and transportation.
By Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 18, 2008

WASHINGTON — America’s headlong rush to tap its enormous coal reserves for electricity has slowed abruptly, with more than 50 proposed coal-fired power plants in 20 states canceled or delayed in 2007 because of concerns about climate change, construction costs and transportation problems.

Coal, touted as cheap and plentiful, has been a cornerstone of President Bush’s plans to meet America’s energy needs with dozens of new power plants. Burned in about 600 facilities, coal produces more than half of the nation’s electricity.

But urgent questions are emerging about a fuel once thought to be the most reliable of all. Utilities are confronting rising costs and a lack of transportation routes from coal fields to generators, opposition from state regulators and environmental groups, and uncertainty over climate-change policies in Washington.

“Coal projects need more regulatory certainty before any new ones are going to get built in the near future,” said David Eskelsen, a spokesman for PacifiCorp, which serves more than 1.6 million customers in six Western states. “The current situation does make utility planning very challenging.”

Just a few weeks ago, PacifiCorp dropped plans for two coal-fired power plants in Utah, citing the many unknowns in assessing the costs and objections on global warming grounds from a major customer: the city of Los Angeles. PacifiCorp said in filings with the state of Utah that it hadn’t found a substitute for production that it will need to bring online in 2012 and 2014.

The setbacks have energy regulators jittery about the prospects for meeting America’s ever-increasing hunger for electricity. They say that any delays in building new capacity — coal-fired or otherwise — add pressure to an already strained electricity infrastructure, raising the prospect of shortages or sharply higher prices.

Energy planners say coal needs to be in the mix because the other mainstay fuels for generating electricity also have serious drawbacks. Natural gas has proved volatile in both price and supply. Nuclear power plants are costly and take much longer to build — and the problem of radioactive-waste disposal remains unsolved.

“We’re very close to the edge,” said Rick Sergel, who keeps a close eye on the grid as chief executive of the quasi-governmental North American Electric Reliability Corp. “We operate under tight conditions more often than ever. We need action in the next year or two to start on the path to having enough electricity 10 years from now.”

This fall, regulators in Kansas and Washington state denied applications for coal plant permits because of concerns about carbon dioxide emissions.

After Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said in October that he wasn’t a “fan” of coal, utilities postponed plans to build coal plants in Tampa and Orlando.

Xcel Energy has told Colorado officials that it plans to close two coal plants and add 1,000 megawatts of wind and solar power, in addition to a new natural-gas plant. The company wants to cut its carbon dioxide emissions 10% by 2015.

In Nevada, Sierra Pacific Resources delayed construction of a coal plant and moved up the schedule for a natural-gas-powered plant instead.

The Tennessee Valley Authority decided in August to add a $2.5-billion unit to a nuclear power plant rather than construct a new coal facility — the other main option — because of the uncertain economics.

Altogether, 53 coal-fired plants were canceled or delayed in 2007, according to Global Energy Decisions, a private consulting firm that tracks power plants for the Department of Energy.

In the near term, coal clearly will remain a part of the American energy picture. Even as the postponements and terminations pile up, plans for new coal-fired power plants continue to advance in New Mexico, Mississippi and Indiana.

Although TXU Energy canceled eight coal-fired power plants it had proposed in Texas, the utility is going ahead with three others.

Last month, an energy industry consortium announced plans to build a government-subsidized power plant in southern Illinois to demonstrate low-emissions coal technology. But the ballooning cost of the FutureGen plant — now projected to be about $1.8 billion, nearly double its original estimated price tag — has drawn criticism from the Department of Energy, which could delay or kill the project by withholding funds.

The growing push in Washington to do something about global warming is a major factor that affects the cost of burning chunks of solid carbon, by far the dirtiest way to manufacture power.

A recent study by the industry-funded Electric Power Research Institute projects that coal power will cost more than nuclear power or natural gas by 2030 if coal’s carbon dioxide problem is solved the way most experts envision. Still unproven, that method involves separating carbon dioxide from the gas stream before it heads out of the stacks, collecting the vapors and then storing them underground. That would also require a new network of pipelines to move carbon dioxide from the power plant to a geologically sound site.

Green Energy the Next Frontier

Great piece by Declan Butler in Nature on the new venture capitalism in Silicon Valley. Green energy, folks. California gold. Butler reports how the venture-capital industry in the US spent $2.6 billion on clean-energy technologies in the first three-quarters of this year. Up from $1.8 billion in 2006, and $533 million in 2005. Google joined the game last week, committing millions more to solar, wind and geothermal, seeking a technology patch to make renewables cheaper than coal. A few weeks earlier, Al Gore’s London-based Generation Investment Management partnered with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in Menlo Park—the green-energy investors that nurtured Amazon, Google and Genentech—to fund global climate solutions.

For the fast-moving entrepreneurs of the [Silicon] [V]alley… the next frontier is the roughly US$6-trillion energy market, where the dinosaurs of power-generation utilities have traditionally invested a pittance in research and development. “Venture capital is exactly what we need to try new things outside the bounds of what the traditional energy companies think is worth doing,” says Vinod Khosla, a veteran entrepreneur who co-founded Sun Microsystems and now heads Khosla Ventures in Menlo Park, one of the most prominent clean-energy venture-capital firms. “There is almost no technology risk-taking in any of the energy companies.” Khosla predicts that within five years there will be a green form of electricity that is cheaper than coal, and cleaner fuels that are cheaper than oil.

Butler also notes that although the US lags far behind Europe’s leaders, Denmark and Germany, in renewables, its venture-capital investments in clean tech now more than double those in Europe.

California scooped $726.2 million of this year’s US clean-tech venture funding, followed by Massachusetts ($292.6 million) and Texas ($149.4 million). Almost $1 billion of US investment went abroad, including a $200-million investment in Brazil’s Brazilian Renewable Energy, which produces ethanol, and a $118-million investment in China’s Yingli Green Energy Holding Company, which makes photovoltaic solar systems.

This is the reason I refuse to surrender hope.

Julia Whitty is Mother Jones’ environmental correspondent. You can read from her new book, The Fragile Edge, and other writings, here.