Water Efficiency Post Chock-Full of Amazing Numbers

Moving forward toward a greener future includes not only renewable energy and energy efficiency but efficiency in general.  We are a very wasteful society – largely because there was little downside to generating the waste when infrastructure was first put in place.  As more of us have swelled the size of society, that waste has become more important.  I wanted to share some results I read about in this Climate Progress water efficiency post, which started out about Santa Clara, California water conservation efforts and moved onto larger studies and examples.

The results have been impressive: a savings of 370,000 acre-feet of water in 13 years. (A typical household uses one acre-foot of water per year).

But perhaps even more significant have been the energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: 1.42 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and 335 million kg of carbon dioxide, which is equal to taking 72,000 cars off the road for a year.

That’s right: water efficiency translates to energy savings.

In early March, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009 sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The bill’s main emphasis is to study the impact of energy development on U.S. water resources, but it also calls on the Department of Energy to periodically assess the energy consumed in the delivery, treatment, and use of water.

That study is important: if nobody knows the extent of a potential problem, it’s harder to come up with potential solutions like crafting legislation to promote water conservation efforts.  We know governments at every level offer varying tax credits for energy efficient windows, new water heaters, solar paneling and geothermal systems.  Similar credits don’t yet exist on a large scale to assist consumers who want to buy water efficient items like dishwasher, clothes washers, faucets, toilets, etc.  To boost energy savings nationally; to reduce as much demand on fossil fuel plants as possible; to reduce our GHG pollution, water conservation measures should join energy efficiency measures as programs that need to be supported.

More information [emphasis mine]:

In “Energy Down the Drain,” a 2004 study of the hidden costs of California’s water supply, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Institute found that the “end use of water–especially energy-intensive uses like washing clothes and taking showers–consumes more energy than any other part of the urban water conveyance and treatment cycle” and that “significant amounts of energy” can be saved through conservation. For example, one of their case studies found that if San Diego provided its next 100,000 acre feet of water through conservation instead of transporting it from northern California, the energy savings would be enough to supply 25 percent of San Diego households.

Separately, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if just 1 percent of American homes replaced old toilets with water-saving ones, it would reduce energy consumption by 38 million kWh, enough to electrify 43,000 homes for a month. This of course translates into financial savings. Implementing just a few water efficiency measures could save up to $170 annually on water and sewage bills, which on average are about $500 annually for an American household. If each U.S. household had seven water-efficient appliances, it would save $18 billion annually, according to the EPA.

In contrast to projects that might be more popularized, such as solar panels and geothermal, water conservation projects are cheaper and return their cost faster.  That should make them more marketable in the short term, especially in our current recession.

In its publication “Water Efficiency for the Home,” the Rocky Mountain Institute offers some examples: In 10 years, an efficient showerhead will return 10-40 times its cost in saved energy alone, and inexpensive replacement faucets can reduce indoor water use by 3-5 percent and pay for themselves in less than a year.

[...]

Case in point: In a December 2008 study, the Alliance for Water Efficiency found that a $10 billion stimulus that focused on retrofitting homes with water-conserving appliances and fixtures, installing smart outdoor irrigation systems, and improving commercial and industrial water applications could create between 150,000 and 220,000 jobs and generate as much as $28 billion in economic output.

$10 billion can create over 150,000 jobs and generate $28 billion in economic output.  Those are incredible numbers.  Does the private sector have $10 billion sitting around?  If it does, is it willing to pony it up to create those jobs and that economic output?  If it is, why hasn’t it done it yet?  No – the only entity that has the money and the incentive to put it on the table is the government.  Anti-Obama-ites can mock and disparage the government all they want, but they don’t have access to those kinds of funds (or if they do, they’re unwilling to do something similar, which works out to about the same thing in the end).  Obviously, they don’t have the interest in generating those jobs either.  Those hypocrites who let the Bushies spend trillions of dollars occupying sovereign nations and are now “angry” at Obama spending money on America don’t want solutions.  To them, it’s ideology over country.  That’s why I’m glad Climate Progress, realists in the Senate, the NRDC, the Pacific Institute, a science-based EPA, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Alliance for Water Efficiency and many others exist.  They’re doing the heavy lifting to make this country greater and help solve our water and climate crises.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

Republicans Continue to Prove They Love Only Oil Businesses

Big Oil’s profits have been nicely padded in recent years by the billions in corporate welfare (tax dollars) given away by the Republican-led Congress earlier this decade. Republicans like to crow how they’re pro-business and Democrats aren’t. It’s been patently absurd the entire time, but voters have let them get away with it. Just as egregious, Republicans have stalled and stymied similar credits for renewable energy companies, none of whom are even remotely as large as Exxon, Conoco and others. Providing tax credits to renewable energy development companies in a timely fashion (they expire every few years) lets investors know that they won’t be left holding the entire bag. These small companies’ existence and growth is largely dependent on the credits to provide stability to attract the large sums of up-front capital until their market is mature. This process doesn’t happen overnight, after all.

So how pro-business are Republicans? Pro-business enough to block a vote to extend the renewable energy tax credits prior to their August recess (by the way, when was the last time you got a solid month off?). All we hear in Colorado if the giveaway to corporations is shifted in any way is businesses will fail and jobs will be lost. Well, apparently the only businesses Republicans seem to care about are the Big Energy kind. If the tax credits aren’t extended by the end of this year, 116,000 jobs and $19 billion in investments are at risk.

Republican Senators decided prior to the second year of this Congress that they would work to prevent as much work as possible from being done. Then they would run on a “do-nothing” Congress, a description they earned themselves when they controlled things. So far, they’re succeeding at the work prevention part of their plan. They’ve threatened to filibuster a record number of bills this year, and the Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008 is no different. Democrats couldn’t get 60 votes to move forward on the bill.  By the way, there is a really good resource about this (and any other) bill: OpenCongress – S.3335.

Gov. Bill Ritter and every other governor in the U.S. sent a letter to Congress a week and a half ago requesting those tax credits be extended. That’s right: 50 governors, from every part of the political spectrum, recognize that small- and medium-sized businesses in their states are at risk of going out of business because a mere 40 Senators decided to block Congress’ work.

Republicans aren’t pro-business and this is only one example that proves that. Businesses supported this bill and wanted it passed. It turns out that Republicans are more ideologically driven than that. They wanted amendments attached that would expand areas where oil and gas drilling could occur. That’s despite the fact that doing so wouldn’t mean drilling actually would occur. Or that if it did that oil and gas prices wouldn’t be reduced for another 5-10 years. Or that states like California and Florida would prohibit drilling off their coasts even if the Congressional ban were lifted. None of that means squat to Senate Republicans. They’ve held up this bill despite the fact that a majority of Americans: Democrats, Unaffiliateds, and Republicans alike, favor renewable energy development more than they favor off-shore drilling.

No, none of that matters. Why? Because Big Energy super-greases Republican campaign coffers. Staying in office means more to these chumps than securing our energy future. You know what? We can do something about that. There are 23 Republican seats that are either being vacated or challenged this cycle. 11 are easily within reach of Democratic takeovers. Help get those Democrats elected so Republicans don’t have 40 easy votes to block everything over the next two years. They’ve demonstrated they only care about their office and not the policies they were sent to enact. Get rid of them and send morally responsible Senators to work for you.

Drilling In Colorado & Paying Your Fair Share

The Colorado Petroleum Association paid for a report that says if Colorado were to eliminate the corporate welfare currently given away to oil and gas corporations, Colorado taxes would rank second in the nation behind Wyoming. The message they’ve manufactured is that taking away their welfare will end up costing consumers more. I’m not buying it.

Here is the important fact: the ad valorem tax credit allows energy companies to subtract 87.5% of their property tax bills from the mineral taxes they owe the state. Why was the credit established? Gov. Ritter has provided that answer. The credit has its roots in the late 1970s when Colorado wanted to help the energy industry establish itself in the state. Does anyone seriously think the drilling industry isn’t established in Colorado? I agree with the Governor: enough is enough. Oil and gas companies are recording record profits every quarter. If the companies want to continue to do business in the state, they should pay what they owe.

Once the giveaway is canceled, the state will receive an additional $260 million in revenue. Gov. Ritter, looking ahead for our state, wants to use some of that money to underwrite “Colorado Promise” scholarships. That makes sense to me: oil and gas corporations pay their fair share and young Coloradans gain another avenue to further themselves.

There is an alternative ballot measure that would redirect the taxes to a different recipient: transportation (read: roads). This is a less optimal situation. Once the money is spent on roads, it’s spent. Roads need additional funding, that’s for sure, but Republicans are trying to do so without raising taxes. Here is my opinion: if our infrastructure needs investment, let’s invest in it. If nobody ever pays anything for the infrastructure, it’s going to fall apart and end up costing us more in the long-term. If the money is directed toward improving citizens’ future earning potential, I think the state sees a larger benefit from that in the long term. They’ll not only earn more, and therefore generate more revenue for the state, but they’ll produce more for the state during their careers, thanks on their increased education.

The oil and gas corporations want people to buy into their myth that eliminating their welfare would hurt their industry.  I’ll expose that for the lie that it is: are the corporations fleeing Wyoming, where their taxes are higher, for Colorado?  Of course not.  The energy industry is thriving in Wyoming also.

Colorado deserves its fair share from the energy industry just like it does from every other industry.  The time for giveaways is over.

Renewable Energy Legislation

On May 21st, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 was passed by the House of Representatives (253-160). This act extends a number of tax incentives for renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects, energy efficiency and conservation measures. Which all sounds really neat and cool. I want to bring forward a few examples from the bill and discuss a larger point or two.

Extends through 2009 the tax credit for producing electricity from wind facilities and through 2011 for closed and open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irrigation, hydropower, landfill gas, and trash combustion facilities. Includes marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy as a renewable resource for purposes of such tax credit.

Extends through 2018 the temporary increase in coal excise taxes.

Extends through 2013 the tax deduction for energy efficient commercial building expenditures.

So coal excise taxes are those placed on coal exports from coal producers. I don’t know much more about them than that, but on the surface it sounds alright.

But the main point I wanted to raise was the length of time each item has been extended. The difference between the wind facility extension and the coal excise tax extension is 9 years. That generates a great deal of uncertainty for wind facility development, which is a growing and important part of both Colorado’s and the U.S.’s economies. Will the tax credit continue to be extended? It depends greatly on who’s running Congress and who the President is next year, doesn’t it? I would really like to see a great deal more stability delivered to renewable energy development assistance.

Look at the commercial building energy efficiency tax deduction. It’s valid through 2013, 5.5 years from now, if this bill is signed into law. That’s a large dose of stability for commercial developers. The 2011 date for closed and open facility tax credits is more than the wind facility credit, but still two years shorter than commercial building energy efficiency. Those open and closed loop systems, especially the closed loop versions, deserve more assistance than I think this bill provides. That’s not to say the bill is bad, I just think it could be a little bit better. Of course, I don’t know the kind of deal-making that had to occur to get it passed through the House, either.

For that matter, I don’t think it’s been to the Senate yet. Who knows what changes they’ll make to it. And lastly, will President Bush sign it? I assume there’s enough fossil fuel tax credits included for him to hold his nose while continuing tax credits for renewable energy.