http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/making-sense-of-americas-oil-needs-a-sustainable-state-based-response-to-dwindling-oil-supplies As the new home of TexPIRG's environmental work, http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/making-sense-of-americas-oil-needs-a-sustainable-state-based-response-to-dwindling-oil-supplies Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:58:12 -0600 http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/a-new-energy-future-the-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-for-cutting-america39s-use-of-fossil-fuels  America has the technological know-how and the resources to move away from dependence on oil and other fossil fuels and toward a cleaner, more secure New Energy Future. America’s dependence on fossil fuels poses challenges to America’s environment, economic health and national security. Each of those challenges is likely to become more critical in the years to come if we continue along our present path of increasing energy use and increasing imports of energy from abroad. A New Energy Future in which America is smarter about how we use energy and in which we tap our abundant supplies of clean, renewable, homegrown energy can address many of those challenges. Achieving that future will require America to set clear goals to guide our energy policies and to mobilize the scientific, economic and political resources we need to meet them. This paper examines the benefits, in terms of fossil fuel savings, of achieving a New Energy Future guided by the following goals: • Reduce our use of energy in our homes, businesses and industry by 10 percent by 2025. • Save one third of the oil we use today by 2025. • Harness clean, renewable, homegrown energy sources for at least a quarter of our energy needs by 2025. There are many ways that America can achieve these goals. This paper lays out one plausible pathway, which we call the “New Energy Future scenario,” by which the United States could achieve – and in some cases go beyond – the goals and save vast amounts of fossil fuels. By 2025, for example, the United States could: • Save 10.8 million barrels of oil per day, equal to four-fifths of the amount of oil we currently import from all other nations in the world. • Save 9.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, nearly twice as much as is currently used annually in all of America’s homes. • Save 900 million tons of coal per year, or about 80 percent of all the coal we consumed in the United States in 2005. • Save 1.7 billion megawatt-hours of electricity per year, 30 percent more than was used in all the households in America in 2005. Achieving the energy savings and renewable energy targets listed above will not be easy, but it can be done. Reduce our use of energy in our homes, businesses and industry by 10 percent by 2025. • Cutting our use of energy in homes, business and industry by 10 percent would require reducing the amount of energy we are projected to use in 2025 by 27 percent. Taking advantage of America’s cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities could reduce our consumption of electricity by as much as 20 percent and natural gas by about 22 percent. Similar savings are possible for petroleum use. • A combination of new technologies (spurred by more robust federal investment in energy saving technologies and tax incentives) and energy conservation measures could provide the remainder of the savings needed to achieve the 10 percent energy savings goal. Save one third of the oil we use today by 2025. Sensible steps to improve the fuel economy of our vehicles, reduce the rate of growth of vehicle travel, and replace some of the oil we use with plant-based fuels could take us well beyond the goal of saving one third of the oil we use today by 2025, providing total savings of 10.8 million barrels of oil per day. • Increasing fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon by 2018 and to 45 miles per gallon by 2023 would yield oil savings of 2.4 million barrels per day. • Setting fuel economy standards for heavy-duty trucks would save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day by 2025. • Changing our transportation priorities so that the average American drives no more in 2025 than he or she does today could save 3.6 million barrels of oil per day versus projected use in 2025. • Replacing a share of transportation fuels with plant-based fuels like ethanol and biodiesel would save about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. • Realizing 10 percent energy savings from homes, business and industry would produce another 2 million barrels per day in oil savings. Harness clean, renewable, homegrown energy sources for at least a quarter of our energy needs by 2025. A variety of studies and industry projections suggest that tapping America’s abundant supplies of clean renewable energy could fulfill 22 percent of our energy needs by 2025 – and we could reach 25 percent renewable energy with technology advances that would enable us to fully tap our renewable potential. • Using plant-based fuels to substitute for oil in transportation and industry could supply about 4.5 percent of our total energy use in 2025. • Wind power could provide as much as 30 percent of America’s electricity by 2025 and possibly more as new technologies and practices allow for us to successfully integrate more wind power into America’s electricity mix. • Solar and geothermal power can combine to produce another 12 percent of America’s electricity, while an assortment of other renewable technologies – ranging from solar hot water heaters to geothermal heat pumps – can also make an important contribution. • Additional renewable energy could be generated using new technologies such as wave and tidal power or by achieving technological improvements that would enable us to expand our use of other renewable energy sources. To achieve the benefits of a New Energy Future, the United States must adopt policies designed to increase our use of renewable energy and tap America’s vast potential for energy efficiency improvements. America must also increase its investment in research and development of the next generation of clean energy technologies, as well as make the investments necessary to bring those technologies into wider use.  http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/a-new-energy-future-the-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-for-cutting-america39s-use-of-fossil-fuels Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:58:12 -0600 http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/reaping-the-rewards http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/reaping-the-rewards Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:58:12 -0600 http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/less-snow-less-water-climate-disruption-in-the-west http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/less-snow-less-water-climate-disruption-in-the-west Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:58:12 -0600 http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/sun-power-texas39-solar-future http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/sun-power-texas39-solar-future Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:58:12 -0600 http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/challenging-nuclear-power-in-the-states-policy-and-organizing-tools-for-slowing-the-quotnuclear-renaissancequot  Capitalizing on rising energy prices, growing concern about global warming, and a favorable political climate, the nuclear industry is working to achieve a “nuclear renaissance.” After 30 years without a single new order for a nuclear power plant in the U.S., several companies are now in the early stages of proposing new nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, federal officials have begun routinely approving requests to run existing nuclear plants harder and longer than ever.A “nuclear renaissance” would be a bad deal for American consumers, the environment, public safety and national security. Nuclear power is an expensive and risky way to address global warming—especially when compared to alternatives such as improved energy efficiency and the expansion of renewable energy production. Moreover, the nuclear industry’s shoddy safety record and insufficient response to the growing threat of terrorism suggest that new nuclear power plants—or the continued operation of aging plants—could cause more problems than they solve.Citizens who attempt to raise these concerns about nuclear power face increasing difficulty in getting their voices heard. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) relicensing and new reactor licensing processes are essentially of the nuclear industry’s own design. For example, the NRC’s relicensing procedures for existing plants forbid the consideration of the adequacy of evacuation plans in determining whether a plant should be allowed to continue to operate for another 20 years. In addition, the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration have staked out an aggressively pro-nuclear stance, providing billions of dollars of additional taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear industry through the Energy Policy Act enacted in 2005.Citizens concerned about nuclear power do have other forums in which to raise their concerns: local and state governments. While the power to license and regulate the operation of nuclear power plants is exclusively in the hands of the federal government, state governments have many opportunities to influence whether, whenand how nuclear power plants may operate.Among these opportunities are the following:Legislative Moratoriums• At least six states—California, Kentucky, Montana, Maine, Oregon and Wisconsin—have placed conditional bans on the construction of new nuclear power plants. Most of the moratoriums expire when and if a permanent solution for the storage of nuclear waste is discovered.Environmental and Land Use Permitting• Nuclear power plants are copious consumers of water. Plants using “once-through” cooling systems have a massive impact on the environment— trapping fish and other marine animals in their intakes and changing the temperature of local waterwaysthrough the discharge of heated water. The Clean Water Act provides stateswith the opportunity to require that nuclear power plants use cooling systems that are more protective of waterways and wildlife.• States also regulate the use of land, particularly in the coastal zone, where federal actions (including the licensing of nuclear power plants) must be consistent with states’ coastal zone plans.Energy Facility Siting• In most states, energy facility siting boards determine whether power plants may be built in a particular location. In addition to considerations such as environmental impact, these boards often consider whether a given power plant is needed and sometimes whether other alternatives can serve local energy needs at a lower cost.Public Utilities Commissions (PUCs)• PUCs and their equivalents regulate the electric industry in the states. In states with traditional regulatory structures, PUCs pass judgment on whether a power plant is needed to serve local energy demand, whether it is a reasonable expenditure of ratepayer dollars, and how a utility may recover construction funds from ratepayers. These decisions effectively determine whether a regulated utility can build a nuclear power plant.• PUCs in states that have “restructured” their electric industries can shape the power purchasing practices of utilities that distribute power to consumers in order to protect consumers from excessive risk. California’s PUC, for example, requires utilities toprioritize energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy over new fossil fuel power plants in planning to serve these customers.• PUCs and regional bodies also engage in planning for the future of the powergrid and set policies regarding how alternative sources of energy—such as renewable energy and distributed generation—will be treated in the marketplace. Policies that treat renewable energy and other alternatives fairly, and that factor in the true costsof nuclear power, can reduce the attractiveness of nuclear power plants as an energy source.Energy Policy• State governments have the power to establish energy policies that serve their citizens’ needs. Renewable energy standards, efficiency standards for appliances, financial support for energy efficiency and renewables, and other clean energy policies can reduce the demand for power from new sources and allow for the shutdown ofexisting nuclear power plants without economic disruption.Climate Policy and Market-Based Environmental Regulation• The nuclear industry has pushed to allow nuclear power plants to obtain credits under a variety of state-administered, market-based programs designed to reduce air pollution and global warming emissions. These credits represent a financial windfall tothe nuclear industry and should be opposed on the grounds that technologies like nuclear power that have major environmental impacts should not benefit from environmental programs.Organizing Opportunities• Citizens seeking to challenge nuclear power also can direct their efforts at nuclear power companies themselves, using tools such as shareholder resolutions, organizing of power consumers, and publicity drives to educate the public about nuclear power and build broader coalitions around more sensible energy policies.     http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/challenging-nuclear-power-in-the-states-policy-and-organizing-tools-for-slowing-the-quotnuclear-renaissancequot Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:58:12 -0600 http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/the-road-to-a-new-energy-future  America can and must move away from our http://www.environmenttexas.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/the-road-to-a-new-energy-future Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:58:12 -0600