If you're like me, and spend a lot of the day drinking coffee and getting increasingly paranoid with the creeping suspicion that solving climate may not be possible, it's good when you find glimmers of hope in the wreckage. One of those glimmers (actually more like a tractor beam) is called Energy Trust, an organization in Oregon that, if widely copied, would move us well on the way to solving climate change.

I recently spent a few hours with my friend Greg Stiles, who helps run their business sector programs, and I was blown away by their creativity and success. Here are some tidbits: Energy Trust is funded to the tune of $130 million annually through a public purpose charge on Oregonians' utility bills. That alone is arguably part of a solution to climate change -- it's a price signal on energy costs that will force people to conserve. (By the way -- it's also a sign of things to come, and the program's enormous success puts the lie to the delusional notion that to solve climate we need to make energy cheap (that might happen one day, but first it will have to get expensive. No freebies on this one, techno-optimists.)

Two programs caught my attention. The first is one approach to solar electric installations. Most utilities offer rebates for residential and commercial systems, and that's it. The problem is that these systems, even with good rebates, are still frickin' expensive. (As an example, I'm putting 4.5 kW on my roof, and with three different rebates and a hell of a deal from my installer, I'll see a return on my investment of 6 percent. It's OK for me, but not for most.)

What Energy Trust did is a form of "end-use, least cost" planning, a term Amory Lovins coined. They asked: "What do we want, and what is the cheapest way to get that?" What they wanted was clean energy, in the form of solar on people's roofs. So they brought together everyone interested into a bulk purchase. Then they bid the contract in one huge chunk. Economies of scale enabled everyone to get what they wanted -- their own system, on their own roof -- but at a 25 percent discount. Brilliant, right?

But we aren't going to solve climate change with brilliance, we're going to solve it with applied common sense. The next smart innovation came in the form of lighting retrofits. I've banged my head against this problem for a long time, and if I were to implement a program, I'd do the same dumb thing I always do -- go to the owner of a property and try to convince him or her to upgrade. But that's the wrong approach.

Energy Trust recognized that first, owners don't listen to the random enviro dude. They listen to their contractors. And they know that only electricians have the time or interest to care what a T5 is vs. a T12, and to note the rebates available for a switch.

By reaching out to contractors and electricians with info on the best technology and the rebates available, Energy Trust created a free, motivated sales force, and one that could actually get the retrofits done. Granted, Energy Trust has lots of money to make these improvements happen, and it comes out of customers' pockets. But that's what it's going to take -- a tax.

Remember -- solving climate change is going to hurt. And a few dollars on your utility bill is not the kind of pain I'm talking about. That's a pleasure.

Meanwhile, with that public purpose charge, Energy Trust is achieving the holy grail of energy geeks: they are helping utilities actually meet growing demand with efficiency, not new power. The utilities love it so much they are kicking in more of their own money to fund the program. The customers get disproportionately good service and love that. And I love it because it gives me a massive dose of that heroin-like drug -- hope.

Related: Portland weatherization program gives top billing to labor standards and community benefits

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Clean Energy Works Portland is a groundbreaking new program that enables Portland residents to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and pay for the improvements over time through their utility bills.

A contractor performing a blower door test to identify air infiltration and leakage throughout a home.Energy Trust of OregonBut the most exciting and unique aspect of the program is the Community Workforce Agreement that was developed by representatives of labor unions, community groups, businesses, community colleges, and other stakeholders. It is a comprehensive plan to make sure that new jobs created by Clean Energy Works Portland are high quality, career-track jobs that offer family-supporting wages and benefits, and that they go to local residents from diverse backgrounds.

"We wanted to have this project reflect some higher set of goals beyond just retrofitting homes and reducing carbon emissions," said Derek Smith of Portland's Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, the city's go-to person on the Clean Energy Works Portland program.

The program uses $2.5 million in Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds the city received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as seed money to start a revolving loan fund that will enable Portland homeowners to improve the energy efficiency of their homes at no up-front cost. The energy improvements that will be available to homeowners during the pilot phase of the program, which will cover 500 homes, include insulation, air sealing, duct sealing, and improvements to space heating and water heating systems.

The Energy Trust of Oregon will schedule home energy assessments for interested homeowners and help them choose the energy saving options that best meet their needs. To pay for the improvements, homeowners will receive low-interest, long-term loans and will pay them off via their monthly utility bills.

Once the pilot phase is completed next summer, some 100,000 homes in Multnomah County, which encompasses the city of Portland, could qualify for the program.

A state law, Oregon's Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Technology Act of 2009 (HB 2626), made the Portland financing mechanism possible. "Portland is the first pilot project for this new statewide, low-interest loan program for weatherization work that you can pay back on your utility bill. That's how we're going to spread this idea around the state," said Barbara Byrd, who wears many hats in Oregon, including secretary-treasurer of the Oregon AFL-CIO and coordinator of the Oregon Apollo Alliance, which strongly supported passage of HB 2626.

Fifty-five direct jobs will be created by the pilot program, but many more are expected to be created after the pilot phase. In order to make sure those jobs will have good wages and benefits and be accessible to community members with previous barriers to employment, the city pulled together approximately 60 stakeholders to develop a Community Workforce Agreement that would complement Clean Energy Works.

Smith of the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability said he got the idea to bring labor and training standards and community benefits into the program from being part of the Green For All "community of practice." The community of practice connects people throughout the United States who are working on green jobs programs and helps them share their learning experiences with others in the field. Green For All is a partner in Clean Energy Works Portland, along with the Energy Trust of Oregon, Portland General Electric and others.

Maurice Rahming, president of the National Association of Minority Contractors of Oregon, participated in the Clean Energy Works Portland stakeholder meetings that culminated in the Community Workforce Agreement. "I think it's a tribute to the mayor that he got minority contractors involved early on, rather than having them involved at the very tail end. It shows he's looking to diversify the contracting pool," Rahming said.

"Construction isn't always the most diverse workforce that's out there, and we wanted to set up an understanding that let's have the workforce and the contractors reflect the city of Portland," he added.

In addition to minority contractors, the stakeholder meetings included many groups that offer pre-apprenticeship training to prepare people in basic work skills so that they can then enter training programs that teach skills specific to an occupation. These groups included the Native American Youth and Family Center, which offers employment training courses to Native Americans; and Oregon Tradeswomen, which offers women training courses to prepare them to enter the building and construction trades. Pre-apprenticeship training programs like these will funnel participants into weatherization technician training courses linked to Clean Energy Works Portland.

Many labor unions also participated in the development of the Community Workforce Agreement, including the Laborers union, which is about to begin offering training courses in weatherization that will be available to graduates of the pre-apprenticeship programs described above. "A part of what we wanted to see [in the Community Workforce Agreement] was that people were going to get quality training, because then they're going to come into the market with better skills, and that's a chance for them to get their wages up," said Al Davita, the training director of the Laborers Training Program in Oregon and southern Idaho.

Davita said the Laborers will be providing three levels of training in weatherization-an 80-hour entry-level class for weatherization installers/technicians that will require 80 hours in general residential construction to get into the class; a 40-hour weatherization supervisor training; and a 40-hour energy auditor training. This means that trainees who become weatherization technicians through Clean Energy Works Portland will be able to move into other careers with additional training.

"Our plan is to recruit people who are out of work, give them quality training so they can go out and do this work, but also give them a career pathway so that they can potentially stay in weatherization for the next 20 years or may be able to move into commercial building construction or demolition, where the wages are higher. So we're looking to give people the chance to change their lives," Davita said.

After five weeks of meetings, the stakeholders came to consensus on a Community Workforce Agreement for the Clean Energy Works Portland pilot program that lays out requirements for worker training, wages and benefits, local hiring, contractor standards and more. Key goals and targets of the agreement, which was passed by the Portland City Council on September 30, include:

Local hire: at least 80 percent of employees used in the pilot program will be hired from the local workforce.

Family-supporting jobs: workers will earn no less than 180 percent of the state minimum wage.

Diverse workforce: historically disadvantaged or underrepresented people, including people of color, women, and low-income city residents, will perform at least 30 percent of total trades and technical project hours.

Diverse business participation: twenty percent of the dollars that flow through the project will go to businesses owned by historically disadvantaged or underrepresented people.

Prevailing wage: contractors will pay wages that are at least 180 percent of Oregon state minimum wage or the prevailing wage for weatherization work, whichever is higher.

Worker training: contractors will hire 100 percent of new weatherization employees from designated training programs until 50 percent of the contractor's non-supervisory work hours are performed by these training program graduates.

Labor peace: contractors will sign a labor peace agreement that includes a majority sign-up provision (meaning that contractors will respect the will of the workers if a majority of them signs up to form a labor union).

The Community Workforce Agreement also sets up a system of "best value contracting," which means that contractors wishing to join the pool of qualified contractors for the Clean Energy Works Portland program will be scored on a range of attributes. They will earn points for having a successful track record of hiring and retaining historically disadvantaged people; having a plan for establishing sub-contracting relationships with businesses owned by people of color and women; and hiring graduates of pre-apprenticeship training programs, among other criteria.

Clean Energy Works Portland's criteria for qualified training programs requires the programs to have at least three defined partnerships with state recognized pre-apprenticeship programs or signatory community organizations that service underrepresented populations, and to make sure a majority of trainees are women, people of color, low-income people or people from disadvantaged communities.

"In Oregon, a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, Clean Energy Works Portland stands to provide a scalable national model by leveraging federal recovery dollars to put people back to work and achieve significant carbon reductions," said Portland Mayor Sam Adams. "With our community workforce agreement, we have the ability to promote social equity in a measurable way, providing an opportunity for under-employed youth and adults to gain career training in the sustainable building industry, and ensure that Portland stays at the forefront of the green economy."

For other cities that are considering designing programs similar to Portland's, several of the people who participated in the process that created the Community Workforce Agreement emphasized the importance of involving stakeholders early in the process. "My bottom line advice is that if you want to do this, you have to involve the stakeholders from the very beginning of the process," said Barbara Byrd. "It's not something the city can put together and ask people to sign on to. It was the involvement of the stakeholders that not only created the workforce agreement, but will also make sure it works."

Rahming said that the early involvement of minority contractors will help them be able to participate in the program. "In contracting, time is everything," Rahming said. "A lot of times, larger companies can put proposals together more quickly, because they have more staff. This time, because the project was presented to my contractors at the front end, it will allow them to be able to meet the wage and benefits and training requirements."

Now that the Community Workforce Agreement is in place and the pilot program has already begun converting loans for homeowners, some of the same people who were involved in the stakeholder process will oversee how the program is run.

"The side benefit of this whole effort is energizing a community," Smith told Oregon Live in a recent interview. "People are really interested in this. It's good for the economy. It's good for their home energy bills and (the environment). It seems like one of the promises of the new clean economy could be realized here."

For more information about Clean Energy Works Portland, go to www.cleanenergyworksportland.org.

Read the Community Workforce Agreement.

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

This post was co-written by Kathleen Ridihalgh, Senior Representative for the Sierra Club’s Northwest Region

The first three days of this week are seeing a slew of activities taking on coal. We have events in 25 states to counter the coal industry and cheer on clean energy investments. It’s all part of our National Day of Action, and there are events happening across the nation, including rallies, public hearings, coal deliveries to polluters, press conferences, brown bag lunches, coal tours, and town hall meetings. Our Campuses Beyond Coal campaign is holding photo petition events on a dozen campuses nationwide, calling on campus administrators to shut down old, dirty coal plants polluting those universities and the neighboring towns.

These events are all sending one message from coast to coast -- coal is dirty business, and we need clean energy. You should check the website to learn more about these creative events and see if there are any taking place near you.

As we watch activists in these states work together for clean energy, we want to highlight a few states taking steps in the right direction that we hope other states will emulate. The Governors of Washington (Chris Gregoire), Oregon (Ted Kulongoski) and Montana (Brian Schweitzer) have all committed their states to meeting climate goals and investing in a clean energy future.

Now these three governors can continue to lead the way and take another tangible action within the region that will make significant progress towards meeting those goals: Directing the Northwest Power and Planning Conservation Council’s (NWPCC -- the region's official power planning agency) latest power plan to phase out coal by 2020, assign a responsible cost to carbon pollution, and maintain high energy efficiency goals.

This may be the one action they can take that is solely under their power to deliver. And they can do it today. This would get the region on a path to reducing the emissions from our electricity by 77 percent and ensure a safer, cleaner, more reliable energy portfolio overall. NWPCC has even stated that "serious efforts to reduce or even stabilize CO2 production beyond 2005 will likely require replacing existing coal-fired power plants with low CO2-emitting resources."

Washington's Gregoire and Oregon's Kulongoski have made real progress and paved the way for meeting the climate challenge. The 6th Power Plan is an excellent opportunity for Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer to demonstrate a true commitment to meeting the scientific goals for climate change.

This step with the NWPCC would mesh well with the states’ actions thus far:

But this action with the NWPCC is something they can do in the Northwest to show the rest of the world that there is a better way. We urge the governors to stay true to their vision now with the NWPCC Power Plan -- they should improve the current plan by maintaining maximum energy efficiency goals, putting a price on carbon emissions, and stating, as a goal, the plan to move the region off coal power by 2020.

This would be the single most important step they can take to have any real chance of meeting their states goals and making real their personal commitment to this important issue.

If you’re in the Seattle area, you can help promote this idea of moving the region off coal at a rally on Wednesday night. Otherwise, be sure to find any National Day of Action events near you.

The NWPCC is also having hearings throughout the Northwest where you can make your voice heard for a Coal-Free Northwest:

Though it has spent millions on "clean" coal advertising, the truth is that the coal industry has for years actively fought against cleaning up the existing fleet of over 500 coal-fired power plants, some of them dating back to the Eisenhower Administration. The industry must stop trying to block common sense regulations and policies that will protect communities and the environment. Rather than seeing these efforts as a threat to jobs and the economy, such regulations are the path forward to protect people’s livelihoods. Strong regulations put us on a path to cleaner technology that boosts economic growth, creates jobs and protects the planet. 

We didn't use to have a choice about how to power America. Today we can do better.  It's time to clean up pollution from coal and build the clean energy economy.

Related Links:

Prologue to Copenhagen

Vinod Khosla Nonesense

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) won his 2008 race against 40-year Republican incumbent Gordon Smith in a squeaker, with a margin of just 3%. Despite the narrow win, Merkley has come out swinging on climate and energy issues, securing an appointment to the Environment & Public Works Committee, sponsoring or co-sponsoring a series of clean energy bills and amendments, and generally staking out -- with compatriot Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) -- the left edge of the climate bill debate. (Grist interviewed Merkley last July.)

Sen. Merkley was kind enough to answer a couple of questions from Grist about the upcoming Senate battle over the climate bill:

Here's the transcript:

Introduction: Greetings! I want to take just a few minutes to answer some questions from David Roberts from Grist. Now, David has some questions about our upcoming climate legislation.

Q: The first is: What are the most important ways to strengthen the climate bill that came out of the House?

A: Well, the first key thing is to strengthen the pollution-reduction target. We need to have at least a 20 percent reduction by 2020. Second is, we really need to focus on reducing the most polluting technologies, such as the current use of dirty coal technology. Third, we need to improve the integrity of our offsets. And fourth, we need to reduce the temptations to have speculation enter in to the trading regime. So those are all ways that we need to strengthen the legislation from the House.

Q: And the second question from David is: Is there any policy or provision in the climate bill that can serve as a rallying point for progressive organizing and advocacy?

A: Certainly I think one key thing that I would encourage folks to focus on is renewable energy standard. Because this is really about substituting green renewable energy, wind, and wave, and solar and geothermal, for the carbon-based energy that we are currently using. Right now, we are bringing a lot of fossil energy out of the ground. We're burning it, it creates carbon dioxide; we break that through these renewable energies. Having a very strong standard, and implementing it as quickly as possible, would be a huge rallying point that would create not only a lot of clean energy, but a tremendous number of clean energy jobs which would be great for recovering our economy, and strengthening the financial foundation of our families.

Conclusion: So I want to thank David for his questions, and thank all of you for caring so much about the stewardship of our planet, about the reduction of our dependence on foreign oil, and about creating a strong clean economy. Thank you.

A few notes on items Sen. Merkley mentioned:

As far as raising the 2020 targets: In addition to Merkley, several senators on the Environment & Public Works Committee have called for raising the 2020 targets from 17% to 20% (below 2005 levels), including Whitehouse, Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). This will be a heavy lift on the Senate floor, where many coal-state Dems are leery even of the weak targets in the House's Waxman-Markey bill.

Note the second item on his list: reducing the use of dirty coal. This seems crushingly obvious, but you almost never hear a member of Congress explicitly calling out coal as a climate culprit. The entire dance of the bill through Congress thus far has been about how to help coal and insure its future. It's nice to hear someone acknowledge the elephant in the room.

On the third item -- insuring the integrity of offsets -- we need to hear more. This is a contentious subject among environmentalists. Just last week Friends of the Earth released a report calling offsets a "dangerous distraction." Since offsets are currently playing an important cost-containment role in the bill, the number available is unlikely to decrease. It may increase. Strict integrity controls will be crucial. There are actually some great measures in Waxman-Markey to regulate offsets, but the issue could always stand more scrutiny.

On the fourth item -- worries about speculation in carbon markets -- readers know I'm with Kevin Drum (i.e., skeptical). I just don't think it's very high on the list of worries. But of course responsible regulation of markets is always good, and the measures proposed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) seem solid. Boxer has said that she'll include them in her bill.

As for the answer to the second question, Merkley is dead on. One thing progressives have lacked in the climate fight is something analogous to the public option in the health care debate -- a single rallying point around which progressives can organize and advocate. Without those bright lines, it's incredibly hard to activate people. I've had debates with various folks about what the rallying point should be on the climate bill, but I've always believed the best place to focus is the renewable energy standard (RES). The public understands clean energy, and they support it in overwhelming numbers. The RES was weakened in the House energy committee but could be strengthened in the Senate -- this is a winnable fight, on the right side of public opinion.

Anyway, many thanks to Sen. Merkley for answering our questions. We hope this will be an ongoing dialogue.

Related Links:

December 19—the day after COP15

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

State of the Climate Movement: Can fasting and asceticism save the world?

Owners of forestland in the Pacific NW could benefit more under a national carbon offsets system, as trees common to the region store more carbon per acre than East Coast species. Pictured: Douglas firs in an Oregon forest.Courtesy Ecotrust's sbeebe via FlickrThough most people probably think of national parks when they think of forests, more than half of the 750 million acres of forestland in the United States is actually privately owned, much of it by individuals and families, according to the American Forest Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy organization.

Together, these trees suck up about 10 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions annually, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, a portion that could double to almost 20 percent with increased sustainable management practices like replanting cut trees and lengthening cut rotations.

But many of these family-owned lands are small -- a few hundred acres in size. Alone, these small plots don't sequester much carbon. This makes it difficult for forest owners to participate in voluntary carbon markets, which typically trade carbon by the tens of thousands of tons. In addition, private owners often can't afford to inventory and verify the amount of carbon sequestered by their forest on their own.

That's why there's growing interest in packaging small parcels of forestland into carbon portfolios that can then be traded competitively on voluntary markets.

Woodlands Carbon Company, an Oregon-based pilot project funded by the American Forest Foundation, is just one so-called aggregator looking to pool the carbon trading power of forest owners. It focuses specifically on West Coast clients, who are especially primed to benefit from carbon offsets with lands planted with trees like Douglas Fir and Hemlock Spruce that can sequester more than 1,000 metric tons of CO2 per acre over a 125-year period. Its sister organization, CarbonTree, focuses on the East Coast.

"We bundle all of the smaller woodland owners together so that they can get access to these markets," says Mike Gaudern, chief executive of Woodlands Carbon. "They wouldn't have access to these markets unless they had an aggregator to work on their behalf."

Special Series: What's the deal with offsets?Photo illustration by Tom Twigg / GristParticipating in the carbon offset market can be technically challenging, so companies like Woodlands help educate private landowners and foresters through informational workshops that walk potential clients through the many steps of carbon trading. In July, Woodlands hosted two workshops where 120 landowners and foresters came from Oregon, Washington and even California.

"It was a pretty successful event," says Gaudern. "There were landowners there that represented close to 60,000 acres of forestland that will be immediately eligible for carbon offset trading."

In addition, Woodlands offers revolving loans for landowners to complete their carbon inventories, which landowners then pay back through carbon sales.

Woodlands plans to have its first bundle of carbon offsets ready to sell by the end of the fall, most likely either over-the-counter or through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which requires landowners to sign a contract attesting that the land will be maintained as forest for at least 15 years.

Approximately 9,000 individual farmers, ranchers and forest owners are currently enrolled in CCX, according to Brookly McLaughlin, director of communications for the exchange. Together, they have earned approximately 16.4 million metric tons of offsets since the program's inception in 2003.

The short-term contracts appeal to Ken Faulk, president of the Oregon Small Woodlands Association, because he believes that the focus should be on reducing carbon emissions in the short term. Faulk owns 155 acres in the Willamette Valley in Oregon and is currently inventorying his forest so he can sell carbon offsets through Woodlands Carbon.

"If people truly believe that we're going to be on a fossil fuel economy for the next 100 years, then maybe we should be worried about putting carbon away in the trees for a 100-year rotation," says Faulk. "But I think our goal should be to get the most carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as soon as we can."

Clint Bentz, an Oregon family forest landowner and chairman of the Oregon Tree Farm System, also believes short-term contracts are the way to go.

"We think the shorter time frame is not only more palatable to the landowners, it's also more valuable because it keeps everybody's attention," says Bentz. "Keeping everybody's feet to the fire with these shorter contracts works better with human nature."

Carbon offsets also provide an additional revenue stream for landowners feeling the squeeze of falling timber prices.

"Nobody's going to get rich off of carbon offsets, but it's a real help," says Bentz. "Recognizing these ecosystem services [like carbon sequestration] is one of the bright lights that we're seeing to help offset the costs of sustainably managing forests."

Of course, as long as the price of carbon remains low, many landowners are holding off in the hopes that a national climate law would spur prices.

"For most people who do the math if they're actually in the sustainable forestry business, they're going to stay in the timber business and not the carbon business right now," says Bill Stewart, a forestry specialist at the University of California Cooperative Extension.

Still, some private owners are getting a head start on the offset market now, before carbon legislation is passed. "We see it as trying to get ready to have these offsets available in any future federal legislation and to have the infrastructure in place to make this work for landowners," says Ted Dodge, executive director of the National Carbon Offset Coalition and Woodlands' carbon broker.

But not everyone agrees that short-term contracts will best benefit the planet, in part because landowners could clear cut their trees after the contract expires. Ecotrust, an environmental organization based in Portland, Ore., is hoping that any federal legislation for carbon offsets would include strict regulations and long-term contracts similar to the Climate Action Reserve's (CAR) protocols, a carbon market that began in California and is now looking to go national.

"Climate Action Reserve's protocols that are being developed are much more rigorous [than CCX's] in terms of permanence and additionality," explains Brent Davies, director of forestry for Ecotrust. Additionality means that the project wouldn't have happened without carbon offset funds.

For example, CAR's standards require that forest owners agree to a permanent conservation easement, a legal agreement that requires owners to permanently give up land development rights. But since many private owners aren't willing to make that commitment, CAR is considering substituting the conservation easement requirement for a 100-year contract.

"We found that the 100-year contract is more acceptable to private landowners who don't want to necessarily bind their great, great grandchildren to this requirement," explains Gary Gero, president of CAR. The California Air Resources Board will vote on the new draft in September.

David Eisler, a landowner in the coast range of Oregon, is looking for the sort of long-term contract that CAR offers because he wants to guarantee that his forest stewardship practices will continue after he passes. He is working with Ecotrust on carbon credit possibilities for his property, an 80-acre tract of land that serves as habitat for spotted owls and endangered coho salmon.

"Our efforts to really protect some of this high quality forestland and ancient trees could be gone in a blink once the property changes hands," says Eisler. "That's why I'm looking for a conservation easement, but I'm also looking to carbon credits to commit to very long term forest stand."

Peter Hayes, a landowner who manages about 800 acres in the Northern Oregon Coast Range, is also looking to sell carbon credits on a long-term basis, but says he has yet to find a carbon offset project that fully meets his family's stringent conservation goals.

"Our approach is to be eagerly involved in understanding and following what's going on, but constructively skeptical and critical before we choose to commit our land long term," says Hayes.

Because opinions on carbon offsets are akin to the number of leaves on a branch, one solution may be to include a broad range of options for carbon offsets in the new carbon legislation. By casting a wide net, more people will be able to participate, which will therefore bring in the largest amount of carbon.

"I don't think it should be either/or situation," says David Ford, executive director of the Oregon Small Woodlands Association. "We have a rather large problem. We're not going to solve it with a narrow solution."

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

December 19—the day after COP15

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

Related Links:

Energy Trust and the Big Hope

Weatherizing Portland

National Day of Action Against Coal

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) made one thing clear on Friday: he's just not that into the cap-and-trade legislation under debate in the House.

Peter DeFazio was first elected to the House in 1986. He represents Oregon's 4th district in the southwestern part of the state.Courtesy Rep. DeFazioIn a speech in Portland, DeFazio decried the focus on creating a market-based system for trading pollution-credits and permitting a substantial use of carbon offsets.

"There’s an unholy alliance of big business, some environmental groups and Wall Street" backing cap-and-trade, said DeFazio, comparing the scheme to the deregulation of the electricity markets that ultimately led to soaring rates in some states. "Wall Street is excited about another thinly regulated market."

A system that caps emissions and allows companies to trade pollution permits would enable financial gamesmanship but do little for the environment, according to DeFazio, who penned an op-ed making similar allegations back in January. Instead, he just wants there to be a cap on carbon, and polluters should be forced to stay under that limit. If they exceed the limit, they should be fined aggressively, he said.

It remains an open question whether DeFazio plans to vote against the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is expected to come up for floor debate in the House very soon. Much has been made about opposition to the bill from Republicans and agriculture-state Democrats, but DeFazio is one of the most vocal opponents among more liberal Democrats. He'll be an interesting player to watch, and we hope to have more on his views soon.

In the meantime, here's a message posted on his website back in April highlighting his thoughts on the subject:

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Q. Hi Umbra,

You've made several mentions of living off the grid in previous columns, and I was wondering where someone should find such things? It seems as though there are secret communities and communes that everyone seems to know about but me. How would you find an off the grid community, or go about living off the grid yourself?

Anica
Corvallis, Ore.

A. Dearest Anica,

No one is hiding anything from you, don't worry. You just haven't met any off-the-grid folks. By the way, if you do find anything that could qualify as a secret community, off the grid or no, I would bicycle fast in the other direction. Especially in Oregon or Southwest Washington.

Grid expectations.iStockYou have two distinct questions, but of course pursuing either may result in an answer to both. Living off the grid mainly refers to finding some way to produce your own electricity and hence eschew reliance on the public electric grid. This is done firstly through reducing the need for electricity, and secondly through alternative power generation via wind, solar, or hydro. So, to go about living off the grid, I would start researching the potential for wind, solar, or hydroelectric power at my own home. If I were a renter, I would start looking for a home to buy in an area where one of these things was possible. I wrote about micro-wind and solar some time ago, and mayhap it will soon be time for this column to touch on microhydro as a home power source.

Meanwhile, let's say you do own a home, and you want to start researching whether you can afford a solar array, or put up a wind turbine. You can start with my old columns, which could give you some basics on whether you have enough sun or space for a turbine, but then I would immediately start an internet hunt for solar interest groups or vendors in Oregon in general, and in Portland, Corvallis, and Eugene. I would also keep a sharp eye out at co-ops, natural food stores, libraries, and other places frequented by well-meaning environmentalists who like to post fliers, and I would read those very fliers, hoping for workshops about anything related to off-the-grid living.

The larger "off-the-grid" scene could include workshops on growing your own food, raising your own animals, serious energy conservation, home energy efficiency ... things like that. I would go to available workshops, or events, or festivals, and if I were feeling less shy than usual, I might even work up the nerve to talk to someone who looked friendly. If there were a solid-looking solar or wind group on the internet, I might pump myself up to give them a phone call and start getting information. If you want to meet likeminded people, workshops are a good place to start, whether or not they are directly related to your specific needs. Eventually you'll meet enough people, and they'll know people, and you'll find that the secret club has let you in.

In terms of entire communities living off the grid, or at least less reliant on the grid: if the word of mouth and flier technique above does not lead you to them, then you'll need to formally look for "intentional communities" that have an off-the-grid focus. Start with Communities Magazine and see where it takes you. Some of those Oregon intentional communities could be pretty darn fun to visit (this one has hot springs).

One crazy human wonderful thing I learned about over the winter is kind of related to off-the-grid communities: the Haul of Justice. It's a group of bicycling volunteers who originally joined together in Eugene and now do yearly rides in various parts of the country, helping anyone who needs assistance. Thanks to my off-the-grid, intentionally communitizing best bud for the inspiring reading about these bicycling wonders, who are now in their own off-the-grid community in Missouri. See, it's no secret cabal, it's just human connection -- I know my friend, she knows all these people ... you will soon know such people too.

Best of luck in your quest for an ungridded life.

Zingily,
Umbra

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

India aims for 20 gigawatts solar by 2022

The Ivy League is the greenest of them all, according to the EPA, which today announced the college and university winners of the Green Power challenge -- a competition to motivate American schools to purchase more renewable energy. Participating schools compete within their athletic conferences to purchase the most certified green power, but conferences only qualify if each purchases more than 10 million kWh in aggregate. 

University of Washington.The Ivies, anchored by University of Pennsylvania's purchase of 192 million kWh, chalked up the best conference performance, purchasing a total of 225 million kWh of green power. Here in the Pacific Northwest, four colleges and universities bested their respective conferences: Oregon State University (Pacific-10), Western Washington University (Great Northwest Athletic Conference), The Evergreen State College (Cascade Collegiate Conference), and Pacific Lutheran University (Northwest Conference).

But as remarkable as these collegiate green-power investments are, the competition itself is a bit thin.  For instance, participation in this challenge is voluntary, so even though Oregon State won in the Pac-10, it only had to beat the University of Washington and Stanford University's Synergy House, a cooperative living residence. Other major Pac-10 schools such as USC, UCLA, and Arizona State did not participate.

What's more, the competition results are misleading. UW is only recognized for a purchase of 14.9 million kWh of green power, even though the university is entirely powered by a portfolio of carbon-free electricity.  John Chapman, director of campus engineering and operations, explained that 94 percent of UW's power comes from hydropower, which the EPA does not count as green.  The 6 percent the EPA does credit comes from the the renewable energy certificates that the university purchases to compensate for the portion of its utility's electricity portfolio that is fossil-fuel derived.

"We are completely powered by renewable energy and carbon-neutral electricity, but the EPA does not count hydro, and it does not look kindly on utility-purchased electricity," said Chapman.  "They want you to buy the credits and certificates."

Oregon State's win comes from its purchase of renewable energy certificates for 75 percent of the university's need. "We buy 75 percent of our power in renewable energy certificates from the Bonneville Environmental Foundation.  It's mostly windpower," said Brandon Trelstad, sustainability coordinator for Oregon State.

But the Green Power challenge wasn't a motivating factor Oregon State's win.  The university won in 2008 with the exact same amount of green power  (66.7 million kWh), as it did this year. The green-power investment is primarily funded (and limited) by a student fee of $8.50 per student per term, which was voted on by the student body in the spring of 2007.

"Nothing really significant has chaged in our power purchasing," said Trelstad.

Like Oregon State, it seems that most collegiate winners were celebrated for doing what they were already doing. Overall winner U. Penn. purchased over 192 million kWh of green power to win this year, but the Ivy League leader posted the exact same amount in 2008 [PDF]. In the three years that the challenge has run, the overall purchasing leaders have stayed the same -- U. Penn., New York University, and Penn State -- with little variability elsewhere in the field of competitors (see 2007 results [PDF]). So what good is a Green Power challenge that fails to motivate colleges to actually green their power purchasing habits?

I would have liked to pose this question to the EPA, but the contact did not return my calls.

The Green Power challenge is one of many tools with which to rank the greeniness of colleges and universities in the U.S. For more info, check out America's Greenest Campus, the Princeton Review's green rating honor roll, and Grist's list of the 15 greenest colleges.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

Recently I've been flogging the concept of a mileage tax, a system of per-mile road usage fees that over time can replace our dysfunctional gasoline tax as a way of funding transportation infrastructure. Although people have raised a lot of interesting objections, I'd like for now to skip ahead and simply describe Oregon's successful experiment with a mileage tax. A single real-world example can be a lot more illuminating than an entire internet's worth of abstract debate.

Way back in 2001, Oregon recognized the problem that many state legislatures are now staring down: gas tax revenue is falling inexorably as vehicles become more fuel-efficient, threatening transportation budgets. The state launched a task force that investigated 28 alternative funding mechanisms before selecting a mileage tax as the one that best met a wide range of criteria: fairness, efficacy, ease of implementation, public acceptance, enforceability, privacy protection, etc.

In 2006, the state recruited 299 volunteers for participation in a year-long trial of a prototype system. Because any real-world mileage tax will be phased in over a long period of time, it has to harmonize with the existing gas tax. The Oregon experiment neatly solved this problem with a pay-at-the-pump system:

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has compiled a 100-page report on the experiment [PDF] that covers a lot of ground, but basically describes the trial as a roaring success. Note several features of this system:

Technically, the system worked. Just as importantly, public acceptance was high; 91 percent of test participants preferred the system to paying gas taxes. Obviously this was a self-selected group of people, but the broader public response was equally telling. Before the experiment began, media portrayals of the system were almost uniformly negative -- and inaccurate. By the middle of 2006, media coverage ranged from neutral to positive, and were far more accurate. Citizen comment reflected this broader trend. ODOT concludes, "Effective communication can lead to public acceptance."

Perhaps most exciting from an environmental perspective are the ancillary benefits that such a system can provide. Halfway through the experiment, ODOT divided participants into two groups (plus a control group). One group paid a flat per-mile fee. The other paid a congestion fee of 10 cents per mile during peak driving times in the Portland metropolitan area. The congestion fee was separately itemized on participants' fuel receipts.

It turns out that all participants reduced their driving relative to the control group -- a somewhat surprising finding, because the mileage tax was designed to be revenue neutral. Anecdotally, many participants reported changing their driving habits in response to the GPS mileage displays in their cars. "One person commented that she began walking to neighborhood places when she realized by looking at the display how short the distance from her home actually was. Other people said they began organizing short trips from home to consolidate to one trip."

The results among the congestion-fee group were even more dramatic. These participants dropped their peak hour driving by 22 percent compared to the control. And this group also reduced their total driving by more than the flat-fee group, indicating that they didn't just shift their driving to other times.

These results are preliminary, but suggestive. And they only scratch the surface of the possibilities opened up by a mileage-based pricing system. As the report notes, the system could provide a powerful tool to "metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) looking for fair and stable means to fund regional plans, manage growth, contain air pollution and support better land use decisions."

Oregon currently faces a $10 billion dollar revenue shortfall for transportation financing. Earlier this year, the governor of Oregon called for state-wide implementation of a mileage tax.

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Oregon is struggling to undo bad ethanol legislation.

Meanwhile, the Oregon Environmental Council continues to shill for ethanol subsidies because there might someday be a magic pony of ethanol created in an entirely different way, using entirely different plants and processes, and if we don't support agribusiness with subsidies and mandates now, why, why, they won't try to find this magic pony any more!

It's truly pitiful -- pathetic even -- when the so-called environmentalists are more concerned with keeping the subsidies flowing to agribusiness than anyone else.

Related Links:

EPA punts on raising ethanol “blend wall”

More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted

Energy Trust and the Big Hope

Over the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of hand-wringing about the state of climate policy in the Northwest. Washington's citizen-backed renewable energy standard is in jeopardy and neither Oregon nor Washington appears close to implementing the Western Climate Initiative. Even British Columbia's pioneering carbon tax is taking fire.

Freak out! Everybody panic!

Or not. If you take a sober look at regional climate policy, you'll see that it's still percolating.

Yes, it's true: things are not as good as we would like. Legislative prospects for regional cap and trade this year look dim. For the past six months, we have been hoping that the three Northwest jurisdictions -- BC, Oregon, and Washington -- would sign off on the recommendations of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), kick-starting what would be the most comprehensive and progressive carbon pricing program anywhere on earth. Don't lose sight of that: WCI would be the best carbon-reduction plan anywhere in the world. We haven't exactly set a low bar for progress.

(Actually, we have been aiming at an even higher bar. We wanted the Northwest jurisdictions to improve upon the WCI, enhancing equity through full auctioning plus rebates targeted at lower income families.)

In case the Eeyores haven't noticed, the legislature is still in session in Oregon and Washington. And anyone who knows anything about politics knows that it's tough to know anything about politics. Things can change quickly and unexpectedly -- and many of us are still working hard to see WCI become a reality in the Northwest. So let's not start the Monday-morning quarterbacking while there's still time left on the clock.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski remains determined to leave a green legacy, one that includes cap and trade. And this week Washington Governor Christine Gregoire took the unusual step of testifying before a House committee, urging lawmakers to move toward WCI's cap and trade program. Whatever else happens this session, you can bet that Governor Gregoire hasn't played all her cards yet. And if you want to see how serious she is, here's the governor saying in unequivocal terms that she will be fighting for the bill:

You may recall that last year, late in the session, she marched in to arm-wrestle state leaders into signing off on HB 2815. It was a landmark piece of legislation that set Washington's climate targets into law, among other things.

In part, Governor Gregoire's appearance in the House may have been in response to a week's worth of blistering editorials from the state's most respected newspapers, including the Olympian, the Seattle Times, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer(pause for reverential silence). Here's a sample from the Everett Herald:

Take a moment to grok that. We're at a place now where newspaper boards across the state are demanding answers. They want to know why don't we have WCI's cap and trade already.

Astonishing!I should know. My job includes talking to journalists and opinion leaders and I can personally attest that a few months ago, cap and trade did not event register as a faint blip on the radar screens of many major Northwest scribes. And legislators? In preliminary conversations, I considered someone to be on the informed end of the spectrum if he or she had even passing familiarity with the term "cap and trade."

Nowadays, editorial boards are demanding cap and trade. What's more -- in fact, what's most impressive --is that they understand the details. They want assurances about the features of policy design that wonks like me stay up late worrying about, things like auctioning rules, emissions thresholds, and secondary market governance. To me, this is almost as huge a turnaround as if my five-week-old son started sleeping through the night.

That's not all that's changed. Over the last year, climate advocates forced the hands of the region's biggest polluters. Scores of businesses, utilities, and local governments have put themselves on record asking that cap-and-trade programs include transportation fuels, the single largest source of emissions in the Northwest. (Here's one list. Here's another.) Including transportation fuels is a huge win for comprehensive carbon limits; one that will not go unnoticed by federal lawmakers -- especially when we tell them.

Perhaps even more importantly, during the debates in Olympia some of the most outspoken opponents went on the record opposing state policy on the grounds that they prefer uniform federal policy. (I'm looking at you, Western States Petroleum.) You can bet those endorsements of federal cap and trade will make their way to Washington, DC. (Hat tip to the Northwest's National Wildlife Federation office.)

The same sort of shift has occurred in Canada. Though British Columbia's well-crafted carbon tax has become a political liability for the ruling Liberal party in some parts of the province, it also appears to have borne fruit across the country. At the Canadian federal level, there's a robust discussion over whether the future holds carbon taxes or a North American-wide cap and trade program. Though Prime Minister Stephen Harper remains an obstacle, it appears the political tides may have turned, in part because of the four Canadian provinces that have joined the WCI, especially giants Ontario and Quebec, whichare moving to adopt a joint cap and trade program.

That's not to say there aren't lessons from the last half year. Foremost among these is my new axiom: "you can't predict the future."

Two big events changed everything. The first was the economic implosion. It's little wonder that state officials' attention has been diverted. They've already got plenty of fish to fry: multibillion dollar funding gaps that will scorch universities and pre-schools, social services and prisons, road repair and state parks. Given the economic context, the mere fact that the legislatures in Oregon and Washington are still considering putting a price on carbon is remarkable.

The second big event is Barack Obama. Obama winning the presidency was hardly a foregone conclusion in the months leading up to the election. Plus, as president, he's giving every indication that he'll go all-out to deliver comprehensive, fully auctioned cap and trade with built-in protections for working families.

Like two storm systems converging, Obama and the economy merged this winter. The result was to a vacuum that temporarily sucked the air out of regional carbon pricing.

Why temporarily? Because there's a corollary to my axiom about not being able to predict the future: "you still can't predict the future."

Yes, prospects seem improved for federal climate action, but we cannot know what will happen in Congress. Already eight centrist denators have raised red flags. And the opponents of carbon constraints are motivated, ruthless, and marinating in cash. So even in the Obama administration, national carbon limits may face an uphill battle.

If federal action loses steam, regional policy will return to the front burner. And there's a feedback loop. Part of the reason why federal legislation is finally cooking is because states and provinces including those in Cascadia have been successful in bringing regional carbon policy to a boil. Set WCI and the other regional programs aside to cool and federal lawmakers may suddenly lose interested in nationwide cap and trade.

Or it may be that federal climate policy is watered down, and regional programs can step up to more comprehensive and fairer versions of cap and trade. We just don't know how regional policy will interact with federal law. As I've said, you can't predict the future.

So chill out, hand-wringers! If WCI doesn't pass legislative muster this spring, I'll join you at the bar for an evening, but then it's right back to work in the morning. Even without a big win this spring, we're still making good progress.

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Are carbon taxes a viable option?

New nukes? A fair shot, not a free ride

The post on the mileage tax stirred up a lot of reaction, much of it negative. As it happens, the state of Oregon recently wrapped up a successful trial of a mileage tax system, so for the next few posts I'm going to be relying heavily on an excellent final report on the system (PDF) from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).

The primary objection to a mileage tax is that we already have one: it's called the gas tax, and it's easy to administer, fair, and has the added bonus of rewarding fuel-efficient vehicles and driving behavior. ODOT says, "From the standpoint of tax policy, the gas tax is close to perfection."

Or at least, it was close to perfection. It has one fatal flaw and a few subsidiary issues. Any discussion of the mileage tax must be grounded in an understanding of the gas tax's growing problems.

First, keep in mind that the gas tax is meant to raise funds for road infrastructure. Any environmental benefits are incidental. And with regard to its primary function, the gas tax is nearing the end of its useful life, because its tax base is steadily and inevitably dwindling. Cars have become more fuel-efficient -- as they must under the nation's CAFE laws -- and these efficiency gains will grow as hybrid electric and fully electric vehicles make up a greater proportion of the national fleet. States across the country today face budgetary shortfalls from this trend. ODOT says, "In about 10 to 15 years the state's gas tax revenues will enter permanent decline. While this crisis is only a few short years off, the pain of lost revenues has already begun." (Ten years might sound like a long time, but ODOT's plan for phasing in a mileage tax stretches all the way to 2040.)

Second, the environmental benefits of the gas tax are largely theoretical. The tax is too low to have much effect on either vehicle choice or driving behavior. According to ODOT, "the average passenger vehicle driving 12,000 miles per year only pays $12 in state gas tax per month," a tiny fraction of fuel cost, insurance cost, and vehicle cost. While it's great that a Hummer driver pays more in gas taxes than a Prius driver, a Hummer driver also pays a lot more for gas. In truth, neither driver is sweating the tax very much.

A sharp upward adjustment to the gas tax could address both these issues. Which brings us to the third problem: decades of experience show the near impossibility of raising the gas tax even to the extent necessary to match inflation. Last year, two of the three leading presidential candidates campaigned on a suspension of the gas tax -- and they weren't even from the same party. Politicians usually take the heat for this situation, but much blame lies with gas-obsessed voters.

Would a mileage tax address these issues? Clearly it addresses the first. The only source of revenue erosion under a mileage tax would be a drop in miles driven, which are far more stable over time than gallons purchased. Note that this issue alone dictates the eventual replacement of the gas tax.

Regarding the second issue, a mileage tax can easily be designed to reward vehicle fuel efficiency in the same manner that a gas tax does. In fact, more exotic mileage taxes can specifically target drivers who bear a disproportionate share of responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions or are most able to seek transportation alternatives -- say, people who drive gas guzzlers in urban centers. Will such a system be any better than a gas tax at encouraging conservation? Probably, and it's unlikely to be any worse.

Finally, will politicians be able to raise a mileage tax to keep revenue in line with expenditures? Uncertain. On the one hand, the level of emotion surrounding the gas tax springs in part from the high volatility of gas prices. Separating the road fee from the fuel bill might lower the temperature of this issue. On the other hand, Americans pretty much hate to pay for anything. At the very least, the lack of revenue erosion with a mileage tax will reduce the need for constant price hikes. Again, it seems unlikely that the new system could be worse than the old.

So the scorecard thus far is that a mileage tax corrects the huge, gaping flaw in the gas tax and performs at least as well on two secondary issues. Next up: the complexity issue.

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Related Links:

Prologue to Copenhagen

Vinod Khosla Nonesense

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Related Links:

Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?

Congressional watchdog issues update on coal ash regulation efforts

Energy Trust and the Big Hope

Related Links:

When will we stop paying the hidden fossil fuel tax?

Energy Trust and the Big Hope

Weatherizing Portland

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

Energy Trust and the Big Hope

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Oregon's governor on Monday unveiled an ambitious plan to attack climate change. Under Gov. Ted Kulongoski's (D) vision, which will be taken up by the state legislature, homes and buildings will produce net-zero emissions by 2030; a $5,000 tax credit for all-electric cars will replace an existing $1,500 credit for hybrids; and energy efficiency will be funded in 800 low-income homes per year. Kickin' it carbon-cutting style with the Western Climate Initiative, Oregon will also cap and trade its industrial greenhouse-gas emissions by 2012.

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity