BP Solar to close in 2012

BP Solar will close its Frederick operation early next year, and many of its 80 employees may lose their jobs.

The company has moved its headquarters to Houston, where BP America has its main offices.

The BP Solar building, a familiar landmark from I-70 with its solar-panel-covered roof, will be put on the market.

Company spokesman Pete Resler said Tuesday that BP Solar will close out operations at the Ballenger Creek Pike building by the end of the first quarter of 2012. Resler said the move is part of a major restructuring of BP America and its alternative energy operations.

Some of the 80 employees at the facility, primarily in marketing and research, will be offered jobs in Houston. Resler did not have the specific number of positions that would be available at the Texas headquarters.

“It will result in a better strategic position for the future, but it means eliminating some jobs,” Resler said.

In March, BP Solar cut 320 jobs at the Frederick site when it moved its manufacturing operations to other countries, including China.

Details Here

first published week of:   07/25/2011

California Kicks Off Carbon Market

When it comes to buying and selling carbon credits, California is about to kick off. But will the new cap–and–trade program just adopted there promote cutting edge investments or will it cost jobs?

Many businesses and some environmentalists have argued that forcing reductions in carbon emissions through a free market trading program will cause industry to move out–of–state and hurt poorer communities, respectively. But the California Air Resources Board has voted unanimously to enact such a cap–and–trade program that is expected to cover 85 percent of the state’s emission sources –– compelled by the argument that it will be healthier for both the economy and environment.

“To be successful over the long–term, this program is going to have to deliver demonstrable benefits for Californians –– benefits that we (not only) can see in terms of the environment and air quality, but also benefits that we can see in terms of economic development, job creation, cleaner energy and transportation infrastructure,” says Mary Nichols, chair of the California board.

Enacting the cap–and–trade provision is an extension of the 2006 state law that requires about 600 facilities there to reduce their carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. That’s roughly a 25 percent cut. Next year, the state will begin auctioning off some of the credits, although it will give away 90 percent of them to get the trading scheme off the ground. By 2016, it will be in full force and is expected to be $10 billion market –– the biggest in North America.

Details Here

first published week of:   11/07/2011

California looks to protect smart meter data

California’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has proposed a new set of rules for protecting the security and privacy of consumer data collected by the state’s utility companies via new smart metering technology. The proposal aims to secure customer usage data collected by smart meters deployed by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison. The rules would also cover all contractors and other third parties that work with utility companies in the state and have access to the usage data. A 143-page document detailing the proposed rules was released by the utilities commission earlier this month and is open for public comment until the end of May. If the rules are adopted, California would become the first state to implement standards for protecting the privacy of data collected by smart meters. The U.S. Department of Energy, along with several privacy groups have issued warnings about privacy risks posed by the collection and use of electricity usage data from smart meters. Smart meters, designed to collect energy consumption data from homes and to transmit it back to power distribution companies for billing, network, and demand management purposes, are a crucial component of the smart grid.

Details Here

first published week of:   05/30/2011

California nukes take precautions after Japan tsunami

PG&E Corp declared an “unusual event” at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in Avila Beach, California due to a tsunami warning, which is a normal operating procedure, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) spokesman told Reuters March 11. The warning followed the massive earthquake and tsunami off the coast of Japan. The spokesman said there was nothing wrong with the plant, but a tsunami warning is something that requires the plant to issue an unusual event. The same thing would happen if, for instance, there was a tornado in the general area or an earthquake in Mexico. It merely puts plant workers on alert to prepare for the unusual. Both reactors at Diablo Canyon were operating normally and at full capacity. The NRC spokesman said the reactors were designed to deal with the big wave expected to reach California later March 11. NRC also said Edison International’s San Onofre nuclear plant near San Clemente, was monitoring the tsunami but was only under a tsunami watch.

Details Here

first published week of:   03/14/2011

Can the Courts order Carbon Cuts?
Supreme Court to decide the issue

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case over whether the judicial branch can essentially impose carbon limits on companies. The utility world is gleeful but should it be?

The crux of the argument that the utilities are making is that these matters should be left to elected officials and regulators. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already been given the authority to monitor the carbon emissions from power plants, which it is now trying to do.

Understandably, power companies don’t want judges telling them how to operate their plants. But they have been just adamant about having the EPA set new rules and regulations.

“Public nuisance law would be an unwelcome, unpredictable and unwieldy addition to the utility regulatory landscape,” says Christine Tezak, an analyst for Baird & Co. “It is better for the industry if the EPA or Congress manages this issue, instead of the courts.”

The case dates back to 2004 and is known as American Electric Power v. Connecticut. Here, several states, the city of New York and some interest groups said that coal-burning utilities were contributing to global warming and should therefore be liable under public nuisance laws. A district court threw out the suit, which was then taken to an appeals court. In 2009, that higher court said the matter could go forward.

That’s when the utilities in question - AEP, Duke Energy, Southern Co., the Tennessee Valley Authority and Xcel Energy - appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The High Court said it would hear those arguments in a case expected to begin in March 2011. The power companies say that these environmental issues should not be left to judges; rather, they should be decided by legislators who would abide by the Clean Air Act.

Details Here

first published week of:   01/17/2011

Carbon Capture may be Buried
AEP at the vortex of debate

Coal’s salvation may be lost. Now that American Electric Power, the biggest burner of coal-fired power in the United States, has decided to delay its critical carbon sequestration venture, the coal sector has taken a powerful blow.

The Columbus, Ohio-based utility says that it has chosen to pull back because of the high price of the tools that would be used to capture the carbon before it would be piped and buried in geological formations. That fact, coupled with the prevailing political landscape, means that it would be unable to recover its expenses from ratepayers.

The $668 million dollar project had been scheduled over four phases. AEP will complete the engineering phase, or part one. But it will not proceed any further, citing the current political climate and noting that carbon would have to be priced at $100 a ton to make it possible. The U.S. Department of Energy was supposed to ante up half of the overall cost, although it still says that money is available to other utilities willing to advance carbon capture and sequestration that is key to coal’s future.

“The commercialization of this technology is vital if owners of coal-fueled generation are to comply with potential future climate regulations without prematurely retiring efficient, cost-effective generating capacity,” says Michael Morris, chief executive of AEP. “But as a regulated utility, it is impossible to gain regulatory approval to recover our share of the costs for validating and deploying the technology without federal requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions already in place. The uncertainty also makes it difficult to attract partners to help fund the industry’s share.”

Details Here

first published week of:   07/25/2011

Volume 31

-->