The Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) just released the results of a comprehensive study on how to improve industrial energy efficiency. It makes an important point: it pays to invest in recycled energy.

Conducted by Keybridge Research and the University of Maryland’s Inforum Modeling Project, the study looked at IECA’s Sustainable Manufacturing & Growth Initiative policy recommendations, which include investment tax credits for combined heat and power (CHP) and recycled energy, a Clean Energy Standard Offer Program (CESOP) and other proposals. The researchers found that implementing IECA’s recommendations would dramatically improve American manufacturing competitiveness and:

• Increase real GDP by $77 billion in 2020.
• Increase cumulative employment by 9.4 million job-years in 2010-2030.
• Increase cumulative private investment by more than $1 trillion in 2010-2030.
• Increase family income by an average of $788 (0.68%) in 2020.
• Increase cumulative net exports by $392 billion in 2010-2030.
• Reduce energy-related GHG emissions by 13% in 2020.

The study goes on to say that “the net fiscal cost associated with the IECA recommendations would be less than 0.1% of discretionary government spending between 2011-2030, and would result in a cumulative increase in real GDP growth that is approximately 20 times greater than the cumulative net fiscal cost — providing U.S. taxpayers with significant ‘bang for the buck.’”

It was Sean Casten in 2009. Now it’s Craig Bennett in 2010. 
 
The prestigious Chicago Council on Global Affairs has again recognized the caliber of RED’s management team by naming Craig Bennett to its Emerging Leaders Class of 2010. 
 
Established in 2008 with support from the McCormick Foundation, the goal of the program is to identify and engage future thought leaders who will help Chicago compete and thrive in the global era. Each Emerging Leaders class examines, discusses, and makes recommendations on timely policy issues such as energy and the environment, the global economy, foreign policy, and migration.
 
Craig is a vice president and associate general counsel at RED and has ten years experience in the energy industry. He’s also a general in the Army National Guard.  We’re proud that the Chicago Council has recognized his expertise and look forward to seeing the work of the Class of ’10. 
 
By choosing RED executives two years in a row, the Chicago Council is clearly taking notice of the potential of energy recycling to change the way the U.S. makes power. 

RED Chairman Tom Casten has a new piece in the Chicago Tribune about the need for a sensible energy policy that rewards efficient, clean power generation like energy recycling.

He writes: “The dramatic images of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico serve as a stark reminder that America needs to transition to a new clean energy economy… For the last 30 years, I have watched America increase our energy dependence and lose our competitive edge, in part because of a grossly inefficient energy system… Despite its potential to cut energy costs and greenhouse emissions while preserving manufacturing jobs, energy recycling languishes in the U.S. because of outdated and badly misguided energy policies… By enacting meaningful clean energy legislation, the federal government can finally unleash a wave of American innovation, cutting our dependence on fossil fuels while we develop both cleaner and cheaper domestic power.”

Read the full op-ed here.

Photo courtesy of NOAA.

When you’ve got Dow Chemical, the Sierra Club, and the Sheet Metal Workers union agreeing on something, you know it’s got to be good.

A slew of organizations have signed a letter urging Congress to pass bills that would promote energy recycling at industrial facilities. These organizations range from environmentalists to manufacturers to unions to contractors.

What’s this eclectic bunch pushing for? We want investment tax credits to encourage combined heat and power (CHP) and waste energy recovery, probably the best ways to slash greenhouse gas emissions and power costs simultaneously. The specific bills include:

• S. 1639, sponsored by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
• H.R. 4144, sponsored by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA)
• H.R. 4751, sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY)
• H.R. 4455 sponsored by Representatives Mike Thompson (D-CA) and John Linder (R-GA)

These bills would encourage near-term, shovel-ready projects that will create and maintain thousands of jobs. Moreover, as I pointed out in a recent E&E TV interview, energy costs would fall through increased efficiency. Not bad.

In the heart of coal country, a simple truth is gaining traction: recycled energy is clean energy.

West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin just signed legislation designating recycled energy a renewable source of power within the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS). That’s a big deal: it means utilities—which already have to buy a portion of their power from alternative and renewable sources—are now more likely to buy recycled energy from West Virginia manufacturers. The result will be a stronger manufacturing sector, more jobs, and a cleaner environment.

So what’s the takeaway here? It’s this: clean energy is clean energy, and it should be rewarded no matter what form it takes. Wind is clean. Solar is clean. Recycled energy is clean. All of it matters. We can’t be narrow-minded about what pathways to a clean energy economy we’re willing to pursue. If something works, we need to reward it.

West Virginia gets that. Which state is next?

A new coalition wants Congress to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions. Sound like no big deal? Before you start yawning, take note: this coalition isn’t made up of the usual suspects in the environmental movement. This coalition is made up of businesses.

American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) launched four months ago with a simple goal: to demonstrate the vast amount of business support that exists for climate change legislation. Already, about 2500 businesses in 41 states have signed onto the initiative.

The lesson is that being pro-planet can also be pro-profit. We can’t have sustainable businesses in an unsustainable world. Even better, we can ensure that slashing greenhouse gas emissions reduces energy costs rather than increasing them. All we need is the creativity and political will to undertake real reform.

With the business community starting to holler, the chances for such reform just got better.

The United States’ energy and environmental policy sucks. That’s the bad news. The good news is we can fix it with a smart approach to clean energy:

• “Output standards” for emissions, so that regulators look at how much pollution is released per unit of energy generated, rather than the current rule of basing it on how much fuel is used. This change would encourage efficiency rather than penalizing it.
• A “clean energy standard offer” for federal electricity purchases, so the government gives preferential treatment to clean, efficient energy options.
• A “regulatory modernization committee” to transform our energy system from a Hummer into a hybrid.

Check out more of my ideas for promoting energy efficiency through CHP and waste energy recovery.

Our CEO Sean Casten gets political in his latest Grist post. The issue: What political barriers are keeping the U.S. from reforming its energy system?

Here at RED, we like to come up with good policy proposals that would allow the nation to mitigate climate change while slashing energy costs. But politics can throw a monkey wrench into the most finely reasoned policy argument. Read Sean’s take on the policy fixes needed to unleash clean energy.

Bill Gates enters the energy fray to make a case for innovation in the energy industry. That’s all well and good — we need more innovation in this country. After all, there has been no Bill Gates equivalent in the electric sector. The problem is that Gates doesn’t quite understand why. 

Instead of pointing out the immense barriers to competition and recommending that we tear them down, he suggests that we throw more money at innovation while the current system, presumably, would remain in place. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That’s not going to work — Sean Casten explains why we need to change current energy regulations in a Grist blog.

In the latest issue of The Nation, Lisa Margonelli makes the case for increased use of “gray power” sources, especially waste heat, across the Midwest and South. Calling these regions “the Colossus of Carbon,” she cites a RED analysis revealing the immense amounts of electricity that could be generated from waste energy at manufacturing plants in places like Ohio. “All those smokestacks,” she says, “hold the potential for a lower-carbon renaissance.”

The nature of the magazine publishing this piece bears reflection. The Nation, the journalistic standard-bearer of American progressivism, is extolling the virtues of energy recycling about two weeks after Chief Executive, one of the country’s ultimate capitalist publications, has done the same. Two publications with very different views of the world are coming to similar conclusions on one issue, at least: that by generating energy more efficiently, we can fight global warming while bolstering the economy.

These two magazines aren’t the only unlikely pairs to point out the benefits of this work. The moderate-liberal New Republic has highlighted the potential of energy recycling, as has the business-friendly Forbes. So have the libertarian Lynne Kiesling and the environmental lion Al Gore. So, indeed, have apolitical science outlets ranging from Nature to Orion to American Scientist.

I recite this list not simply to advertise good writing about the issues near and dear to my heart, though there is that. My point is that energy recycling is an issue that could transcend our nation’s partisan divide and provide a path forward on finally tackling climate change. It’s not the only solution. But it’s a big one. It’s what makes the RED team get up in the morning. And I believe it’s an idea whose time has come.