Photo By: Pixtawa

This new analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) builds on an August 2009 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) study of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), a comprehensive climate and energy bill passed in June 2009 by the U.S. House of Representatives.

We set out to examine the long-term economic and environmental costs and benefits of increasing the renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards in the carbon cap and other provisions included in ACES. To do so, we used the version of the National Energy Modeling System that the EIA employed for its analysis, and the same cost and performance assumptions as its “Basic Case” policy scenario.  Our analysis differs from the EIA’s Basic Case in that we evaluated (1) a higher national renewable electricity standard of 25 percent by 2025 that closes the loopholes in ACES  and (2) a separate energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) that requires utilities to achieve a 10 percent electricity savings from efficiency measures by 2020. Our analysis finds that compared with ACES, raising the efficiency and renewable electricity standards would:

• Reduce consumer electricity and natural gas expenditures by $113 billion through 2030
• Lower average U.S. household annual energy costs by nearly $100 in 2030
• Diversify the electric power mix and avoid the need for nearly 50 new nuclear power reactors
• Hasten the shift to a clean energy economy by increasing emission reductions within the capped sectors.

Photo By: xedos4

An economy-wide cap on global warming pollution and a strong federal renewable electricity standard should be central to our national energy policy. At the same time we need a workable federal process that increases the electricity grid’s reliability and efficiency and maximizes the integration of renewable resources within it.

New transmission lines will be needed to connect our nation’s rich renewable energy resources with distant population centers. To get the job done, we’ll need to reform how transmission lines are planned, sited, built and managed. States and regions should be encouraged to work out transmission agreements, but the federal government should be able to step in when states can’t agree. Legislation giving the federal government that authority would ensure that needed transmission lines can be built in a timely manner.

A federal system of transmission oversight and planning must be carefully designed to advance national policies on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate change. It must ensure that the transmission planning process involves a broad array of stakeholders, including states, utilities, developers, environmentalists, ratepayers and unions to address immediate concerns and avoid delays later in the process. Additionally, it should take into account state, regional and utility analyses and initiatives already underway. Most importantly, it must ensure that new transmission plans are environmentally responsible and protect sensitive lands and important natural and cultural resources.

Source: www.UCSUSA.org

Photo By: Michelle Meiklejohn

Ranking the States That Import the Most Coal

The cost of importing coal is a major drain on the economies of many states that rely heavily on coal-fired power. Thirty-eight states were net importers of coal in 2008—from other states and, increasingly, other nations. Burning Coal, Burning Cash shows the scale of this annual drain on state economies, and suggests how they can keep more of those funds in-state through investments in energy efficiency and homegrown renewable energy.

In this report, we rank states’ dependence on imported coal in each of six categories, and list the top 10 states on each measure. The six measures include net spending on imported coal, net weight of imported coal, per capita spending on imported coal, spending on coal relative to the size of the state economy, reliance on net coal imports relative to total power use, and spending on international coal imports.

Twenty-five states appear on at least one of these six lists. Georgia ranks in the top 10 in all categories—the only state to do so (Figure 1). (The report profiles electricity production and opportunities for saving power in 24 of those states—all except Virginia, which, though it imports a lot of foreign coal, is not a net coal importer).

These 25 states appear on at least one of our six lists of the 10 most-dependent states,
based on different measures.

Every state has opportunities to cost-effectively reduce its coal use by boosting energy efficiency and developing in-state renewable resources.  The benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy policies are even greater for states that now rely on imported coal, because such policies channel funds into local economic development—funds that would otherwise leave the state.

Of course, state reliance on imported coal for producing electricity creates more than economic problems. Burning coal also causes serious harm to public health, the global climate, and the overall environment. Indeed, coal plants are the nation’s largest source of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. State and federal policies promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy, and capping carbon emissions, are essential to protect our health, climate, and environment, and to accelerate the growth of a clean energy economy.

– The executive summary and the full report are available for download at the top of this page.  The links below the report cover image at the top right of this page will take you to a list of state-specific fact sheets and an index of information on coal imports –
How to Reduce States’ Dependence on Imported Coal:

States can:

• adopt or raise standards for renewable energy
• adopt or raise standards for energy efficiency
• increase funding for effective energy efficiency programs
• refuse to permit new coal plants
• shut down the dirtiest coal plants

The federal government can:

• Put a price on carbon emissions—this will encourage utilities to reduce their use of fossil fuels, especially coal
• Pass stable, long-term policies to increase the deployment of renewables , including a renewable electricity standard (RES), tax and financial incentives, and more funding for research and development
• Aggressively promote implementation of strong energy efficiency measures, including building codes, appliance and equipment standards, and an energy efficiency resource standard for electricity providers.

Photo By: Gruar Codrin

WASHINGTON (May 9, 2011): Renewable energy is likely to become the world’s dominant climate change solution by the middle of the century, according to a new study by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has the potential to be more competitive than nuclear power, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage and other low-carbon energy options across a majority of the scenarios analyzed for the report.

More than 160 scenarios were examined for the study, with the most optimistic suggesting that almost 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could come from renewable sources by 2050, although that could occur only with government policies supporting deep cuts in heat-trapping emissions. The report also concluded that the technical potential of renewable energies is 20 times greater than what global demand for energy is projected to be in 2050.

If the full range of renewable technologies were to be deployed, levels of heat-trapping emissions could be kept to concentrations lower than 450 parts per million. This level could help keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°F from current levels, the temperature beyond which scientists have predicted would likely lead to the most serious consequences of climate change.

The report points out that the renewable energy transition is already underway. Nearly half of new electric generating capacity added globally in both 2008 and 2009 was from renewable sources. The same was true in the United States, with wind, solar, and other renewable technologies providing more than 40 percent of the new generating capacity.

“This IPCC report makes it clear that renewable energy has tremendous potential to meet our energy needs and confront the challenge of climate change. But we must do much more to scale up clean energy sources,” said Rachel Cleetus, UCS climate economist. “Many renewables are already economically competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear energy, especially when you take into account all the hidden costs of conventional energy—such as public health risks, air and water pollution, global warming emissions, and security risks.”

In a 2009 analysis titled “Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy,” UCS concluded that by adopting a comprehensive package of climate and clean energy policies in the U.S., renewable sources could provide 25 percent of the nation’s energy supply and 50 percent of electricity generation by 2030. When combined with investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, according to the UCS analysis, could help reduce heat-trapping emissions in 2030 by 56 percent from 2005 levels and save consumers money in every region of the country.

“To reach a low-carbon global economy by 2050 requires making smart policy choices and investments today,” said Steve Clemmer, UCS Director of Energy Research and Analysis. “Here in the U.S. we can make serious progress by building on what the states have already done and adopt strong national renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards, and a price on carbon. That’s a sure way to transition to a clean energy economy while driving down costs and significantly reducing emissions.”

More details on the report can be seen on the IPCC website. One of the lead co-authors is William Moomaw, director for the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy at Tufts University. He can be reached at William.Moomaw@tufts.edu.

Source: www.UCSUSA.org

Photo By: Bill Longshaw

Most of the products we buy today have at some point been transported by a heavy-duty truck—a critical part of our freight-transportation system. But this reliable service comes at a price. Nearly all modern heavy-duty trucks run on petroleum-based diesel fuel, and as with other forms of fossil-fueled transportation their tailpipe emissions contribute to poor local air quality and rising global temperatures.

Meanwhile, the high costs of diesel and gasoline are busting the budgets of truckers and consumers alike.

A win-win solution is possible, however. The technologies that reduce global warming emissions from trucks also reduce fuel use and smog-forming pollutants while lowering truckers’ operating costs. Considering only products that are commercially available today, tractor-trailers can be equipped with aerodynamic devices and high-performance tires and wheels yielding a greater-than-12-percent reduction in fuel consumption. For a typical long-range truck traveling over 100,000 miles per year, this would translate to an annual savings of 2,000 gallons of diesel fuel. The initial cost of the upgrades could be recovered by fuel savings in as short a time as one year, and over $30,000 in net gain could be realized over the lifetime of the truck. Retrofitting existing tractor-trailers offers significant fuel and cost savings for all but the oldest and lowest-mileage trucks, while choosing the most efficient tractor-trailers when buying new allows for the greatest savings overall.

Improving truck efficiency is not only good for the bottom line but also can help California meet its global warming, air quality, and petroleum dependence goals. Installing available retrofit technology both on new and in-use trucks and trailers could reduce global warming pollution emissions by 17 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2eq (carbon dioxide equivalent) by 2020—the same effect as taking 2.5 million cars off the road.1

Compared with other regulatory strategies that California is considering in order to meet its global warming emissions-reduction targets, requiring cost-effective retrofits on trucks is one of the most powerful. (Only three other proposed strategies promise greater reductions.2) Moreover, 470 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides could be reduced nationwide by 2020, with 60 tons eliminated in California—which would help in attaining national air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles area, two of the country’s most polluted areas. Implementing these basic truck-efficiency improvements would reduce diesel consumption in California by 5 percent over business as usual, or 200 million gallons annually, by 2020.

Some truck fleets have already invested in these cost-saving technologies. But the vast majority have not, as there continue to be barriers to their widespread adoption even in the face of rising fuel prices. One reason is that trucks go through many owners over their lifetimes; a current owner may choose not to invest in improving the truck’s efficiency if it will be sold in a couple of years. Split ownership of tractors and trailers presents similar challenges. And the absence of standardized fuel-economy testing data for new trucks and retrofit components has slowed adoption as well.

These and other market barriers can be overcome through policies initiated by California lawmakers and regulators. Requiring the use of low-rolling-resistance tires on all heavy-duty trucks and trailers, the retrofitting of trailers with aerodynamic improvements, and fleets’ use of the most efficient new trucks is just a start. California could further reduce emissions over the long term by creating new-truck performance-based standards on global warming pollution. Truck and trailer manufacturers could meet these standards, which currently do not exist, through numerous strategies that employ advances in engine technology, drive-train efficiency, hybridization, aerodynamics, and rolling resistance.

Well-designed climate policies targeting both today’s and tomorrow’s trucks can help California meet its climate change and air quality goals, reduce the state’s dependence on petroleum, save truckers money at the pump, and ease pressures to raise shipping costs.

Source: www.UCSUSA.org

DOWNLOAD: Delivering the Green (2008) | Executive Summary: Delivering the Green |Delivering the Green Factsheet | Un Cargamento Verde

1  Based on Union of Concerned Scientists calculations of estimated annual emissions from the average U.S. passenger vehicle in 2020.

2  California Air Resources Board. 2008. Draft scoping plan: June 2008 discussion draft. The three strategies are: light-duty global warming pollution standards (31.7 MMT in 2020); energy efficiency (26.4 MMT); and Renewable Portfolio Standard (21.2MMT).

Photo By: Matt Banks

Over the past 10 to 15 years, enhancements in technology and computing power have truly revolutionized the wind development business. From prospecting the best sites to constructing wind farms, from mapping cadastral data to estimating the wind resource at specific proposed turbine locations, technology has improved our ability to efficiently select, develop, and ultimately construct utility-scale wind farms.

Photo By: Jscreationzs

Renewable energy continued its global surge in 2010, accounting for about half of the 194 gigawatts of new installed capacity, according to the REN21 Renewables 2011 Global Status Report.

Dual-Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program

The dual-fuel vehicle incentive program allows manufacturers to produce, without penalty, fleets of cars and trucks that average as much as 1.2 miles per gallon (mpg) below the required Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. In return, they must sell duel-fuel vehicles—cars and trucks that can run on both gasoline and an alternative fuel. The source of the loophole is the assumption that if vehicles are capable of running on an alternative fuel, they will actually use that alternative fuel 50 percent of the time. This assumption translates into roughly a 65 percent bonus in credited fuel economy (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Measured vs. Credited Fuel Economy Values for Select Model Year 2006 Flexible-Fueled Vehicles

More than a decade after the program was introduced, government data showed that dual-fuel vehicles used an alternative fuel less than one percent of the time. This is hardly surprising considering that only about 1,200 of the nearly 200,000 gas stations in the United States carry the fuel that most dual-fuel vehicles could use: E85 (a blend of 85 percentethanol and 15 percent gasoline)—and over a third of those are in just two states: Minnesota and Illinois. As a result, this loophole increased U.S. oil dependence by about 80,000 barrels per day in 2005 and has enabled automakers to avoid as much as $1.6 billion in CAFE fines to date (Figure 2).

Figure 2: CAFE Fines Avoided Through Dual-Fuel Loophole

Dual-Fuel Credit Phase-out

Under provisions established by the 2007 Energy Bill, the current fleet average maximum dual-fuel credit, 1.2 mpg, will be maintained through model year 2014. Thereafter, the credit will decrease by 0.2 mpg per year until model year 2020, when the phase-out is complete. The eventual elimination of the credit will contribute to decreasing U.S. oil dependence.

Source: www.UCSUSA.org

What is the VEETC?

The policy was designed to provide a taxpayer-funded incentive for fuel suppliers to blend ethanol with gasoline. However, fuel suppliers don’t need this incentive, since they are legally obligated to buy ethanol by theRenewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

Established in 2005 expanded in 2007, the RFS requires fuel suppliers to blend increasing quantities of biofuels into gasoline, including 12 billion gallons of conventional ethanol this year, and growing 5% each year to 15 billion gallons by 2015.

With a mandate this large, the VEETC does not increase biofuels production or provide additional benefits to farmers.  Instead, it provides subsidies to oil companies for simply obeying the law.

How much does the VEETC cost U.S. tax payers? 
This year VEETC will cost taxpayers $5.4 billion dollars.  If extended for 5 years, it would cost more than $30 billion.

When does the VEETC expire?
The VEETC expires for corn ethanol at the end of 2010.

Who benefits from the VEETC?
The tax credit, sometimes called the blenders credit, goes to the parties that blend ethanol into gasoline before it is sold. In most cases these blenders are oil companies.

If the VEETC expires, how will it affect the U.S. ethanol industry?
A recent study from the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University found that allowing the tax credit to expire would not have significant adverse effects on the domestic ethanol industry, but instead the industry would continue to grow (1).

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) agrees, also concluding with when the RFS sets the level of demand for ethanol “the VEETC does not affect the level of ethanol consumption and is a duplicative policy tool for increasing ethanol consumption…removing the VEETC would not adversely affect the demand for corn for ethanol and the income of corn producers, which depend on the total level of ethanol consumption.” (2) 

With or without the VEETC, oil companies have to blend biofuels into gasoline in order to be in compliance with the law. The existence of the VEETC has not caused oil companies to buy more corn ethanol, just as a lack of the VEETC will not cause oil companies to purchase less ethanol.

The RFS is what drives the demand. In fact, Valero, a Texas-based oil refiner and major ethanol producer, recently agreed, stating the ethanol industry would “not see blending down one barrel because of the credit being gone”, and went further to describe VEETC as unnecessary.

Why should Congress let the VEETC expire?
VEETC wastes tens of billions of dollars, without providing effective support for the next generation of cellulosic biofuels we need to meet the energy security and climate change goals of the RFS.  Eliminating VEETC will free up resources to invest in the next generation of clean low carbon cellulosic biofuels.

What is a better alternative to the VEETC?
Instead of paying oil companies to follow the law, a more effective tax policy is a Biofuels Performance Tax Credit. Under a performance-based tax credit, the amount of the tax credit would vary depending on the fuel’s reduction in global warming emissions compared with today’s corn ethanol. The greater the reduction in emissions, the greater the tax credit.

A variable tax credit would give a clear financial incentive for all fuels to reduce their emissions. A performance-based tax credit would save $20 billion between 2011 and 2014, compared with extending existing tax credits, and free up resources to invest in advanced, low-carbon biofuels from so-called “cellulosic” sources such as grasses, wood pulp, and even many kinds of waste.

Source: www.UCSUSA.org

1. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, “Costs and Benefits to Taxpayers, Consumers, and Producers from U.S. Ethanol Policies”, July 2010. Available online on the CARD web site.
2. Government Accountability Office, “Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in Production and Use”, 99, August 2009. Available online

Meanwhile, for the fourth time in UCS’s five assessments over the past 10 years, Chrysler ranks as the most polluting automaker among the eight leading automakers.

The product-planning decisions of a small number of automotive companies have an immense influence on the environmental health of the United States and the world.

The “Top Eight” automakers—Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen—together account for more than 90 percent of cars and trucks sold in the United States.

Using government data on model year 2008 (MY2008) vehicles—the latest year for which final data are available—and assessing each manufacturer based on the actual smog-forming and global warming emissions of its vehicle fleet, this report objectively measures each automaker’s true environmental performance of each of the “Top Eight” best-selling automakers’ product offerings.

Better scores show that standards work.

This year saw marked improvement by all automakers in their per-mile smog-forming emissions. The achievement was prompted largely by state and federal smog-forming emissions laws, which required the automakers to clean up their products.

Fleet average global warming emissions, meanwhile, continue to be a differentiating factor in the rankings.

As new fuel economy and global warming emissions standards are phased in over the coming years, however, we anticipate seeing progress in that pollutant segment too.

Much more can be done.

The transportation sector accounts for roughly one-third of U.S. carbon emissions, of which more than half (about 60 percent) come from the use of gasoline in our cars, pickups, SUVs, and minivans.

Emissions of smog-forming pollutants also are sizable—as of 2007, accounting for roughly one-sixth of the smog-forming gases emitted in the United States. Thus, the technology choices of the “Top Eight” automakers are key.

All automakers, even the leaders in these rankings, can and should be doing more—particularly when it comes to global warming.

You can help.

Because public feedback is critical in making that happen, the next time you buy a car or truck choose the one with the lowest global warming and smog-forming emissions that meets your needs and budget.

Through our purchasing decisions we can give manufacturers a strong signal that consumers care about the environmental impact of their vehicles. Fuel-efficient models are a good place to start; when all else is equal, use these rankings to reward the best overall automaker.

Source: www.UCSUSA.org

New! Water Use and Biofuels: How we choose to produce biofuels—which crops are used, how and where they are grown—can mean the difference between a wise resource strategy and a wasteful and destructive one.

Expanding U.S. biofuel production will require tradeoffs between ambitious fuel production targets and other societal goals, including protection of the water we need for drinking, growing food, preserving aquatic habitats, and producing electricity.

DOWNLOAD: UCS Bioenergy Principles

Next generation biofuels made from grass, wood waste, or even garbage can reduce biofuels’ impact on water resources and reduce emissions, but only if we make smart choices (PDF).

The Billion Gallon Challenge: Advanced biofuels from diverse sources such as grasses and agricultural waste hold the promise of sustainably reducing U.S. oil dependence and global warming emissions. Unfortunately the advanced biofuels industry not been able to meet the demand as set out in the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

The Billion Gallon Challenge is an effort to build the support and policies needed to bring the fledgling advanced biofuels industry to maturity.  It also seeks to ensure that the biofuels market maximizes taxpayer investment and helps to strengthen U.S. energy and environmental security.

The Billion Gallon Challenge: A Scientists and Economists Call for Advanced Biofuels Options.

Sign on to the statement | Ask your colleagues to join

• Report: Billion Gallon Challenge Executive Summary (pdf)
• Report: Billion Gallon Challenge Full Report (pdf)
• Fact Sheet: How to Get Advanced Biofuels Off the Ground
• Fact Sheet: How to Reform Biofuels Tax Polices to Cut Pollution and Save Oil
• FAQ: Current Ethanol Tax Credits and Our Clean Fuel Future

Smart Bioenergy Overview

Recent studies have concluded that avoiding dangerous climate change will require the United States and other industrialized countries to reduce their global warming emissions approximately 80 percent below 2000 levels by mid-century.

This goal is attainable, but only if we act immediately, and on multiple fronts. One major part of the climate solutions equation is a shift to renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and bioenergy.

Use of bioenergy—energy produced from organic matter or biomass—has the potential to increase energy security, promote economic development, and decrease global warming pollution.

But efforts to expand production and use of bioenergy could have unintended economic and environmental consequences.  We must therefore strive to develop bioenergy resources in ways that help meet our present challenges without compromising future generations.

Moreover, even the smartest bioenergy policy can only be successful if pursued as part of a larger solution set, including aggressive increases in energy efficiency, demand reductions through conservation, and reforms in land use policies.

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ research and policy efforts are guided by a set of core bioenergy principles to help guide us down the path to a cleaner, more secure energy future.  They include:

1. Minimize global warming pollution
2. Combine bioenergy with efficiency, conservation, and smart growth
3. Protect public health
4. Promote ecologically sound bioenergy systems
5. Ensure bioenergy developments expand economic opportunity

What’s New In Smart Bioenergy?

• Science Wins Battle to Make Carbon Count in Fuels: The corn ethanol industry attempted to muscle the EPA into removing a key scientific process to accurately track global warming emissions from biofuels.  UCS Director of Science & Policy Peter Frumhoff helped rally over 200 experts on the National Scientists and Economists Statement On Biofuels And Land Use (see below), and the result was a precedent-setting victory for sound science in federal rulemaking.  Read more.
• National Scientists and Economists Statement On Biofuels And Land Use: Over 200 scientists and economists with expertise relevant to the scientific and economic dimensions of climate change or land use change have joined Drs. Daniel Kammen(Berkeley), Pamela Matson (Stanford), Thomas Lovejoy (Heinz Center), Stuart Pimm(Duke), William Schlesinger (Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies), and UCS Director of Science and Policy Peter Frumhoff on a statement calling for land use change to be included in any lifecycle analyses of heat-trapping emissions from biofuels.

• See the letter and full list of signatories
• Join as a signatory to this letter
• See the advertisement run in Congress Daily
• Biomass Letter to the Editor:  A letter from UCS’ biomass expert Ben Larson that outlines the benefits of biomass energy and its potential in a Florida town.
• A Balanced Biomass Definition:  A fact sheet that details the need for a balanced biomass definition that includes sustainability standards and options for forest owners.
• Call to action on Biofuels and Land Use Change: A letter from leading U.S. scientists and economists calling on California leaders to ensure that they include indirect land use change in the lifecycle analyses of heat-trapping emissions from biofuels and other transportation fuels for the proposed California Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• Benefits of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Fact sheet outlining the need for a well-designed Low Carbon Fuel Standard to reduce emissions from transportation fuel.
• Land Use, Biofuels, and Global Warming: A new look at the latest science analyzing the carbon impact of both direct and indirect land use in the production of biofuels.
• The Renewable Fuel Standard: Analysis of the potential and pitfalls of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard as passed in the 2007 Energy Bill.
• Biofuels: An Important Part of a Low-Carbon Diet: This first report in the UCS Smart Bioenergy series details the carbon landscape that faces biofuels and other alternatives to oil in the race for environmental and energy solutions; and what policy options can help create an advantage for agriculture and the environment by “counting carbs and making carbs count.”

Source: www.UCSUSA.org

• First, read up on the issue. There is so much activity now that keeping track of it all can be overwhelming. The UCS Climate 2030 Blueprint provides a starting point, explaining how America can repower with clean energy while saving consumers money.

• Second, get in touch with your elected representatives. Congress is considering a number of bills now that could change the electric industry drastically. Visit the UCS Web Action Center for continuing opportunities to take action. Also, much of the activity in restructuring has been happening at the state level. Depending on where you live, there is a good chance that your local legislator is thinking about electric industry restructuring. Since these legislators don’t often receive the huge volume of mail that your US representatives and senators do, you stand a good chance of making your voice heard. Check out our campaign highlights for the summer of 2009 to see what our activists have been doing recently and what they’ve helped us acheive.

• Third, find out if any activist groups are working on the issue in your state. UCS has helped set up grassroots Sustainable Energy for Economic Development (SEED) groups in a number of states and has information about other groups that may also be involved in the restructuring issue. To learn more about how to get involved in your community,click here to sign up for UCS energy alerts and updates today.

• Fourth, many utilities are offering “green pricing” programs that allow their customers to buy renewable energy for a slight price premium. Though some of these programs are not as good as they could be, they offer us a chance to put our money where our mouths are. If your utility has a program, think about signing up; if it doesn’t, ask why. If you live in a state that is letting customers choose their power supplier, like California, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, consider buying green power from a marketer who sells renewable energy.  To learn more, click here to sign up for UCS energy alerts and updates today.

• Fifth, make smart consumer choices about energy. It’s very simple.

Many technologies already exist, such as efficient engines and transmissions, high-strength steel and aluminum, better tires, and hybrid-electric powertrains. The investments required to deliver these more efficient products to consumers will pay off in the form of new jobs for the U.S. automotive sector and other industries throughout the country. In addition, consumers will save billions of dollars on gasoline, U.S. dependence on oil will be reduced, and emissions of global warming pollution will be cut significantly.

In order to quantify these benefits, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated the effect of moving existing technologies into cars and trucks with the modest goal of reaching a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018.  We found that:

• In 2020, the benefits from investments in fuel economy would lead to 241,000 more jobs throughout the country, with California, Texas, Florida, New York, Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois all seeing more than 10,000 new jobs.
• In the automotive sector, projected jobs would grow by 23,900 in 2020.
• For consumers, the cost of the new technology would more than pay for itself, saving a net $37 billion dollars in 2020 alone.
• In 2020, we would cut our national oil use by 1.6 million barrels per day—more than we currently import from Saudi Arabia —and we would reduce emissions of global warming pollution from cars and trucks by 260 million metric tons of carbon dioxide—equivalent to taking about 40 million of today’s average cars and trucks off the road.

Job Growth (by State) in 2020 from Using Technology to Reach 35 mpg by 2018

Consumer Savings (by State) in 2020 from using Technology to Reach 35 mpg by 2018

Source: www.UCSUSA.org

But that effort can yield large-scale benefits—not only a cleaner environment, but also a healthier economy with new jobs, humming manufacturing plants, lower energy costs, and improved public health. With the support of our members, UCS experts are working to find practical, sustainable solutions at the state, regional, and federal level.

We need a two-pronged approach that increases energy efficiency and emphasizes renewable energy sources. In the links below, explore how smarter energy policies can make these changes happen.

Source: www.UCSUSA.org