Web Page Link

Filed at 8:50 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking to play down the effects of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office pushed to delete from congressional testimony references about the consequences of climate change on public health, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.

The official, Jason K. Burnett, said the White House was concerned that the proposed testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might make it tougher to avoid regulating greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

Burnett’s assertion, which he made in a July 6 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, conflicts with the White House explanation at the time that the deletions reflected concerns by the White House Office of Science and Technology over the accuracy of the science.

Boxer, in a news conference on Tuesday, went so far as to say White House press secretary Dana Perino had lied about why the White House had pushed for the deletions. That, in turn, prompted Perino to demand an apology from Boxer.

”I have never said such a thing about a fellow public servant, and I wouldn’t if I didn’t have all the facts,” Perino said from Japan, where President Bush is attending a meeting of world economic leaders. ”I think I deserve an apology.”

Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote that Cheney’s office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC’s original draft testimony removed.

”The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) … any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change,” Burnett wrote.

At her news conference, Boxer maintained that the heavy editing of the testimony given by CDC Director Julie Gerberding last fall was the first part of ”a master plan” aimed at ”covering up the real dangers of global warming and hiding the facts from the public.”

Burnett declined to comment beyond what he described in the letter and said he didn’t want to identify the people he had talked with in Cheney’s office or elsewhere at the White House. ”I’m not interested in pointing fingers at individuals,” he said.

White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said the White House stands by its explanation for the deletions, and noted that science adviser John Marburger had raised concerns.

Marburger issued a summary of his concerns at the time, but at a Senate hearing a few weeks later said he had not recommended deleting six of the 14 pages as was done.

Megan Mitchell, the vice president’s press secretary, dismissed the allegations by Burnett and said, ”We don’t comment on internal deliberations.”

Burnett, 31, a lifelong Democrat, resigned his post last month as associate deputy EPA administrator because of disagreements over the agency’s response to climate change.

He appeared to be an odd choice for the EPA post, which included liaison with the White House on climate issues. Currently a supporter of Barack Obama for president, he has contributed nearly $125,000 to Democratic candidates since 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Burnett, an economist who had written a number of papers on government regulation while at the Center for Regulatory Study, a joint effort by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, first joined the EPA in 2004. He resigned two years later because of objections to an EPA rule on soot.

He was asked to return in 2007 by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who put him in charge of coordinating the agency’s response to a Supreme Court ruling on whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

In his letter, Burnett describes concerns at the White House, including in Cheney’s office, about linking climate change directly to public health or damage to the environment.

Nowhere was that more apparent than in the heavy editing of the CDC testimony in October.

The White House, at the urging of Cheney’s office, ”requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change,” Burnett wrote.

”CEQ contacted me to argue that I could best keep options open for the (EPA) administrator (on regulating carbon dioxide) if I would convince CDC to delete particular sections of their testimony,” he wrote.

But he said he refused to press the CDC on the deletions because he believed the CDC’s draft testimony was ”fundamentally accurate.”

Burnett said Cheney’s office also objected in January to congressional testimony by Johnson that ”greenhouse gas emissions harm the environment.” An official in Cheney’s office ”called to tell me that his office wanted the language changed” but that it was kept as it was.

Burnett also described in greater detail than previously reported the White House’s refusal in December to accept a draft EPA finding concluding that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, is endangering human health.

After he sent the e-mail with the draft finding attached, he said he received a telephone call from the White House asking that he ‘’send a follow-up note saying that the e-mail had been sent in error.”

”I explained that I could not do that because it was not true,” Burnett wrote.

Boxer said the draft finding was now ”in limbo” and not available for public review.

More than a year ago, the Supreme Court directed the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare and, if so, begin to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. That process is not likely to continue until the next administration.

green-eneregy-news.com    July 6 08

NO GLOOM IN GREEN ENERGY.

It’s really unfortunate. The queasiness on the streets about the state
of the US may be unnecessary. High gas prices, the continuing war in
Iraq, sinking home values, the bearish stock market, job layoffs, the
credit crisis, abysmal auto sales – all bad news that might not have
to be there.

This I know with certainty: Most people in the US don’t read this
publication (nor likely others like it.) If they did they’d know that
at least one sector of the economy is doing remarkably well – the
green energy sector, the industry revolving around clean, efficient
and renewable energy. If those millions of nonreaders knew how well
that sector is doing there might be less pessimism about the future.

The press release accompanying a new report from the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) says this about the sector, “UNEP study
says clean energy investments charge forward despite financial market
turmoil.” The report “Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment
2008″ speaks of worldwide investment with the US playing a strong
role:

— New global investment in green energy surpassed $148 billion in
2007, a 60-percent rise from 2006;

— Most of the investment was in the EU and the US, but significant
gains – $26 billion – were in China, India and Brazil;

— Green power accounted for 23 percent of all new power capacity
added globally in 2007: 31 gigawatts of green power were added, about
10 times that of nuclear;

— Total investment in all energies - green and otherwise - is
expected to be $20 trillion by 2030 to meet soaring demand: There’ll
be continued pressure by nations to make sure much of this investment
produces green energy;

— Investment in wind energy reached $50.2 billion in 2007;

— Wind attracted more investment globally last year than any other
non-fossil fuel based technology, including large hydro and nuclear
power. In Europe and the US, wind capacity additions in 2007 on their
own accounted for 40 percent and 30 percent, respectively, of all new
power capacity.

— Global installed wind capacity surpassed 100 gigawatts in March,
2008.

— Solar energy grew at faster rate than wind to reach $28.6 billion
in 2007;

— Solar attracted by far the most venture capital and private equity
investment of all renewables – $3.7 billion – although biomass and
waste-to-energy saw the fastest rate of growth.

— Biofuels in the US had a difficult year in 2007. With US feedstock
costs up and ethanol prices down, venture capital and private equity
investment in biofuels fell by almost one-third in 2007, to $2.1
billion. However, biofuels investment has shifted to Brazil, India and
China.

— Investment in energy efficiency technology reached a record $1.8
billion, an increase of 78 percent from 2006. According to the
International Energy Agency, each $1 invested in energy efficiency on
average avoids more than $2 needed to create new supply.

— North America attracted most energy efficiency investment during
2007, followed by Europe;

— Research & Development spending on clean energy and energy
efficiency was $16.9 billion in 2007, including corporate R&D of $9.8
billion, and government R&D of $7.1 billion.

The report, prepared by UK-based New Energy Finance for UNEP’s Paris-
based Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative, also looks forward.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) $20 trillion is
projected to be invested to meet the world’s energy demand in 2030.
With governments increasingly concerned about energy security and
global warming, much of this investment could be renewables and energy
efficiency– a boom for those in the business.

Beyond what the UNEP report has to say, a change in administration in
the US (to either candidate) will spur more government spending on
green energy, helping more to build the already strong industry. Both
candidates are committed to this effort.

Further, state mandates for greener energy as well as taxpayer funding
continue to fuel the industry.

California has published its Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, which
outlines how the state will achieve greenhouse gas reductions in the
coming years. Savvy businessmen should be looking over this document
for opportunities.

On the other coast Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania has announced
his state’s 2008-09 budget which includes an investment of $665.9
million in alternative energy. Of the total, solar will get $180
million, $165 million will be set aside to encourage alternative
energy projects and $150 million will be available over seven years to
help consumers and small businesses weatherize their homes and adopt
conservation tools and offer tax credits to businesses developing and
building alternative energy projects in the commonwealth. Green
buildings, wind and geothermal energy, will get millions as well.

The proposed state budget also has long term plans to increase the use
of biofuels. As production levels of biodiesel increase, the state
will require the percentage that will be blended into conventional
diesel to also increase. The boost cellulosic development gasoline
must include at least 10-percent cellulosic ethanol once production
reaches 350 million gallons per year. New investments will also be
made in Pennsylvania’s biofuel producers; up to $5.3 million will be
available annually through June 2011 to encourage the production of
ethanol and biodiesel.

Economic downturns are often psychological: bad news begets more bad
news until the news gets really bad. It will take considerable good
news to counter what’s bad now. It seems, though, that the good news
will be coming from the green sector. The sooner people know this, the
sooner the country will recover.

Links:

— UNEP- Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/
Default.asp?DocumentID=538&ArticleID=5849&l=en

— California Air Resources Board (CARB) — Climate Change Draft
Scoping Plan
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/draftscopingplan.pdf

— Pennsylvania 2008-09 State Budget
http://www.budget.state.pa.us

July 3, 2008 3:47 p.m. EST

Vittorio Hernandez - AHN News Writer

Boston, MA (AHN) - Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed on Wednesday the Green Communities Act which reduces state dependence on fossil fuel and encourage a shift to cleaner forms of energy.

The new law requires utility firms to design customized plans for homeowners and businesses that would reduce energy costs and grant rebates for residents and business owners who would install insulating windows and more efficient boilers in their units.

To make the use of solar panels more affordable, sun panels for lease from utility companies would be made available and homeowners with surplus power from their wind turbines and solar panels would be allowed to sell their excess energy.

The law is timely as it would save Massachusetts residents millions of dollars at a time when fuel and energy bills are on an all-time high.

The law set targets for utilities to increase their use of renewable energy by 4 percent in 2009, 15 percent in 2020 and 25 percent in 2030.

White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: June 25, 2008

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., “showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases,” one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. “That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”

The Bush administration’s climate-change policies have been evolving over the past two years. It now accepts the work of government scientists studying global warming, such as last week’s review forecasting more drenching rains, parching droughts and intense hurricanes as global temperatures warm (www.climatescience.gov).

But no administration decisions have supported the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act or other environmental laws.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, refused to comment on discussions between the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about changes in the original report, Mr. Fratto said, “It’s the E.P.A. that determines what analysis it wants to make available” in its documents.

The new document, a road map laying out the issues involved in regulation, is to be signed by Stephen L. Johnson, the agency’s administrator, and published as early as Wednesday.

The derailment of the original E.P.A. report was first made known in March by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The refusal to open the e-mail has not been made public.

In early December, the E.P.A.’s draft finding that greenhouse gases endanger the environment used Energy Department data from 2007 to conclude that it would be cost effective to require the nation’s motor vehicle fleet to average 37.7 miles per gallon in 2018, according to government officials familiar with the document.

About 10 days after the finding was left unopened by officials at the Office of Management and Budget, Congress passed and President Bush signed a new energy bill mandating an increase in average fuel-economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The day the law was signed, the E.P.A. administrator rejected the unanimous recommendation of his staff and denied California a waiver needed to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases in the state, saying the new law’s approach was preferable and climate change required global, not regional, solutions.

California’s regulations would have imposed tougher standards.

The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51 per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020.

The White House, which did not oppose the Transportation Department proposals, has become more outspoken on the need for a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gases, specifically rejecting possible controls deriving from older environmental laws.

In a speech in April, Mr. Bush called for an end to the growth of greenhouse gases by 2025 — a timetable slower than many scientists say is required. His chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, said a “train wreck” would result if regulations to control greenhouse gases were authorized piecemeal under laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.’s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because “no more constructive work could be done” on the agency’s response to the Supreme Court.

He added, “The next administration will have to face what this one did not.”

The House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, led by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has been seeking the discarded E.P.A. finding on the dangers of climate change.

After reading it last week, Mr. Markey’s office sent a letter to Mr. Bush saying, “E.P.A. Administrator Stephen Johnson determined that man-made global warming is unequivocal, the evidence is compelling and robust, and the administration must act to prevent harm rather than wait for harm to occur.”

Simultaneously, Mr. Waxman’s committee is weighing its response to the White House’s refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents relating to the E.P.A.’s handling of recent climate-change and air-pollution decisions. The White House, which has turned over other material to the committee, last week asserted a claim of executive privilege over the remaining documents.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said the committee chairmen did not understand the legal precedent underlying executive privilege. “There is a long legal history supporting the principle that the president should have the candid advice of his advisers,” Mr. Fratto said.

6.20.2008 9:02 AM

And Why the United Steelworkers Joined In, Too

By Dan Shapley

Just days after Al Gore endorsed Sen. Barack Obama’s presidency, another major force in the world of the environment has thrown its weight behind the Democrat.

The Sierra Club, which calls itself America’s largest grassroots environmental organization, has endorsed Barack Obama. (It also endorsed Obama in the Democratic primaries.)

In an election when his rival, Sen. John McCain, has sought to distinguish his credentials on fighting global warming as a defining feature of his campaign, Obama’s detailed energy agenda seems to have won over the group. While both candidates endorse a cap-and-trade system for reducing heat-trapping carbon emissions, McCain’s goal falls short of the benchmark set by United Nations scientists for staving off the worst consequences of global warming. (Incidentally, even those targets are increasingly seen as weak, given the rapidity of climate-induced changes occurring around the world, and the increase in carbon pollution.)

Here are the facets of Obama’s agenda the Sierra Club highlighted:

• The central “cap and auction” system that would cut our carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 requires polluters to pay for their emissions and invests money into clean energy technology and jobs, and aid for low-income Americans affected by higher energy costs.
• A requirement that 25% of U.S. electricity come from renewable sources by 2025, along with a plan for improving energy efficiency in the U.S. 50 percent by 2030.
• Retention of bans on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off-shore oil and gas exploration.
• Opposition to the storage of nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain repository being built in southern Nevada.
• Restoration of environmental programs undercut by Bush Administration executive orders.
• Increased regulation of factory farms.
• Support of the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act, which aims to protect children from toxic lead poisoning.

“We believe Senator Obama is the change our nation needs - he is the change we need, the leader who will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that will create and keep millions of jobs, spur innovation and opportunity, make us a more secure nation, and help us solve global warming,” said Carl Pope, president of the Sierra Club.

Interestingly, the Sierra Club endorsement came alongside that of the United Steelworkers, which sees the promise of new jobs in Obama’s clean energy agenda.

Environmental Lovins

Rethinking the cost of hybrid cars

By Noah Buhayar and Bryan Palmintier Posted Fri May 30, 2008 3:07pm PDT

A lot of people get sticker shock when they look at the price of a new hybrid. They figure that the added expense won’t pay itself back very quickly on fuel savings alone.

And in some cases they’re right. Even with $4 gas, someone who drives 15,000 miles per year won’t necessarily recoup those added costs in the first year of ownership. Depending on the non-hybrid car used for comparison, it may take two or more years before the gas savings alone equals the up-front premium for the hybrid.

But this quick analysis misses a number of hybrids’ other economic benefits.

For starters, hybrids are holding their value better than non-hybrid cars. This means that, even if you don’t recoup the extra cost of the hybrid in gas savings, you’re likely to get more money out of the car when you decide to sell it.

In addition to resale, some lenders — typically credit unions — offer discounted loan rates for hybrids. And some insurance companies — including Geico, the Travelers, and Farmers — offer discounted premiums.

The federal government is also offering tax credits of up to $3,400 for hybrids — but only for the first 60,000 vehicles, which means that Toyota and Honda models are no longer eligible. Some employers offer incentives for hybrid vehicles as well.

Testing the idea
Recently, Bryan put together a quick spreadsheet to calculate the “real” cost of owning a new hybrid versus another car.

In his calculations, he stacked up the Prius against the non-hybrid versions of Honda Accord and Civic, the cars he and his wife were looking at.

As you can see from the screen shot below, the Prius came out a winner.

Crunching the numbers
You can build a similar spreadsheet yourself by consulting a few resources and making a few assumptions.

Bryan, for instance, estimated the minimum number of years an person usually owns a vehicle (three), the average cost of gas (~$4.00), the number of miles someone might drive per year (12,500), standard maintenance costs, and how the purchase was financed.

If you’re really particular, you may want to tack on extra cost such as the insurance premiums of owning a particular make and model car. You may also want to check and see if there are tax incentives from your state or the federal government for purchasing your particular model of hybrid.

For the parts of the calculation you don’t assume, here are a couple of links to get you on your way:

• Kelly Blue Book has average new car prices and resale values in your area. Models do tend to change from year to year, but assuming most features stay the same, you can estimate an average resale value for a car by looking at how old models are reselling. My colleague assumed he’d hold onto the new 2008 Prius, Accord, or Civic for at least three years, so he looked at resale values for 2005 models.
• Fueleconomy.gov has tons of data on average MPG of most cars. Your actual MPG will depend somewhat on driving habits, but the EPA stats will at least get you in the ballpark.
• E-loan should give you an idea about how much interest you’d have to pay to finance the purchase. Though, be sure to look around at your bank and local credit unions that may offer discounts for hybrids.

Noah Buhayar and Bryan Palmintier are fellows at Rocky Mountain Institute.

Driving Green

Buying green is just the first step in reducing the environmental impacts of automobile use. Your choice of vehicle is most important, but how you drive and how well you maintain your car, van, or light truck will also make a difference.

• Avoid “jack rabbit” starts and aggressive driving. Flooring the gas pedal not only wastes gas, it leads to drastically higher pollution rates. One second of high-powered driving can produce nearly the same volume of carbon monoxide emissions as a half hour of normal driving.
• Think ahead. Try to anticipate stops and let your vehicle coast down as much as possible. Avoid the increased pollution, wasted gas, and wear on your brakes created by accelerating hard and braking hard.
• Follow the speed limit! Driving 75 mph instead of 65 mph will lower your fuel economy by about 10 percent, and can dramatically increase tailpipe pollution in many vehicles.
• When possible, plan your trips to avoid rush hour. Stop-and-go driving burns gas and increases emissions of smog-forming pollutants.
• Combine trips. Warmed-up engines and catalysts generate much less air pollution, so combining several short trips into one can make a big difference.
• Take a load off. Carrying around an extra 100 pounds reduces fuel economy by about 1 percent. Take a few moments to unload your cargo area.
• If your vehicle has it, use overdrive gear at cruising speeds. When driving a manual transmission, shift up as soon as possible. Running in a higher gear decreases the rpm and will decrease fuel use and engine wear.
• Try using the vents and opening windows to cool off before you turn on the air conditioner. Air conditioner use increases fuel consumption, increases NOx emissions in some vehicles, and involves environmentally damaging fluids.
• Unlike many older cars and trucks, modern vehicles don’t need to warm up and they have automatic chokes, so you don’t need to step on the gas pedal before starting the engine.

Maintenance Tips

• Keep your tires properly inflated. Tires should be inflated to the pressure recommended for your vehicle; this information is often printed inside the door frame or in your owner’s manual. For every 3 pounds below recommended pressure, fuel economy goes down by about 1 percent. Tires can lose about 1 pound of pressure in a month, so check the air pressure regularly and always before going on a long trip or carrying heavy loads. Underinflated tires can also detract from handling, safety, and how long the tires will last.
• Buy low-rolling-resistance (LRR) replacement tires. Switching to a typical set of replacement tires lowers a vehicle’s fuel economy as much as 4 percent. LRR tires, on the other hand, are specially designed to improve a vehicle’s fuel economy. Most major tire manufacturers now produce LRR models, so when it comes time to replace your tires, seek out a set of LRRs.
• Check your own fuel economy every few weeks. If you notice it slipping, that could mean you have a minor problem with the engine or your brakes. Using this advance warning, you can fix problems before you have a breakdown on the road.
• Get a tune-up. Whether you do it yourself or go to a mechanic, a tune-up can increase your fuel economy. Follow owner’s manual guidelines. Be sure to check for worn spark plugs, dragging brakes, and low transmission fluid; have your wheels aligned and tires rotated; and replace the air filter if needed. Make sure all used vehicle fluids are recycled or disposed of safely.
• Change the oil. In addition to making your car or truck last longer, replacing the oil and oil filter regularly will also help fuel economy. Check your owner’s manual for specific recommendations about how often to change. Ask the service station if they recycle used oil, or if you do it yourself, take your old oil to someplace that does recycle. Ask for recycled oil as a replacement.
• Have your vehicle’s emission control system checked periodically. Take it in for service if an instrument panel warning light comes on.

Careful Fill-Ups

Americans too often take gasoline for granted, forgetting that it is quite a hazardous substance. Gasoline fumes are toxic and carcinogenic; they cause smog; and spilled gasoline can pollute the water and poison wildlife. And it’s very flammable, too.

• Use regular gasoline unless your owner’s manual says otherwise. Unless your car requires premium, high-octane fuels improve neither fuel economy nor performance and will just waste your money.
• Don’t overfill the gas tank or try to top it off beyond where the automatic nozzle clicks off. Spilled gasoline evaporates to aggravate smog formation and can leak into groundwater.
• Patronize gas stations that have vapor-recovery nozzles (those black, accordion-looking plastic devices attached to the nozzle) whenever you can.

Prudent Parking

• Park in the shade in summer to keep your car cool and minimize evaporation of fuel.
• If you have a garage, use it as much as possible to keep your car warm in winter and cool in summer.
• If you have to park outdoors, windshield shades can cut down on summer heat and help keep the frost off in the winter.

Take Advantage of “Commuter Choice” Programs

Most Americans commute to work, and now there are special programs that provide incentives for both employees and employers to “Get There With Clean Air.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation are teaming up with businesses and others to set up “Commuter Choice” programs. These employer-sponsored initiatives can make you eligible for cash and other benefits for greener commuting. Examples include:

• One company gives its workers free walking shoes, with the promotion “we’ll even buy your walking shoes if you hoof it to work!”
• Another company offers participating employees monthly drawings for prizes that might include extra time off, mountain bikes, and other goodies.
• A municipality gives its employees an extra hour of time-off for every 5 days they use carpool or vanpool to get to work, plus permission to dress casually at the office.

Companies and communities that make use of Commuter Choice benefits often save money. For example, by cutting down on car commuting, they can avoid the need to build large parking lots that are both expensive and use up green space. These programs take advantage of recent fringe benefits rules, such as offering workers tax-free transit or vanpool benefits of up to $100 per month. Employers can also allow employees to “cash-out” their parking space, receiving additional income of up to $175 per month (taxed like added salary for the employee, but still a deductible business expense for the employer). Employees can use this cash to commute as they wish, including carpooling, telecommuting, bicycling, or walking. Employers benefit through lowered taxes, lowered costs, and new ways to recruit and keep employees.

Commuter Choice cuts pollution, reduces traffic congestion, and conserves energy. Ask your employer if they have a Commuter Choice program. If not, ask them to start one. For more information, check out the Commuter Choice website.

Download Green Driving Tips (PDF)

OK, folks.  This is the Moment we’ve been waiting for. 
 
It looks like all the pieces are in place for a big push on the Solar Investment Tax Credit extensions.  Here’s what’s up:
 
+   You may recall that the Senate passed –by 88 to 8!- an extension bill titled S. 2821 “Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008″ 
+   Last Thursday, the House Ways and Means Committee passed H. R. 6049 “Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008″.
 
Both measures extend the tax credits.  The Senate’s bill has already passed.  With passage of HR 6049 in the House, the only remaining barriers will be reconciliation of the two measures.  So, Let’s Get these measures PASSED!
 
Tomorrow, May 20, has been designated as a Day of Action for the solar industry and all its friends and supporters.  This is the time for all those e-mail blasts that you have been preparing.  Time to hit the GO button. 
 
What you say comes from you.  Show your sense of what’s important and why.  This is my version- use it or write your own.  The basics are enough: 
 
“Dear Senator/ Representative [ name ]:  This country has been addicted to oil for too long.  It is time to change course.  If we want a strong economy in this country in the future when oil is more constrained and more expensive than it is today, we simply must invest in the cleanest, most available energy source available - solar technology.
 
The solar energy industry has been growing but that growth is at risk.  The solar investment tax credits are crucial to continuing the current rate of investment by both large and small investors.  Already investors are slowing their plans — new companies and expansion of existing companies, and all the jobs that accompany those expansions, all this is at risk now, as investors see the pending end of the ITC. 
 
I work with an innovative startup company that hopes to be part of the new solar economy.  If the solar investment tax credits are allowed to expire, our company –like many others–will be forced to grow much more slowly.  New jobs will be delayed if not canceled outright.  So will all the energy benefits that could otherwise be captured by solar customers: the benefits of replacing expensive oil and fossil fuel with clean, fixed-price solar energy. 
 
These investments in solar are small compared to the enormous benefits they bring.  Please vote now to pass the extension of the Solar Investment Tax Credits.  Thank you, [   your name  ].  ”
 
 
 When you write is critical.  Please send something tomorrow if you can.  Please circulate this call to action through your lists
 
Here are some resources.  Use what you need, but don’t get buried in detail or reinvent the wheel.  Keep the message simple, short and direct. 
 
+  Call to Action from the three lead groups: SEIA, VoteSolar and Sierra Club.  This resource guide contains sample call scripts and e-mails –  http://www.seia.org/Resource%20Guide_National%20Action%20Day_May20.pdf  Feel free to modify any of these to fit your situation. 
+  List of all the tools and support letters and fact sheets anyone could possibly need — http://www.seia.org/itc.php

Thanks Team

Tim Padden

www.houseofsolar.com