Hillary's energy plan

I've been out all day covering the Power Shift youth climate change action on Capitol Hill all morning, and in the meantime, Hillary Clinton released her climate and energy proposal.

It's extremely good.

Really fast--and then i'll write more later--her under-the-cap goals match Edwards' and Obama's exactly. Eighty percent reduction by 2050 with a 100 percent auction off the bat. Fifty-five mpg CAFE standards by 2030.

What distinguishes it is her other emphases. She puts efficiency, and transportation, and green jobs, and wind and solar way up top and in no-uncertain (if not richly detailed) terms. No new subsidies for nuclear energy either.

And down at the bottom? There's this important tid-bit:

She will create a National Energy Council modeled on the National Economic Council and the National Security Council. This new body will bring together disparate agencies in the federal government to put everyone on the same page and ensure that we all have the same priorities -- much like the National Economic Council does for the economy. The National Energy Council would be headed by a National Energy Advisor who reports directly to the President, and who is charged with coordinating the implementation of Hilary's energy and climate agenda across the Executive Branch. This body will convene representatives from every government agency in order to drive towards achieving the goal of 80% reduction of global warming pollution by 2050. For the first time, the Secretaries of Education and Agriculture, for example, will be deeply involved in meeting our energy efficiency and renewable energy targets. Hillary will use this body to break down bureaucratic barriers, encourage cross agency collaboration, and regularly reinforce that this issue is a top priority for her Administration. In addition, Hillary will focus the Department of Energy (DOE) on the challenge of transitioning from a carbon-based economy to a carbon-free economy. Hillary will choose a Secretary of Energy who both understands the traditional responsibilities of the DOE and can lead us to a clean energy future.

This is an extremely big deal, and that's putting it mildly. It's absolutely essential that all federal agencies have energy in mind when they're planning anything, and this suggests that she will make that a priority.

She speaks--with little detail--about the need to embrace cellulosic ethanol, but as I've written before (unpopularly), as long as that's paired with a strong community planning platform and commitments to hybrid vehicles and to no nuclear subsidies, I'm perfectly prepared to accept it. To mix some lame metaphors, there are bigger fish to fight against.

Here's what she says about coal--this needs to be clarified, and I assume it will be:

A 2006 McKinsey Global Insight study of global energy efficiency potential found that all future energy service demand growth in North America can be met through cost-effective energy efficiency investments, such as greener building technologies and more efficient vehicles. Recent examples prove that efficiency can dramatically reduce the need to build new power plants. Earlier this year, investors acquired TXU and scrapped plans to build 8 of 11 planned coal-fired power plants in Texas. Part of the plan to replace the 8 planned power plants was a $400 million increase in expenditures on customer efficiency. To maximize the potential for efficiency, Hillary would direct state utility commissions to ensure that before approving an application to build a coal plant, there is an evaluation of whether the energy services provided by that plant could be met by cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.

Accelerating the Development of Clean Coal: Coal plays a major role in America's energy mix, powering fifty percent of America's electricity generation, and we still have enormous coal reserves. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and are responsible for emissions of mercury and other dangerous pollutants. Hillary understands that continuing to build new coal plants in the same way that we have in the past will make it extremely difficult to meet our climate change goals. Hillary's plan includes many components that would alleviate the need for additional coal plants in the coming years. For example, hr strong efficiency measures will reduce the need for new power plants.

Hillary also believes that we need to take swift action to spur the development and deployment of technology and practices that will enable us to capture, store and safely sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. To accelerate the development of this important technology, Hillary would put immediate funding towards 10 large scale carbon capture and storage projects that utilize a range of coal types, power plant types, and storage locations. She will move quickly to develop the regulatory framework to ensure that carbon sequestration can be done safely and reliably. And she will require all new coal plants to be capable of adding capture and storage technology when it becomes commercially available.

CCS subsidies are coming. It might not make you happy, but you can all but bet your life on it. Here, at least, we're seeing a commitment that those subsidies will be allocated to specific research projects, and not just handed over to King Coal. What we don't see here, though, is a commitment--a crucial commitment--to banning any new coal-fired power plants that aren't actively capturing and sequestering their pollution from day one. I'll withhold criticism for now, because such a commitment may well be on its way, but she needs to say at least something about that.

What I'd like to hear from the candidates--an idea inspired by the recent Supreme Court ruling--is a pledge to appoint an EPA administrator who will demand radical regulations on the use of coal at the first signs that their new energy platforms aren't working as quickly as they'd hoped. But that would require Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama to read my blog, and my sense--and again, it's just a sense--is that they have more important things to do with their time.