March 3 Colorado Energy Cheat Sheet: EPA’s McCarthy ‘good news about Gold King’; a Tesla will improve your ‘quality of life’

Environmental Protection Administrator Gina McCarthy: “But, the good news about Gold King is that, you know, it really was a bright color, but the bright color was because the iron was oxidizing. It meant we had actually less problem than how it usually leaks, [laugh] which is pretty constantly, and so it was only a half a day’s release of what generally comes from those mines and goes into those rivers.”

The Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch had more on the story:

The EPA-caused spill unleashed the equivalent of “9 football fields spread out at one foot deep” for a couple hours, according to a report by University of Arizona researchers.

Mine waste from Gold King was only coming out at a rate of 112 gallons per minute in August 2014. After the spill, wastewater was coming out at a rate of 500 to 700 gallons per minute.

While there have thankfully been no reported short-term health problems from the spill, experts are worried the toxic metals, like arsenic and lead, that leaked from the mine could pose long-term health problems.

“There is a potential for such sediments to be stirred up and metals released during high water events or recreational use,” University of Arizona researchers wrote. “The metals could become concentrated in fish that live in the river and feed on things that grow in the sediments. Metals in the sediments could seep into the groundwater, resulting in impacts to drinking and irrigation water.”

And the question of culpability for the EPA remains, as a House committee finds additional evidence implicating the agency directly:

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, cornered Interior Secretary Sally Jewell Tuesday over an email he says contradicts her statements that a toxic mine spill the Environmental Protection Agency caused last year in Colorado was an “accident.”

The mine blowout released 3 million gallons of heavy-metal-tainted water into the Colorado Animas River and the waterways of New Mexico and Utah. Bishop’s committee recently subpoenaed the Interior Department in February to provide it with email communications between Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Much of what they received back was completely redacted, Bishop said. But one email that Interior sent to the panel, unrelated to the subpoena, was revealing.

The email shows “that less than 48 hours after the blowout, your employee in Colorado talks to the EPA official in charge, and then emails all senior leadership at [the Bureau of Land Management], and basically says that EPA was deliberately removing a small portion of the plug to relieve pressure in the mine when the blowout occurred.”


ICYMI: Energy Policy Center associate analyst Simon Lomax’s latest column:

It was a rare moment of honesty from an environmental activist: “It is not easy to talk about the kind of massive changes that we need to make; about how we think, about what we eat, where it comes from, how we entertain ourselves, what kind of holidays we take,” said Kumi Naidoo, former executive director of Greenpeace International. “All of these things actually are very painful to talk about.”

Naidoo, who led Greenpeace for six years before departing late last year, made these remarks in mid-February at a climate-change forum in Germany. He was answering the question of an Icelandic official, who wanted to know why governments aren’t doing more to crack down on “meat consumption,” and other economic excesses that produce greenhouse gases. “We have to change the way we consume,” the official concluded at the end of her question.

On the same panel, three seats across from Naidoo, sat U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). As the former Greenpeace activist wrapped up his answer, the American lawmaker saw his climate and energy talking points going up in flames, and tried to get back on message.

“Let me just push back very gently on one point,” Whitehouse said, in comments first reported by The Harry Read Me File. “I don’t want to leave the impression that mankind must suffer in order to make these changes. The changes in consumption can actually be enjoyable and beneficial.”

Then he offered an example: “If you trade in your Mercedes for a Tesla, your quality of life just went up.”

Read it all here.


Have not had much on wind energy in a while, and the latest headline is somewhat revealing–wind sources acknowledge their lethal impact on birds, and propose to use technology to shut them down whenever a bird is nearby, making the energy source even more erratic and intermittent, not to mention the wear and tear of stop/start on the turbines themselves:

What if a wind turbine knew to shut down when a bird was too close? That vision is the goal of ongoing research in Golden, and birds themselves are helping to develop a solution.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has been conducting avian research alongside various industry partners to drastically reduce avian deaths by wind turbine collisions.

Colorado has 1,916 operating wind turbines statewide, placing it eighth in the nation for the number of turbines within a state.

Although those wind turbines accounted for only a small percentage of bird deaths annually, Jason Roadman, a technical engineer for NREL said that percentage should be zero.

“Renewable energy is something that I and a lot of people strongly believe in, so we want to make it as low impact as possible,” Roadman said. “The rates of wild bird collisions are fairly low on these solar-wind farms, but they’re not zero. So anything we can do to reduce the footprint of the negative effects of alternative energy, we’ll make every effort toward.”

Leaving the question of turbine resiliency and energy generation fluctuation aside, the admission that such measures are necessary to alleviate the threat to birds, including the heavily protected eagles and other raptors, is quite a step from a few years ago, when wind proponents minimized any such concern and sought takings extensions to prop up one of the industry’s most glaring shortcomings.


To say it’s been a rough 18 months for oil and gas would be an understatement, and the effect of the drop in commodities prices is being reflected in new figures from local businesses and communities:

Anadarko Petroleum Corp., one of the biggest oil and gas companies working in Colorado, will have only one drilling rig operating in the state during 2016 — down from an average of seven in 2015.

The Texas company (NYSE: APC), based in The Woodlands, a suburb of Houston, on Tuesday followed its peers by releasing budget figures and plans for 2016 that are a far cry from last year.

Hammered by a bust in oil and gas prices brought on by an international glut in supplies, oil and gas companies have slashed budgets, laid off employees and sold assets in the struggle to survive.

Anadarko, which has operations in the U.S. and around the world, said Tuesday it expects to spend between $2.6 billion and $2.8 billion this year, down nearly 50 percent from its 2015 budget.

About half that money, $1.1 billion, will be spent in the United States, and about half that amount — approximately $500 million — spent in the Colorado’s Denver-Julesburg Basin during 2016, according to the company.

By comparison, Anadarko said a year ago it expected to spend about $1.8 billion on its Colorado operations in 2015.

Cuts like Anadarko’s have already manifested in places heavily involved in natural resource development, like northern Colorado’s Weld County:

Weld County’s economy appears to have entered a hard skid, now confirmed by larger-than-expected downward revisions to the number of people employed in oil and gas and mining statewide.

Preliminary employment counts last month estimated the county gained a net 3,800 payroll jobs between December 2014 and last December.

But revisions based on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages for the third quarter from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment out Wednesday now project the county lost 500 jobs last year.

“It is playing out as we expected. It has just been more delayed than expected,” said Brian Lewandowski, associate director of the business research division at the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Leeds School of Business.

Weld County accounted for about 90 percent of the state’s oil production last year, and oil and gas producers account for about three-quarters of employment in the mining sector, Lewandowski said.

Mining has also been hit hard:

The QCEW revisions show what was initially measured as a modest 3.9 percent year-over-year decline in mining employment is running closer to a 20.7 percent drop.

Viewed another way, the loss of 1,400 mining sector jobs last year is now estimated at closer to 7,500, a nearly fivefold increase.

And while the number crunchers characterize the information as “delayed”–due to being lagging indicators following the commodity prices dropping–the impact was within a year, not a much longer or slowed trend that plays out over time.

A similar downturn has already been seen in severance taxes in the same area, as we noted a month ago in the Cheat Sheet:

Pushing for bans on fracking or other measures to limit responsible natural resource development will only exacerbate problems at the local level, putting education, infrastructure, and other critical services at risk, on top of the drop noted here in the Denver Post due to commodity prices tanking:

Because 97 percent of Platte Valley’s budget comes from taxes paid on mineral production and equipment — a property tax known as ad valorem — McClain said his district could be looking at a budget reduction between $300,000 and nearly $1 million next school year.
How that plays out in terms of potential cuts or program impacts is yet to be seen, he said.
“You’re always concerned about your folks,” McClain said. “You worry about it taking the forward momentum and positivity out.”
It’s not just schools that are suffering. Municipal budgets, local businesses and even hospitals in mineral-rich pockets of Colorado are watching closely to see how long prices remain depressed.

Combine that with a 72.3 percent drop in severance tax revenue–down to $77.6 million this year compared with $280 million last fiscal year–and you’ll get, in the words of the Post, “the state’s direct distributions of those proceeds to cities, counties, towns and schools will be reduced from a little more than $40 million in 2015 to just $11.9 million this year.


Xcel says the future of solar is bright:

Xcel Energy filed a new renewable energy plan with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission Monday that could more than double its portfolio of solar power in the state over the next three years.

“Our plan is all about our energy future in Colorado, and allowing our customers to choose and pay for the energy sources that they believe are best for them,” David Eves, president of Public Service Co. of Colorado, said in a statement.

The plan would add 421 megawatts of new power from renewable sources, enough for 126,300 homes, over the next three years. The bulk of that amount, 401 megawatts, would come from solar.

Xcel Energy, which currently obtains more than 22 percent of its power from renewable sources, said it is on track to meet or beat the state mandate of 30 percent from renewable sources by 2020.

The solar industry, however, is not impressed with Xcel, saying the utility should do more to encourage distributed generation:

But one leading solar advocate questioned the utility’s sincerity, given that Xcel, in a separate rate case, has asked for cuts to what it pays customers who put solar power onto the grid.

“Xcel’s view of the energy future is not the only one that Coloradans should consider. The public really needs to have a say here,” said Rebecca Cantwell, executive director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association.

Xcel currently offers to take on 2 megawatts of additional solar power at the start of each month, but that capacity is reserved within 15 to 20 minutes.

“We don’t think there should be an allocation, a ‘Mother may I have some capacity’ system,’ ” Cantwell said. “The industry is ready to play a much bigger part in Colorado’s energy future.”

Solar remains captive to the need for government mandates, rebates, handouts, and incentives to spur growth beyond the natural market preference of customers desiring to install the preferred energy source. The cost of panels may be declining (again, due in no small part to taxpayer-funded R&D grants, state and federal mandates, and other subsidies), but the cost of a system remains daunting.

If you have any doubt about the extent of government programs to encourage solar and other renewables, take a look of this list compiled by the Department of Energy. It lists 129 programs for Colorado alone.


As for the resources necessary for renewables and battery storage, here’s a new report from the Institute for Energy Research, as they show that renewables increase dependency on foreign sources:

One of the common reasons people claim to support wind and solar technologies is to reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy. For example, green energy supporter Jay Faison told the Wall Street Journal “If we expand our clean energy technologies, we’ll create more jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy…”[i] The problem is that green energy actually increases reliance on imports instead of reducing imports.

Green energy technologies are dependent on rare earth minerals and lithium for batteries–both of which are primarily imported into the United States. Most of the world’s rare earth minerals are produced in China (85 percent); and that country supplies the United States with most of its rare earth imports (71 percent). The United States only produces 24 percent of the rare earth minerals that it needs.[ii] In 2013, the United States imported 54 percent of the lithium it used, with Chile and Argentina supplying 96 percent of those imports.[iii] Some believe that lithium may be the “new oil”, eclipsing oil as a source for geopolitical and economic power.[iv] Clearly, Tesla, who is building a gigafactory in Nevada to produce lithium-ion batteries for its cars and Powerwall storage device, needs access to low-cost lithium. In contrast to these figures, the United States now imports only 27 percent of the oil it uses domestically.[v]


And about that reliability argument:

Green energy is so unreliable and intermittent that it could wreck the power grid, according to industry and government experts.

The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently investigating how green energy undermines the reliability of the electrical grid. FERC believe there is a “significant risk” of electricity in the United States becoming unreliable because “wind and solar don’t offer the services the shuttered coal plants provided.” Environmental regulations could make operating coal or natural gas power plant unprofitable, which could compromise the reliability of the entire power grid.

“The intermittency of renewable sources of electricity is already threatening reliability in Britain,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. ”This is because there are so many windmills that conventional power plants are being closed as uneconomic and so when the wind doesn’t blow there is not adequate backup power available. To avoid blackouts, the government is now paying large sums to have several hundred big diesel generators on standby. If this sounds crazy, it is.”

NREL Employee Threatens Reporter, Issues Internal Email About Threats To NREL

April 23, 2014 by michael · Comments Off
Filed under: Legal, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 


A secret government energy lab here went on heightened alert after one of its employees used Twitter to threaten mass murder against Watchdog reporters, according to internal memos and emails received under the Freedom of Information Act.

But the added security measures utilized by the National Renewable Energy Lab weren’t to isolate and chastise staffer Kerrilee Crosby, who used Twitter in late 2012 to advocate what she called “a murderous rampage.”

Instead, the lab was concerned because an unidentified individual sent Crosby an email labeled “Because you deserve to die” — the same words Crosby used in her threat against Watchdog.

It was the subsequent threat from an unidentified individual (the name was redacted in the Freedom of Information Act documents released) that prompted this reaction from NREL:

“Details are still being assembled and the likelihood of making contact remains low.

A person named (redacted) has made a veiled threat against NREL employee Kerry Crosby.

Should we come into contact with (redacted) we are to call 911 immediately… Keep in mind, we cannot be sure this is the right name. Be very suspicious of anyone unexpected looking for Kerry Crosby.

Jeffco is already engaged in this issue.”

According to Watchdog, while the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department pooh-poohed the threat made by Crosby against the reporting outfit by refusing to take a police report, it appeared fully prepared to provide assistance to NREL–by opening a case and visiting the agency’s campus.

NREL’s security office issued these warnings to workers:

1. Be aware of an increase in anger at NREL and our mission
2. NREL Security will step up vehicle searches
3. Be prepared for an increase in press inquiries and amateur information seekers
4. Understand that this story may inspire others to be angry toward NREL, government spending, green energy, people who make threats, etc.

“The number of web-based news sources repeating the Watchdog story continues to grow,” the memo said.

Crosby drew in the Independence Institute’s Energy Policy Center director Amy Oliver Cooke into the original series of threatening tweets she made in late 2012 when she included a link to a photo of Cooke.

“I can’t remember where I left my gun, though. Found it!,” she tweeted. The original link has been removed.

Want open space? Don’t go wind or solar!

August 2, 2013 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy, renewable energy 

By Robert Applegate

Amid the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) latest report1 on the land requirements of solar power generation, others are taking a look at what is really required to power homes using solar and wind and comparing that to another carbon free source, nuclear power generation.

A nuclear power plant, the biggest reactors currently available would take up less than 2 square miles and produce 3200MW of power.2 To achieve this same power output from solar would require 292 square miles, 146 times the amount of land required for a nuclear plant.2 A wind farm would need to be 832 square miles, or 416 times the land to create the same amount of power of the nuclear plant.2 To put this into perspective, the land footprints are shown over the backdrop of the state of Rhode Island, where the blue is a nuclear plant, the yellow a solar farm, and the green a wind farm all of equal capacity.

Land footprint comparisons

Land footprints of a nuclear plant (blue), solar array (yellow), and a wind farm (green) all of equal capacity (3200MW), over the backdrop of the state of Rhode Island.2


1      NREL Report Firms Up Land-Use Requirements of Solar. Study shows solar for 1,000 homes would require 32 acres. July 30, 2013.

2      What Does Renewable Energy Look Like? Clean Energy Insight, 10 Apr, 2010.

A high tab: NREL’s $135 million toast

March 14, 2013 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

I didn’t make up this. The Denver Post lede paragraph in a story about the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is almost laughable:

Hooking a toaster oven to a solar panel is not an easy thing, but the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s new $135 million integrated energy facility will able do just that. While it may seem like a lot of money for toast, the Energy Systems Integration Facility can do a lot more.

That doesn’t just seem like a lot of money, it IS a lot of money. On this blog we’ve detailed NREL’s excessive spending. And Colorado exposed NREL’s million dollar employee Executive Director Dan Arvizu.

So is $135 million a lot for toast? For most taxpayers yes but likely not for NREL.  It might be more humorous if it weren’t our money. Frankly, we haven’t seen NREL do anything that couldn’t wouldn’t be done better in the private sector — assuming it is done at all.

Controversial NREL Director to Chair National Science Board

May 18, 2012 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

In the wake of controversial comments advocating the end of fossil fuels as sources for US energy in order to combat global warming, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Director Dan Arvizu has been elected Chairman of the National Science Board (NSB) according to an NREL press release.

Just days ago during the World Renewable Energy Forum, Arvizu stated, “’fossil fuels should be phased out by 2040 to blunt man-made climate change,’”… and that natural gas is little more than “’a nice bridge technology, but not the answer we are looking for in terms of a transition and transformation,’” away from fossil fuels and toward alternatives such as wind, solar, and biofuels, of which NREL is a champion.

According to the NSB’s Web site,

The National Science Board has two important roles. First, it establishes the policies of NSF [National Science Foundation] within the framework of applicable national policies set forth by the President and the Congress. In this capacity, the Board identifies issues that are critical to NSF’s future, approves NSF’s strategic budget directions and the annual budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget, and approves new major programs and awards. The second role of the Board is to serve as an independent body of advisors to both the President and the Congress on policy matters related to science and engineering and education in science and engineering. In addition to major reports, the NSB also publishes occasional policy papers or statements on issues of importance to U.S. science and engineering.

The NREL press release describes the NSB:

The 25-member body advises the president and Congress on science and engineering issues, and is the policy-setting and budget-approving body for the National Science Foundation. With an annual budget of $6.9 billion, the foundation funds about 20 percent of all federally supported basic scientific research at U.S. colleges and universities. Arvizu will serve a two-year term as chairman.

With an anti-fossil fuel, global warming alarmist like Arvizu at the helm of the NSB, the politicalization of science will continue when it comes to energy policy.

NREL: Get rid of fossil fuels

May 14, 2012 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive 

We’ve translated President Obama’s “all of the above” energy policy before. Basically, it’s to rid the US of energy from fossil fuels. Now, no translation is needed.

Dan Arvizu, director of Colorado’s own National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a taxpayer-funded arm of the Department of Energy, says “fossil fuels should be phased out by 2040 to blunt man-made climate change” reports the Denver Post.

Arvizu refers to natural gas as simply “a nice bridge technology, but not the answer we are looking for in terms of a transition and transformation,” away from fossil fuels and toward alternatives such as wind, solar, and biofuels, of which NREL is a champion.

NREL has seen its budget and influence grow under the Obama administration. We reported in September of last year that NREL’s budget exploded 63.4 percent from 2007 to 2010. While taxpayers suffered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, NREL received nearly $300 million in “stimulus” funds to create 219 jobs. To put that in perspective, Colorado’s oil and gas industry “directly employs over 40,000 people and supports over 107,000 jobs in the state and provides $6.5 billion in total labor income and $31 billion in economic output annually,” according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA).

Even if COGA is off by a factor of half, the oil and gas industry is economically more beneficial to Colorado than NREL, which claims substantial increases in economic benefit but still doesn’t equal the percentage increase in its taxpayer-funded budget according to an NREL press release.

NREL’s economic impact grew 41 percent from FY 2009’s $588.3 million, and 12 percent from FY 2010’s $742 million, as construction continued on energy-efficient research and office buildings that will house employees leading the nation to a clean energy future.

So taxpayer-funded NREL wants to get rid of privately-funded fossil fuel industry. We now know what President Obama’s “all of the above” energy policy looks like and doesn’t really include all sources of energy.

NREL: Energy Sec Chu’s laughable statement on renewables

November 21, 2011 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu toured the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden on Friday. Fresh from his Thursday testimony on the Solyndra scandal before the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Chu continued to touted the cost effectiveness of renewables despite millions of taxpayer dollars lost on failed investments.

The NREL Newsroom reported that Chu said, “wind power now is virtually cost-competitive with fossil fuels, going for about 5 and a half cents per kilowatt hour. Solar is still more expensive than that, but should reach price parity by the end of this decade or a few years beyond.”

Colorado’s largest investor owned utility Xcel Energy begs to differ. At the end of August we reported what Xcel had to say about the cost of wind and solar in its most recent energy compliance plan:

Going forward, it is very questionable if new renewable resources can be cost effective if they do not get the benefit of the Federal Production Tax Credit. Currently the production tax credit for wind is set to expire at the end of 2012 and at the end of 2016 for solar resources.

Also, Chu’s fantastical accounting doesn’t include the billions of taxpayer dollars already allocated to renewables, which could have been used in a more cost effective manner had the private sector been allowed to invest where it chooses.

At least some are starting to question whether the cost of renewables — “going green” —  is worth it.  A recent BBC News report claims the number of UK residents living in “fuel poverty,” meaning that their electricity bills are more than 10 percent of their household income, has doubled. Roughly 20 percent of UK residents now live in “fuel poverty.” The report leaves viewers wondering if they can afford to go green.

We’ve detailed many times the “Great Green Deception,” but it will take consumers revolting against their utility bills to change course. In the meantime, start saving your money. You’ll need it to pay your utility bills.

NREL’s Bob Noun ties to Congressman Perlmutter

October 6, 2011 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

With this headline — “Golden’s NREL to shed more than 10 percent of workforce” — Golden’s National Renewable Energy Lab made national news on Monday.

I’ve been skeptical of NREL spokesman Bob Noun’s ”blame Congress” and “Washington gridlock” sob story over a possible 1.5 percent reduction in funding, considering NREL has enjoyed a 63.4 percent increase in taxpayer cash over the last few years.

Congressman Ed Perlmutter’s office, which represents the district in which NREL is located, didn’t help when it overreacted as well. Perlmutter’s spokeswoman Leslie Oliver (no relation) lamented to the Denver Post’s Chuck Plunkett:

cuts at the “crown jewel” in the nation’s green energy development represented a setback “that is a concern.”

“What about next year?” Oliver said. “Where do this stop?”

To me, the reactions to a possible 1.5 percent reduction seemed over the top, especially considering the current economic situation,  as Matthew Boyle of the Daily Caller reported:

Amy Oliver of Colorado’s conservative Independence Institute said one way to look at these potential “green jobs” shortcomings is that the NREL is exaggerating its claims. Oliver told The Daily Caller that the government-funded lab has seen a surge in government funding in recent years.

“Their funding for 2008 was $328 million,” Oliver said in a phone interview. “In 2010 it was $536.5 million. They’ve had a 64 percent increase in their funding during the Obama administration.”

Oliver acknowledges that the $8 million NREL projects in savings is a significant amount, and told TheDC she was impressed to learn that its leadership would even consider cutting their budget. But, she says, while the saved $8 million doesn’t represent a real budget cut, it’s a better outcome than more spending.

A little background information about Noun is enlightening. According to his bio from the Denver University Sturm School of Law where Noun serves as an adjunct professor, prior to joining NREL in 1979 Noun was legislative director and counsel for science and technology policy for democrat Congressman Thomas Harkin of Iowa.

Over the last several election cycles, Noun and his wife have contributed to Congressman Ed Perlmutter’s campaigns as Open Secrets reveals:

Now the reactions make sense, especially since the budget math does not.

Making sense of NREL’s budget math and job creation

October 6, 2011 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

The story surrounding NREL’s possible $8 million reduction in 2012 doesn’t make sense. Is it a “savings” or a “cut”? Does NREL “create” green jobs or not? And NREL spokesman Bob Noun’s comments have not helped to clarify. Consider this story from CBS 4 Denver where Noun was questioned about NREL’s funding and stimulus money it received:

Noun said 98 percent of the lab’s funding comes from the federal government, including nearly $300 million in stimulus in 2009. It was money that was meant to create jobs.

That money was supposed to create 219 jobs at a cost of $1,360,540.11 per job as Michael Sandoval documented. When asked about the criticism, Noun had a different take on whether NREL creates green jobs or not:

Noun defends the lab, saying its mission isn’t job creation. “Our role here is to create technology, hand it off to industries so they can create jobs and grow.

President Obama said the stimulus money was supposed to “create” jobs in the green industry. Noun said the money, which NREL received, was supposed to create jobs, but when criticized he said job creation wasn’t the lab’s mission. Which is it?

Something else bothers me.  NREL got $298 million to “create” 219 green jobs, but it takes $8 million in “savings” to cut 100-150 jobs. Since taxpayers originally spent $1,360,540.11 to create one job, theoretically NREL could cut six jobs to achieve $8,163,240.66 in savings. Right?

Then there is the whole issue of whether the $8 million is a “savings” or an actual “cut” in NREL’s 2012 budget. Keep in mind that NREL enjoyed a 63.4 percent funding increase from 2008 to 2010. This is how the Denver Post reported NREL’s voluntary employee buyout:

NREL spokesman Bob Noun said the jobs were a victim of the gridlocked Congress, and that budget forecasts led the lab to look for more than $8 million in savings.

“We don’t see any budget scenario where the lab doesn’t face budget cuts,” Noun said. “We just want to be proactive in managing the budget so we continue our core mission.”

Is it a “savings” or is it a “cut”?  Because they are different.  An $8 million “cut” in the 2012 budget from  2010 funding would mean $528.5 million in funding. Not exactly chump change and still well above its 2008 funding levels of $328.3 million.

The “savings” versus “cut” debate would be academic were it not for a blog post from February 18, 2011 from the Denver University Sturm School of Law where Bob Noun is an adjunct professor in environmental and natural resources law. Noun’s class heard from guest lecturer Drew Willison, Vice President, Public Policy and External Relations for Battelle, a charitable trust and partner in the Alliance for Sustainable Energy that operates NREL. Lawyer/lobbyist Willison, who formerly worked  for U.S. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, discussed the budget process and revealed information about the proposed 2012 budget:

In particular, he focused on the proposed budgets for the U.S. Department of Energy, which funds energy efficiency and renewable energy efforts, as well as the appropriations process that actually provides money for measures that have been through the budget process. He noted that the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget, which will begin on October 1, provides a five percent increase from the fiscal year 2010 current appropriation.

As stated in an earlier NREL post, NREL’s funding comes through the DOE. Willison, with his insider information, tells a group of law students and the NREL spokesman that President Obama’s 2012 budget provides the DOE with a 5 percent increase over 2010 funding levels.  Although not guaranteed, it would be reasonable then for NREL to assume it too is receiving a 5 percent increase over 2010 levels.  That would put NREL’s 2012 funding at $563.3 million. Even with $8 million in “cuts” or “savings,” the 2012 anticipated funding would still be $555.3 million, a 3.5 percent increase over 2010 levels.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the $8 million really is a cut; it represents a 1.5 percent reduction in funding that has increased 63.4 percent since 2008. Even if the $8 million cuts really do materialize, they won’t likely threaten the Big Green Empire’s top-secret mission to “built a better future for everyone.”

Skeptical of the Big Green Empire

October 3, 2011 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

Headline: “Golden’s NREL to shed more than 10 percent of workforce”

Denver Post, October 3, 2011

Well maybe. Read my take on the rest of the story.

Golden’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) dreams of a global green empire may have to be scaled back but just a wee bit.  According to the Denver Post’s Chuck Plunkett, the “crown jewel” of the green empire is looking for $8 million in savings and may have to lay off 10 percent or more (100-150 people) of its work force of 1,350 through “voluntary buy-outs.”  Plunkett writes:

In both a symbolic and real-world blow to green energy development and the jobs renewable industries are meant to create, the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden announced significant job cuts today.

NREL spokesman Bob Noun told the DP that “gridlock” in Congress is to blame, forcing the lab to be “proactive” in dealing with budget forecasts.

To put the $8 million into perspective, it is a mere 1.5 percent of NREL’s 2010 funding, which was $536.5 million. Compare that to $328.3 million in 2008, and it’s obvious that $8 million in “savings” hardly throws the lab into poverty. The real story is that after hundreds of millions of stimulus dollars, NREL and the big green dream just aren’t viable. The math doesn’t work. Plus the stimulus money was meant to be temporary anyway.

It’s likely that the “savings” will have little impact on the lab overall other than for PR purposes. Consider this response from democrat Congressman Ed Perlmutter’s office,whose district includes NREL. Perlmutter’s spokesperson Leslie Oliver lamented:

cuts at the “crown jewel” in the nation’s green energy development represented a setback “that is a concern.”

“What about next year?” Oliver said. “Where does this stop?”

Wondering where you’ve read the “crown jewel” comment before? Back in June 2011, when republican Congressman Doug Lamborn had the nerve to question NREL funding, the Denver Post had this quote from Oliver in response:

‘NREL is a crown jewel in the world of renewable energy,’ said Leslie Oliver, a spokeswoman for Perlmutter. ‘It’s providing a lot of jobs; those are things we need to be fostering.’

That same story also reported Perlmutter’s claim that NREL “generates 5,500 jobs.”

It seems that NREL and Perlmutter like playing with numbers. The workforce is 1,350 when the percentage laid off needs to make an impact such as “more than 10 percent.” Suppose the story read, NREL may consider a voluntary buy out of up to 150 employees, less than 2.8 percent of the number of jobs “generated,” in a proactive move to address possible 2012 budget “savings.” That 2.8 percentage doesn’t have quite the same chicken little, sky is falling appeal to it.

Significant layoffs. Crown jewel. Blame Congress (no one likes them anyway, ask Brandon Shaffer). Where does this stop?

This story seems a little too convenient.  It’s seems too much of an attempt by NREL to gin up public support for funding and for an industry that has been rocked by mismanagement of taxpayer money and outlandish employment promises.

Color me skeptical of Big Green.

Next Page »