http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/49556907.html

Jun. 30, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Electric utility relying on ecofriendly power, with no coal, natural gas in plans

By JENNIFER ROBISON

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

NV Energy’s latest plan for new power capacity will rely almost solely on ecofriendly measures, executives for the power utility said in a Tuesday meeting with Review-Journal editors and reporters.

When NV Energy files its three-year integrated resource plan with the Nevada Public Utilities Commission Wednesday, its proposal will feature $500 million for a green-energy transmission line, $325 million for efficiency and conservation and $100 million for solar-power arrays.

But it won’t include any requests for funds to build projects that generate power from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.

It’s the first mid-range agenda without carbon-fueled capital improvements since 2003, when NV Energy launched an aggressive initiative to buy and develop its own generating stations in Nevada.

NV Energy spent $1.5 billion in recent years acquiring and building power stations so the company could avoid the whims of pricey wholesale markets.

The strategy means the company will get 77 percent of its power through its own plants in 2009, up from 39 percent in 2005.

Michael Yackira, NV Energy’s chief executive officer, said he didn’t anticipate any need for new fossil fuel-fired plants or additions before 2015.

“We have made great inroads making Nevada energy-independent,” Yackira said. “Now, we’re going to be looking for ways to reduce (power) use in a cost-effective way.”

The company will refine its green portfolio in a series of expenses it will look to recover in future general rate cases.

The integrated resource plan NV Energy will file with the Public Utilities Commission will include $500 million for the One Nevada Transmission Line, or ONLine. The 235-mile network could link Southern Nevada to an initial 600 megawatts of renewable energy generated in Northern Nevada.

The transmission line, which should have an eventual carrying capacity of 2,000 megawatts, also would connect NV Energy’s subsidiaries in Reno and Las Vegas, for improved operating efficiencies statewide.

Plus, ONLine would make for competitive prices on solar power in Southern Nevada, because it would bring geothermal energy from up north to the Las Vegas Valley to compete for a share of electricity generation.

The resource plan also reserves $325 million for efforts to boost energy efficiency and conservation.

Those funds will cover energy audits and rebates for small-scale residential photovoltaic systems, compact fluorescent light bulbs and other green technologies.

Consumers might balk at the notion that they will lower their power bills through conservation, only to see the electric utility seek higher rates later to subsidize ecoconscious measures.

But Yackira pointed to big long-term savings from conservation initiatives.

Efficiency efforts cost less than 5 cents per kilowatt hour, while purchasing or producing power costs 12 cents per kilowatt hour. So, swapping out fresh power purchases for conservation should yield savings of 7 cents per kilowatt hour for consumers.

NV Energy also will reveal plans to spend $100 million building photovoltaic plants to capture solar power.

Three plants in Southern Nevada will provide 56 megawatts of solar power. It should take four to five months to build the plants, once state officials approve the proposals.

The final significant chunk of money in the integrated resource plan is $85 million for assorted transmission projects.

NV Energy, which just wrapped up a general rate case that yielded a 6.9 percent increase in the average consumer’s power bill, must file an integrated resource plan every three years.

The filing provides a shorter-term action plan on a 20-year strategy.

Yackira said the utility will seek to recover some of the costs of the projects included in Wednesday’s filing, but he said it’s too early to determine how much of those expenses might appear in the next general rate case.

That rate case is scheduled to be heard in 2012.

The 2012 case is also likely to include some of the capital improvements and expenses the Public Utilities Commission disallowed in the most recent rate case, Yackira said.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/new-measures-to-aid-solar-on-public-lands/?hp

June 29, 2009, 2:59 PM

New Measures to Aid Solar on Public Lands

By KATE GALBRAITH The Associated Press

Hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands are being studied for their potential as solar power sites, Ken Salazar, the Interior secretary, said on Monday. Mr. Salazar announced measures on Monday to hasten the development of solar energy on Western public lands. Mr. Salazar, appearing in Las Vegas with Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, said that 670,000 acres of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (an agency within the Department of the Interior) would be studied to determine whether they could support large solar power arrays.

Twenty-four tracts of land in six states — Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah — are under review. Maps of the land will be published shortly in the Federal Register. The solar study zones, Mr. Salazar said, are part of the Obama administration’s push to do “everything we can to put the bulls-eye on the development of solar energy on our public lands.”

Mr. Salazar said the assessments would be done in a “thoughtful way,” to ensure not only that the sites can supply plenty of solar power, but also that they “don’t contravene the other important public values we’re trying to protect, including other environmental values.” Solar power has run into opposition in places like California’s Mojave Desert, where environmentalists and some of their political allies fear that large solar plants could hurt fragile desert ecosystems.

By the end of 2010, Mr. Salazar said, he expected there to be 13 commercial-scale solar projects under construction on public lands. “There are millions of acres set aside for oil and gas. It’s about time we did something for renewable energy,” said Mr. Reid.

Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, praised the initiatives. “It’s about time to make the permitting process more efficient and provide greater guidance to solar developers,” he said in a statement. Mr. Resch also noted that no permits have yet been issued for solar projects, despite the approval of over 7,000 permits for oil and gas drilling on Bureau of Land Management land in 2007.

Mr. Salazar also announced the opening of a new “Interior renewable energy coordination office” in Nevada, to process renewable energy applications from developers to build on public lands more quickly. Three other offices of this type will be opened later in Arizona, California and Wyoming. Already, according to the Department of Interior, there are 158 “active” solar applications on file with the bureau. The bureau will also begin reviewing the environmental implications of two proposed solar arrays in Nevada, Mr. Salazar said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE55S5GO20090629

U.S. Interior Dept designates solar energy zones

Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:58pm EDT

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) –

Hoping to speed up the development of renewable energy resources on federal lands, the U.S. Interior Department on Monday designated about 670,000 acres of land as potential areas for solar energy production.

“This environmentally sensitive plan will identify appropriate Interior-managed lands that have excellent solar energy potential and limited conflicts with wildlife, other natural resources or land users,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

The land is divided into 24 solar energy zones spread across six western states and could generate nearly 100,000 megawatts of solar electricity.

The department will evaluate the possible environmental impacts of solar production in these areas as well as their energy resources.

“The objective is to provide landscape-scale planning and zoning for solar projects on (Bureau of Land Management) lands in the West, allowing a more efficient process for permitting and siting responsible solar development,” the department said.

U.S. President Barack Obama has made moving the United States away from reliance on fossil fuels a key priority of his administration.

Obama has pledged to double renewable energy production in three years and supports setting a national renewable power mandate.

The Interior Department created a special task force in March to identify the specific areas on public lands where the government could act rapidly to create large-scale renewable energy production.

The department’s Bureau of Land Management has received about 470 renewable energy project applications, including 158 active solar applications.

Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch welcomed the department’s announcement.

“Notably, requiring BLM to perform environmental impact analyses of the Solar Energy Study Areas will ensure responsible development of solar energy on public lands and would expedite the permitting process for these projects,” Resch said. “In short, everyone wins.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Betraying the Planet

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 28, 2009

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

The House of Representatives
passed a major bill to move us toward a clean energy future.

Find out How Your Representative Voted and Contact Them Today!

Congress has taken the first step toward unleashing a true clean energy revolution with yesterday’s historic passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Click here to find out how your Representative voted and write a letter thanking them if they voted in favor or expressing your disappointment if they voted against the bill.

While imperfect, this legislation sets forth a set of goals America must achieve — and exceed. Most importantly, it puts the United States on a path to reduce carbon emissions some 80 percent by 2050.

Together, we worked hard to get this bill passed as a critical first step in our clean energy future. An unprecedented coalition of environmental, faith, community, labor, veterans, business, and other groups mounted one of the most vigorous grassroots campaigns in decades to move this critical legislation through the House.

We sent emails, held rallies, made phone calls, wrote letters to the editor and visited district offices, all the while pushing our members of Congress to defend, improve and pass this legislation with the strongest provisions possible to create green jobs and address global warming.

Thanks to your help, the United States is on a path toward a clean energy future.

But our work does not stop here.

We have to push even harder to improve the bill as it goes on to the Senate and then comes back to the House for reconciliation.

Before the President signs this bill into law, it must include a mechanism for cleaning up the oldest and dirtiest coal plants. We also need to boost the bill’s investments in energy efficiency, hasten our transition toward clean energy sources like wind and solar, and steer more of the bill’s investments toward the public benefit—not polluters.

The first step to improving this legislation is to find out how your member of Congress voted and let them know you’re holding them accountable.

Use this link to find out how your member voted and then send them an email:
http://action.sierraclub.org/aces_housevote

Thanks for all that you do to protect the environment.

Greg Haegele
Deputy Executive Director, Sierra Club

Sierra Club
85 Second St.
San Francisco, CA 94105

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10478

Dennis Kucinich Lays Out Why He Voted Against Clean Energy Act

Submitted by Eugmc on June 27, 2009 – 2:36pm.
Cleveland area Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) laid out the reasons he opposed and voted against H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The vast majority of fellow Democrats voted in favor of the measure which passed the House and is on the way to the Senate for a vote. Kucinich stated in a press release:

“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The reason is simple. It won’t address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse.

“It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

“Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail. Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the planet. Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic levels of warming. But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030.

“Today’s bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to claim that we cannot do better. I respectfully submit that not only can we do better; we have no choice but to do better. Indeed, if we pass a bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take substantive action.

“There are several aspects of the bill that are problematic.

1. Overall targets are too weak. The bill is predicated on a target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts per million, a target that is arguably justified in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but which is already out of date. Recent science suggests 350 parts per million is necessary to help us avoid the worst effects of global warming.

2. The offsets undercut the emission reductions. Offsets allow polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with fraudulent claims of emissions reduction; they create environmental, social, and economic unintended adverse consequences; and they codify and endorse the idea that polluters do not have to make sacrifices to solve the problem.

3. It kicks the can down the road. By requiring the bulk of the emissions to be carried out in the long term and requiring few reductions in the short term, we are not only failing to take the action when it is needed to address rapid global warming, but we are assuming the long term targets will remain intact.

4. EPA’s authority to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short- to medium-term is rescinded. It is our best defense against a new generation of coal power plants. There is no room for coal as a major energy source in a future with a stable climate.

5. Nuclear power is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Nuclear power is far more expensive, has major safety issues including a near release in my own home state in 2002, and there is still no resolution to the waste problem. A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.

6. Dirty Coal is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Coal-based energy destroys entire mountains, kills and injures workers at higher rates than most other occupations, decimates ecologically sensitive wetlands and streams, creates ponds of ash that are so toxic the Department of Homeland Security will not disclose their locations for fear of their potential to become a terrorist weapon, and fouls the air and water with sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic compounds that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters. In contrast, several times more jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than comparable coal investments.

7. The $60 billion allocated for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is triple the amount of money for basic research and development in the bill. We should be pressuring China, India and Russia to slow and stop their power plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation. We cannot create that pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on a single technology that may or may not work. If it does not work on the necessary scale, we have then spent 10-20 years emitting more CO2, which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those who will profit from the technology will not be viable or able to stem any leaks from CCS facilities that may occur 50, 100, or 1000 years from now.

8. Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.

9. It is regressive. Free allocations doled out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.

10. The Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) is not an improvement. The 15% RES standard would be achieved even if we failed to act.

11. Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable”: The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as “renewable energy.” Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic substances. These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and low-income to the toxics. Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a fuel source are also defined as “renewable.” Under the bill, neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global warming.

12. It undermines our bargaining position in international negotiations in Copenhagen and beyond. As the biggest per capita polluter, we have a responsibility to take action that is disproportionately stronger than the actions of other countries. It is, in fact, the best way to preserve credibility in the international context.

13. International assistance is much less than demanded by developing countries. Given the level of climate change that is already in the pipeline, we are going to need to devote major resources toward adaptation. Developing countries will need it the most, which is why they are calling for much more resources for adaptation and technology transfer than is allocated in this bill. This will also undercut our position in Copenhagen.

“I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point. All amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House. Three amendments endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of failure to reduce emissions – increasing emissions in some cases – while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their well being.

“Three other amendments would have made the federal government a force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar panels on government rooftops and parking lots. These provisions would accelerate the transition to a green economy.

“Another amendment would have moved up the year by which reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025. It would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by a third each year.

“The last amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of renewable energy. Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of environmental injustice in the country. It a primary source of compounds in the air known to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases. These facilities are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities of low income. Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.

“Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow,” said Kucinich.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105834436&sc=fb&cc=fp

ENVIRONMENT

Putting A Financial Spin On Global Warming

by Richard Harris

Listen Now [7 min 47 sec] NPR Radio Story

Jessica Goldstein/NPR
Michael Shellenberger (left) and Ted Nordhaus of The Breakthrough Institute made a recent trip to Capitol Hill to push Congress to spend more money on clean energy technologies. © 2009

Click Here To Watch Episodes Of ‘Global Warming: It’s All About Carbon’

Morning Edition, June 24, 2009 ·

Climate change is a potential environmental disaster — but it’s also potentially an economic opportunity. President Obama spoke of it in economic terms Tuesday when he urged the House of Representatives to pass legislation that would address global warming.

“The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy,” he said. “That is what this legislation seeks to achieve. It is a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation. And that is why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.”

Promoting responses to global warming as an economic opportunity — rather than as a pollution problem that needs to be solved through regulation — has long been championed by a tiny think tank in Oakland, Calif.

The Breakthrough Institute

The Breakthrough Institute doesn’t look like much — just a few offices in a shared suite in downtown Oakland.

There are only five people on staff. On a recent day, they were outnumbered by an incoming crop of seven freshly minted college graduates, who showed up for their summer internships.

Michael Shellenberger, 37, and Ted Nordhaus, 43, founded the Breakthrough Institute in 2002.

Shellenberger tells the interns that environmental groups — like the ones he used to work for — are going about it all wrong. By urging Congress to cast carbon dioxide as a pollutant that needs to be controlled, he says, they will constantly swim against the tide of public opinion.

“We’re stuck in this kind of poor paradigm for dealing with climate change, this pollution paradigm,” he says, “not because environmentalists are failures, but actually because they were so successful. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the cap and trade on acid rain — these things worked really well.”

Pushing Innovation, Not Regulation

Read the rest of this entry »

http://www.rgj.com/article/20090623/NEWS/90623054/1321/news

Ely coal-fired power plant plan withdrawn

AP • JUNE 23, 2009

NV Energy has formally withdrawn its application to build the Ely Energy Center, a coal-fired power plant that was opposed by environmentalists and by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

NV Energy said in February that it would postpone the $5 billion, 1,500-megawatt plant for up to 10 years, or until technology for capturing and storing carbon dioxide was commercially feasible.

Now, the utility has made it official, telling the state Public Utilities Commission that it wants to rescind its application to build the plant in eastern Nevada.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24059.html

Word games could threaten climate bill

By: Jeanne Cummings
June 23, 2009 04:52 AM EST

Rep. Henry Waxman, Rep. John Dingell and Rep. Ed Markey speak at a press conference.

In Washington, the change of a single word can help unravel an entire coalition.

That dynamic is on display this week as the House considers a climate change bill with a broad swath of the environmental community sitting on the sidelines, neither supporting nor opposing the historic measure.

It’s an extraordinary development given how unified the community has been for the past decade in working to elevate the issue and install a political majority that would address it.

The Democratic takeover of Congress was the first step; the election of President Barack Obama was the second; and the replacement of Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was the third.

Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, are given high praise for getting the first climate change bill in history to the House floor.

But to get there, they had to cut some deals with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) to win the votes of the coal- and oil-state Democrats on the energy committee.

One of those compromises was the deletion of the word “finally” and the insertion of the word “initially.”

With that one word change, Congress defined which coal-fired power plants would be covered by new greenhouse emissions standards and which would be grandfathered outside them. Read the rest of this entry »

http://www.reuters.com/article/mnGreenGadgets/idUS343668364920090622

GE Water Heater Cuts Energy Use in Half

Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:17am EDT

Technology developed through a collaboration between Oak Ridge National Laboratory and General Electric meets new a tough new Energy Star water heater program criteria. GE is set to be the first company to meet the new energy saving standard, and will also be creating hundreds of jobs in Louisville, Kentucky.

GE announced the heater the day after the new Energy Star heat pump hot water heater criteria was released, which required future heaters to be twice as efficient as an electric storage water heater. The new water heater criteria are expected to save American households approximately $780 million, per the DOE.

GE has targeted increasing concerns over utility costs as water heating “accounts for 12 percent of U.S. home energy consumption” making it one of the top contributors to household demand.The GE Hybrid Electric Water Heater is designed to produce equivalent performance to standard water heaters, except at half the operating cost, requiring 2300 kWh of electricity per year compared with 4800 kwH/year. The hybrid technology saves energy by absorbing heat in ambient air and transferring it into the water, which requires much less energy than it does to generate heat.

“It’ll give you as much hot water, it’ll have the same recovery time so you won’t run out of hot water, but it will use half the energy to do so,” said Patrick Hughes of ORNL. “Typical family of four would save about $250 to $300 per year and the device will qualify for the personal tax credits, it will pay for itself in about three years.”

The tax credits Hughes refers to are the Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency, which can cover 30 percent of the cost for non-solar water heaters (up to $1,500). GE also manufactures solar water heaters, which are a small but growing market in the U.S., and energy-efficient tankless water heaters, which heat water on demand.

If current water heaters (44 million) were switched to GE’s heat pump water heater, annual energy savings could equate to the electric output of 176 coal-fired power plants per year and 12 million tons of carbon emissions reduction, per the 2007 Buildings Energy Data Book.

The Louisville plant is set to start producing water heaters in 2011. The planned manufacturing facility also has a potential to create 1,600 incremental green jobs over time.