Debate on Clean Energy Leads to Regional Divide

While most lawmakers accept that more renewable energy is needed on the nation’s grid, the debate over the giant climate-change and energy bill now before Congress is exposing a fundamental rift.  For many players, the energy not only has to be clean and free of carbon-dioxide emissions, it also has to be generated nearby.

The division has set off a fight between Eastern and Midwestern politicians and grid officials over parts of the bill dealing with transmission lines and solar and wind energy. Many officials, including President Obama, say that the grid is antiquated and that thousands of miles of new power lines are needed to allow construction of wind farms and solar fields in the most promising spots. Many of the best wind sites are in the Midwest, far from the electric load in populous East Coast cities.

An influential coalition of East Coast governors and power companies fears that building wind and solar sites in the Midwest would cause their region to miss out on jobs and other economic benefits. The coalition is therefore trying to block a mandate for transcontinental lines.

They want the wind farms built in rural New England and offshore from Massachusetts to Delaware, and for now it appears that they may get a chance to do that. They are campaigning to keep a provision out of the legislation that would mandate a huge super-high-voltage grid, with the cost spread among millions of electric customers.

“While we support the development of wind resources for the United States wherever they exist,” the governors warned in a May 4 letter to House and Senate leaders, “this ratepayer-funded revenue guarantee for land-based wind and other generation resources in the Great Plains would have significant, negative consequences for our region.”

Dan W. Reicher, an assistant energy secretary in the Clinton administration who now leads energy initiatives at Google, said the debate exposed a conundrum. “The areas with the most attractive renewable energy resources often don’t overlap with the places where the push for job creation is strongest,” Mr. Reicher said.

For example, a wind machine in North Dakota would produce more energy than the same machine in some Eastern states — but energy projects tend to get built in places where they are most wanted.

The East Coast advocates may have won a crucial first round. When the House passed its sweeping energy and climate-change bill on June 26, it included a provision that lets the federal government overrule state objections to new power lines — but only west of the Rockies. Western states would be unlikely to oppose the new power lines in any case: the region has long been accustomed to huge generation projects built at a great distance from load centers.

But the bill would not give the federal government a mandate to overrule the Eastern states on transmission lines. The issue will be on the table again as the Senate takes up the bill in the next few weeks.

A two-year effort by transmission authorities in the eastern half of the country to draw up plans for a strong grid collapsed after grid officials in New York and New England pulled out, saying that the plans were too centered on moving Midwestern energy eastward.

In an interview, Ian A. Bowles, the Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said he questioned “whether or not we need national transmission legislation at all.”

Mr. Bowles suggested that all Congress needed to do was impose a cap on carbon-dioxide emissions and mandate a national renewable energy quota. Then the market could determine whether resources should be in distant spots with long transmission lines or places closer to load centers, he said.

The debate echoes others in past years about whether to build conventional power plants locally or build stronger connections to distant conventional plants.

The governors’ concern, said James B. Robb, a senior vice president of Northeast Utilities, was not only the optimal cost and use of the electricity but also “any fringes that come along with it — the local tax base, local employment, all those kinds of things.”

For years, some planners have talked about a grid powerful enough to allow for “postage-stamp rates,” transmission charges that are small and independent of distance, so that power will be produced wherever it is most economical, even if that is half a continent away from where it is needed. But for local economic reasons some people resisted that idea, even in the days before tapping wind on the plains and sun in the desert became a national goal.

And a weak grid helps some electric companies. Local generators have often been able to charge more by being in the right place at the right time, with no competition because the long-distance lines are already fully loaded, experts say.

“When you have a constrained transmission system and you seek to unconstrain it,” said Mary Ellen Paravalos, the vice president for transmission at National Grid, a New York and New England company, some local parties stand to lose. This is true “even if the wider societal benefit is net positive,” Ms. Paravalos said.

Complicating the debate, many proposed power lines that could carry renewable energy to market could also end up carrying coal-fired power. An improved national grid would end the situation that prevails at many hours in the East today, when coal plants that can produce power cheaply sit idle while cleaner natural gas plants are running full tilt, able to sell their more expensive power because grid traffic is so bad that the coal power cannot reach the market.

That configuration costs consumers money but also reduces emissions of the carbon-dioxide emissions that cause climate change. So contrary to expectations, one effect of a stronger grid, although ardently sought by supporters of renewable energy, could be to push costs down but nudge coal-fired emissions up.

But the basic conflict remains distant energy versus local energy.

“Some states dealing with this issue see it not only as an environmental and least-cost-supply question but also as a potential economic development tool,” said Branko Terzic, a former member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates some power lines.

Mr. Terzic added, “Those three goals are not always concurrent and could be in conflict.”

Source: New York Times

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

New York City – Town of Smithtown NY Chooses CNG to Cut Refuse Collection Costs

Faced with rising refuse collection costs, the Town of Smithtown, New York, decided to require its refuse collection contractors to use compressed natural gas (CNG) trucks. It was the first New York municipality to institute such a requirement. On January 1, 2007, the 30 contractor-owned diesel refuse trucks collecting solid waste and recyclables from the town’s 116,000 residents were replaced by 22 CNG models.

Smithtown selected four bidders for seven-year contracts: Brothers Carting, Dejana Industries, Jody Industries, and V. Garafalo Carting. The companies were responsible for buying the new CNG trucks. To offset the higher cost for these trucks versus diesel trucks, the companies had the option of claiming the Federal Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit for up to 80% of the incremental cost. An alliance of local organizations helped the contractors find financing options.

To establish CNG fueling infrastructure, Smithtown partnered with natural gas supplier Clean Energy. With no leasing agreements, access fees, or capital outlay for Smithtown, the contract required Clean Energy to provide the fueling infrastructure and commission local service providers. Because of Smithtown’s new contract with the refuse collectors, Clean Energy had to complete the fueling station in six months–two to four months faster than it usually takes to locate a station, obtain permits, and secure a compressor.

To accomplish this, Clean Energy received permission from the New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT) and Office of General Services to allow expansion of a station in nearby Hauppauge, which Clean Energy already operated for New York State. The Hauppauge expansion supported NYDOT’s goal to increase natural gas use as a vehicle fuel and brought additional revenue to the state of $0.05 per gasoline gallon equivalent. Clean Energy expanded the Hauppauge volumetric gas flow rate from 15 to 2,000 scfm and opened the station within four months.Smithtown entered into an agreement on fuel pricing with Clean Energy through 2013. CNG costs for the refuse trucks started at $2.33 per diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) through 2008 and increase each year to conclude at $2.94 per DGE in 2013. The contracted CNG price could decrease if the price differential between diesel and CNG goes above a set threshold.

“Controlling refuse collection costs for town residents was the primary reason Smithtown chose CNG,” explained the coordinator of the Greater Long Island Clean Cities Coalition. “The commitment from Clean Energy to set a stable fuel price was very important.” Switching to CNG provides environmental and energy-security benefits for Smithtown.

The CNG refuse trucks are projected over the life of the contract to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by 265 tons and particulate matter by 15 tons. Smithtown also expects to displace more than 1.5 million DGE of petroleum-based fuel.The benefits are amplified when other towns adopt a similar strategy. Smithtown’s success inspired nearby Brookhaven to plan the deployment of 67 CNG trucks in 2009 in a similar effort.

Clean Cities inspired Smithtown’s move to CNG. In May 2006, Russell Barnett, Smithtown’s Environmental Protection Director, saw a Clean Cities alternative fuel presentation at the Federation of New York Solid Waste Associations Solid Waste/Recycling Conference & Trade Show in Bolton Landing, New York. The presentation persuaded him that CNG was the best choice for Smithtown’s refuse fleet. For more information, contact Russell Barnett.

Source: United States Department of Energy (DOE)

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com.

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

City of Oahu Hawaii Aims to Block Off-Island Waste Export Plan

The head of a private trash hauler said his company is ready to ship O’ahu’s garbage to Washington state, with or without the approval of the Hannemann administration.

Hawaiian Waste Systems LLC chief executive Jim Hodge said he’s arranged with “more than one” local trash company to take their garbage for a price cheaper than the city’s landfill tipping fee. His company would then bale, shrink-wrap and ship the trash to the Port of Longview, about 40 miles north of Portland, Ore.

“Our facility is up and ready,” Hodge said, insisting that he has done everything necessary to start operations, including investing $10 million for a facility at Campbell Industrial Park. If Hawaiian Waste secures a contract with the city, “we will commit our private system to the city system and it’s always been our intent to do that,” he said.

Mayor Mufi Hannemann and other city officials, however, believe Hawaiian Waste needs city approval to proceed.

A resolution designed to clarify the situation by authorizing a private trash haulerto ship up to 150,000 tons of solid waste out of state “without challenge or other impediment from the city” was deferred 7-1 by the City Council yesterday after strong objections raised by city Environmental Services Director Tim Steinberger.

“Our main concern is this (resolution) does surrender the city’s right to flow control for a period of time,” Steinberger said. “That has financial impacts.”

Lost tipping fees

The city could lose as much as $12 million annually in lost tipping fees, which are generated when private haulers dispose of their garbage with the city, he said. More important, he said, the administration is worried it will lose control over how much trash is being shipped off-island, which could hinder its ability to provide enough solid waste under its contract with the HPOWER waste-to-energy plant.

If Hawaiian Waste moves forward with shipping trash off-island without city approval, “the city would very likely have to pursue legal action with the support of (the) council,” Steinberger said.

Hawaiian Waste was the low bidder for a city contract last year to ship trash off-island but city purchasing officials determined the bid was “non-responsive” to concerns that were raised. Hawaiian Waste’s appeal of that decision was denied by the city. Hodge insists his company did what it was told, and is now appealing the decision to the state Department of Commerce and Community Affairs.

free market

City Council members are split on the resolution to support off-island shipping, a measure introduced by Council Chairman Todd Apo.

Apo said that despite arguing about the potential loss of revenue from tipping fees, the city has neglected to point out that it will need to spend less in disposing the trash on its own.

Councilman Nestor Garcia said he’s worried about the fiscal impacts of shipping trash off-island, not just in terms of tipping fees but the revenues lost from not being able to sell energy that trash might otherwise generate at HPOWER.

But Councilman Charles Djou said he believes in the free market process and that “there’s no reason for the government to step in and interfere” with what Hawaiian Waste is trying to accomplish. Djou accused colleagues of being “addicted” to the revenues generated by tipping fees.

Despite Hodge’s claim that he is able to find private haulers to provide Hawaiian Waste trash, not all local waste companies support its efforts.

Greg Apa, a senior vice president with Honolulu Disposal Services, testified that the economic downturn has resulted in a 20 to 30 percent drop in business. Allowing trash to be shipped off-island is going to make it difficult for his company, the largest private hauler in the state, to maintain contracts and would stifle the momentum of the city’s curbside recycling program, Apa said

Source:  Honolulu Advertiser

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace at admin@wihrg.com.

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com , http://www.wihresourcegroup.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Hawaii’s Clean Energy Initiative

Hawaii faces intertwined threats from global warming and dependence upon imported oil supplies. The threat from climate change is summarized in the recently released report of the United States Global Change Research Program. Rising atmospheric temperatures portend more frequent, stronger tropical storms, threaten to erode beaches, submerge beachfront properties, and alter Hawaiian agriculture and tourism in a state where tourism, agriculture, and property development accompany the military as the main pillars of the economy. Fortunately, Hawaii possesses the clean energy resources to do its share to combat global warming and in the process, help ameliorate the threat it faces from reliance upon imported oil.

Utility rate decoupling is ready to go into effect and a proposal before the state Public Utilities Commission will institute time-of-day pricing. Increasing efficiency through conservation is expected to meet 30 percent of the initiative’s 70 percent clean energy goal.

Hawaii depends upon the burning of imported oil to generate over 80 percent of its electricity supply, orders of magnitude more than any other state in the nation. The islands are likewise wholly dependent upon oil imports for the gasoline that fuels their cars and trucks. The risk of this dependence is three-fold.

Much of Hawaii’s oil comes from Indonesia, and there is no easy way to supply the islands should geo-political events interrupt tanker shipments — via pipeline, rail or truck, as would be possible on the mainland. Second, tightening oil markets are raising household and business costs in a state that the Energy Information Administration pegs as having the highest electricity rates in the country, at almost twice the national average. Third, of course, current global oil consumption rates are unsustainable and supply is unlikely to be sufficient to satisfy global demand in 50 years time or sooner.

The Aloha state’s answer is the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, an agreement entered into by the state and U.S. Department of Energy in January 2008 and augmented by an October 2008 agreement between the state and the island’s investor owned Hawaiian Electric Companies (HECO). The initiative calls for Hawaii to derive 70 percent of its power from energy efficiency and renewable energy by 2030. 

Headway is being made on the energy efficiency front. Utility rate decoupling is ready to go into effect and a proposal before the state Public Utilities Commission will institute time-of-day pricing. Increasing efficiency through conservation is expected to meet 30 percent of the initiative’s 70 percent clean energy goal.

Renewable energy will account for the other 40 percent — double what was called for under Hawaii’s previous renewable energy portfolio standard and twice what California has targeted. A huge step in this direction will occur in 2010, when all newly constructed homes in Hawaii will be required to have rooftop thermal solar panels installed. If the state were to take this to the next level, it would consider requiring existing homes to install thermal solar panels at time of resale, since preexisting homes will continue to account for the overwhelming majority of the islands’ building stock for many years to come.

Ormat currently generates 30 megawatts (MW) of geothermal electricity on the big island and is looking to expand this.  Additional renewable energy will soon arrive by sea, where Oceanlinx seeks to capitalize upon Hawaiian waves — among the most powerful in the world — and generate 2.7 MW of electricity with deployment of its proprietary OWC wave-driven compressed air turbine buoy technology (image, left). The $20 million project is projected to be operational in 2011.

The shear size of the footprints of most utility-scale solar projects make them unlikely to be developed in Hawaii, however the PUC is likely to approve an application from HECO under which the electric company would purchase up to 16 MW of energy from PV panels to be installed by merchant developers on the roofs of flat-topped industrial and government warehouse buildings in Honolulu.

Estimates place harvestable wind energy in Hawaii at 1000 MW, however the majority of this is on Maui. While wind turbines can easily be inter-spaced on agricultural land, getting this power to Honolulu, where most of the demand is, will require that view corridor concerns be overcome.  It will also require the installation of an expensive underwater 400-MW inter-island transmission line.

To bolster demand for these clean energy resources and further its transition from oil dependency, Hawaii is working with Silicon Valley entrepreneur Shai Agassi’s Better Place electric vehicle venture to install an array of battery swap stations on Oahu. This makes a lot of sense for Honolulu and Oahu, where travel distances are not long and can be manageably addressed by the mileage limits of current electric vehicle propulsion.

It has been estimated that buildings utilize one-third of electricity consumption in the U.S. and generate an equivalent amount of total green house gas emissions and, as is the case in most cities, downtown Honolulu is stacked with hi-rise commercial office, hotel and apartment buildings. LEED green building credits earned by increasing building energy efficiency, tapping alternative transportation and utilizing on- and off-site renewable energy can reduce buildings’ energy consumption by up to 50 percent and GHG emissions by up to 70 percent. Honolulu already requires new publicly owned buildings to be LEED certified.

Enacting a fee-bate system similar to that under consideration in Portland, Oregon could boost demand for clean energy among privately owned buildings.  In this plan new buildings and those undergoing upgrades that meet state energy standards would pay a building-permit fee while buildings that attain higher levels of LEED certification pay no fee or receive a fee rebate.

Hawaii is doing the right things, and should continue to broaden and deepen its clean energy efforts. Doing so can help ensure that as the tide of global warming washes ashore, Hawaii is positioned to have its boat lifted and become the most energy independent state in the nation.

 

 

 

Source:  RenewableEnergyWorld.com

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com.

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com , http://www.wihresourcegroup.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? – The Number of Skeptics is Swelling – Many Scientists Beg to Differ…

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven’t heard of this politician, it’s because he’s a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country’s carbon-emissions scheme.  Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Associated PressSteve Fielding

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia’s own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published “Heaven and Earth,” a damning critique of the “evidence” underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist — and ardent global warming believer — in April humbly pronounced it “an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.” Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia’s House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute’s annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama’s special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn’t.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on “unconvincing green science.” The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That’s made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won’t be alone.

Source:  Wall Street Journal

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com.

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com , http://www.wihresourcegroup.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

467,000 Jobs Cut in June – National Jobless Rate at 9.5 Percent

Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June, driving the unemployment rate up to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, suggesting that the economy’s road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on solid ground.

June’s payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected and average weekly earnings dropped to the lowest level in nearly a year.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn’t as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

“We were on the road of things getting less bad in the jobs market, and that has been temporarily waylaid,” said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. “But this doesn’t change my view that the recession will end later this year. We’re probably two months away.”

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 6.5 million jobs.  As the downturn bites into sales and profits, companies have turned to layoffs and other cost-cutting measures to survive. Those include holding down workers’ hours and freezing or cutting pay.  The average work week in June fell to 33 hours, the lowest on records dating to 1964.

Layoffs in May turned out to smaller, 322,000, versus the 345,000 first reported. But job cuts in April were a big deeper — 519,000 versus 504,000, according to government data.

Even with higher pace of job cuts in June, the report indicates that the worst of the layoffs have passed. The deepest job cuts of the recession came in January, when 741,000 jobs vanished, the most in any month since 1949.  And there was some other encouraging job news Thursday.

In a separate report, the department said the number of newly laid-off workers filing applications for unemployment benefits fell last week to 614,000, in line with economists’ predictions. The number of people continuing to draw benefits unexpectedly dropped to 6.7 million.  Still, job losses last month were widespread.

Professional and business services slashed 118,000 jobs, more than double the 48,000 cut in May. Manufacturers cut 136,000, down from 156,000. Construction companies got rid of 79,000 jobs, up from 48,000 the previous month. Retailers eliminated 21,000, up from 17,600. Financial activities cut 27,000, following 30,000 in May. The government cut 52,000 jobs, up from 10,000 the previous month. Leisure and hospitality cut 18,000 jobs, erasing a gain of the same size in May.  One of the few industries adding jobs: education and health services, which added 34,000 positions last month and 47,000 in May.

Mayland and other economists said a good chunk of June’s job losses likely were affected by shutdowns at General Motors Corp. and fallout from the troubled auto industry, which should let up later this summer. The government said employment at factories making autos and parts fell by 27,000 last month.  Payroll losses and the unemployment rate are derived from two separate statistical surveys. The jobless rate probably would have moved higher if not for people dropping out of the labor force.

With the weakness in the job market, workers didn’t see any wage gains in June. Average hourly earnings were flat at $18.53. Average weekly earnings fell from $613.34 in May, to $611.49 in June, the lowest level in nearly a year and the first drop since March. That raises fresh questions about consumers’ willingness to spend in the months ahead.  The worst crises in the housing, credit and financial markets since the 1930s have plunged the country into the longest recession since World War II.

Many think the jobless rate could rise as high as 10.7 percent by the second quarter of next year before it starts to make a slow descent. Some think the rate will top out at 11 percent. The post-World War II high was 10.8 percent at the end of 1982, when the country had suffered through a severe recession.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke predicts the recession will end this year, with many economists forecasting that the economy will start to grow again as soon as the current July-September quarter.  But recoveries after financial crises tend to be slow, which is why economists predict it will take years for the job market to return to normal. Some predict the nation’s unemployment rate won’t drop to 5 percent until 2013.

An elevated unemployment rate could become a political liability for President Barack Obama when congressional elections are held next year. The last time the unemployment rate topped 10 percent, the party of the president — then Ronald Reagan’s GOP — lost 26 House seats in midterm elections in 1982.  So far, many people are saving — rather than spending — the extra money in their paychecks from Obama’s tax cut, blunting its help in bracing the economy. Much of the economic benefit of Obama’s increased government spending on big public works projects won’t kick in until 2010, analysts say.

The White House last week said federal money was being shoveled out of Washington quickly, but states aren’t steering the cash to counties that need jobs the most.

Large job cuts have continued this week. Newspaper publisher Gannett Co. said it plans to cut 1,400 jobs in the next few weeks, about 3 percent of the work force, as it faces a prolonged slump in advertising revenue. Farm machinery company Deere & Co. said 800 salaried employees, or 3 percent of its salaried work force, took a voluntary buyout offer.

Source:  United States Labor Department Report – Released July 1, 2009

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com.

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com , http://www.wihresourcegroup.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Clean Energy Opens World’s Largest LNG/CNG Truck Fueling Station at Long Beach/Los Angeles Ports

The world’s largest natural gas truck fueling station, designed and built by Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (Nasdaq: CLNE), is now open for business on a 2.9-acre site adjacent to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. 

The new public access station, configured to fuel trucks on a 24/7 basis, features two 25,000-gallon liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage tanks, six LNG dispensers, and two compressed natural gas (CNG) dispensers.  The Clean Energy station is located on property leased from the Port of Long Beach at Anaheim and I streets. It is specifically designed to support the goals of the San Pedro Bay Ports’ Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) and Clean Truck programs.

Andrew Littlefair, Clean Energy President and CEO, said, “Clean Energy is proud to support the ports and their quest for cleaner air and a clean fuel future by building this landmark LNG/CNG truck fueling station that can provide fuel for several hundred natural gas Port trucks daily.”

He added, “We have seen demand for LNG and CNG fuel grow significantly as major trucking companies secure and deploy new natural gas-powered trucks at the ports. As demand for the environmentally-friendly fuel continues to increase, Clean Energy plans to add 50,000 gallons of fuel storage to the new station’s current capacity, as well as four more LNG/CNG fueling lanes.”

The Ports’ CAAP and Clean Truck programs call for the retirement or conversion of old diesel trucks entering the ports in favor of new diesel and alternative fuel (natural gas) trucks.  Natural gas vehicle fuel provides lower emissions than gasoline and diesel, including up to a 23% reduction in greenhouse gases in medium- and heavy-duty applications and up to 30% reductions for light-duty vehicles. The domestic natural gas used by the trucks also reduces America’s dependence on imported oil.

The new station is the second that Clean Energy has opened in the area to serve port drayage trucks. The first, operational since December 2007, is located near the ports at Southern Counties Express, a major port-trucking firm. This station currently supplies approximately 10,000 LNG gallons of fuel on a daily basis.

Source: Clean Energy & Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com.

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com , http://www.wihresourcegroup.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource