IndianaDG

Indiana Governor candidates Gregg and Holcomb favor ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy

Posted by Laura Arnold / October 01, 2016 / Posted in Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), solar, Uncategorized, wind / No Comments

Democrat John Gregg, left, and Republican Eric Holcomb, right, squared off in their first debate Sept. 27. Libertarian Rex Bell joined the discussion as well. (AP photo)

Both Gregg, Holcomb favor ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy

October 1, 2016

John Russell

The race for governor has focused heavily on jobs, education and social issues such as gay rights and abortion.

But another topic, energy, is just as likely to affect the daily habits and wallets of every Indiana household andthousands of businesses, from sprawling factories to the corner drugstore.

The next governor’s energy policy could shape whether Indiana remains a coal-dependent state or instead promotes energy efficiency, clean energy sources and recycling—a direction in which many states are moving and one that’s touted by some as the energy job frontier.

But based on their records and campaign promises, neither Democrat John Gregg nor Republican Eric Holcomb seems likely to radically reshape Indiana’s energy policies.

Both support the use of coal, abundant in Indiana, as a fuel source for electricity, even as many other states are moving more quickly to encourage the use of clean, renewable fuel sources, such as wind and solar power.

But when questioned about whether they believe that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change, they differ.

“Yes, the science on this is very clear,” Gregg said.

Holcomb said he was less certain. “It is certainly debatable how much that contributes,” he said. “But I think it is reasonable to assume that human activity does, in fact, contribute to changes over time.”

They both use the phrase “all of the above” to describe their energy goals, meaning they support use of renewables but still back the use of coal, a controversial fuel source that emits greenhouse gases and that most scientists say contributes to climate change.

“As governor, I will continue to support Indiana’s most abundant and reliable energy sources, such as coal, while developing an all-of-the-above Indiana approach to keeping Hoosier energy costs down,” Holcomb said.

Gregg, a former land agent for Peabody Coal and lobbyist for Amax Coal, comes from a family of coal miners, and said he squarely stands behind coal, while approving of other fuel sources.

“I believe in an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy that focuses on achieving energy independence for America and low energy costs for Hoosiers,” he said.

Energy is a big business in Indiana. The state, which leads the nation in manufacturing as a percent of the state economy, uses an outsized amount of energy to power auto-assembly plants, oil refineries, chemical plants, hospitals, printing plants and millions of households.

So while Indiana is only 16th in the nation in population, it ranks 9th per capita in use of energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

All that adds up to huge sums in energy costs each year.

“From our perspective, energy is certainly an important issue to Indiana,” said Bette Dodd, director of the Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers Inc., which represents large buyers, such as General Motors and Allison Transmission.

When coal was cheap, Hoosiers enjoyed low prices, the organization said. Indiana ranked 5th-lowest in the nation for electricity prices in 2003. But as other fuel sources became cheaper and environmental rules made coal more expensive to burn, that advantage slipped, pushing Indiana to 23rd place in 2013.

However, because most of the energy is produced in coal-fired power plants, Indiana is also a leader in pollution, ranking 3rd in emissions for nitrogen oxide, 4th for sulfur dioxide and 5th for carbon dioxide. Those emissions have been linked to a wide variety of health ailments, from breathing problems to heart disease.

In the meantime, Indiana ranks a lowly 38th for use of renewable and alternative fuels and 42nd for energy efficiency.

For more than two years, Gov. Mike Pence has battled the Obama administration over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which calls for sweeping new requirements to cut carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The plan’s goal is to shift the nation to cleaner energy and require states to meet specific standards for carbon emissions.

But Pence has declared that his administration will not comply and has joined 26 other states that have sued the federal government to keep the rules from taking effect. A federal appeals court heard arguments in late September.

“Indiana is a pro-coal state, and we must continue to oppose the overreaching schemes of the EPA until we bring this war on coal to an end,” Pence said in his State of the State address in 2015.

In the meantime, Indiana has slowly begun to diversify into other fuel sources. In 1998, coal-burning power plants accounted for 98 percent of the utility-generated electricity in Indiana. By 2014, that number had shrunk to85 percent.

And that number is certain to drop even further soon. Indianapolis Power and Light Co.’s Harding Street power plant, which once burned 2 million tons of coal a year, converted to natural gas earlier this year. IPL is also retiring six coal-fired units at its Eagle Valley Generating Station near Martinsville, replacing them with a 650-megawatt combined-cycle gas turbine.

Other utilities are considering similar moves. The Northern Indiana Public Service Co., for example, recently said it might retire four coal-burning power plants, or about half of its coal-fired capacity, by 2023.

“The fact is, we are shifting away from coal as a state,” said Mark Maassell, president of the Indiana Energy Association, a trade group that represents electric power and natural gas companies.

But Indiana—which once kept many thousands of people employed in coal mines and related businesses—has been slower to leave its energy roots. Tennessee, Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma and other conservative states all rank higher than Indiana in electricity generation from renewables, such as wind and solar.

Political attacks

Despite Gregg’s prior work for coal companies, the Republican Governors Association has been trying to cast him as an enemy of the industry, running ads tying him to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

One commercial calls Gregg a big supporter of Clinton. Then it cuts to footage of Clinton declaring, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Gregg has taken pains to distance himself from Obama’s environmental policies, and by extension, from Clinton’s remarks.

“As I’ve said in the past, I disagree with President Obama on the Clean Power Plan,” Gregg said. “I believe it’s unrealistic and unfair for a coal-dependent state such as Indiana to make the same changes as less coal-dependent states in the same quick timeframe.”

However, Gregg is taking issue with Pence’s strategy of mounting a frontal assault on Obama’s Clean Power Plan, saying the state should have worked with the federal government in developing a better plan rather than filing suit.

In criticizing Pence, Gregg loops in Holcomb, who has been lieutenant governor since March.

“The Pence/Holcomb administration’s determination to put politics ahead of responsible governing risks Hoosier jobs and economic opportunity,” Gregg said. “It is yet another example of failed leadership that results from a focus on ideology and partisan politics.”

energy-sidebar

Holcomb, for his part, defended Pence’s strategy.

“We must stand strong against unreasonable federal EPA rules, like the so-called Clean Power Plan, that continue to lead to higher prices for Hoosiers.”

‘Greatly concerned’

Like Pence, Holcomb is challenging federal rules that he says will hurt the coal industry. In early September, he wrote to the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, asking it to reject a proposed rule that would strengthen the regulation of waterways around surface mines.

“I am greatly concerned that this proposed rule will adversely impact our important coal industry and subsequently hamper [Indiana’s] continued economic growth,” he wrote.

The bickering, meanwhile, has turned off some energy and environmental leaders across Indiana, who say the candidates should be focusing on constructive, state-level policies that will move the economy and environment forward.

Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the not-for-profit Hoosier Environmental Council, points out that there are more than twice as many jobs in the nation’s solar industry alone than in the coal mining sector. The state should be pushing to encourage those types of jobs, which are likely to be around for decades, he said.

“When it comes to energy issues, the governor’s race ought to focus on what it will take for Indiana to have the biggest slice possible in the astonishingly large clean energy job sector,” he said.

Jodi Perras, head of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign in Indiana, said the next governor needs to recognize that coal is on an “irreversible downward trend” and take the lead on other sources, as many other states are doing.

Wind generation, for example, already exceeds 10 percent of energy generation in 11 states, but remains in the single digits in Indiana. She pointed out that numerous Indiana employers have pledged to achieve 100 percent renewable energy, including General Motors, Salesforce, Walmart and Nestle.

“We could be exporting wind power and generating affordable solar power right here in Indiana, if we had the right leadership,” she said.

Still, wind power is a growing force here. Although it accounts for just5.5 percent of Indiana’s energy production, the state ranks fifth nationally for installed wind power capacity.

And some point out that moving Indiana from its coal roots to alternative sources can’t help but take time.

“It can take years and decades to build additional baseload and move away from a certain energy source,” said Brian Burton, president and CEO of the Indiana Manufacturers Association. “You have to do it in a cost-effective manner that doesn’t shock the system.”

Moving backward?

Some environmentalists point wistfully to Gov. Mitch Daniels’ administration, which they say represented a high point for clean energy. Daniels created energy-efficiency goals in 2009 that led to the creating of Energizing Indiana, a statewide program for helping households and businesses cut energy costs.

In 2015, he launched BioTown USA in the small town of Reynolds, which helped farms take gas from manure to make electricity. He also helped make Indiana one of the fastest-growing states for commercial wind installations from 2008 to 2011. And in 2011 he updated rules that led to a significant increase in customer-owned solar power installations.

“Mitch Daniels was the best friend clean energy ever had in the state of Indiana,” said Kerwin Olson, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition, a grassroots environmental group.

By comparison, Pence has allowed Daniels’ Energizing Indiana program to shut down and the energy efficiency goals to be repealed. Since Daniels left office, Indiana has fallen from 27th to 42nd place for energy efficiency, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy in Washington, D.C.

The next governor will get to decide how important energy issues are to Indiana, and to push the state in one direction or the other.

“Indiana’s energy landscape is already changing dramatically, yet the state is failing to plan for that transition,” Perras said

What happened at the Clean Power Plan’s court hearing? Link to listen to hearing

Posted by Laura Arnold / September 28, 2016 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Inside the DC Circuit: What happened at the Clean Power Plan's court hearing

How judges view the EPA’s authority could prove critical as they weigh more than seven hours of arguments

By Gavin Bade | September 28, 2016

It was difficult to say which side got the better of the Clean Power Plan’s showdown at the D.C. Circuit Court on Tuesday. The 10-judge panel proved quite active, with all but two judges questioning lawyers during oral arguments that lasted more than seven hours.

During the hearing, the EPA and industry lawyers sparred over agency authority, the Clean Air Act's text, and the constitutional separation of powers. Here's what the judges heard.

Differing interpretations of the Clean Air Act

At the start of the hearing, West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin told the court in his opening statement that the CPP would dramatically transform the power sector of his state and the nation as a whole.

By deploying a "little used" provision of the Clean Air Act — Section 111(d) — Lin argued that the EPA is effectively compelling coal plant owners to either make investments in renewable energy or shut down prematurely. The CPP, he noted, sets target emission rates for fossil fuel generators, not allowing them to operate if they emit above those thresholds.

Those standards, Lin and other petitioners argued, are "impossible" for existing coal plants to meet, meaning that if they want to stay open, plant owners need to purchase emissions credits to offset their carbon pollution. This effectively mandates coal plant owners to subsidize their competitors or shut down, the petitioners argued.

That sort of "generation shifting," is outside of the EPA's authority, petitioners said in yesterday's hearing. While the Clean Air Act allows EPA to mandate performance improvements at individual power plants, they argue it does not allow the agency to mandate plant owners invest in different generation resources — wind and solar in this case — to offset pollution rates.

But to the EPA and many in the power sector, this type of regulation is already commonplace.

"Generation shifting is business as usual for the power sector," Kevin Poloncarz, a lawyer representing power company intervenors, told the judges.

In fact, he said his utility clients expressly asked the EPA to construct the regulation in this way, since emissions trading would beget the cheapest pollution abatement, especially compared with the alternative of setting emissions caps for each individual generator.

"Ultimately, this is how the power sector would comply regardless," Poloncarz said.

Though the EPA has not used Section 111(d) in exactly this manner before, agency lawyers said they are well within the Clean Air Act's limits.

The law compels the agency to devise the "best system of emission reductions" (BSER) for any given pollutant, EPA lawyers noted, and that's what the agency did after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 (Massachusetts v. EPA) that the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide under the act.

Whether that interpretation holds up to the judges' scrutiny remains to be seen. During the hearing, judges weighed the prospect of deferring to the EPA on the construction of the rule, or deciding that the CPP is such an important regulatory scheme that their intervention is justified.

"I feel somewhat betwixt and between," Judge Patricia Millet, an Obama appointee, said during the hearing. On one side, Mass v. EPA shows that the Supreme Court was aware of Congressional inaction and wanted the EPA to regulate carbon, she said. That would push for deference.

But at the same time, she said, the impacts of the case could be so immense — and the EPA's regulatory scheme so novel — that a "clear statement" might be necessary from Congress to authorize the agency to take this interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

Section 111 vs. Section 112

After sparring over the statutory limits of the Clean Air Act, lawyers turned their attention to the structure of the text itself.

Under the formulation of the Clean Air Act, petitioners argued, emission sources covered by Section 112 of the law, which regulates hazardous air pollutants, cannot also be covered by Section 111, the foundation of the CPP. Their argument rested on two sources — a footnote to a Supreme Court decision and two contradictory 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act.

In 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the EPA’s authority to regulate CO2 in AEP v. Connecticut, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing that state governments cannot sue power companies for climate change harms, as it is the agency’s job to address that issue through regulation.

But in her decision, Ginsberg wrote a seemingly unrelated footnote that’ssince been seized on by agency opponents.

“There is an exception,” Ginsberg wrote, “EPA may not employ [Section 111(d)] if existing stationary sources of the pollutant in question are regulated under the national ambient air quality standard program ... or the ‘hazardous air pollutants' program, [Section 112].”

Agency lawyers argued the footnote is dictum — a judge’s non-binding opinion outside of the case at hand, and that it was made in a case that generally affirmed EPA’s authority to regulate carbon. But petitioners said their case is supported by the text of the law, specifically a 1990 House amendment to the Clean Air Act that says the agency cannot use Section 111(d) to regulate existing power sources if they are already covered under another section.

The Senate passed a version of the amendment allowing the overlapping rules, but lawmakers did not reconcile the two in the rush to finalize the bill. Petitioners told the judges they consider the Senate amendment to be a “drafting error” and that the EPA essentially chose the interpretation of the law it wanted to fit the Clean Power Plan.

A number of judges appeared to find the “double regulation” argument questionable. Given the ambiguity in the text, Millet wondered whether the judges should simply cede to the EPA’s interpretation of the law — a practice known as Chevron deference after a 1984 case. Judge Nina Pillard, another Obama appointee, likened the petitioners’ argument to the concept of “driving on the right side of the road and obeying the speed limit.”

Agency lawyers called for the judges to accept EPA’s interpretation of the text, emphasizing that it was ordered by the Supreme Court to find a way to regulate carbon under the act. But petitioners stuck to their guns, saying the text is in fact not ambiguous and the EPA created the ambiguity to get around the letter of the law.

“EPA decided it had to trigger Chevron-type power,” Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe told the judges, to make one law out of two competing versions.

Constitutional questions

The Clean Air Act’s ambiguity between sections also presented constitutional issues to the judges.

Petitioners argued the CPP “unconstitutionally commandeers” the power of state governments to regulate their power systems and runs roughshod over the separation of federal powers.

Under the Federal Power Act, states are in charge of ensuring reliable electric power within their borders. By mandating wholesale changes to the power grid, petitioners argued the EPA is infringing on that right and the powers of states.

Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee, questioned that premise, comparing the CPP to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That law similarly requires state governments to use their explicit zoning and police powers to enforce federal mandates, he noted.

That law is different in type and scale, Tribe argued in response, before emphasizing that his problem lies with “horizontal federalism” between branches of the federal government.

Millet probed that point, noting that the Supreme Court told EPA in the AEPcase to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, but Tribe said the agency’s interpretation was too far outside the text to warrant Chevrondeference. By “inventing and manufacturing” ambiguity in the Clean Air Act, he argued the EPA is not simply interpreting law, but making it.

Respondents roundly rejected both constitutional arguments. Calling the CPP “bread and butter cooperative federalism,” U.S. Attorney Amanda Shafer Berman argued the state planning process gives governments ample control over the trajectory of their power mixes, and that the regulation is not a threat to reliability.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee, pushed back, saying that from the perspective of the petitioners, they have no choice but to change their power mixes. In that case, shouldn’t there be a clear statement from Congress about what the Clean Air Act actually says, rather than relying on an agency interpretation?

Not necessarily, Berman replied. In this case, EPA’s authority should stand because of its long-standing authority to regulate pollutants under the law and the fact that it has been ordered a number of times to devise a carbon regulatory system in the absence of Congressional action.

Quick takes

EPA supporters were generally upbeat following the hearing, with a number telling reporters they were confident ahead of what most expect will be an eventual hearing before the Supreme Court.

“The Clean Power Plan had a very good day. But we aren’t taking that to the bank just yet,” David Doniger, director of the NRDC’s climate and air program, said in a statement after the hearing. “What is certain, though, is we need to take swift and decisive action to combat climate change. This plan is our best available tool, and the court should uphold it.”

But the petitioners were confident as well. Despite power sector comments in support of generation shifting, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey told Utility Dive he was especially encouraged by that round of questioning.

“I think there's a real distinction between actions that are taking place voluntarily in the marketplace and forced compliance, and that's effectively what this is,” he said. “As you heard, it became pretty clear that with this rule, you cannot achieve the standards that are being set.”

Though many other EPA rules involve emissions trading schemes, Morrisey said this one steps into new territory.

“I think what you're looking at is that this is actually forcing the owners and the operators to cross-subsidize and if they can't meet the specific standards, they are going to potentially have to go 300 miles to build a windmill,” he said. “That's never envisioned by this section of the Clean Air Act and I think you also heard today that as people were focusing on whether the EPA could regulate, what was very clear to me was that they cannot regulate through [Section] 111 (d).”

The EPA, of course, contests those points, saying it is well within its authority under the Clean Air Act to set those standards. What judges think of the issue could weigh heavily on their decision, which is expected by year’s end. Stay tuned to Utility Dive for more coverage of this case in the days and weeks to come.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Oral Arguments

Most recent recordings released 09/27/2016 in the following:

15-1363 <<<Click link to listen.

92 Mb

State of West Virginia v. EPA - Part II

Judges: Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown, Griffith, Kavanaugh, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins

Arguing: David B. Rivkin, Jr., Laurence H. Tribe, Amanda Shafer Berman (DOJ), Michael J. Myers, Thomas A. Lorenzen, John Campbell Barker, Norman L. Rave (DOJ), Misha Tseytlin, F. William Brownell, Brian Lynk (DOJ), Kevin Poloncarz

09/27/2016

15-1363 <<<Click link to listen.

102.3 Mb

State of West Virginia v. EPA - Part I

Judges: Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown, Griffith, Kavanaugh, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins

Arguing: Elbert Lin, Peter D. Keisler, Eric Hostetler (DOJ), Michael J. Myers, Allison D. Wood, Amanda Shafer Berman (DOJ), Sean Donahue

09/27/2016

Ohio Gov. Kasich says he’d veto any bill eliminating clean-energy standards

Posted by Laura Arnold / September 27, 2016 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Kasich says he'd veto any bill eliminating clean-energy standards

By Dan Gearino, The Columbus Dispatch • Monday September 26, 2016 5:30 PM

Gov. John Kasich has reiterated his threat to veto any legislation that would eliminate standards for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

His comments, which were made Friday at an event in Austin, Texas, could be a bad sign for proposals on the topic that are pending in the Ohio General Assembly.

The standards, which went into effect in 2008, say that electricity utilities need to meet annual benchmarks for renewable energy and for finding ways to help customers reduce energy use.

Two years ago, Kasich signed a measure that placed a two-year freeze on the standards. Now, as the freeze is months away from expiring, some lawmakers would like to see it extended in one form or another.

Kasich spoke about the standards in response to an audience question on environmental issues. He said that the 2008 standards were "unrealistic," but that he would veto any plan to "kill the standards."

"I'm for developing all these other resources, and we have a program in Ohio that requires us to meet these certain standards, and I've told the legislature the standards that were set were unrealistic but if you try to kill the standards, whether it has to do with the renewables, or whether it has to do with the issue of saving energy, I'll veto the bill and we’ll go to the higher standards. And so you know I’m committed to it."

The Dispatch reported last week that Ohio Sen. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, is about to introduce a plan that would make the renewable-energy standards optional from 2017 through 2019 and make them enforceable starting in 2020. That plan would be part of a larger measure.

Kasich gave no indication in his Austin remarks that he was addressing any specific proposal.

dgearino@dispatch.com

@dangearino

IURC Hearing 9/26/16 on IPL’s $100M Pollution Controls for Petersburg Coal Plant

Posted by Laura Arnold / September 26, 2016 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

IPL Petersburg Generating Station operated at less than 60 percent of capacity last year—down from nearly 80 percent in 2010. (Photo courtesy of Google Earth)

State seeking input on IPL's $100M plan to upgrade Petersburg plant

September 26, 2016

John Russell

Customers of Indianapolis Power and Light Co. can tell state regulators their opinion Monday evening on the utility's proposal to raise rates to pay for equipment that would allow a Pike County plant to continue burning coal.

IPL wants to install about $100 million worth of pollution controls at its Petersburg generating station, a move it says will allow it to keep burning coal and meet strict environmental regulations for sulfur dioxide and coal ash.

The 1,700-megawatt plant is the largest generating station in IPL's fleet.

If state regulators agree, that could raise a typical residential customer’s monthly bill 20 cents next year. That amount would climb in subsequent years to $1.40 a month by 2021, according to IPL estimates.

A public hearing will take place at 6 p.m. at Crispus Attucks High School, 1140 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. St. Members of the public can state their opinions to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, which will decide whether to allow IPL to pass the costs onto customers.

IPL spokeswoman Brandi Davis-Handy said the company will not be presenting or speaking at Monday's hearing. State utility regulators will not respond to comments. The hearing was requested by State Rep. Rep. Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis.

The company’s request is raising the ire of some consumer and environmental groups, which say the Petersburg plant is old and inefficient, and will likely require millions of dollars in upgrades every few years to meet a series of stricter environmental regulations. The plant has four active units, which went online between 1967 and 1986.

The Sierra Club, Citizens Action Coalition and some other environmental groups say the utility should end coal-burning at the Petersburg plant, which is one of the dirtiest power plants in Indiana. The plant has repeatedly been cited for exceeding emissions standards for sulfur dioxide, which has been linked to breathing problems.

IPL stopped using coal earlier this year at two other plants—Harding Street in Indianapolis and Eagle Valley in Martinsville—in favor of natural gas.

The Petersburg plant has had trouble competing against other plants that use natural gas. Petersburg operated at less than 60 percent of capacity last year—down from nearly 80 percent in 2010, according to SNL Energy, an energy research firm.

IPL said it studied a wide number of options for Petersburg, including converting the four generating units to natural gas, and retiring them and replacing them with other resources. In the end, it concluded coal was the best option to keep rates affordable.

The utility said the alternative to upgrading the Petersburg facility would cost more, which would "further burden our customers." IPL has already invested $450 million in pollution controls in Petersburg in recent years.

Republicans to rally around renewable energy in D.C.

Posted by Laura Arnold / September 25, 2016 / Posted in Uncategorized / No Comments

Republicans to rally around renewable energy in D.C.

By JOHN SICILIANO • 9/19/16 12:01 AM

The summit will note the economic and national security benefits of renewable energies such as solar. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

The summit will note the economic and national security benefits of renewable energies such as solar. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

A conservative clean energy summit will descend on Washington this week to show "it's OK" for Republicans to support wind and solar.

The summit, backed by groups representing young conservative and Christian voters, will hear from a number of Republican lawmakers who support renewable energy and want conservatives to take back leadership from the Left on the subject, and to some degree climate change.

Former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina tops the list of Republicans addressing the Conservative Clean Energy Summit being held Thursday on Capitol Hill. Graham will be joined by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a key Republican advocate for wind energy subsidies and senior member on the Senate Finance Committee.

Other Republicans addressing the summit will include Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Dean Heller of Nevada. Retired U.S. Navy Capt. Leo Goff, who now serves on CNA's Military Advisory Board, also will address the summit.

The Christian Coalition and Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, the groups hosting the event, said "hundreds of grassroots activists" from across the country will gather at the nation's "largest conservative clean-energy event" to deliver a message to Washington: "Conservatives want clean energy — and they want their representatives in Congress to lead on this issue." They also will use the forum to roll out new polling data on conservative attitudes regarding clean and renewable energy.

Michele Combs, founder and chairwoman of Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, said the summit will be mainly focused on educating lawmakers and voters on the issue, and that "it's OK for a conservative" to support clean energy from wind, solar, hydroelectric, biomass and other resources.

The energy mix has to be supported by an "all-of-the-above" policy, she said. "We understand that fossil fuels won't be gone tomorrow, but we would like to see a path to cleaner energy," Combs told theWashington Examiner.

The range of clean energy resources in the U.S. has been growing and that "is very exciting," she added. "It's patriotic. It's homegrown."

She said she thinks the polling data that will be released during the summit will reflect conservatives' support for those resources, especially for energy independence, and having energy coming from within the United States, instead of through an over-reliance on imports.

The polling data "is going to be very positive," Combs said. The younger voters, between 18 and 35, see "it as a value issue." But the "highest polling" numbers will be on energy independence. "People want to get out of the Middle East" and "not have wars over oil and fossil fuels," she said.

She also said many conservatives support the jobs coming from new resources such as solar and wind that require technical expertise and a parts industry to support continued growth. She said those jobs, especially for solar, are growing, and conservatives support that. She said it's happening in every state.

She said for younger conservative voters and those older than 40, clean energy is being associated with "family values" and protecting children's health. There is "no litmus test" on the issue of climate change to be a member of the organizations. Of course, clean energy will help reduce carbon pollution that scientists blame for causing global warming, and most younger members support taking action to address the issue.

Combs explained that she became involved in the energy debate when she was pregnant and the medical advice was for expectant mothers not to eat fish. She learned through research that the advice was based on mercury coming from coal-fired power plants.

In South Carolina, where she and Graham hail from, the state has moved away from coal and toward nuclear, hydropower and, just recently, more solar energy. Republican Gov. Nikki Haley is backing that push, signing a bill into law two years ago to encourage renewable energy and offer solar energy project incentives.

Combs also noted that military is also "leading the way on this [issue]. They have done so much."

She pointed out that the Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station in South Carolina has now become a solar energy user, which Goff will underscore at the summit.

He has pointed out that cleaner energy is required to reduce the military's dependence of diesel fuel and the large, vulnerable convoys required to fuel the troops in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, she said. The convoys were easy targets for enemy troops and a key vulnerability in supporting combat operations overseas.

The military has been pushing to become more energy efficient, while seeking to rely on devices such as collapsible solar arrays to power bases instead of diesel generators.

It's an issue that attracts "hardcore conservatives" and libertarians because it's about controlling where they get energy and "what they do with clean energy," which aims to free the consumer from relying on utilities and other energy suppliers, she said.

The summit comes as Jay Faison, the head of the ClearPath Foundation, has been lobbying support for what he calls Republican Clean Energy, which includes nuclear, hydropower, natural gas and clean coal, but not renewables.

Typically, the GOP gets firmly behind the oil and gas industry. However, the natural gas pipeline industry started a campaign called America's Energy Link that supports fossil fuels working with solar, wind and other renewables as complementary resources.

"The United States has an abundance of both natural gas and quality renewable resources. These energy sources are allies — not competitors," a flier from the campaign reads. "The U.S. is the world's biggest energy consumer, and to meet our nation's demand, natural gas and renewables must work together and maintain an interdependent relationship. Natural gas and renewables are not mutually exclusive, but rather naturally complementary."