California Governor Jerry Brown is widely expected to sign into law on Tuesday afternoon a bill that says utilities in the state need to produce 33 percent of their electricity from clean sources by the end of 2020. The move is not unexpected and the bill has been floating around the Governor office since before former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill back in October 2009.

Brown is expected to sign the bill this afternoon at a solar manufacturing plant for SunPower and Flextronics in Milpitas, Calif. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu is expected to be in attendance at the event.

Utilities in California already had to source 20 percent of their electricity from clean power by 2010, and that “Renewable Portfolio Standard,” is what has been driving utilities like PG&E and SCE to do deals with solar power providers like BrightSource Energy, and First Solar. California’s utilities have struggled to meet that 2010, 20 percent deadline, but have been getting close through contracts (not deployments).

As Mark Griffith managing director at Black & Veatch put it in an interview with me last year, “utilities are making the effort,” but projects can take a long time to build, particularly getting the transmission lines built. Bumping that figure up to 33 percent by 2020, will likely similarly be a moving target, and utilities will struggle to come close to it.

For cleantech investors in California the 33 percent RPS is crucial and adds much needed certainty to the state’s clean power market. It “keeps utilities open for business,” explained CalCEF President Dan Adler to me in an interview, and “is the end game,” for the utility scale clean power market to mature. CalCEF has backed a variety of clean power companies through its fund, including BrightSource Energy.

If the 33 percent RPS wasn’t signed into law, “it would be a big blow,” and we wouldn’t see any new utility-scale clean power projects, said Adler, though, he expects the bill to be official by this afternoon. Now we just need to get the projects that utilities have already done deals with — like BrightSource’s inaugural solar thermal plant in the Mojave Desert of Calif. — up and running.

Image of Jerry Brown speaking at Green:Net 2010. To buy tickets to Green:Net 2011, click here.

Coda Automotive, an electric vehicle developer in Santa Monica, Calif., with a battery joint venture in Tianjin, China, is seeking fresh capital to complete work on its first model, the electric Coda Sedan. Christopher Rose, the company’s senior vice president for corporate development, said on the sidelines of the Berkeley-Stanford Cleantech Conference in San Francisco last weekend that the $50 million investment the company was seeking would be used “to finish the car.”

In early January, regulatory filings showed Coda had raised $76 million of a planned $125 million round, bringing the company’s total investment to more than $200 million. At the time, the company said the financing would go toward 2011 sales and marketing efforts, as well as preparations “for start of production” and additional equity investment in the lithium-ion battery plant Coda has set up with its joint venture partner Lishen Power Battery in Tianjin.

Coda still plans to release the four-door, five-passenger Coda Sedan in the second half of 2011, Mr. Rose said. Previously, the company had aimed to begin selling the car, priced at about $45,000 before incentives, in California in December 2010. But late last year the company bumped the launch to the third quarter. That was just one of several changes for Coda around that time. Kevin Czinger stepped down as chief executive, and the board’s co-chairman Steven Heller assumed the post temporarily until Philip Murtaugh joined as permanent chief executive in January. 

While Mr. Czinger and Mr. Heller, both former Goldman Sachs executives, brought financing experience and connections to Coda (which counts among its investors Henry M. Paulson Jr., the former Treasury secretary and Goldman Sachs chief executive), Mr. Murtaugh came into the role with credentials as an industry veteran with experience growing General Motors’ presence in China.

That experience is helping to open doors for the company, Mr. Rose said. Multiple Chinese automakers have approached Coda to discuss the prospect of teaming up to electrify vehicles, he said during a panel at the Berkeley-Stanford event. Similarly, Tesla Motors has sought to build business selling battery systems and technology for plug-in vehicles from more established automakers. In China, according to reports from state-run media on Friday, the latest five-year draft plan for Beijing’s auto industry calls for annual production capacity for at least 500,000 all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles by 2015.

In the United States, Coda has requested loans from the Energy Department to build a replica of the Tianjin joint venture plant in Ohio, Mr. Rose said, adding that the company could make the batteries in China and sell them profitably. But he added that “it makes no sense” to build such heavy devices in China for the American market.

Washington – The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host its first Clean Technology Partnership Meeting on Wednesday, April 27^th to bring clean technology stakeholders together to share ideas, experiences and insights and provide a forum for discussion on how the USPTO can improve and expand on its clean technology programs. The meeting will be held at USPTO Headquarters in Alexandria, Va., from 1:00-5:00 p.m. 

“Green technology innovations can help us protect our environment and improve our planet, and every day that an important new clean tech innovation is held back from the market represents a lost opportunity to create 21^st century jobs and businesses,” Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos said. “The feedback clean tech stakeholders provide is essential in our efforts to continuously improve the quality of our programs and services.”   

Clean technology includes products and services that improve operational performance, productivity or efficiency while reducing costs, inputs, energy consumption, waste or pollution.  Alternative energy sources, water and gas purification and soil remediation, as well as other technologies centered on increasing energy efficiency and non-toxic production incorporate clean technology. 

Leading industry experts will provide an overview of the clean technology landscape, addressing the importance of regional accelerators, giving an update on clean tech patents, and highlighting the benefits of the USPTO’s Green Technology Pilot Program.

The forum, moderated by J. Steven Rutt of Foley & Lardner, will feature remarks by:

• Bruce Kisliuk, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Patents, Mechanical Disciplines, USPTO
• Jacqueline Stone, Group Director TC 1600, USPTO
• Neil Feltham, Senior Patent Counsel, DuPont
• William S. Elias, General Counsel, UChicago Argonne, LLC
• Mike Nelson, Chief Technology Officer, NanoInk, Inc.
• Alan Brown, Executive Director, Pennsylvania NanoMaterials Commercialization Center

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has worked to ensure a cleaner, safer and more secure energy future – one that ultimately breaks our dependence on foreign oil and moves our nation toward a clean energy economy that creates jobs and keeps America competitive. We’re already making progress toward this goal by producing more oil in America, establishing ground-breaking fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, and committing to historic investments in electric vehicles and advanced batteries to ensure that high-quality, fuel-efficient vehicles are built right here in America.

To confirm your attendance, please RSVP by e-mail to jill.warden@uspto.gov or by telephone to Jill Warden at (571) 272-1267. Space is limited. If it becomes necessary to restrict the number of attendees, it will be done on a first-come, first-served basis.

Stay current with the USPTO by subscribing to regular e-mail updates. Visit the USPTO Subscription Center at www.uspto.gov/subscribe.

Google recently ventured outside the U.S. to put €3.5 million (~$5 million) into a 18.7-MW German solar power plant near Berlin.

The thing about corporate globalization is that companies and investors are more free than ever to invest their money in a country other than their own. If their country isn’t leading on an issue they care about, they can at least push or invest in the issue elsewhere. It’s no surprise to anyone on here that the U.S. is missing out on some serious global investment in cleantech as our completely dysfunctional Congress is taken hostage by Tea Party extremists. While this latest news is of course good news and is indicative of the great work Germany is doing to incubate solar power in its country, it certainly makes me think about such things.

This solar power plant sits on about 116 acres and is estimated to generate enough power for approximately 5,000 homes German homes. And guess what? Over 70% of the solar panels installed at the power plant come from… Germany! Stimulating cleantech is a way to create jobs and boost the economy, as Obama and numerous others keep trying to explain to anti-science extremists from the Tea Party.

Yes, solar energy growth is tremendous in the U.S. of late and we are still home to a number of great companies, but we have lost a lot of our solar swagger to other countries as they steam ahead with much more progressive cleantech policies. Mathew Lynley of Venture Beats and concisely tells us one part of this story.

“The US solar power industry seems to be doing well and is on track to have a good year, but it looks like there is more interest in solar panel technology internationally — particularly in Germany and Japan,” Lynley writes. “That’s because a massive surge in residential solar panels in Germany and Japan fueled consumer demand for small-scale solar power projects, according to a report by Pew.”

A joint solar research effort managed by Stanford and the University of California-Berkeley has won $25 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative. The work is aimed at helping the solar power industry overcome technical barriers and reduce the cost of solar installations.

The team, dubbed the Bay Area Photovoltaics Consortium, will fund industry-relevant research to develop and test the innovative new materials, device structures and fabrication processes necessary to produce cost-effective solar modules in high volume.

The BAPVC project, co-directed by Yi Cui, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford, and Ali Javey, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer sciences at Berkeley, will advance technologies aimed at meeting SunShot’s aggressive price-performance targets.

“The future of solar is clearly in cheaper, better performing photovoltaics,” said Cui. “The SunShot funding and the exciting collaborative approach between the universities and national labs guided by industrial perspectives will advance all the components of solar modules that will bring down the dollar-per-watt cost dramatically.”

The Consortium will involve partners from SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, as well as a significant industrial affiliates program. Sixteen companies have already committed more than $1 million per year in contributions toward meeting the DOE’s cost-share requirement and are active participants, helping to define the research agenda and provide a path to commercializing the emerging technologies developed under the SunShot Initiative.

 We had a feeling that BrightSource Energy was destined for big things when Google first announced it was investing $10 million in the solar thermal startup in 2008. After all, Google only invests in impressive (TechnoServe, eSolar) and profoundly weird (wind power from kites, anyone?) companies. So it’s not all that surprising to learn that BrightSource just finalized $1.6 billion in loans from the U.S Department of Energy as well as a $168 million investment from Google–all to build the world’s largest solar project.

When completed in 2013, the Mojave Desert-based Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System will send approximately 2,600 megawatts of power to the grid, doubling the amount of solar thermal power produced in the U.S and generating enough electricity to power 140,000 California homes when operating at full capacity.

This won’t be a set of photovoltaic panels like you might see on you’re neighbor’s roof; the solar themal system consists of thousands of mirrors that reflect sunlight onto a water-filled boiler, creating steam that spins a turbine and generates electricity. It’s cheaper than conventional solar panels, but just as reliable. The Ivanpah system goes one step further by converting steam back into water, allowing it to use 95% less water than other solar thermal systems.

It’s the kind of creative stuff that Google laps up like catnip. “We’re excited to be making our largest clean energy investment to date. With this investment, we’re helping to deploy the first commercial plant of a potentially transformative solar technology able to deliver clean energy at scale,” said Rick Needham, Director of Green Business Operations at Google, in a statement. “Ivanpah will be the largest solar power tower project in the world, able to produce clean electricity at the highest efficiency of any solar thermal plant.  We hope it can serve as a proof point and spur further investment in this exciting technology.”

This isn’t just a donation. As good-hearted as Google makes itself out to be, when it makes an investment, it wants to make money on the other end. BrightSource already has a deal in place to sell the energy created at Ivanpah to PG&E and Southern California Edison. Every indication is that by 2013, the solar industry will be booming, and Google will be making a pretty penny on those clean watts. Remember that Google already has an energy company. This is just another item in that portfolio.

But wait! There is one thing that could stop them: turtles. BrightSource has already been forced to scale back the project due to concerns about the safety of endangered desert tortoises in the area (the project will still displace up to 140 of the slow-movers, who refuse to get out of the way of progress). It’s a problem that will continue to bug the slew of solar companies working on projects in the Mojave–and probably the only thing that may make Google regret its investment.

[Image: Flickr user Clearly Ambiguous]

Reach Ariel Schwartz via Twitter or email.

Read More: The Solar Industry Responds to Claims of Supply-Chain Dirtiness

By Murray Coleman

Oil prices likely haven’t peaked yet and remain in a trading range that’s strongly correlated with gold, argues Frank Holmes in his latest commentary.

He’s chief investment officer of U.S. Global Investors, which runs a family of resource-minded and emerging markets mutual funds. Those include the World Precious Minerals Fund (UNWPX) and the Gold and Precious Metals Fund (USERX). He also helps run the China Region Fund (USCOX).

So he’s not an objective observer. Still, writing on Friday, Holmes makes some interesting points. Those include:

– Over the past one- and 10-year periods, oil and gold have roughly a 75% correlation. “This means that three out of four times, when prices for one go up, prices for the other increase as well,” he writes.

– Seasonal factors remain strong in explaining oil price fluctuations. Holmes presents a chart tracing patterns going back 5-, 15- and 28-years. The trend points to prices bottoming in February before rising through the end of summer.

Holmes also looks at a Deutsche Bank breakdown of selected countries in terms of populations and age. Large oil producers such as Saudi Arabia have a high level of unemployment among its younger citizens, he observes.

The result, Holmes adds, is that King Abdullah has been forced to spend heavily on social programs. That in turn has helped drive Saudi oil production costs to $88 a barrel, he notes.  ”Keeping these young populations happy and working is not only domestically important for these governments but for global oil markets as well,” Holmes writes.

He acknowledges that while oil prices threaten a global economic recovery, a BCA Research piece has found that prices will have to surpass $120 a barrel to significantly undermine consumer and business confidence.

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE, CARRIE TAIT – The Globe and Mail

As markets hold oil prices above $110 (U.S.) a barrel, they are pushing the global economy back to a brink it fell from just three years ago, the last time crude rose to such lofty heights.

This time, consumers have largely absorbed the hard-charging price of oil, which has risen solidly into triple-digit territory in the wake of turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. But economists say prices are now within $10 or $20 from levels that will spark serious negative effects.

That worry has been worsened by expectations that, unlike oil’s brief rush and plunge from its heights a few years ago, high prices are now broadly expected to stick.

Economists believe oil companies, consumers and the global economy will be able to tolerate oil at around $110 a barrel over the next year or two – and even as they start to feel the pinch of higher prices, any drop will come slowly. It takes time for consumers to change their habits in a way that has a meaningful effect on demand. And while governments may try to legislate their way off oil, it takes years for policies to make a difference.

But even if the price of oil is sustainable at $110 a barrel, anything beyond that threshold will prompt a swifter reaction.

“What we don’t want to see is oil prices spiking any higher. It’s going to end badly,” Todd Hirsch, senior economist at ATB Financial, said on Monday.

The world has seen that particular story before, and memories of the crash that followed the 2008 spike are still fresh.

But even $110 a barrel may be enough to cause pain, and a reaction from lawmakers.

“The full effect of [the current price of oil] has not yet been felt, and it is going to have an impact, and there is going to be a demand response. Consumption will start to be impaired,” said Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at ARC Financial Corp. “It is a story that is going to play out over the course of the next year.”

Even when oil cruised past $85 a barrel in 2008, the push for alternative forms of energy jumped, Mr. Tertzakian noted. But because there is no immediate replacement for crude, the current price will remain viable over the next two years. However, any steep gains will mean immediate changes.

“Anything higher than this, you’re going to start to see changes occurring faster. The higher it goes, the faster it is going to come down,” he said.

Investors were frightened when the price of oil crossed the $100-a-barrel mark in 2008, believing record prices would prompt consumers to change their lifestyle. This time, however, the market has stayed calm, accepting that $115 a barrel may be the high end of what companies, consumers and governments will accept.

Some in the oil patch remain confident that high oil prices are here to stay – and will propel greater spending. They could also hasten a return to some of the problems from the last boom, which prompted huge labour shortages.

“There is a worldwide scarcity of oil that’s available today, and with demand growing, there’s probably plenty of reason that prices ought to be going up,” said Anthony Marino, chief executive officer of Baytex Energy Corp.

If prices do remain strong, it’s all but inevitable that drilling and development activity will increase, Mr. Marino said.

Yet it seems clear that as crude prices climb higher into the triple digits, they are doing some damage. Consumer confidence is beginning to lose strength in Canada. It is showing greater weakness in the U.S., where recent data are already beginning to show declines in retail fuel purchases as $110 oil pushes up pump prices.

“Now is that enough to knock the U.S. recovery off its bicycle? I don’t think so. But it does begin to clip growth at these kind of levels,” said Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns.

Economists generally use two rules of thumb when it comes to calculating crude price impacts. Every $10 rise in a barrel raises pump prices in Canada by 7 cents a litre. And each additional $10 on the oil price chokes global recovery by about two-tenths of a per cent.

That is less true, however, for Canada, where crude production is such an important economic contributor that rising prices are actually slightly positive for growth – but only to a point. At roughly $125 a barrel, “it tips over into being a weight on the Canadian economy,” Mr. Porter said.

At that price, he said, the damage to the U.S. economy is so great that it begins to hurt Canada.

“When you start getting above $125 or so, it becomes a serious enough damper on the U.S. economy that whatever positives we get here in Canada are outweighed,” he said.