North Carolina will receive $20.9 million in energy conservation grants for energy conservation and efficiency activities.

About half of that will go to the state to upgrade state-owned buildings and develop a project to create electricity through methane, Barb Barrett reports. The rest will go to local communities.

"If you can project 10 years, 15 years, 20 years ahead, you can expect the price of oil to go up," said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

He also pointed out that science has shown a compelling case that climate change is threatening the planet.

"In a business-as-usual scenario, the world will be a different place, and we’re in great risk," Chu told reporters in a conference call this morning.

"Given these things, America has the opportunity to be a leader in a new industrial revolution," he said.

Also this morning, the U.S. Department of Energy released a list of economic opportunities for North Carolina in the area of energy efficiency, wind power and nuclear power.

North Carolina has vast biomass resources that could be used for power, from agriculture waste to scrap wood, the agency said. It also pointed out that some of the East Coast’s strongest wind potential exists off North Carolina’s coastline.

Chu said the state has one of the strongest nuclear power industries in the country, an area that the government is pushing.

"The Department of Energy is very actively trying to promote nuclear energy," Chu said.

Is Duke Energy's CEO on the short list?

A Washington Post article this morning lists Jim Rogers as a potential member of President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet: 

There's no shortage of names floating for energy secretary, a job where the majority of the workload in the past has been dealing with nuclear waste, nuclear weapons handling and the various nuclear laboratories. Even so, a cast of luminaries have been mentioned, including Duke Energy executive Jim Rogers, former Energy Department official Dan Reicher, former top Clinton White House environmental aide Kathleen McGinty, FedEx chairman and Republican backer Fred Smith, New Jersey utility chief executive Ralph Izzo, and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.).

Note: The Fred Smith mentioned above is not the former gubernatorial candidate. 

Hat Tip: Facing South

Republican gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory is airing a TV ad touting his support for offshore drilling and attacking Democratic rival Beverly Perdue's position.

What it says: The ad shows McCrory speaking against a white background as images of a recent ad attacking him and high gas prices show nearby. "I'm Pat McCrory, candidate for governor, and I approve this ad. While my opponent's secret allies are running misleading negative ads, I'm seeking solutions to help create jobs and lower gas prices. I support conservation, deep-sea exploration for natural gas and oil. Beverly Perdue is 100 percent opposed and says it won't happen on her watch. I agree. It'll happen on my watch with your support. I'm Pat McCrory and the difference is leadership."

The background: In mid June, national Republicans began calling for a reconsideration of a federal moratorium on offshore drilling in the United States.

On June 18, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beverly Perdue issued a press release saying she was "100 percent opposed to oil drilling off the coast of North Carolina."

At an appearance before the N.C. Press Association that day, Perdue said that drilling would never occur during her administration.

"On my watch, we'll never solve the gas problem by drilling off the coast of North Carolina," she said. "That's politically popular. If you want somebody who looks at a poll and gets solutions, that's not me."

On Aug. 13 — the same day that McCrory unveiled his ad — Perdue announced that she had shifted positions in a letter previously sent to U.S. Rep. David Price but not made public until then.

She now says she would appoint an independent panel of scientists and engineers to study the issue before making a decision on whether to allow offshore drilling in North Carolina.

Spokesman Tim Crowley said that Perdue has "consistently supported" offshore drilling on federal land already under lease in other states and would support drilling in North Carolina only under certain conditions.

McCrory supports offshore drilling in North Carolina, promoting mass transit, requiring state-owned cars to use alternative fuels and providing tax incentives for homeowners and businesses to be more energy efficient.

A 2007 report from the U.S. Department of Energy found that offshore drilling would not lead to lower gas prices until 2017.

The Alliance for North Carolina, an independent group funded by the Service Employees International Union, the Democratic Governors Association and the National Education Association, has run ads critical of McCrory and released proposals that echo Perdue's plans.

A previous Claims Department by the N&O found the group's first ad overstated its case on two points.

Is the ad accurate? Mostly — at the time. Perdue said she was "100 percent opposed" and drilling would not happen on her watch. Now that she's changed positions, the ad is no longer true, however. The ad does not make a distinction between offshore drilling in North Carolina and other states, but the reality is that Perdue is running for governor here. Calling the Alliance for North Carolina Perdue's "secret allies" is a stretch.

Note: We have made a  change to our judgment of the ad after the Perdue campaign provided more information.

Does the Gas Price Reduction Act promote conservation?

In a radio ad airing this week, the small-government group Americans for Prosperity praises U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole for cosponsoring a bill to lift a ban on offshore oil exploration. It says the bill "continues to promote conservation."

The bill would allow offshore drilling, oil shale drilling in three Western states, better regulation of oil futures trading and loans for battery makers. 

Americans for Prosperity spokesman Dallas Woodhouse noted that the bill calls for a percentage of the revenue from offshore drilling to go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The fund was created by Congress in 1965 to use money from offshore oil and gas leases to buy land for state open space projects and to expand national parks and forests.

The bill also calls for states permitting offshore drilling to receive a percentage of the federal revenue to spend on projects mitigating damage to marine and wildlife areas. 

In the context of the ad, "conservation" could also be taken to mean energy conservation.

To that end, Woodhouse noted that the ad directs the U.S. Department of Energy to spend $100 million and make $250 million in loans to promote battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles.

Would higher mileage standards really save you money?

A radio ad by a 527 group against U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole claims that higher standards proposed in a 2003 bill would save North Carolina families "$1,600 or more on fuel costs every year."

We asked Majority Action how they got to that number. Here's their chain of logic and a quick double-checking of the figures:

* According to a November 2005 report (page 17) from the U.S. Department of Energy, the average American household with a car, truck or SUV owns 1.9 of them.

* The same report (page 60) found that the average miles-per-gallon of vehicles in U.S. households was 20.2 mpg.

* A report from the U.S. Department of Transportation found that the average miles traveled in 2006 was 12,408 per vehicle.

* Gas is currently about $4 a gallon, so the average U.S. vehicle-owning household is spending $4,668 a year on gas. (12,408 miles times 1.9 vehicles divided by 20.2 miles per gallon times $4 a gallon.)

* If the average fuel efficiency were 32 miles per gallon — the figure mandated by the failed 2003 amendment — those same households would be spending $2,947 a year on gas. (12,408 times 1.9 divided by 32 times $4.)

That adds up to a savings of $1,721. (The number is slightly higher because Majority Action used 1.8 vehicles per household instead of 1.9.) Still, there are a few caveats to that number.

We'll look at them next.

A 2007 report says offshore drilling would not reduce gas prices soon.

The report by the Energy Information Administration in the U.S. Department of Energy said that opening up oil exploration off the United States coastline would not have a "significant impact" until 2030 because of the delay in starting a project.

"Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017," the report reads.

It also estimates that there are as much as 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off the coast of the Lower 48 states that could be tapped if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted.

Still, it says that even those amounts may not greatly affect the price at the pump.

"Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant," it reads.

Hat Tip: Associated Press