http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/cal-proposes-feed-in-tariff-with-twist/
The state wants to require utilities to buy renewable power from developers of 1- to 10-megawatt installations. But regulators won’t set fixed prices.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Thursday proposed to expand a feed-in tariff program that aims to promote small-scale renewable energy projects that woudn't require new transmission lines and lengthy regulatory review.
The proposal would create a market for projects from 1 megawatt to 10 megawatts in generation capacity by requiring utilities to purchase 1 gigawatt worth of renewable electricity over a four-year period.
A feed-in tariff typically refers to a government-set rate for the utilities to buy electricity from producers. Such policy also tends to require the utilities to buy all the renewable energy that is available for sale. Germany and Spain have become the two largest solar energy markets in the world thanks to their feed-in tariff programs.
California started a feed-in tariff program in 2008, but it only applies to installations up to 1.5 megawatts. The program hasn't been popular, largely because the prices were too low (see California Feed-In Tariffs: The Price Isn't Right).
The new proposal would increase the size of each project in order to promote the so-called distributed generation: producing power close to where it's consumed. This way, developers - and ratepayers - wouldn't have to pay for building new transmission lines. Small projects could go on rooftops or land in and around cities.
But the proposal doesn't follow the European model in one crucial area: pricing.
California's proposal calls for a competitive bidding process. The utilities would issue a request for proposal a few times a year. Each time, they would review all the bids and award contracts to the lowest bidders. State regulators would decide the amount that could be spent for each request for proposal.
Each developer could send in multiple bids for each request for proposal, which would likely have enough money set aside for more than one project of 1- to 10-megawatts in size.
To prevent one company from grabbing all the contracts, a rule would be in place that says no one developer could get more than 50 percent of the money budgeted for each request for proposal.
For example, if a request for proposal aims to spend $50 million, then the lowest bidder wouldn't be able to get more than $25 million worth of contracts. For the remaining $25 million, the utility would pick the next lowest bidder or bidders.
Setting prices is probably the single most contentious issue in crafting the feed-in tariff program. The CPUC staff left the pricing element unanswered when it issued a draft proposal earlier this year that dealt with other issues, such as the size of power projects that would qualify (see California Considers Expanding Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs).
"The difficulty has been setting a price for a feed-in tariff. If you set it too low, you don't have market activities. If you set it too high, then you give away undue profits and remove political support for the program," said Adam Browning, executive director of Vote Solar, a nonprofit advocacy group in San Francisco.
The bidding process also would circumvent a legal dispute raised by Southern California Edison, which challenged the CPUC's authority to set prices and require utilities to pay a premium for renewable energy. Edison argued that only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could do so.
Browning said the new proposal strikes the right balance. He pointed to Spain as a cautionary tale of what could happen when pricing is out of whack.
Spain once offered ultra generous feed-in tariffs, leading to a dramatic growth in solar energy system installations in recent years. Then a frenzy to take advantage of the incentives broke out last year when developers and solar panel makers knew that the government was ready to lower the feed-in tariffs in the fall of 2008.
The rush led to about 2 gigawatts of new installations in 2008. By contrast, the United States installed about 391 megawatts last year.
In September last year, the government reset the tariffs and capped the national installation to 500 megawatts for 2009 (see Spain: The Solar Frontier No More).
The public now has a chance to comment on the new California proposal, which requires the approval of the five-member commission.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Strategies for your business to survive in a cap and trade world
FREE Panel Discussion and Networking event:
Thursday, September 03, 2009 ---5:30 PM - 8:00 PM (EDT)
The Columbia Club, 121 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN 46204
Thursday, September 03, 2009 ---5:30 PM - 8:00 PM (EDT)
The Columbia Club, 121 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN 46204
Green Business Network presents second Green Business Networking Series event at the Columbia Club on September 3rd, 2009.
Green Business Network is an Indianapolis based organization that promotes green businesses through education and connection. Part of the proceeds will benefit the Indiana Chapter of the US Green Building Council and the Hoosier Environmental Council.
Learn about current Greenhouse Gas legislation and how it applies to your business; What effect will it have on your business operations; Identify tools available to mitigate the risks and take advantage of tax and investment incentives. The speakers include:
1. Anthony Paul, an economist at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit organization that conducts independent research on environmental, energy out of Washington DC will provide economist perspective on carbon regulations and implications for Indiana businesses as well as the compliance costs to manufacturer, small businesses.
2. Tony Sullivan – partner with Barnes & Thornburg will cover Waxman Markey bill definition, applicability, main provisions and current status in the Congress.
3. Michael Radcliffe - RMT Strategic Advisory Services Leader will elaborate on how holistic value chain business assessment will help businesses to compete and stay profitable in present economic environment.
4. Ann McCabe with Climate registry out of Chicago, IL will cover available tools for Indiana businesses in measuring and reporting Greenhouse Gas emissions.
5. Matthew Morgan and Anneliese Williams with Barnes & Thornburg will discuss available business incentives: tax credits;cash payments; loans; grants on federal, state and local levels for Indiana businesses provided by current legislature.
6. Kristen Trovillion - Program Manager with Indiana Office of Energy Development will highlight the state’s energy efficiency programs for businesses and nonprofits and will discuss Alternative Power and Energy (APE) grant for businesses
Learn more about panel speakers
Moreover, the event has dedicated a two-hour period after the panel discussion, for participants to engage in Green Networking.
The program seeks diversity in its attendance, which will include corporate leaders, business professionals, business owners, local policymakers, educators, and local media persons.
The event is FREE but advance registration is requested. Space is limited and assigned on first come first serve basis.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
An idea blowing in the wind: Interest in wind turbines growing
Interest in energy-producing wind turbines
has picked up locally in tough economy.
An idea blowing in the wind: Interest in wind turbines growing - The Elkhart Truth - Elkhart, IN
Shared via AddThis
Published: 8/25/2009 12:00:00 AM
Last Updated: 8/24/2009 11:15:42 PM
By: Dustin Lawrence dlawrence@etruth.com
ELKHART -- Only a light morning breeze hit the Skystream 3.7 wind turbine. After looking up the 45-foot tower, Glen Smith grabbed a three-foot-long wrench and began tightening the bolts at its base.
"Have to make sure the unit's level," Smith explained. As the breeze began to pick up, the three carbon fiber fins began to slowly rotate. "And there they go."
Nearly five years ago Smith was servicing similar towers for a cellular phone company. But as the economy began to spin downward he was laid off. That's when Smith and his brother, Dave, began looking for a new way to utilize their engineering know-how. After meeting with Southwest Windpower, the manufacturer of the Skystream turbine, the brothers were awarded a dealership to sell the turbines. They called their new venture Wind-Wire.
Now Wind-Wire is the central Midwest dealer for Skystream turbines and business is booming. Based out of St. Joseph County, they sell and install generators in Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. But even in Elkhart County, where unemployment is still at a stifling 16.7 percent, Smith says the machines are piquing interest.
"In Elkhart County we have been doing one to two (installations) a month lately," he said. "It's a good county. The people are proactive."
Back in 2008, only one request for a wind generator went through the Elkhart County Planning Department. But since April there have been six requests and more are expected. Other businesses that supply residential wind turbines in Elkhart County say they too have noticed a spike in consumer interest.
But the trend isn't specific to only Elkhart County. Smith says residents are putting up wind turbines throughout the Midwest and across much of the country.
"We will have done a hundred by the end of the year," he said. "By next year we will be well over 100."
Smith says the reason that so many have begun to purchase his turbines -- which cost around $12,500 after the tax credits -- is because people are looking to lower their energy costs or in some cases get rid of them all together.
"If this (turbine) is humming it will pretty much power that whole house," he claimed, pointing to a single-story ranch house. "Any energy that this puts out and that the house is not using ... It will turn the meter backwards."
On the Skystream Web site the company claims that its product typically lowers a household electric bill by 30 to 80 percent.
Nick Meyer, communications manager for Northern Indiana Public Service Company, notes NIPSCO does not buy back power but offers customers with wind generators participation in its net metering program.
"If the customer generates more power than they're using then they build up a credit," Meyer said about the net metering program.
Other utilities in Indiana, such as AEP's Indiana Michigan Power, offer similar net metering programs. However, Indiana law doesn't allow net metering benefits for wind generators that produce more than 10 kilowatts. Of the 42 states that require net metering, Indiana has one of the most restrictive limits. Arizona and Ohio don't have any limits.
Still, power generated by a wind turbine directly offsets the cost of power from the grid.
That's one reason why Mark and Paula Steiner decided to get a wind turbine. Wind-Wire recently installed a 45-foot wind tower in the couple's back yard.
"In the long run the extra cash will go back to my children's college funds," Steiner said, also admitting that environmental impact was a reason they purchased the wind turbine.
Yet Steiner also says she wouldn't have bought the wind turbine without the tax credits.
Heidi McHugh, marketing manager for Mobile Home and Energy, a Middlebury supplier of solar and wind energy options, says her company has seen a 15 percent increase in business since January. That's when the Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency went into affect, allowing consumers such as Steiner to get up to 30 percent of the costs for energy saving projects.
But the initial costs is one reason why many can't install wind generators on their properties. The American Wind Energy Association says a typical home wind system costs around $32,000 installed and an Indiana Consumers Guide says they can cost as much as $50,000.
Even though Wind-Wire's systems cost far less than those estimates, Smith notes there is another deterrent -- a lack of wind. On a six-tiered system that measures wind productivity, most of Northern Indiana is rated a class two. That means the estimated productivity per square mile is 350 to 500 kilowatt-hours per year. In a class-six area, the productivity is 770 to 880 kilowatt-hours per year.
While costs and lack of wind has turned some in Elkhart County away from wind energy, it has inspired others. Doug Martin, an engineer with a background in ultralight flyers, has already raised three prototype wind turbines, which he says are more efficient than most others on the market.
On his 17-acre property rise testaments to his resolution -- 80-foot high towers topped by his prototype generators.
"This all starts somewhere," Martin said. "At one point Bill Gates was sitting in his college dorm room saying, 'You know what, software is the next big thing.'"
Martin says that like the famed entrepreneur, he too is a "capitalist" who has noticed a future demand across the county. And even as companies like Home and Mobile Energy and Wind-Wire are now seeing more customers, Martin hopes to further perfect his design.
"In the very near future," Martin said, "this (renewable energy) could be the biggest market."
Wind-Wire of South Bend and Home and Mobile Energy of Middlebury are both Business Members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
has picked up locally in tough economy.
An idea blowing in the wind: Interest in wind turbines growing - The Elkhart Truth - Elkhart, IN
Shared via AddThis
Published: 8/25/2009 12:00:00 AM
Last Updated: 8/24/2009 11:15:42 PM
By: Dustin Lawrence dlawrence@etruth.com
ELKHART -- Only a light morning breeze hit the Skystream 3.7 wind turbine. After looking up the 45-foot tower, Glen Smith grabbed a three-foot-long wrench and began tightening the bolts at its base.
"Have to make sure the unit's level," Smith explained. As the breeze began to pick up, the three carbon fiber fins began to slowly rotate. "And there they go."
Nearly five years ago Smith was servicing similar towers for a cellular phone company. But as the economy began to spin downward he was laid off. That's when Smith and his brother, Dave, began looking for a new way to utilize their engineering know-how. After meeting with Southwest Windpower, the manufacturer of the Skystream turbine, the brothers were awarded a dealership to sell the turbines. They called their new venture Wind-Wire.
Now Wind-Wire is the central Midwest dealer for Skystream turbines and business is booming. Based out of St. Joseph County, they sell and install generators in Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. But even in Elkhart County, where unemployment is still at a stifling 16.7 percent, Smith says the machines are piquing interest.
"In Elkhart County we have been doing one to two (installations) a month lately," he said. "It's a good county. The people are proactive."
Back in 2008, only one request for a wind generator went through the Elkhart County Planning Department. But since April there have been six requests and more are expected. Other businesses that supply residential wind turbines in Elkhart County say they too have noticed a spike in consumer interest.
But the trend isn't specific to only Elkhart County. Smith says residents are putting up wind turbines throughout the Midwest and across much of the country.
"We will have done a hundred by the end of the year," he said. "By next year we will be well over 100."
Smith says the reason that so many have begun to purchase his turbines -- which cost around $12,500 after the tax credits -- is because people are looking to lower their energy costs or in some cases get rid of them all together.
"If this (turbine) is humming it will pretty much power that whole house," he claimed, pointing to a single-story ranch house. "Any energy that this puts out and that the house is not using ... It will turn the meter backwards."
On the Skystream Web site the company claims that its product typically lowers a household electric bill by 30 to 80 percent.
Nick Meyer, communications manager for Northern Indiana Public Service Company, notes NIPSCO does not buy back power but offers customers with wind generators participation in its net metering program.
"If the customer generates more power than they're using then they build up a credit," Meyer said about the net metering program.
Other utilities in Indiana, such as AEP's Indiana Michigan Power, offer similar net metering programs. However, Indiana law doesn't allow net metering benefits for wind generators that produce more than 10 kilowatts. Of the 42 states that require net metering, Indiana has one of the most restrictive limits. Arizona and Ohio don't have any limits.
Still, power generated by a wind turbine directly offsets the cost of power from the grid.
That's one reason why Mark and Paula Steiner decided to get a wind turbine. Wind-Wire recently installed a 45-foot wind tower in the couple's back yard.
"In the long run the extra cash will go back to my children's college funds," Steiner said, also admitting that environmental impact was a reason they purchased the wind turbine.
Yet Steiner also says she wouldn't have bought the wind turbine without the tax credits.
Heidi McHugh, marketing manager for Mobile Home and Energy, a Middlebury supplier of solar and wind energy options, says her company has seen a 15 percent increase in business since January. That's when the Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency went into affect, allowing consumers such as Steiner to get up to 30 percent of the costs for energy saving projects.
But the initial costs is one reason why many can't install wind generators on their properties. The American Wind Energy Association says a typical home wind system costs around $32,000 installed and an Indiana Consumers Guide says they can cost as much as $50,000.
Even though Wind-Wire's systems cost far less than those estimates, Smith notes there is another deterrent -- a lack of wind. On a six-tiered system that measures wind productivity, most of Northern Indiana is rated a class two. That means the estimated productivity per square mile is 350 to 500 kilowatt-hours per year. In a class-six area, the productivity is 770 to 880 kilowatt-hours per year.
While costs and lack of wind has turned some in Elkhart County away from wind energy, it has inspired others. Doug Martin, an engineer with a background in ultralight flyers, has already raised three prototype wind turbines, which he says are more efficient than most others on the market.
On his 17-acre property rise testaments to his resolution -- 80-foot high towers topped by his prototype generators.
"This all starts somewhere," Martin said. "At one point Bill Gates was sitting in his college dorm room saying, 'You know what, software is the next big thing.'"
Martin says that like the famed entrepreneur, he too is a "capitalist" who has noticed a future demand across the county. And even as companies like Home and Mobile Energy and Wind-Wire are now seeing more customers, Martin hopes to further perfect his design.
"In the very near future," Martin said, "this (renewable energy) could be the biggest market."
Wind-Wire of South Bend and Home and Mobile Energy of Middlebury are both Business Members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
New Indiana Alternative Power & Energy Grant Applications Now Available
State Energy Plan--Current Programs
OED's Grant Programs are made possible by the
OED's Grant Programs are made possible by the
U.S. Department of Energy's State Energy Program. (SEP)
Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Programs
Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Programs
Alternative Power and Energy (APE) Grant Program
See http://www.in.gov/oed/2588.htm
The Indiana Office of Energy Development (OED) is pleased to offer $879,000 through the Alternative Power and Energy Grant Program (APE). The APE grant program will provide cost share grants to Indiana’s public, non-profit, and business sectors for the purchase and installation of alternative energy systems that will help offset fossil fuel usage and create jobs.
Alternative energy systems make use of non-fossil fuel resources to produce clean, home-grown electricity and thermal energy. In a time of rising energy costs and increased energy supply volatility, it is vital to our economic future to diversify the portfolio of resources we use to produce energy.
The purpose of the grant program is to increase awareness and utilization of alternative energy resources as well as to create vocational opportunities for Hoosiers interested in renewable energy.
Alternative energy systems that utilize the following technologies/resources to produce electricity and/or thermal energy are eligible for grant funding:
1.Solar Water Hating (SWH)
a. Domestic hot water
b. Radiant heating
c. NOT swimming pools
2.Solar Electricity
3.Wind Power
4.Micro-hydro electricity
5.Biomass electricity and heating
Please read Program Guidelines for full instructions.
■APE Grant Program Guidelines
■APE Grant Program Application
Note the following dates from the Program Guidelines.
August 24, 2009 -APE Grant Program announced and posted to OED website.
September 25, 2009 -Applications must be received by OED.
September 28, 2009 -E-mail confirmation will be sent to each applicant verifying that the application has been received.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Twisting in the wind
Company says lack of clear wind energy policies causing customers to worry
Bowdeya Tweh - bowdeya.tweh@nwi.com, (219) 933-3316 | Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:00 am
The owner of a Northwest Indiana firm selling residential wind energy systems says he is having problems with Lake and Porter County officials because there's confusion on policies determining what residents must do before activating them.
George Kontol Jr. of DeMotte-based Northwest Geothermal Inc. said times have been difficult for his company that sells and installs geothermal and wind generation systems, including its 30-foot high, 1,100-pound Windspire product.
Nicholas Serena, who lives a few miles northeast of Lowell, isn't able to use the Windspire installed at his farm in April because Lake County officials have told him that he doesn't have the appropriate permits or variances out to use it. Serena, a sales representative for the business through his firm Pleasant Grove Windworks, said when he called the county Plan Commission four months ago to ask what was required before installing the tower, he was told nothing was required.
Now, Serena said he and his lawyer plan to work with the county to see what is required. Serena said he's losing money on the $14,000 purchase because it's off and would like to get the system running within a couple of months.
Kontol said he wants to abide by county standards in his business and he's had easier times taking out permits in Lafayette and Indianapolis. He said a Porter County resident purchased the system as well, but a county official advised him to wait before using it until a wind energy policy could be developed.
"They're all being punished for wanting to be sustainable," Kontol said. "The utility companies want to charge you outrageous rates. The counties don't want to give you permits. There's no reason why we should be punished as consumers."
In Lake County
Lake County Plan Commission Director Ned Kovachevich said in a June 1 letter to Serena that he violated county ordinances by not requesting a permit for a "wind-powered cylindrical structure" and for the businesses not having a contractor's license in unincorporated Lake County to make or install electrical connections for wind-generating structures.
Kovachevich said permits and variances give the county an opportunity to make sure structures are safe and meet code requirements.
At a Wednesday meeting, Kovachevich said the Plan Commission decided to have staff gather and report information in September or October to determine if there is further regulation needed for wind-generating structures.
Issues will be handled as individuals approach the county for now, Kovachevich said. Wind-generating structures may require people to apply for a variance for a structure's height, bulk or area and another variance allowing the structure to be placed in an area where current zoning may not allow it.
In Porter County
Porter County Planning Commission Executive Director Robert Thompson said he hopes the county will have an ordinance in place dealing with small or single-site wind energy developments, but said a committee is still reviewing the impact they may have on communities.
The issue is expected to be on the commission's September meeting agenda.
Thompson said discussion on a wind energy ordinance was tabled in a meeting earlier this month to have more research done. Some issues raised include where the distribution system for a large wind energy development would be located and how would the energy be added to the current electrical grid, Thompson said.
For the time being, Thompson said the county has directed people to apply for a variance through the county's Board of Zoning Appeals and the process could take one or two months.
Windspires everywhere?
Kontol says he can't understand why the counties aren't more supportive of wind generation systems when the federal government supports it. A 30 percent federal tax credit is available for residents after having residential wind energy systems installed on their property, according to the U.S. Energy Star program Web site. The maximum generator output must be less than 100 kilowatts to qualify and the Windspire product meets this standard. The credit is on the cost of the system and must be placed in service by 2016.
Serena said the Windspire will pay for itself in six years, but people need to be relieved of the worries that they could pay for a device they can't use.
"It has definitely made people hesitant," Serena said. "We're educating people who don't know this technology and what it could bring for the future. I could see ... windspires all over the place, but we have to get it out there and get the knowledge out there to people work(ing) with it."
Bowdeya Tweh - bowdeya.tweh@nwi.com, (219) 933-3316 | Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:00 am
The owner of a Northwest Indiana firm selling residential wind energy systems says he is having problems with Lake and Porter County officials because there's confusion on policies determining what residents must do before activating them.
George Kontol Jr. of DeMotte-based Northwest Geothermal Inc. said times have been difficult for his company that sells and installs geothermal and wind generation systems, including its 30-foot high, 1,100-pound Windspire product.
Nicholas Serena, who lives a few miles northeast of Lowell, isn't able to use the Windspire installed at his farm in April because Lake County officials have told him that he doesn't have the appropriate permits or variances out to use it. Serena, a sales representative for the business through his firm Pleasant Grove Windworks, said when he called the county Plan Commission four months ago to ask what was required before installing the tower, he was told nothing was required.
Now, Serena said he and his lawyer plan to work with the county to see what is required. Serena said he's losing money on the $14,000 purchase because it's off and would like to get the system running within a couple of months.
Kontol said he wants to abide by county standards in his business and he's had easier times taking out permits in Lafayette and Indianapolis. He said a Porter County resident purchased the system as well, but a county official advised him to wait before using it until a wind energy policy could be developed.
"They're all being punished for wanting to be sustainable," Kontol said. "The utility companies want to charge you outrageous rates. The counties don't want to give you permits. There's no reason why we should be punished as consumers."
In Lake County
Lake County Plan Commission Director Ned Kovachevich said in a June 1 letter to Serena that he violated county ordinances by not requesting a permit for a "wind-powered cylindrical structure" and for the businesses not having a contractor's license in unincorporated Lake County to make or install electrical connections for wind-generating structures.
Kovachevich said permits and variances give the county an opportunity to make sure structures are safe and meet code requirements.
At a Wednesday meeting, Kovachevich said the Plan Commission decided to have staff gather and report information in September or October to determine if there is further regulation needed for wind-generating structures.
Issues will be handled as individuals approach the county for now, Kovachevich said. Wind-generating structures may require people to apply for a variance for a structure's height, bulk or area and another variance allowing the structure to be placed in an area where current zoning may not allow it.
In Porter County
Porter County Planning Commission Executive Director Robert Thompson said he hopes the county will have an ordinance in place dealing with small or single-site wind energy developments, but said a committee is still reviewing the impact they may have on communities.
The issue is expected to be on the commission's September meeting agenda.
Thompson said discussion on a wind energy ordinance was tabled in a meeting earlier this month to have more research done. Some issues raised include where the distribution system for a large wind energy development would be located and how would the energy be added to the current electrical grid, Thompson said.
For the time being, Thompson said the county has directed people to apply for a variance through the county's Board of Zoning Appeals and the process could take one or two months.
Windspires everywhere?
Kontol says he can't understand why the counties aren't more supportive of wind generation systems when the federal government supports it. A 30 percent federal tax credit is available for residents after having residential wind energy systems installed on their property, according to the U.S. Energy Star program Web site. The maximum generator output must be less than 100 kilowatts to qualify and the Windspire product meets this standard. The credit is on the cost of the system and must be placed in service by 2016.
Serena said the Windspire will pay for itself in six years, but people need to be relieved of the worries that they could pay for a device they can't use.
"It has definitely made people hesitant," Serena said. "We're educating people who don't know this technology and what it could bring for the future. I could see ... windspires all over the place, but we have to get it out there and get the knowledge out there to people work(ing) with it."
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Michiana businesses study potential of clean energy jobs plan
http://www.nilesstar.com/2009/08/21/michigan-businesses-study-potential-of-clean-energy-jobs-plan/
From the Niles Star; August 21, 2009
SOUTH BEND, Ind. – Joined by State Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend), Michiana business leaders today urged Congress to pass a clean energy jobs plan that would boost Indiana’s economy and grow new jobs in the area.
The business leaders cited both personal experiences and recent studies that underscore how comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation can renew the economy with new clean energy jobs. Also highlighted was a new poll that shows strong public support for Congressional action.
“It’s time to get America running on clean energy,” said TJ Kanczuzewski, executive vice president of Inovateus Solar in South Bend, where the local businesses gathered today.
“Clean energy jobs are already keeping thousands of Hoosiers working. I know first hand that if Congress passes a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan we could put thousands more back to work in our state alone.”
Kanczuzewski’s father, Leonard of Cassopolis, owns the former business incubator in Cassopolis, called Inovateus Business Center. Along with SCORE, which has an office in the center, potential and existing businesses can get needed assistance in forming and executing their business plans.
A study from the Pew Charitable Trusts, entitled “Clean Energy Economy,” examined the number of clean energy jobs that already exist in each state. It found that 17,300 Hoosiers are already employed in the clean energy economy.
“Clean energy jobs are real and they’re here today,” said Tom Topash, president of Turtle Island Wind and Solar in Berrien Center. “Now we just need Congress to act so our businesses can create more jobs, slash pollution, and make America more secure.”
A second study from the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst found that the clean energy jobs plan passed by the House of Representatives – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – would create 1.7 million net new jobs. That includes 38,000 new clean energy jobs for Indiana.
“We need bold action to renew our economy,” said Ron Williams, president of Take Action Solar and Wind in Elkhart, Ind. “By passing clean energy and climate legislation now, Congress can make sure that the clean energy jobs of tomorrow are right here in Michiana.”
In addition to providing new jobs and a boost to the overall economy, a clean energy jobs plan would be of particular benefit to low-income Americans. A report from Green for All and the Natural Resources Defense Council, entitled “Green Prosperity,” highlights the potential for a clean energy jobs plan to fight poverty and raise living standards in communities across the U.S.
“Low-income Americans stand to gain tremendously – with new jobs, higher wages, and lower living expenses,” said Heidi McHugh, marketing manager for Middlebury’s Home and Mobile Energy. “Building the clean energy economy will benefit all Americans, but there is evidence that it will help some of those hit hardest by the economic collapse the most.”
Finally, a new poll conducted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation by Zogby International shows strong public support for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. A supermajority of respondents, 71 percent, support the plan passed by the House in June. The poll also underscored strong support for Senate action, with more than half of respondents agreeing that the Senate should act quickly to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan.
“The public strongly supports the clean energy jobs plan passed by the House and it’s also clear they want the Senate to act quickly,” said Linda Yoder, vice president of Government Affairs for one of Indiana’s newest clean energy companies, Electric Motors Corp. in Wakarusa/Nappanee.”When Congress comes back from recess, it’s time for the Senate to get working to put America back to work in the clean energy economy.”
“Renewable energy stands to create tens of thousands of jobs in Indiana,” summed up State Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend), chair of the House Environmental Affairs Committee. “It is absolutely essential to the future of our state and a key component to pulling out of the ongoing recession.”
Inovateus and Home & Mobile Energy are both members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Act Now on the Right FIT for California - Renewable Energy World
Act Now on the Right FIT for California - Renewable Energy World
Shared via AddThis
August 19, 2009
Act Now on the Right FIT for California
by Tam Hunt, Community Renewable Solutions, LLC
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]
California is on the precipice of passing into law a game-changing Feed-In Tariff (FIT) policy that will unleash the tremendous potential of renewable energy and provide a massive economic boost in California. A lot rides on getting the support of California State Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego), so get ready to encourage her to do the right thing.
Before getting into the details, however, let’s review the current state of affairs: Renewable energy and energy efficiency are on a roll. Wind power installations in the first half of 2009 totaled 4,000 megawatts, exceeding installations in the first half of 2008. This happened in the worst recession since the Great Depression, so this is quite an achievement.
Solar power installations in the US and globally have remained level with 2008, due primarily to the ailing economy. But staying level is better than declining.
Energy efficiency and conservation have also improved. For example, petroleum consumption in the U.S. is down about 7% compared to 2007, a remarkable reduction considering that the trend in recent years has been to increase 2-3% each year. This change is, however, due primarily to high prices and declining economic activity.
As many commentators have noted, and as I’ve mentioned in my columns, President Obama understands the need for a dramatic improvement in renewable energy production, energy efficiency and conservation. He has already committed many billions of dollars for tax credits and other incentives on these items and they are starting to have an impact. Although, as I wrote in my last column, I am not happy about the proposed climate change bill because I don’t think it will have much impact as written.
Adding to the urgency for aggressive action is a recent change of position at the International Energy Agency regarding the timing of peak oil. The IEA, in its 2008 World Energy Outlook, projected a peak in global conventional oil production sometime before 2030. This projection has now been moved up.
In a recent interview with the UK-based Guardian newspaper, Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, warned of a potentially “catastrophic” supply shortfall due to lack of sufficient investment in new supplies and rapidly declining conventional oil supplies at about twice the rate of previous projections. He also advanced the IEA’s projection of the conventional oil peak to 2020. This date is practically around the corner and is yet another wakeup call to a world slumbering in the dream of infinite fossil fuel resources.
We need urgent action to create a renewably-powered sustainable world, with widespread use of electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars to replace our petroleum consumption.
This is where an aggressive Feed-In Tariff (FIT) comes in. AB 1106 (Fuentes) is pending in Sacramento and will, if passed, be a game changer for renewables in California. The state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), effective since 2003, has achieved very little in terms of bringing new renewables online. Last year saw an increase, but it was almost entirely from out-of-state facilities.
We need to develop in-state supplies to localize our grid and keep the economic benefits local. The RPS has in fact been so ineffective that the total percentage of renewable energy online in California, even with the out-of-state boost to our renewable energy portfolio last year, has declined in every year since the RPS has been in effect. The most recent report was just released by the California Energy Commission, finding that the total amount of renewable energy was 10.6% in 2008, a decline from 11.8% in 2007. This is unfortunate and unacceptable.
AB 1106 promises to change this equation substantially because it would require utilities to accept up to 2% of their total demand each year from new renewable energy facilities 10 megawatts and below. It will also ensure that ratepayers would never experience an increase in rates above 1%.
A key additional feature is the certainty of the FIT price: this is not negotiated and would be set by the California Public Utilities Commission. For projects 5 megawatts and below, AB 1106 would create a “cost-based” FIT, a policy which has brought huge volumes of cost-effective renewable energy online around the world. The pricing mechanism for projects between 5 and 10 megawatts is still being debated. But in any case, it will be superior to the “market price” mechanism that is used in the RPS program today.
With this transparency and consequent certainty for the marketplace (which includes my new company, for the sake of full disclosure), we can expect many thousands of megawatts of renewable energy to come online quickly in the form of “community-scale” projects that don’t require new transmission lines and don’t require massive amounts of land. (I am fully supportive of wisely placed large renewable energy projects but believe, for a variety of reasons, that the community-scale market segment can do as much or more than the large-scale market segment).
AB 1106 is better than a competing FIT bill, SB 32 (Negrete-McLeod), because SB 32 would only allow projects up to 3 megawatts (doubling the current limit of 1.5 megawatts), and would only require the CPUC to consider “locational benefits” of community-scale projects when setting a FIT price. This is an improvement, but we can do better.
Worst of all, SB 32 contains a “poison pill” clause that was included to appease the utilities that would prevent the CPUC from implementing any additional FIT provisions in the future. The limited improvement offered by SB 32 does not warrant this poison pill. AB 1106, on the other hand, will introduce a tremendous FIT program that has been proven around the world. Accordingly, it is opposed by the utilities, who prefer the large-scale, utility-controlled generation model.
I am urging any California stakeholder to contact Senator Kehoe, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and urge her to strongly support AB 1106 for passage this year. Senator Kehoe’s support is required in order to get AB 1106 through her Appropriations Committee and this needs to happen within the week of August 24th in order to have AB 1106 signed into law this year by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Again, if passed, AB 1106 will be a game changer for bringing renewable energy online and boosting the economy in California. And as California goes, so goes the nation. We need aggressive action. Now. Help make it happen!
Tam Hunt is president of Community Renewable Solutions, LLC, and a Lecturer in climate change law and policy at the UC Santa Barbara Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Sacramento's Feed-in Tariff a Work in Progress
Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:33am EDT
By Paul Gipe
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), the nation's sixth largest publicly owned utility, announced with much fanfare that its board of directors had approved the introduction of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy in 2010.
The announcement created a buzz within the renewable energy industry as evidence that another utility voluntarily moved toward feed-in tariffs to boost renewable energy development. Utilities in Indiana and Michigan have proposed their own feed-in tariffs and the municipal utility in Gainesville, Florida began offering a feed-in tariff this past spring.
Feed-in tariffs are becoming increasingly popular. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal noted this week, "feed-in tariffs are gaining traction" as a policy mechanism.
SMUD made the decision for all the right reasons. "For SMUD and our customers, the FIT [feed-in tariff] will be mutually advantageous," said the board's briefing documents. "By standardizing our purchase offer, the FIT will streamline the time and effort currently required to contract with power generators. For customers, the FIT will provide a new opportunity to sell power at a fair market price from small-scale generation units. In particular, the FIT for Renewable Generation will assist SMUD in meeting the goals not only for our Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), but also for greenhouse gas reduction."
On the surface, SMUD's proposal appears bold By California standards. The program would apply to projects up to 5 MW and the overall program is capped at a relatively high 100 MW. And in a likely a first for North America, SMUD's plan will also include fossil-fuel fired Combined Heat & Power (CHP) projects. (SMUD will join Britain in offering specific feed-in tariffs for CHP plants in 2010.)
SMUD's plan also includes all renewables unlike the program in Gainesville where the municipal utility earlier this year launched a highly successful feed-in tariff program for solar PV only.
Nevertheless, the specific tariffs proposed by SMUD have raised questions among analysts whether the proposal accomplished its stated objective of developing a "fair" price for renewable energy. Or whether the program will even be effective at developing renewable energy at the pace desired.
Like the tariffs determined by the California Pubic Utility Commission (PUC) for its feed-in tariff program, SMUD's tariffs are based on the "value" of the generation to SMUD. As in the PUC's program, the tariffs vary by time of day and season of the year.
In a recent analysis of the California PUC's feed-in tariff, Toby Couture of E3 Analytics found that only 14 MW have been installed in the 500 MW program. There are 36 million people in California. In contrast, Gainesville, with a population of 90,000, is expected to install 4 MW in its first year.
SMUD makes no differentiation between technologies, size, application, or resource intensity, unlike successful programs in Europe and the proposed feed-in tariff program in Ontario, Canada.
Payment under SMUD's program will require a sophisticated analysis of hour-by-hour generation and the probability of occurrence. For example, the tariffs for a 20-year contract beginning in 2009 vary from $0.082 USD/kWh during the shoulder season to $0.29 USD/kWh during superpeak.
SMUD, one of California's more respected utilities, tried to hedge its tariffs by offering a bonus for the generation's green value. The proposed tariffs include the wholesale cost of power avoided plus estimated greenhouse gas mitigation costs and the cost due to natural gas price volatility. For a 20-year contract, the greenhouse adder is $0.0111 USD/kWh and the gas-price hedge is $0.0115 USD/kWh for a total premium in 2009 of $0.0227 USD/kWh.
Here's a summary of the program.
* Program Cap: 100 MW
* Project Cap: 5 MW
* Contract Terms: 10, 15, 20 years
* Time Differentiated Tariffs
* No Technology Differentiation
* Tariffs based on avoided cost, value-based tariffs
* Effective January, 2010
* Applications available November, 2009
* Includes tariffs for Combined Heat & Power
Industry analysts were quick to applaud SMUD's effort while noting the program's deficiencies.
It's clear that SMUD is trying to move the policy needle in California suggests Craig Lewis, a founding member of the [California] FIT Coalition. "The fact that SMUD raised the project size limit to 5MW is indicative that they believe distributed generation projects can be seamlessly integrated into the distribution grid in California," says Lewis in reference to the lower limit of 1.5 MW in the PUC's program.
Lewis goes on to note that possibly SMUD's most significant contribution to the renewables debate in California is the program's target of 100 MW. SMUD serves 1.4 million customers in and around the state capitol. According to Lewis, SMUD's program "scales to a statewide equivalent of roughly 3,000 MW. This provides an informative example for both the California legislature and the PUC."
The PUC's current program is limited to slightly less than 500 MW. The California Solar Initiative (CSI) is limited to 3,000 MW of solar PV. SMUD's program alone is equivalent to the statewide CSI. "These are the minimum FIT program sizes that California policymakers need to be considering if they want to make the RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard] real," Lewis argues.
But it's SMUD tariffs that give analysts the most concern.
"SMUD's feed-in tariff price structure is a maze of 216 different payment rates for different seasons, times of day, contract lengths, and starting year," says Robert Freehling, a renewable energy consultant. "Even after a developer picks a technology, a starting date and a contract length, individual projects will be subject to nine different rates that depend on time of day and season of the year for the duration of their contract."
Freehling, who notes that SMUD has otherwise been a leader in energy efficiency and renewables in California, "is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole" by using such "market rate" formulas. "While the goal of getting good value for ratepayers is valid, this particular pricing design has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective for feed-in tariffs. California's "market rate" feed-in tariffs are a great example of how this does not work."
He's not alone.
"While SMUD has been at the forefront of innovative utility policy in the U.S. since the 1990s," says Toby Couture, Canada's leading feed-in tariff analyst, "it's missing one of the basic lessons from countries around the world: the tariffs have to be cost-based to drive substantial amounts of investment. Investors expect a return," Couture says, "and if they can't guarantee that, they're likely to look elsewhere."
"The countries that have had success with feed-in tariffs base their prices on the actual costs of renewable energy generation. If the FIT prices aren't cost based, they're not likely to attract capital, for the simple reason that investors need to know they're going to make money," Couture explains. "This doesn't need to be returns of 15-20 percent. Markets in Germany and Spain have shown that reliable returns of 5-8 percent are typically adequate to attract large amounts of investment to the renewable energy sector. This is even more likely to hold true in today's financial markets."
Lewis, of the FIT Coalition, fears the worst. "It appears that SMUD's FIT is going to be insufficient." He estimates that the average payment under the SMUD program for solar PV "will be in the $0.17 USD/kWh range, and this is simply insufficient to attract solar project development. Nobody is going to invest in projects that are guaranteed to lose money!"
Gainesville Regional Utilities pays $0.32 USD/kWh for a 20-year contract to a solar PV generator and Vermont will begin paying a tariff of $0.30 USD/kWh for solar PV this fall. Both programs based their tariffs on the cost of solar PV generation, not its theoretical value to the system.
Time will tell whether the analysts or SMUD's engineers are correct. If SMUD is wrong, it will have stumbled badly; further eroding already shaky confidence in California utilities. Worse, the once-innovative utility will have lost valuable time in the race to bring on more renewable energy as quickly as possible.
Etopia New Interview with SMUD's Jon Bertolino
Draft SMUD Feed-in Tariff Policy: Note that the posted tariffs will be adjusted in November of 2009 to reflect SMUD's revision of its wholesale costs of generation.
By Paul Gipe
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), the nation's sixth largest publicly owned utility, announced with much fanfare that its board of directors had approved the introduction of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy in 2010.
The announcement created a buzz within the renewable energy industry as evidence that another utility voluntarily moved toward feed-in tariffs to boost renewable energy development. Utilities in Indiana and Michigan have proposed their own feed-in tariffs and the municipal utility in Gainesville, Florida began offering a feed-in tariff this past spring.
Feed-in tariffs are becoming increasingly popular. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal noted this week, "feed-in tariffs are gaining traction" as a policy mechanism.
SMUD made the decision for all the right reasons. "For SMUD and our customers, the FIT [feed-in tariff] will be mutually advantageous," said the board's briefing documents. "By standardizing our purchase offer, the FIT will streamline the time and effort currently required to contract with power generators. For customers, the FIT will provide a new opportunity to sell power at a fair market price from small-scale generation units. In particular, the FIT for Renewable Generation will assist SMUD in meeting the goals not only for our Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), but also for greenhouse gas reduction."
On the surface, SMUD's proposal appears bold By California standards. The program would apply to projects up to 5 MW and the overall program is capped at a relatively high 100 MW. And in a likely a first for North America, SMUD's plan will also include fossil-fuel fired Combined Heat & Power (CHP) projects. (SMUD will join Britain in offering specific feed-in tariffs for CHP plants in 2010.)
SMUD's plan also includes all renewables unlike the program in Gainesville where the municipal utility earlier this year launched a highly successful feed-in tariff program for solar PV only.
Nevertheless, the specific tariffs proposed by SMUD have raised questions among analysts whether the proposal accomplished its stated objective of developing a "fair" price for renewable energy. Or whether the program will even be effective at developing renewable energy at the pace desired.
Like the tariffs determined by the California Pubic Utility Commission (PUC) for its feed-in tariff program, SMUD's tariffs are based on the "value" of the generation to SMUD. As in the PUC's program, the tariffs vary by time of day and season of the year.
In a recent analysis of the California PUC's feed-in tariff, Toby Couture of E3 Analytics found that only 14 MW have been installed in the 500 MW program. There are 36 million people in California. In contrast, Gainesville, with a population of 90,000, is expected to install 4 MW in its first year.
SMUD makes no differentiation between technologies, size, application, or resource intensity, unlike successful programs in Europe and the proposed feed-in tariff program in Ontario, Canada.
Payment under SMUD's program will require a sophisticated analysis of hour-by-hour generation and the probability of occurrence. For example, the tariffs for a 20-year contract beginning in 2009 vary from $0.082 USD/kWh during the shoulder season to $0.29 USD/kWh during superpeak.
SMUD, one of California's more respected utilities, tried to hedge its tariffs by offering a bonus for the generation's green value. The proposed tariffs include the wholesale cost of power avoided plus estimated greenhouse gas mitigation costs and the cost due to natural gas price volatility. For a 20-year contract, the greenhouse adder is $0.0111 USD/kWh and the gas-price hedge is $0.0115 USD/kWh for a total premium in 2009 of $0.0227 USD/kWh.
Here's a summary of the program.
* Program Cap: 100 MW
* Project Cap: 5 MW
* Contract Terms: 10, 15, 20 years
* Time Differentiated Tariffs
* No Technology Differentiation
* Tariffs based on avoided cost, value-based tariffs
* Effective January, 2010
* Applications available November, 2009
* Includes tariffs for Combined Heat & Power
Industry analysts were quick to applaud SMUD's effort while noting the program's deficiencies.
It's clear that SMUD is trying to move the policy needle in California suggests Craig Lewis, a founding member of the [California] FIT Coalition. "The fact that SMUD raised the project size limit to 5MW is indicative that they believe distributed generation projects can be seamlessly integrated into the distribution grid in California," says Lewis in reference to the lower limit of 1.5 MW in the PUC's program.
Lewis goes on to note that possibly SMUD's most significant contribution to the renewables debate in California is the program's target of 100 MW. SMUD serves 1.4 million customers in and around the state capitol. According to Lewis, SMUD's program "scales to a statewide equivalent of roughly 3,000 MW. This provides an informative example for both the California legislature and the PUC."
The PUC's current program is limited to slightly less than 500 MW. The California Solar Initiative (CSI) is limited to 3,000 MW of solar PV. SMUD's program alone is equivalent to the statewide CSI. "These are the minimum FIT program sizes that California policymakers need to be considering if they want to make the RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard] real," Lewis argues.
But it's SMUD tariffs that give analysts the most concern.
"SMUD's feed-in tariff price structure is a maze of 216 different payment rates for different seasons, times of day, contract lengths, and starting year," says Robert Freehling, a renewable energy consultant. "Even after a developer picks a technology, a starting date and a contract length, individual projects will be subject to nine different rates that depend on time of day and season of the year for the duration of their contract."
Freehling, who notes that SMUD has otherwise been a leader in energy efficiency and renewables in California, "is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole" by using such "market rate" formulas. "While the goal of getting good value for ratepayers is valid, this particular pricing design has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective for feed-in tariffs. California's "market rate" feed-in tariffs are a great example of how this does not work."
He's not alone.
"While SMUD has been at the forefront of innovative utility policy in the U.S. since the 1990s," says Toby Couture, Canada's leading feed-in tariff analyst, "it's missing one of the basic lessons from countries around the world: the tariffs have to be cost-based to drive substantial amounts of investment. Investors expect a return," Couture says, "and if they can't guarantee that, they're likely to look elsewhere."
"The countries that have had success with feed-in tariffs base their prices on the actual costs of renewable energy generation. If the FIT prices aren't cost based, they're not likely to attract capital, for the simple reason that investors need to know they're going to make money," Couture explains. "This doesn't need to be returns of 15-20 percent. Markets in Germany and Spain have shown that reliable returns of 5-8 percent are typically adequate to attract large amounts of investment to the renewable energy sector. This is even more likely to hold true in today's financial markets."
Lewis, of the FIT Coalition, fears the worst. "It appears that SMUD's FIT is going to be insufficient." He estimates that the average payment under the SMUD program for solar PV "will be in the $0.17 USD/kWh range, and this is simply insufficient to attract solar project development. Nobody is going to invest in projects that are guaranteed to lose money!"
Gainesville Regional Utilities pays $0.32 USD/kWh for a 20-year contract to a solar PV generator and Vermont will begin paying a tariff of $0.30 USD/kWh for solar PV this fall. Both programs based their tariffs on the cost of solar PV generation, not its theoretical value to the system.
Time will tell whether the analysts or SMUD's engineers are correct. If SMUD is wrong, it will have stumbled badly; further eroding already shaky confidence in California utilities. Worse, the once-innovative utility will have lost valuable time in the race to bring on more renewable energy as quickly as possible.
Etopia New Interview with SMUD's Jon Bertolino
Draft SMUD Feed-in Tariff Policy: Note that the posted tariffs will be adjusted in November of 2009 to reflect SMUD's revision of its wholesale costs of generation.
Ontario Revises Proposed Feed-in Tariffs
Ontario Revises Proposed Feed-in Tariffs
May 13, 2009 (Revised May 19, 2009)
The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) issued revised draft feed-in tariffs at its stakeholder workshop May 12, 2009.
New tariff bands were added and tariffs increased for some technology bands. OPA also revised its proposed bonus payments for projects owned by community and aboriginal groups.
OPA, Ontario's power procurement agency, also eliminated a potentially significant barrier to financing renewable projects by reassuring investors that projects will be paid for generation foregone if economically curtailed.
Ontario is dependent on a large mix of inflexible nuclear power and with the closure of industry across the province there has been a surplus of power during the transition from winter to summer. This surplus has unsettled the investment community along Toronto's Bay Street, Canada's Wall Street.
Ontario has committed to close all its coal-fired power plants by 2014. It is the only jurisdiction in North America to make such a commitment. As a result, Ontario has embarked on an ambitious plan to become a leader in renewable energy development to make up the difference in lost power generation.
OPA has made several changes to its initial feed-in tariff proposal.
Rooftop PV <10 kW tranche now includes ground-mounted systems
Rooftop PV >10 kW tranche expanded to 250 kW, effectively raising the tariff for >100 kW<250 kW systems
Ground-mounted PV cap and degression eliminated
Hydropower is divided into two tranches and the lower tranche gets a little higher tariff
Hydropower term extended to 40 years
100% inflation protection during construction, then 20%.
Biogas tranche <500 kW added
Community and Aboriginal bonus extended to all technologies except rooftop PV
Aboriginal bonus raised to 1.5 cents
Amount of community and aboriginal bonus now depends upon percent ownership interest
Monday, August 17, 2009
North American Feed-in Tariff Policies Take Off
Photo courtesy U.S. NREL
Gainesville’s feed-in tariff program is limited to 4 megawatts of solar PV each year. The program is already fully subscribed through 2015 — a 24-megawatt commitment.
Photo courtesy U.S. NREL
Vermont’s feed-in tariff policy plans to establish 50-megawatts of renewable energy. Large- and small-scale wind, solar, and biogas power projects under 2.2-megawatts in size are eligible."
by Ben Block on August 12, 2009
Clean energy advocates in Europe have long considered the feed-in tariff as an antidote to the industrial world's fossil fuel dependency. Now, the United States and Canada are starting to catch on as well.
Feed-in tariffs (FITs) guarantee that anyone who generates electricity from a renewable energy source - whether they are a homeowner, small business, or large electric utility - is able to sell that electricity into the grid and receive long-term payments for each kilowatt-hour produced. Payments are set at pre-established rates, often higher than what the market would ordinarily pay, to ensure that developers earn profitable returns.
The FIT is credited for the rapid deployment of wind and solar power among world renewable energy leaders Denmark, Germany, and Spain this past decade. Similar policies have since been adopted by many other countries, leading the FIT to become the most prevalent tool for promoting renewables.
In North America, its adoption has been relatively slow. As public support for renewable energy increases, however, more governments are adopting FIT policies - often as a complement to the widely used Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require utilities to purchase minimum amounts of renewable electricity.
Several U.S. states and Canadian provinces began serious consideration of the FIT last year. More than a dozen states, one province, and numerous municipalities have since implemented some form of FIT.
"We've reached a tipping point where a feed-in tariff is no longer such an odd idea for America," said Paul Gipe, the author of several books on wind energy and a FIT advocate. "In fact, it's the best idea for rapid development of the massive amount of renewable energy that's needed now."
Renewable energy projects have often struggled to gain the confidence of investors, a problem the FIT policy addresses by ensuring that anyone with a sun-drenched roof or windy backyard may receive funding for a set period of time, normally 15-20 years.
Renewable energy projects have often struggled to gain the confidence of investors, a problem the FIT policy addresses by ensuring that anyone with a sun-drenched roof or windy backyard may receive funding for a set period of time, normally 15-20 years.
"A lot of the charm of the feed-in tariff is solid, take-it-to-the-bank security and confidence for the investing community," said U.S. Representative Jay Inslee, a sponsor of legislation
that would establish a nationwide FIT, at a Washington, D.C. briefing earlier this month. "You get access to what is very difficult to get right now: financing."
that would establish a nationwide FIT, at a Washington, D.C. briefing earlier this month. "You get access to what is very difficult to get right now: financing."
Not all FIT policies are created equal. The North American programs enacted to date often limit the level of economic incentive, the project size, and the renewable energy source, compared to large-scale programs enacted in Europe. Small-scale renewable energy advocates are praising FIT programs approved this year in Gainesville, Florida; Vermont; and Ontario as examples that North America should follow.
Gainesville, Florida
Florida, the Sunshine State, is blessed with bountiful solar resources to support renewable electricity. In the northern city of Gainesville, the municipal utility has helped ratepayers purchase their own solar panels since 1997. The program has partially financed some 40,000 watts of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels,but until recently there was no incentive for homeowners to install the panels properly.
"We weren't getting energy bang for the buck," said John Crider, an engineer with Gainesville Regional Utilities' strategic planning department. "People could get the rebate check and put their solar panel in the shade."
Last year, Assistant General Manager Ed Regan visited Germany, the world's leader in grid-connected solar PV, on a trip coordinated with the Solar Electric Power Association. Impressed by Germany's FIT policy, Regan convinced the Gainesville City Commission to approve the first FIT for solar PV in the United States. The utility promised that solar providers who signed up for the program before 2011 would earn $0.32 per kilowatt hour for 20 years, an estimated 4-6 percent return on investment.
"We assume, as time goes on, it will be cheaper to buy and install solar equipment," Crider said. "The rate we pay goes down as well, to keep the return ideally constant."
The utility, which is otherwise reliant on coal and natural gas for its power generation, wanted to be sure that electricity costs would not increase more than 1 percent due to the FIT, Crider said. The decision led the utility to limit the program to 4 megawatts total of solar PV each year. The program is already fully subscribed through 2015 - a 24-megawatt commitment. Before the Gainesville program, the entire state of Florida had installed 2.5 megawatts of solar electricity capacity.
The FIT gained the city's support mostly to boost the local economy. More than 220 companies in Florida produce, sell, or install solar PV products, according to the Apollo Alliance, a San Francisco-based organization that champions "green jobs" nationwide.
"Our primary motive is not to get the cheapest energy and keep profits high for investors, because we don't have investors," Crider said. "For the municipality, we have a larger vision.... Create a local, thriving marketplace for local solar providers."
Vermont
With two-thirds of Vermont's electricity contracts set to expire in 2012, the state was in a position this year to change its energy portfolio. Meanwhile, Vermont was far from its 2025 goal of 25-percent renewable energy - renewables were supplying less than 10 percent.
The state offered a "net-metering" program that allowed residents to feed renewably generated electricity into the grid, offsetting some or all of their electric bills. Hundreds of small-scale systems resulted, but these combined to meet a mere 0.02 percent of the state's electricity load.
"We were trying to alter the entire energy paradigm, but we were on a very slow trajectory," said Andrew Perchlik, executive director of Renewable Energy Vermont.
"We were trying to alter the entire energy paradigm, but we were on a very slow trajectory," said Andrew Perchlik, executive director of Renewable Energy Vermont.
The net-metering program did not allow participants to turn a profit, a problem given that small-scale power generation projects required the same costly permits as commercial power plants. Too few Vermonters had reason to participate.
Legislators had considered adopting a FIT, but the policy lacked grassroots support until a new coalition of business leaders, environmentalists, and utility executives formed a renewable energy consensus. The group met before the state's politicians convened in January and settled on the framework of what would become Vermont's first FIT, which they call a "standard offer."
"Increasingly, utilities are realizing that customers are asking for renewable energy. In the long run, it will be less expensive than the alternative," said Robert Dostis, a former state House of Representatives energy chairman who now directs external affairs for Green Mountain Power. "By being at the table, we were able to contain the enthusiasm of some of the renewable energy advocates and have them understand the rate impact of some of their ideas."
The legislature settled on a 50-megawatt program that limited individual projects to 2.2 megawatts each. Starting in January 2010, 20-year contracts will be available for developers of large- and small-scale wind, solar, and biogas power projects.
Opponents said the public would reject the idea of paying more for renewable energy projects - the highest rate, $0.30 per kilowatt-hour of solar energy, far exceeded the $0.04 many ratepayers were being charged at the time. "That was not the case at all," Perchlik said. "Some 80 percent wanted renewable energy, and they were willing to pay 5 percent more."
The energy bill cleared the Democrat-controlled legislature easily. In May, Republican governor Jim Douglas allowed the bill to become law despite his concerns about it. He said the FIT "fails to recognize the current viability of renewable energy in a competitive setting and will needlessly increase costs to Vermont consumers so as to subsidize this one favored business sector."
Although program specifics have yet to be finalized, Vermonters are expressing growing interest. Dostis predicts that the program will fulfill its 50-megawatt limit by 2012. "I think this is really going to propel development," he said.
Ontario
During the 2007 provincial campaign, Ontario's Liberal party promised it would close every coal-fired power plant across the province by 2014. Premier Dalton McGuinty said the plant closures would benefit human health and meet half of the party's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
Following the election, the Liberal party secured 71 of the Legislative Assembly's 107 seats. Despite clear political support, shuttering 18 percent of the province's power source is no easy feat. The Liberals had already pledged to close the coal plants during their previous term, only to push back their own deadline.
Since 2006, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) began offering a FIT system that provided 20-year payments of 11 Canadian cents (US$0.09) per kilowatt-hour for small-scale hydro, wind, and biomass power projects, and 42 Canadian cents (US$0.34) for solar projects. More than 1,000 megawatts of projects were installed during the first year, but renewable energy advocates criticized the payments, particularly for solar energy, as too small.
In March, the province announced that its proposed Green Energy and Green Economy Act would establish a revised FIT modeled after Germany's. The bill set payments for on-shore, off-shore, and community-based wind power; rooftop PV and ground-mounted PV power; small hydropower; and various biomass power options. Payments would depend on the project size for each technology.
The proposal was instantly applauded by renewable energy supporters. "The Green Energy Act is the most progressive renewable energy policy in North America in three decades," said Gipe, who advised the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association. "There was a decision to pay what it costs to develop renewable energy. It's clear to the public, transparent to everyone."
An OPA-conducted survey found 150 developers who were interested in the new FIT and were willing to construct 15,000 megawatts of electric capacity - enough to produce the equivalent of 20 percent of Ontario's electricity consumption.
Gipe also solicited support from Ontario's farmers, whom he advised would be eligible to receive payments for wind turbines on their property.
"I went to every farm group I could," Gipe said. "This is an opportunity to revitalize the Ontario economy...not just to revitalize the rural economy, but the entire industrial economy of Ontario."
The proposal was approved in May. It now stands as the most generous FIT policy in North America.
The proposal was approved in May. It now stands as the most generous FIT policy in North America.
Reprinted with permission. Worldwatch Institute, Eye on Earth, http://www.worldwatch.org/
Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
NREL Energy Analysts Dig into Feed-In Tariffs - Renewable Energy World
NREL Energy Analysts Dig into Feed-In Tariffs - Renewable Energy World
June 26, 2009
by Joseph B. Verrengia, NREL
Colorado, United States
Feed-in tariffs (FiTs) are the world's most widely used policy to drive renewable energy development. They have helped transform cloudy Germany into the world leader of installed solar power and photovoltaic manufacturing.
Now FITs are stimulating green energy investment in North America, too.
Locations as disparate as the city of Gainesville, FL, the province of Ontario, Canada, and the state of Washington recently have adopted measures establishing guaranteed long-term prices for clean electricity. A dozen more states and many more communities are considering similar energy policy proposals.
NREL energy analysts are digging into these complex policies in a series of technical reports designed to inform government policy makers, clean energy investors, utilities and other stakeholders.
Feed-in tariffs guarantee long-term payments at pre-established rates for the electricity generated from renewable sources. The production-based payments are often higher than market rates, but are on the verge of becoming competitive in specific locations for certain technologies such as wind power.
While utilities are obligated to buy the power, the long-term payments help encourage renewable energy development by reducing risks for investors. Any added costs are typically passed along to ratepayers and, for technologies like wind and landfill gas, may provide a hedge against electricity price volatility and large price spikes over the long-term.
According to the NREL studies, experience around the world suggests that FITs can effectively expand renewable energy deployment and remove barriers to renewable energy development, while creating jobs and helping meet renewable energy standards.
Best Programs Tailored to Local Conditions
States — or even local communities — may be tempted to copy the successful German model word for word. But, NREL analysts say that FITs are most effective when the policy design is adapted to local context.
"Every jurisdiction has unique characteristics that will influence the details of the FIT design and affect its success — these local differences are critical to consider," said Karlynn Cory (pictured below), co-author of State Clean Energy Policies Analysis (SCEPA) Project: An Analysis of Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariffs in the United States (PDF 1.1 MB).
The NREL reports examine a wide range of FIT programs. For example, Gainesville's tariff is limited to photovoltaic projects with a total city-wide cap of 4 megawatts (MW). Under Washington state's FIT policy, solar PV, solar thermal, wind, and anaerobic digesters are offered a payment that differs by technology and that increases if system components are manufactured in-state.
This spring, the Canadian province of Ontario revised its three-year old program to include a 20-year fixed price of as much as US $0.69 for every kilowatt-hour of solar power generated. In response, SunEdison, First Solar, Everbrite Solar and Nanosolar are developing both solar energy farms and manufacturing facilities near Ottawa, Kingston and other cities. (Below, left: NREL energy analysts Claire Kreycik, left, and Karlynn Cory have examined feed-in tariffs in North America and Europe. Credit: Joe Verrengia)
Timely Topic
With so many tariff options, Cory said it is timely for the Laboratory's Strategic Energy Analysis Center to tackle the topic.
"Understanding the policy design options allows decision makers to formulate more effective policies for their specific circumstances," Cory said. "This was a real opportunity for NREL to evaluate the key lessons learned in Europe and translate them to the U.S. context."
The second NREL study of FITs suggests that the policy can work effectively with renewable portfolio standards (RPS). States use RPS policies to set long-term requirements on how much renewable energy must be developed to meet consumer demand, boost clean energy development and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
Cory co-authored that report, Feed-in Tariff Policy: Design, Implementation, and RPS Policy Interactions (PDF 446 KB), with NREL analyst Claire Kreycik (pictured above) and Toby Couture, now of E3 Analytics.
Kreycik recently briefed New York state policymakers on how FITs can drive renewable energy deployment and job creation as they prepare to vote on an FIT proposal.
RPS mandates have been adopted in 29 states and Congress is considering a national standard. However, not all of these policies are designed to address investors' needs for revenue certainty. That's where FIT programs can be complementary. (Image: A technician installs meters at a new solar energy project in Gainesville, Fla. The city has adopted a local feed-in tariff to support the development of up to 4 MW of solar energy. Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
"RPS policies tend to set the requirement and let the market figure out how to get there," Cory said. "FIT policies can help utilities meet their RPS target. It doesn't have to be an either-or choice."
A third NREL report will focus on best practices for feed-in tariff policies. It will be completed later this year.
Joseph B. Verrengia writes for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado.
This article originally appeared as a National Renewable Energy Laboratory feature article.
Shared via AddThis
June 26, 2009
by Joseph B. Verrengia, NREL
Colorado, United States
Feed-in tariffs (FiTs) are the world's most widely used policy to drive renewable energy development. They have helped transform cloudy Germany into the world leader of installed solar power and photovoltaic manufacturing.
Now FITs are stimulating green energy investment in North America, too.
Locations as disparate as the city of Gainesville, FL, the province of Ontario, Canada, and the state of Washington recently have adopted measures establishing guaranteed long-term prices for clean electricity. A dozen more states and many more communities are considering similar energy policy proposals.
NREL energy analysts are digging into these complex policies in a series of technical reports designed to inform government policy makers, clean energy investors, utilities and other stakeholders.
Feed-in tariffs guarantee long-term payments at pre-established rates for the electricity generated from renewable sources. The production-based payments are often higher than market rates, but are on the verge of becoming competitive in specific locations for certain technologies such as wind power.
While utilities are obligated to buy the power, the long-term payments help encourage renewable energy development by reducing risks for investors. Any added costs are typically passed along to ratepayers and, for technologies like wind and landfill gas, may provide a hedge against electricity price volatility and large price spikes over the long-term.
According to the NREL studies, experience around the world suggests that FITs can effectively expand renewable energy deployment and remove barriers to renewable energy development, while creating jobs and helping meet renewable energy standards.
Best Programs Tailored to Local Conditions
States — or even local communities — may be tempted to copy the successful German model word for word. But, NREL analysts say that FITs are most effective when the policy design is adapted to local context.
"Every jurisdiction has unique characteristics that will influence the details of the FIT design and affect its success — these local differences are critical to consider," said Karlynn Cory (pictured below), co-author of State Clean Energy Policies Analysis (SCEPA) Project: An Analysis of Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariffs in the United States (PDF 1.1 MB).
The NREL reports examine a wide range of FIT programs. For example, Gainesville's tariff is limited to photovoltaic projects with a total city-wide cap of 4 megawatts (MW). Under Washington state's FIT policy, solar PV, solar thermal, wind, and anaerobic digesters are offered a payment that differs by technology and that increases if system components are manufactured in-state.
This spring, the Canadian province of Ontario revised its three-year old program to include a 20-year fixed price of as much as US $0.69 for every kilowatt-hour of solar power generated. In response, SunEdison, First Solar, Everbrite Solar and Nanosolar are developing both solar energy farms and manufacturing facilities near Ottawa, Kingston and other cities. (Below, left: NREL energy analysts Claire Kreycik, left, and Karlynn Cory have examined feed-in tariffs in North America and Europe. Credit: Joe Verrengia)
Timely Topic
With so many tariff options, Cory said it is timely for the Laboratory's Strategic Energy Analysis Center to tackle the topic.
"Understanding the policy design options allows decision makers to formulate more effective policies for their specific circumstances," Cory said. "This was a real opportunity for NREL to evaluate the key lessons learned in Europe and translate them to the U.S. context."
The second NREL study of FITs suggests that the policy can work effectively with renewable portfolio standards (RPS). States use RPS policies to set long-term requirements on how much renewable energy must be developed to meet consumer demand, boost clean energy development and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
Cory co-authored that report, Feed-in Tariff Policy: Design, Implementation, and RPS Policy Interactions (PDF 446 KB), with NREL analyst Claire Kreycik (pictured above) and Toby Couture, now of E3 Analytics.
Kreycik recently briefed New York state policymakers on how FITs can drive renewable energy deployment and job creation as they prepare to vote on an FIT proposal.
RPS mandates have been adopted in 29 states and Congress is considering a national standard. However, not all of these policies are designed to address investors' needs for revenue certainty. That's where FIT programs can be complementary. (Image: A technician installs meters at a new solar energy project in Gainesville, Fla. The city has adopted a local feed-in tariff to support the development of up to 4 MW of solar energy. Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
"RPS policies tend to set the requirement and let the market figure out how to get there," Cory said. "FIT policies can help utilities meet their RPS target. It doesn't have to be an either-or choice."
A third NREL report will focus on best practices for feed-in tariff policies. It will be completed later this year.
Joseph B. Verrengia writes for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado.
This article originally appeared as a National Renewable Energy Laboratory feature article.
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Can green rush yield gold?
Contractors, manufacturers hope clean-energy incentives,
mandates lead to more business
Indianapolis Business Journal
August 08 - 2009
by Chris O’Malley - comalley@ibj.com
http://www.ibj.com/html/detail_page.asp?content=43468
Federal stimulus funds and greenhouse-gas legislation have the potential to spark a green version of the Gold Rush. Or, perhaps—as with the energy rush of the 1970s gone bust in the 1980s—fool’s gold.
But environmentalism is more ingrained in corporate America, this time around. The prospect of greenbacks for green energy products and services has a growing number of contractors seeing gold in solar,wind and energy consulting.
“Truly, since the stimulus money was announced, we’ve heard from a lot of these [companies]. I would call it a significant number,” said Eric Burch, spokesman for the Indiana Office of Energy Development.
Among those panning for green gold are Antony Rhine and Richard Witka, managing partners of Indianapolis-based Sestertii, which recruits workers for the utilities industry.
A few months ago, they created Sestertii Solar Inc., a division to sell solar power systems engineered by Brighton, Mich.-based The Green Panel. Since then, they’ve been making the rounds of customers attracted to solar for varying reasons.
“One is they want to save the world. Two is to save money,” said Rhine of potential customers. Three is the perception that “it’s going to get their customers’ attention” to be green.
Ultimately, it may be incentives under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that clinch the deal. The incentives include renewable-energy grants for 30 percent of the cost of solar or other renewable generation.
Sestertii Solar has yet to strike a big deal. But Rhine and Witka have been busy making presentations. They’re also seeking partnerships with architectural firms and construction companies.
They’ve even pitched the idea of a towable solar array that construction firms could place at remote job sites to power construction trailers and tools.
Helping pique interest in renewable power, in addition to tax credits under the recovery act, is the almost-certain prospect of more expensive electricity from the grid.
Ostensibly to reduce global warming attributed to human activity, a cause of warming not all scientists accept, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed for Senate consideration a so-called cap and-trade bill aimed to discourage carbon dioxide emissions.
The American Clean Energy & Security Act would establish the trading of permits for the right to emit carbon. Some utilities will invest in renewable power such as wind. But it and other renewable fuels are still more expensive per kilowatt than coal to generate electricity.
Energy-intensive companies that didn’t give much thought to energy costs before “are going to have to look at [implications],” added Rhine.
Selling answers
Or companies can hire someone like Jeff Ton to look at the energy implications.
The former chief information officer of Lauth Property Group last January started his own firm, Confluence Dynamics. Ton conducts a comprehensive analysis of a firm’s energy usage and tailors a plan to reduce it. He also offers workshops on green building techniques.
Ton estimates he will have shaved about $6,000 off the annual $130,000 electric bill of one of his clients. Part of the solution was to consolidate a number of the client’s energy-gulping, heat-generating computer servers.
While at Lauth, Ton was involved in emerging technologies to bring energy efficiencies to buildings the commercial developer built.
In this economic climate, many businesses don’t want to invest big bucks in energy-efficient infrastructure, he said.
“But there’s still a lot of low-hanging fruit. You can drive the costs out without a huge capital investment,” Ton said. “The hurdle is the perception it’s expensive, that you’re pitching a retrofit.”
That’s in contrast to much of the glitter in sustainable building, such as construction of LEED-certified buildings, short for the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standard.
They can be an environmentalist’s dream. Keep Indianapolis Beautiful’s headquarters in Fountain Square, for example, sports vertical wind turbines and cisterns to capture water for irrigation.
Such top-to-bottom projects are still the exception. So companies that can install renewable generation systems, such as Indianapolis contractor Ermco, are also marketing energy-efficiency. At Ermco, it’s through the company’s newly formed “Green Energy Group.”
The Ermco unit also scouts for business such as switching out a company’s fluorescent lighting for more efficient systems, or installing sensors that shut off lighting when a room isn’t occupied.
Ermco conducts energy audits that can run 10 pages and provide details such as how long it will take for improvements to provide a payback and an estimate of carbon dioxide reduction, said David Peterson, business development manager at Ermco.
He said the, “Let’s be simple about it” approach recognizes that many firms aren’t in the mode to spend big money right now on projects such as a $12 million solar panel system for which Ermco recently worked up an estimate.
Those lucrative jobs will come eventually, Peterson said. “Green is the buzzword. We’ve always done it, but now it’s hot.”
Back to future
Laura Arnold has seen this before. The president of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association remembers how the energy crisis and policies of President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s helped spur renewable energy dollars. Arnold was a founder of the Indiana Solar Energy Coalition, helped lobby for a state solar tax credit in 1980, and—while working for the city of Fort Wayne—helped lasso a federal grant for solar retrofit of a fire station.
“We’ve been there, done that, got the Tshirt,” she said. “There were lots of things going on at that time.”
Today, there’s been an evolution to the extent renewable energy is part of a broader, “rather amorphous” green movement that includes everything from organic cotton clothing to on-site power production, she said.
The IREA Web site sports a surprising variety of contractors and installers of renewable energy generators, such as solar and wind units. A few, like SunRise Solar in St. John, actually make renewable-energy products—in this case, solarpowered attic fans.
“There’s certainly a lot of interest. There’s a high curiosity factor, is how I’d describe it,” Arnold said. “We still need to get over the hump. There are people who still think renewable energy doesn’t work in Indiana.”
But in other states, there are believers, and that’s good for companies that sell product outside the state.
“Our biggest sales are coming with states with [renewable power] incentives,” said Bill Keith, president of SunRise Solar. “I sell more in New Jersey than in the state of Arizona.”
And Keith sells them in far-flung places, such as Hawaii, Israel, the French West Indies and Singapore. The company the former roofer founded in his garage has zoomed to $4 million in annual sales from $39,000 in 2003.
The company employs just five people, but contracts with Indiana manufacturers for components and assembly of its solarpowered vents, which start at $495.
Keith said some of the companies he hires to provide parts and assembly are in the devastated recreational vehicle industry. The Hoosier Environmental Council estimates that renewable-energy legislation could benefit 1,300 companies in Indiana.
“I’ve got to think that’s grossly understated,” Keith said. “There are a lot of little industries [to benefit]. It’s like the space race. I kind of feel like we’re at that point right now with clean-energy legislation.”
The HEC cites a report by the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group, that estimates Indiana has the potential to land 39,221 new jobs and $6.3 billion in investment in renewable-energy manufacturing.
A traditional manufacturer with operations in Bloomington and Logansport already has tapped into that potential.
Carlisle Industrial Brake and Friction has begun supplying to California-based Clipper Windpower, a maker of wind turbines, the brakes used to control the swivel and turn of the modern-day windmills.
Now the company expects potentially 25 percent of its future product pipeline could be in wind power, said Senior Sales Engineer Scott Eberle. He even gets questions from individuals building small wind turbines (they’ll want to use Carlisle’s trailer-brake product line for those).
“The opportunities for Indiana are really quite significant,” said Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the HEC.
Cashing in on green
A sampling of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act incentives to invest in energy efficiency and renewable power.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Zogby Poll: Majority Favors Clean Energy Bill and Wants Senate to Take Action
Survey finds likely voters connect reducing global warming
and promoting clean energy to new American jobs
UTICA, New York - A majority of likely voters - 71% - favors the American Clean Energy and Security Act recently passed by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds (67%) believe Congress is either doing the right amount (22%) or should be doing more (45%) to address global warming, new Zogby International telephone poll shows. Just 28% believe that Congress is doing too much.
Respondents were read the following statement regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act:
"The House of Representatives recently passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would require electric power companies to generate 20 percent of their power from clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, by the year 2020. Also included is a global warming plan which would reduce greenhouse gases from sources like power plants and factories by 17 percent, and an energy efficiency plan which includes new appliance standards and building codes to conserve energy."
Favorable views for the bill were high among all age and income groups and even among Republicans, with 45% having a favorable view of the bill. Seventy-three percent of Independents and 89% of Democrats also took a favorable view of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
The survey finds that two-thirds (68%) of likely voters believe a new American energy policy will not result in job losses, with a majority believing such efforts could instead bring about job growth. Respondents were asked how "efforts to reduce global warming and promote clean energy" will impact American jobs, and more than half (51%) believe this would lead to new job creation, while another 17% believe these efforts will not affect American jobs. Twenty-nine percent feel efforts to promote clean energy will cost American jobs. Those who believe these environmental efforts will create new American jobs outnumbered those who disagreed in all age and income groups. Among self-described political independents, 53% agreed that new jobs will be created, and only 24% thought jobs would be lost.
When presented with arguments for and against the American Clean Energy and Security Act, including concerns about the impact of the legislation on energy prices, a majority (54%) believe the Senate should now take action, with two-fifths (41%) preferring that the Senate wait. Fifty-four percent believe the Senate should take action on the bill because "we need a new energy plan right now that invests in American, renewable energy sources like wind and solar, in order to create clean energy jobs, address global warming and reduce our dependency on foreign oil." Forty-one percent believe that the Senate should instead wait because "the House energy bill is a hidden tax that will cost thousands of dollars every year in increased energy prices, weaken our economy further, and cause America to lose jobs to China and other countries."
"Clearly, voters strongly favor the ideas outlined in the bill. Support for action on clean energy and energy efficiency was strong coming out of the election, and it is still strong today. Even when presented with the concerns some have raised about the potential costs associated with this legislation, most likely voters still want the Senate to act quickly to bring about a new energy plan for America," said Zogby International Research Analyst Sam Rodgers.
The Zogby International telephone survey of 1,005 likely voters was commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation and was conducted from July 31-August 4, 2009. The survey carries a margin of error of +/-3.2%.
The survey also shows 47% of likely voters would take a favorable view of their Congressperson if he or she voted in favor of the bill, while another 21% said it would make no difference in their opinion. Far fewer - 29% -- said they would view their Congressperson unfavorably if he or she voted in support of the bill.
Regarding Congressional action on global warming, a small majority of Republicans (54%) say Congress is doing too much, but a total of 42% say it should do more or is doing the right amount. Only 26% of political independents say Congress is doing too much, while two-thirds of Democrats (65%) want more Congressional action. More than 40% of every age group also wants more from Congress when it comes to taking action to combat global warming.
"Most voters would view their member of Congress more favorably or would not have their opinion impacted either way by a "yes" vote," said Rodgers. "This survey shows clear movement in favor of Congress taking greater action on global warming and most Americans believe this legislation would give a much-need boost to the American job market in this down economy."
For content, contact: Miles Grant, National Wildlife Federation Communications Manager, 202-797-6855 (w), 703-864-9599 (cell) or grantm@nwf.org
For methodology, contact: Stephanie DeVries, Corporate Communications and Research, Zogby International, 315-624-0200 ext. 273 or steph@zogby.com.
For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.cfm?ID=1410
(8/11/2009)
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
REMINDER: Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts Webinar on Aug 18 @ 2 pm
The Indiana Renewable Energy Association is hosting a webinar on Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts or Feed-in Tariffs as follows:
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
2:00 to 3:30 pm EDT
SPEAKERS:
Chris Striebeck, Integrated Development Services
Laura Ann Arnold, The Arnold Group
State Rep. Matt Pierce
John Haselden, Indianapolis Power & Light
To sign up for this webinar, please send an e-mail to info@indianarenew.org. An e-mail will be sent with the call-in number and weblink to access the presentation.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Sen. Bayh Signs Letter to President Obama Opposing Climate Change Bill Without Protection for Manufacturing
The following article was published on August 7, 2009, in the New York Times. According to the Indianapolis Star Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) has said he opposes the climate change bill the House passed in June. Both Sen. Bayh and Sen. Lugar are expected to be in Indiana during the August recess. The Senate is expected to resume work on the Senate version of an energy bill following the August recess.
Climate Bill Is Threatened by Senators
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/us/politics/07climate.html
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — Ten moderate Senate Democrats from states dependent on coal and manufacturing sent a letter to President Obama on Thursday saying they would not support any climate change bill that did not protect American industries from competition from countries that did not impose similar restraints on climate-altering gases.
The letter warned that strong actions to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases would add to the cost of goods like steel, cement, paper and aluminum. Unless other countries adopt similar emission limits, the senators warned, jobs will migrate overseas and foreign manufacturers will have a decided cost advantage.
“As Congress considers energy and climate legislation,” the senators wrote, “it is important that such a bill include provisions to maintain a level playing field for American manufacturing.”
“It is essential that any clean energy legislation not only address the crisis of climate change, but include strong provisions to ensure the strength and viability of domestic manufacturing,” the letter said.
The 10 senators are seen as crucial undecided votes in the Senate debate on climate legislation. The House narrowly passed a climate bill in late June, but the Senate is moving slowly, in part because it is preoccupied with health care legislation.
The senators represent Midwestern and coal-producing states from which many of the 44 Democrats who voted against the measure in the House come from. Without their support, it is unlikely that the Senate can pass a major climate change bill.
The 10 senators were Evan Bayh of Indiana; Sherrod Brown of Ohio; Robert C. Byrd and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia; Bob Casey and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania; Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; Al Franken of Minnesota; and Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
They called for transition aid for energy-intensive manufacturers in the form of rebates on their energy costs; negotiation of a strong international agreement on emissions; programs to monitor emissions in other countries; and significant financing for clean energy technology.
The authors also proposed “border adjustments,” tariffs, on goods from countries that do not agree to an international program for carbon dioxide reductions. The House bill gives the president the power to impose such penalties on goods from countries that do not adhere to an international climate change regime.
“Climate change is a reality and the world cannot afford inaction,” the senators wrote. “However, we must not engage in a self-defeating effort that displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them and displaces U.S. jobs rather than bolstering them.”
In an interview shortly after the House vote, President Obama said he was concerned about the tariff provision of the House bill, calling it potentially protectionist.
Climate Bill Is Threatened by Senators
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/us/politics/07climate.html
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — Ten moderate Senate Democrats from states dependent on coal and manufacturing sent a letter to President Obama on Thursday saying they would not support any climate change bill that did not protect American industries from competition from countries that did not impose similar restraints on climate-altering gases.
The letter warned that strong actions to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases would add to the cost of goods like steel, cement, paper and aluminum. Unless other countries adopt similar emission limits, the senators warned, jobs will migrate overseas and foreign manufacturers will have a decided cost advantage.
“As Congress considers energy and climate legislation,” the senators wrote, “it is important that such a bill include provisions to maintain a level playing field for American manufacturing.”
“It is essential that any clean energy legislation not only address the crisis of climate change, but include strong provisions to ensure the strength and viability of domestic manufacturing,” the letter said.
The 10 senators are seen as crucial undecided votes in the Senate debate on climate legislation. The House narrowly passed a climate bill in late June, but the Senate is moving slowly, in part because it is preoccupied with health care legislation.
The senators represent Midwestern and coal-producing states from which many of the 44 Democrats who voted against the measure in the House come from. Without their support, it is unlikely that the Senate can pass a major climate change bill.
The 10 senators were Evan Bayh of Indiana; Sherrod Brown of Ohio; Robert C. Byrd and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia; Bob Casey and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania; Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; Al Franken of Minnesota; and Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
They called for transition aid for energy-intensive manufacturers in the form of rebates on their energy costs; negotiation of a strong international agreement on emissions; programs to monitor emissions in other countries; and significant financing for clean energy technology.
The authors also proposed “border adjustments,” tariffs, on goods from countries that do not agree to an international program for carbon dioxide reductions. The House bill gives the president the power to impose such penalties on goods from countries that do not adhere to an international climate change regime.
“Climate change is a reality and the world cannot afford inaction,” the senators wrote. “However, we must not engage in a self-defeating effort that displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them and displaces U.S. jobs rather than bolstering them.”
In an interview shortly after the House vote, President Obama said he was concerned about the tariff provision of the House bill, calling it potentially protectionist.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Rep. Matt Pierce to Introduce Advanced Renewable Energy Contract Legislation in Indiana Again in 2010
Indiana Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington) is quoted in the article below that ran in today's New York Times. Rep. Pierce has agreed to participate in InREA's upcoming webinar on Feed-in Tariffs or Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 from 2:00 to 3:30 pm EDT. The webinar orginally scheduled for Wednesday, August 5, has been re-scheduled. For more information on this webinar contact info@indianarenew.org.
August 3, 2009
House Will Get Another Shot at Feed-In Tariffs
By PHIL TAYLOR of Greenwire
With the Senate girding for a debate over sweeping legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur development of renewable electricity, two House Democrats are preparing a more limited bill with similar goals.
Reps. Jay Inslee of Washington and Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts are preparing a bill that would require utilities to purchase small-scale renewable energy from developers at rates equal to the cost of production plus a premium. The so-called feed-in tariffs proposal would set European-style guarantees for investors that many credit for a recent boom in solar energy in Germany.
"We have some brilliant Americans with brilliant business plans with brilliant technologies, but they don't have financing," Inslee said at a briefing last week on Capitol Hill. "The charm of the feed-in tariff is solid, take-it-to-the-bank security and confidence for the investing community."
Proponents say feed-in tariffs can be more effective than renewable-energy standards, such as the one included in the House climate bill by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, because they offer staggered rate incentives for each energy source based on current production costs. The initial rate that utilities would pay for solar energy, for example, would be higher than payments for less-expensive wind energy.
"The renewable-energy standard is good, and I'm a firm backer, but it has a weakness," Inslee said. "It's really only an incentive for the next-closest-to-competitive technology, frankly, which is wind right now."
The case for feed-in tariffs assumes that the cheapest renewable technology today won't necessarily be the cheapest technology in the future. Rate incentives that support many energy sources would create a race to become the next competitive alternative to fossil fuels or nuclear power, proponents say.
One widely cited model is Germany, which has become the world's largest market for photovoltaic systems and wind energy since passing its Renewable Energy Sources Act almost a decade ago. Germany more than doubled its national supply of renewable energy between 2000 and 2007 and was able to meet its 2010 target of 12.5 percent renewable electricity three years ahead of schedule.
"The Germans made a big and very important change," said former CIA Director James Woolsey, a panelist at last week's briefing and a partner in the "clean tech" division of investment group VantagePoint Venture Partners. "It's the reason that Germany -- a quarter of the size of the United States -- has six times as much solar."
There is a building in Munich, Woolsey said, that produces more solar energy on its rooftop than is produced in either Texas or Florida. The German boom in renewable energy -- driven in large part by the feed-in tariff -- generated 117,000 new jobs in the renewable power sector between 2004 and 2008, according to the German Environment Ministry.
Woolsey said feed-in tariffs could also improve national security by diversifying the United States' electricity production.
Today's electric grid relies on a sprawling network of transmission lines and centralized power plants that are vulnerable to attack, Woolsey said. Feed-in tariffs would expand the use of distributed generation like small wind and solar, helping reduce grid congestion and eliminating targets for terrorists.
"What we have today, with extremely high-voltage transmission lines and transformers sitting out behind cyclone fences next to highways, is vulnerable to physical attack; it is vulnerable to cyber attack," said Woolsey, adding that even amateur hackers can penetrate some off-the-shelf software programs that utilities use to monitor operations.
'Nightmares of PURPA'
Under a feed-in tariff proposal that Inslee sponsored last year, renewable energy developments of less than 20 megawatts would be given priority access to the grid and could sign 20-year contracts with utilities that guarantee a 10 percent rate of return. Rates would be tailored to fit the cost of production in different regions of the country and would be set by the Energy Department.
The "Renewable Energy Job and Security Act" would have paid for itself through an increase in consumer utility bills. The feed-in tariffs could also include built-in decreased payments to drive innovation and cost reduction over time.
Opponents of feed-in tariffs say their mandatory rate structures would raise electricity bills and would warp the free market as the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) did in the 1970s and '80s.
PURPA was meant to support the expanded use of renewable energy by requiring utilities to purchase power from non-utility producers at the "avoided cost" rate, or the amount the utility would have paid to generate the power on its own or to purchase it from another source.
"Thanks to PURPA, many customers were paying a higher price for electricity than what was selling on the open market," said David Owens, vice president of business operations at the Edison Electric Institute, at an April panel discussion at the Washington-based New America Foundation.
Owens argued against proposals to add a national feed-in tariff on top of a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse gases that includes a renewable energy standard. He said the national march toward renewable energy must happen at an evolutionary, not a revolutionary, pace if customers want to avoid being hit with excessive hikes in their utility bills.
"We have a range of options available to stimulate the development of renewables," Owens said.
"But I have difficulty if we seek to take another national approach that gives me the nightmares of PURPA."
Action by states, cities
In May, Vermont became the first state to pass feed-in tariffs for renewable energy, joining Ontario as the only state-level governments in North America to adopt such a policy.
The Vermont bill got a mixed response from lawmakers and was passed into law without the signature of Gov. Jim Douglas (R), who released a statement saying the bill "fails to recognize the current viability of renewable energy in a competitive setting and will needlessly increase costs to Vermont consumers."
Several other states -- including Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, California and South Dakota -- are considering their own versions of feed-in renewable energy tariffs.
"The feed-in tariff has proven to be the best way to get quick movement in renewable energy development and create a lot of jobs," said Indiana state Rep. Matt Pierce (D), who has introduced a feed-in tariff proposal.
While Inslee and Delahunt's proposal would award states that adopt rates set by DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, national feed-in tariffs have been criticized as an encroachment on states' rights to approve their own rates.
Gainesville, Fla., imposed the nation's first solar feed-in tariff in March, offering owners of new photovoltaic systems 32 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced over the next 20 years.
The Edison Electric Institute's Owens, who argued against a national feed-in tariff, said the policy might be better implemented at the local and regional level, instead of coming from Washington.
"The city of Gainesville has benefited immensely through job creation," Owens said, such as through the millions of dollars in solar investments many anticipate as a result of the financial certainty offered by the renewable contracts.
Meanwhile, South Dakota's Public Utilities Commission is taking public comments on policies to support more wind development through rates that would reflect utilities' avoided costs, falling short of incentives offered by full feed-in tariffs.
Michigan became the first state to consider European-style feed-in tariffs with state Rep. Kathleen Law's (D) "Renewable Energy Sources Act" in September 2007. Law's bill was presented later that year at a National Caucus of Environmental Legislators meeting and became the inspiration for similar proposals in Illinois, Rhode Island and Indiana.
"Indiana has been so far behind the eight ball on renewable energy," said Pierce, whose bill died in committee without a vote. He said one of the biggest challenges was that so many lawmakers are unfamiliar with feed-in tariffs.
"Some have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about," Pierce said. "They hear the word 'tariff' and they think I want to tax something. ... Tariff equals tax or trade barrier to them."
'Worst name in the business'
Woolsey referred to "feed-in tariff" as "the worst name in the business." Others complain the term conjures up the idea of levying taxes on imported cattle feed.
Some have proposed calling them "advanced renewable energy payments" or "renewable buybacks," but for now, lawmakers are stuck with "feed-in tariffs," which was drawn from the German word for "electricity feeding-in law."
Pierce said he is planning to introduce another feed-in tariff bill in the 2010 session, by which time he suspects several more cities will have passed or considered feed-in tariffs. Being able to point to proven models, he said, will be important to gaining lawmaker support.
Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
