'Green energy' topic of Muncie forum

September 27, 2009

The impact of the alternative energy industry
on Muncie is the subject of a Wednesday session.

By KEITH ROYSDON, The Star Press, kroysdon@muncie.gannett.com

MUNCIE -- With green energy companies taking root in Delaware County, what's the future of the industry in Muncie?

A forum on Wednesday evening will explore "Community Readiness for Alternative Energy."

The forum, set for 5-7 p.m. Wednesday at the Ball State University Alumni Center, is sponsored by Ball State's Miller College of Business and The Star Press.

"We talk about alternative energy a lot, but I hope this forum will give a perspective on local issues," said Michael Hicks, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State. "This is not what's happening in China or Massachusetts, but what's happening in Delaware County and East Central Indiana, what we're doing at the local level to take advantage of what I think, and most analysts think, could be growth in wind energy."

Panelists for the forum are state Sen. Sue Errington (D-Muncie); Terry Murphy of the Muncie-Delaware County Economic Development Alliance; Roy Budd, executive director of Energize-ECI; and Greg Winkler, director of project development for Brevini Wind.

Brevini Wind, an offshoot of Italian gearbox maker Brevini, has begun construction on a plant to make gearboxes for energy-generating wind turbines at Park One/332 in western Delaware County. Brevini Wind will employ 450 people by 2011.

Park One is also home to VAT, a German company that will make wind-and-solar-powered street lights and vertical wind vanes. VAT will employ more than 100 people by 2011.

Winkler said he hoped Wednesday's forum would see discussion of "what about green energy makes sense at this point, what needs to change, what needs to happen and what policy pieces are in place. It'll be an interesting exploration."

Murphy said he believed the forum would provide insight for the community.

"We need to build on what we already have, but we need to showcase that we're the headquarters for Brevini and VAT. And with VAT, we're already implementing some of that green technology in that we'll be installing wind-and-solar-powered street lights and a vertical vane windmill."

Murphy said he also hoped for community recognition of Ball State's geothermal energy project.

Watch Hearing on Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts (aka Feed-in Tariffs)

The Indiana Renewable Energy Association in conjunction with the World Future Council are sponsoring three experts to testify on Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts (aka Feed-in Tariffs) 9/29/09 at 10 AM to the Regulatory Flexibility Committee in the Indiana Senate Chambers, State House, Indianapolis, IN..

Click HERE for details

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/notices/RFSCC9T.pdf

The meeting will be broadcast over the Internet for those unable to attend.

Please visit http://mediaserver.ihets.org/senate to listen to the Webcast.

Martha Duggan, VP Regulatory and Government Affairs, ECD/United Solar, (202) 271-4395 or mduggan@uni-solar.com

Martha A. Duggan serves as Vice President, Government and Regulatory Affairs for United Solar Ovonic (a division of Energy Conversion Devices), headquartered in Rochester Hills, Michigan. United Solar is the leading global manufacturer of thin-film flexible solar laminate products for the building integrated and commercial rooftop markets. Ms. Duggan is responsible for policy development and advocacy before state, federal and international governments and energy regulatory bodies. Prior to joining United Solar, Ms. Duggan served as Vice President, Government Affairs for SunEdison, a leading solar integrator. At SunEdison, Ms. Duggan managed a team of solar policy experts across North America. Ms. Duggan has over 25 years of experience in the energy industry. She has worked at regulated utilities, deregulated energy companies, and consulting firms. She is experienced in executive management, finance, operations, policy and sales.

From 2003 until 2008 Ms. Duggan worked for Constellation Energy in a variety of positions including Vice President, Mid-Atlantic region, Vice President, Business Development and Director of Regulatory Affairs. Ms. Duggan has also served at Reliant Energy, Amerada Hess, Statoil Energy and the New Power Company working on policy matters impacting retail and wholesale electricity and natural gas matters. She has testified before state public utility commissions and legislatures and she is a frequently invited presenter at industry seminars. Ms. Duggan serves on the Board of Directors of the Solar Energy Industries Association. She is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Solar Alliance. She is active in the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and is participating in the Department of Energy’s Solar Vision study. Ms. Duggan holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Languages and Linguistics from Georgetown University and a Masters in Business Administration from The George Washington University. She lives in Arlington VA with her husband and two teen age sons.

John Farrell, Senior Researcher, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, (612) 379-3815 or jfarrell@ilsr.org

John Farrell is a senior researcher on the New Rules Project at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, where he examines the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. His forthcoming paper is the second and expanded edition of Energy Self Reliant States, examining the potential for all 50 states to serve their own renewable energy needs. He has also written and testified about the potential benefits from feed-in tariffs and other advanced renewable energy policies and has worked with rural Minnesota communities to pursue locally owned renewable energy projects. You can find more of his work and more information on the New Rules Project at www.newrules.org.

Farrell holds a Masters in Public Policy from the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute and a B.A. in Mathematics and American Politics and Participatory Democracy from St. Olaf College. John currently lives with his wife, Kristin, and son Benjamin under the north parallel runway of the international airport in south Minneapolis.

Toby D. Couture, Energy & Financial Markets Analyst, Director of Energy Analysis, E3 Analytics, (506) 292-2585 or toby@e3analytics.ca


Toby Couture is currently Energy and Financial Markets Analyst with E3 Analytics, based on the east coast of Canada in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

E3 Analytics is an energy consulting company focusing on the analysis of energy markets, energy policy, and energy economics. It provides leading analysis on the interactions between renewable energy policy and financial markets, focusing primarily on the U.S, Canada, and Europe. Toby is currently serving as Director of Energy Analysis with the firm, and focuses the role of policy in driving renewable energy deployment.

In 2008 and 2009, Couture was leading the National Renewable Energy Lab’s (NREL) analysis on feed-in tariff policies in Golden, Colorado. He has worked closely with the states of Washington, California, Florida, Hawaii and Michigan among others on better understanding the policy and on better adapting it to the U.S. market and regulatory context. He has advised both regulators and state legislators on renewable energy policy and advanced renewable tariffs in Washington, California, Michigan, as well as in Florida and continues to work closely with the Canadian Province of Ontario.

Toby was recently a Fulbright Scholar, and holds a Masters in Energy Policy and Sustainable Development from the University of Moncton, in Canada, as well as Honors in Philosophy and from the University of Mount Allison. He has published widely on renewable energy policy, energy markets, and the role that policy can play in reducing market risks and accelerating renewable energy investment. He currently lives in Canada.



For more information, please contact:
Laura Ann Arnold, President, Indiana Renewable Energy Association, (317) 635-1701 or lauraarnold@indianarenew.org or

Chris Striebeck, LEED-AP Principal, IDS (317) 809-4383 or chris@idsustainability.com

Indiana Clean Energy Business Pledge

Editor's Note: Charles 'Chuck' Deppert, Indiana Representative, Pew Environment Group is looking for Indiana businesses to sign the Clean Energy Business Pledge below. I sincerely urge you to carefully read this pledge and then send me an e-mail with your name, business, city, and phone number. Please send this to your business associates and ask them to sign as well. The Indiana Clean Energy Business Pledge will be shared with the news media and Sens. Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh. Laura Ann Arnold

Dear Members of the Indiana Congressional Delegation:

We believe that now is the time for America to take bold and serious action to build a clean energy economy for the future. We urge President Obama and Members of Congress to enact comprehensive federal legislation that provides incentives for new industries, businesses and jobs. This investment in a reliable, clean energy future will strengthen national security, promote environmental sustainability, and create opportunities that ensure America remains competitive in a global energy market.

The U.S. is already behind in clean energy sectors. Chinese cars are more than one-third more efficient than U.S. cars. China is also set to be the world’s leading manufacturer of wind turbines by the end of 2009. And, as of 2006, the U.S had less absolute renewable power capacity than the 25 member nations of the European Union.

It would be a mistake to inhibit the success and leadership of American businesses in the global market. While government must take the lead, we will be strong and willing partners in this effort, which is why we are pledging our support for a comprehensive federal policy that achieves the following:

• Incentives to create clean energy jobs. Incentivizing investments in clean energy technology will create new jobs, businesses and industries. Clean energy industries have produced at least 770,000 jobs, while the traditional energy sector employs only 1.27 million workers. According to a recent report from the Pew Charitable Trusts, clean energy jobs in the U.S. grew at rate 2 ½ times greater than the general economy from 1998 to 2007. A 2009 study by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst in partnership with the Center for American Progress found that investing $150 billion in clean energy produces a net gain of 1.7 million new jobs and reduces the unemployment rate by one full percentage point.

• A path to energy independence. America consumes about 11 percent of world oil production, while we produce only about 3 percent of it. Meanwhile, America spends more than $200,000 per minute on foreign oil, that’s $13 million per hour. For decades we have avoided addressing this dependence on foreign oil, placing America’s economic and national security at risk. Now is the time to move towards greater use and production of clean energy sources such as wind and solar.

• A promise of environmental sustainability for future generations. There is consensus within the scientific community that carbon pollution will have catastrophic impacts on the American people, creating severe natural disasters, spread of disease, loss of coastal communities, and a decline in crop and fish yields unless action is taken to mitigate these impacts.

• Advancement of America’s global competitiveness. Climate and energy trends are compelling a worldwide race toward clean energy goods and services. If we are to remain prosperous and secure, this is a race we must compete in effectively.
  

According to a task force of the World Economic Forum, investment in clean energy has surged from $33 billion annually in 2004 to more than $155 billion in 2008. Similarly, the International Energy Industry estimates that global investment in clean energy will need to grow to between $500 billion and $1 trillion annually in the next decade. This is a tremendous opportunity for American ingenuity; the clean energy economy must be a pillar for American economic renewal, progress and leadership in the coming years and decades.

We recognize that these are bold and challenging goals. However, when faced with adversity, Americans conquer their problems with optimism, courage and ingenuity. We call upon our leaders in Washington to forge policies that will achieve the economic, energy and environmental goals we need to realize.

Signed,

[Your Name]

[Name of your business]

[City]

[Phone number]

[E-mail]

Your phone number and e-mail will only be used for verification purposes.

U.S. Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Twice That of Renewables

By Tina Seeley

Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Fossil fuels including oil, natural gas and coal received more than twice the level of subsidies that renewable energy sources got from the U.S. government in fiscal 2002 through 2008, the Environmental Law Institute said.

Government spending and tax breaks amounted to $72.5 billion for fossil fuels and $29 billion for renewable energy, according to a report by the institute today.

“With climate change and energy legislation pending on Capitol Hill, our research suggests that more attention needs to be given to the existing perverse incentives for ‘dirty’ fuels in the U.S. tax code,” said John Pendergrass, a lawyer for the institute.

President Barack Obama has called for the U.S. to reduce oil dependence by promoting efficiency measures and investing in alternative energy supplies. The $787 billion stimulus package signed in February included more than $60 billion for reducing energy use and supporting renewable programs.

The U.S. House approved legislation in June that would cap greenhouse-gas emissions and require a portion of the nation’s electricity to come from renewable sources. A Senate panel has also approved a renewable power requirement. The full Senate has yet to take up either measure.

The largest of the subsidies for fossil fuels in the report was a tax credit oil and natural gas companies can claim for paying royalties to other governments. The institute’s report finds that credit totaled $15.3 billion over the time period.

‘Tax Breaks’

“The major route for providing subsidies is tax incentives, tax breaks,” Pendergrass said at a briefing today in Washington.

Also included in calculation of subsidies are the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve -- an emergency oil stockpile -- and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps some consumers pay for heating and cooling costs.

Including such programs as subsidies is “ludicrous,” Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement.

“This study is an irresponsible rendition based on a contorted recycling of government data that should never be used to craft national policy -- especially a tax increase on the oil and natural gas industry that would raise energy costs and kill jobs,” Gerard said.

About half of the government’s subsidies for renewable energy go to corn-based ethanol, according to the study. The largest of the renewable subsidies was for blending ethanol with gasoline, a credit that the institute calculated at $11.6 billion during the seven years.

The institute is a nonprofit research group that works to “strengthen environmental protection,” according to its Web site. Its board includes representatives from Constellation Energy Group Inc., International Business Machines Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tina Seeley in Washington at tseeley@bloomberg.net

To download this study: http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11358

Lugar speech on energy security and climate change

Dick Lugar
U.S. Senator for Indiana
Date: 09/21/2009 • http://lugar.senate.gov
Contact: Andy Fisher • 202-224-2079 • andy_fisher@lugar.senate.gov
________________________________________


Following is the text of a speech by U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar this morning at the Energy Security as National and Economic Security forum sponsored by IUPUI’s Lugar Center for Renewable Energy and the Pew Environmental Group in Indianapolis, Indiana. Today is the first day of Global Climate Week.

Thank you, Mayor Ballard, for your kind introduction and for your important leadership on energy issues in Indianapolis. I also want to thank Chancellor Charles Bantz, Dr. Andrew Hsu, and the entire team at the Lugar Center for Renewable Energy for hosting us today. The Lugar Center is at the forefront of research and education on energy issues. It is a catalyst for the ground-breaking collaboration of Hoosier universities, private industry, government, and our national labs.

The work of the Lugar Center and other energy research endeavors is vital because the United States is confronted by a cluster of national security threats that arise from our economic and cultural reliance on fossil fuels.

First, our immediate dependence on oil, a large percentage of which is controlled by hostile or unstable regimes concentrated in the volatile Middle East, increases our vulnerability to natural disasters, wars, and terrorist attacks that can disrupt the lifeblood of the international economy. It also means that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to authoritarian regimes. This revenue stream emboldens oil-rich governments and enables them to entrench corruption, fund anti-Western demagogic appeals, and support terrorism.

Second, we face the prospect of manipulation of oil and natural gas supplies by producers seeking political leverage. Vulnerability to such leverage has strained our alliances and poses a persistent threat to the global economy. Moreover, nations experiencing a cutoff of energy supplies, or even the threat of a cutoff, may become desperate, increasing the chances of armed conflict, terrorism, and economic collapse.

Third, we face longer term prospects of increased competition for finite resources, most notably, oil. At some point – even with vigorous exploration and development efforts – global demand for oil will exceed supply. As we approach the point when the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict. Although the current recession has softened demand for oil, it has also led to falling investment in the energy sector. The International Energy Agency projects that global investment in oil and natural gas production will fall by $100 billion this year. These cuts come at a time when more investment is needed to counteract high oil field decline rates. This increases the possibility of extreme oil scarcity in the relatively near future.

And fourth, a concern at the center of public debate today is the series of international crises that may arise out of drought, food shortages, rising seas, and other manifestations of climate change.

This list does not necessarily exhaust the consequences we may face. But it underscores one of the dilemmas for policymakers, namely, that the multiple threats related to fossil fuel dependence are not identical. They each have a unique time horizon and threat intensity.

Some actions we might take, such as developing renewable fuels, may be useful in addressing the entire cluster of threats. But some steps that might be beneficial for reducing oil dependence, such as powering new vehicles with electricity generated by conventional coal technologies, may aggravate greenhouse gas emissions. Still other steps that might be beneficial for climate change may worsen other threats in the cluster. For example, EPA regulations on land-use changes could stunt biofuels production, or carbon regulation at home could increase import dependence on refined petroleum products.

Even as we work for a conversion from a fossil fuel dominated economy to one that depends much more on renewable resources, failure to maintain reliable supplies of oil and natural gas in the interim could be debilitating to our economy and our national security. Therefore, as we seek to reduce carbon output, we cannot afford to be complacent in the development of domestic oil and gas supplies, nor can we neglect bilateral relationships with key energy producers around the world or fail to reinforce multilateral energy cooperation.

Our task is not just to anticipate all possible national security threats that might emerge in the future due to our current energy portfolio. We have to develop timelines that compare the relative immediacy of these threats, and prioritize accordingly. Then we have to make rational choices about where and how to apply limited resources.

Heightened public understanding of the scope of our energy challenge has led to considerable progress on embracing an “all of the above” approach to energy policy. Development of renewables, expanded oil and natural gas production, improved use of coal, a revival of nuclear power, and efficiency improvements are all on the table, as they should be. Similarly, a growing consensus is emerging on the need for progress in building out the transmission grid, reforming utilities regulation to allow for dispersed generation and rate decoupling, and using smart meters. With coal generating more than half of the energy we use, carbon capture, storage, and recycling technologies are essential.

Economic Recovery and Climate Change

As we work to address energy-driven security threats, we also must take stock of what individual policies would mean for the economic vitality of our country. Solutions to our energy problems do not exist in isolation from the global economy. The global economic downturn has reduced energy demand, bringing greater flexibility to markets. Yet, when major economies start to recover, energy demand will rebound, causing markets to tighten and prices to rise. Under such conditions, markets will be highly susceptible to vulnerabilities that can produce severe supply shocks. In the near term, if we fail to address these vulnerabilities, the prospects for economic recovery could be seriously imperiled. An oil price shock that hits just as a recovery is beginning and demand for energy is increasing would likely generate inflation, undermine market confidence, and increase the risks of conflict.

Individual Americans and the national budget both face extraordinary economic challenges. While some economic indicators have shown signs of incremental improvement in recent weeks, a number of areas continue to cause concern. This is especially true with regard to unemployment.

Although the pace of job loss may finally be abating, overall unemployment continues to rise. The national unemployment rate now hovers just below 10 percent. In Indiana, we reached the 10 percent threshold six months ago, with a half dozen of our counties contending with unemployment rates above 15 percent. Even more troubling is the presence of greater long term unemployment in this recession compared to previous downturns.

It is within this economic context that the Senate may consider a cap and trade program. The cap and trade mechanism has become a central focus of the energy and climate debate in Washington.

I believe that the U.S. must attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To be successful, we must study, carefully, economic and political realities.

Some observers optimistically estimate that the loss in per capita U.S. GDP resulting from the Waxman-Markey cap and trade approach adopted by the House of Representatives would be between one and two percent. But even that level of reduced national growth is far from benign. Economic growth is the engine through which jobs are created, innovation is spurred, and entrepreneurship is launched – including innovation in the green economy that we are striving to nurture. In the absence of economic revival and sustained economic growth in the United States, it is unrealistic to expect that the American public will maintain support for such a massively expensive carbon control program. In the absence of economic stability worldwide, developing countries are unlikely to make the investments necessary to convert the world to a less carbon intensive existence.

Similarly, public support for steps to reduce carbon would likely be undercut if we experience intense shocks to the American way of life stemming from our dependence on oil. For example, if peak oil scenarios, politically motivated embargos, wars, or natural disasters result in a sustained and severe curtailment of the availability of gasoline and heating oil before we have developed an alternative system, all bets are off for policies directed at mitigating climate change. If the American public and economy are rendered immobile by a sustained oil shock of a severity we have yet to experience, it is almost inconceivable that they would tolerate government imposed sacrifices focused on climate change that add to their burdens and slow the economy further. In this context, breaking our oil dependence, with all the national security, economic, and environmental benefits that would come with such a victory, must be our top energy priority. This does not mean that overcoming oil dependence and addressing climate concerns cannot be pursued simultaneously. They must be. But climate efforts must not cause us to lose focus on the immediate risks presented by our oil dependence, and preference should be given to steps in the climate arena that also have utility in mitigating oil dependence.

Due to our state’s heavy reliance on coal for electricity, jobs tied to energy intensive manufacturing sectors, and broad agricultural base, GDP losses under the Waxman-Markey bill would be disproportionately felt by Hoosiers. Concessions made in the Waxman-Markey bill to appease a broad host of interests, including allocations made to power producers, may have made this worse by shifting some transition funds from the Midwest to coastal consumers.

Congress should continue to examine options for establishing policies that provide consistent signals to guide markets toward long-term energy transformation and continual innovation. Cap and trade, in a variety of formats, is one among several policy alternatives that the United States Senate will discuss in an effort to solve the most basic energy policy challenge before us, which is that many consumption decisions being made in the United States do not account for the basket of security costs posed by our current energy portfolio. The same can be said of the long-term costs of greenhouse gas emissions on our environment. In such cases, classic economics indicates that one of the most efficient solutions would be to enact policies that price our energy consumption decisions as accurately and transparently as possible.

Externality pricing alone, however, is not a cure-all for our energy security problems. In some cases, targeted interventions are justified to correct specific market failures and can bring achievable results in the near term. For example, many readily available and cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades exist for new homes, yet they are not widely used. Improved home and building energy efficiency codes, which automatically increase over time, would overcome inefficiencies and encourage manufacturers and developers to find new and cheaper ways to save energy, and, thus, save money for home owners and building managers.

It is prudent to act on policies to guard against climatic change and adapt to changes already likely to occur. But we should also give priority to steps that would simultaneously yield benefits for other U.S. priorities, such as bolstering energy independence, strengthening our economy, generating export markets for high technology industries, developing our rural economy and improving air quality. In other words, economic sacrifices undertaken by the American people in pursuit of energy and environmental security must deliver far more than just a reduction of U.S.-produced carbon.

Achieving Energy and Climate Gains

Notwithstanding my caution on the Waxman-Markey cap and trade formula, we should act quickly on a number of measures that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help limit the foreign policy risks of global hydrocarbon dependence, support economic growth, and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Relatively quick progress on cutting oil dependence and slashing carbon emissions can be achieved from biofuels usage, even as we also transition to a more electrified transportation system. Efficiencies in buildings, homes, appliances, and manufacturing facilities are easy wins for our economy and the environment. Innovation is already happening, but we need fiscally-prudent and tactically-focused programs to jumpstart such actions to scale. To this end, Senator Merkley and I recently introduced a bill that would facilitate loans for homeowners and small businesses to make energy saving renovations.

Our main oil savings will come from the transportation sector, which contributes about a third of our greenhouse gas emissions. If current federal goals are met, biofuels produced in the United States would equal 20 percent of our current fuel needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent compared to the fuel they replace. Although we have passed an expansive renewable fuels mandate, the mandate alone does not ensure that the necessary technological breakthroughs and infrastructure enhancements will occur.

Urgent attention should be given to improving the mix of feedstocks that can be turned into fuel. We should transition out of the current static biofuels subsidy programs, which, in my judgment, will become more difficult to extend as the cost rises and therefore will become less effective at encouraging investment. Instead, we should embrace market assurances tied directly to the price of petroleum, creating more reliable incentives and adopting a more taxpayer friendly approach. And finally, we must ensure that all new vehicles can employ multiple fuel sources, giving choice to consumers and spreading the reach of biofuels at low cost.

Similar focus and policy coherence needs to be given to accelerating advanced vehicle technologies and the batteries necessary to make them practical – areas in which Hoosier companies and workers excel. The potential of electric vehicle technology is tremendous. Since most commutes are less than 40 miles a day, a vehicle with a 40-mile battery range could eliminate daily gasoline needs for most Americans. Automotive innovation can help give new economic life to communities that have struggled because of the auto industry’s woes. We have seen new entrepreneurial companies like Bright Automotive and Carbon Motors choose to locate in Indiana. Federal government programs meant to foster research and leverage private investment must be geared toward true innovation, spurring transition in our existing infrastructure and ensuring that programs are suitably calibrated to support new entrepreneurial companies at the cutting edge of innovation.

Innovative technologies like those being developed at the Lugar Center and in the labs and companies represented by many of you today are the key to achieving security and environmental gains without sacrificing economic growth. If we are to succeed, we must have consistent research support and prevent innovative technologies from being lost in the so-called ‘valley of death’ between R&D phases and commercialization due to lack of affordable credit – a situation that has worsened with the recession.

Tools such as loan guarantees can help new technologies prove their commercial viability. However, the Department of Energy completed the first such loan guarantee just two weeks ago – four years after the program was authorized. This inconceivable delay underscores the need for a far more focused effort. Recently I joined with Senators Bingaman and Murkowski to offer legislation that would establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration with the mission to help new technologies prove themselves commercially and facilitate wide-scale deployment over a limited period of time. Such assistance needs to be fiscally responsible and careful to energize private investment, not crowd it out.

Finally, governments at the federal, state, and local levels should ensure that their own substantial procurement funds are promoting innovative materials that save energy – and save taxpayers’ money. Federal facilities should use the most energy efficient building materials available and can serve as test beds to demonstrate new products. Our vehicle fleets should use hybrids and electric vehicles, and they should be flex-fuel capable of using high-blends of biofuels. Even as the procurement power of the government enlivens markets for innovation, it will also help demonstrate to Americans that cost-effective energy and climate solutions exist today.

A Global Challenge

The challenge of deploying clean energy technologies is not limited to our domestic efforts. The energy choices being made around the world impact our own security, economy, and environment. The scale of the challenge dwarfs our own transition. Emerging economies far outpace us in energy demand growth. For many people in impoverished countries, this growth is a matter of survival, not luxury, so we should not be surprised when countries pursue the lowest-cost power options such as coal and firewood. Yet, many countries in the developing world are also the most susceptible to variations in energy markets, manipulation of energy supplies, and possible impacts of climatic change.

We have a common interest in finding cleaner and affordable energy solutions soon, and deploying them as quickly as possible on a global scale. The United Nations recently estimated that the cost of such a transition in the developing world will be $500 to $600 billion annually over the next decade. Bridging this gap will depend on innovative programs that leverage large-scale private investment in developing nations. We also must have mechanisms for assisting other countries to develop inexpensive energy saving and producing technologies and techniques. U.S. leadership now would help capture blossoming market opportunities for American products and services.

Freer trade in clean energy technologies can help boost competition, find efficiencies of scale, and open valuable markets for U.S. companies. Yet, global trade barriers on such technologies are substantial. Considering that a central goal of climate change advocates is to spread clean energy technologies, it is ironic that climate change is being used as a foil for protectionism. For example, the Waxman-Markey bill would raise tariffs, threatening to set off trade confrontations with those countries we most need to adopt new energy technologies – and buy our government bonds.

More fundamentally, we must integrate energy concerns at the top of our diplomatic and foreign assistance agenda. As we seek to find ways to spread innovative energy technologies and techniques around the world, we must bear in mind that they will only be effective at scale with underlying policy frameworks reinforced with improved governance and political support in place. In other words, addressing energy security and climate change is an issue of governance and development, and we must integrate those into our ongoing dialogues around the world, not separate them. The advancement of the rule of law and transparency in partner nations is critical to ensuring that energy investments are efficient and productive.

The United States should demonstrate its leadership by adopting the pro-energy security and pro-climate change steps I have elaborated here today, and many more that I have not had time to detail. Complex treaty negotiations are not a pre-condition for implementing a pro-growth campaign of initiatives that would have an immediate and direct impact on the entire cluster of problems associated with our fossil fuel dependency.

Conclusion

I conclude with this thought. Energy is at the root of multiple threats to our country. Some of those threats we see today and feel personally, others may develop in the more distant future. As we endeavor to act on climate change, we should favor and accelerate policies that strengthen America against other threats that also are derived by how we generate and use energy. We are fortunate that many win-win policy options are achievable today. Energy security improvements and greenhouse gas reductions demonstrate commitment to our security, to working with global partners on common threats and, most importantly, commitment to future generations.

Thank you.

###

2009 Indy Solar Tour

14th Annual National Solar Tour

Scheduled annually for the first Saturday in October, in conjunction with National Energy Awareness Month, the ASES National Solar Tour is the world's largest grassroots solar event.

The event offers participants the opportunity to tour homes and buildings to see how their neighbors are using solar energy, energy efficiency, and other sustainable technologies, to reduce their monthly utility bills and help tackle climate change.

In 2008, nationwide, close to 140,000 attendees visited some 5,000 buildings in 3,000 participating communities.

Now in its 14th year, this event is coordinated nationally by the nonprofit American Solar Energy Society (http://www.ases.org/).

In 2009, InREA (Indiana Renewable Energy Association) will be hosting the first annual Indianapolis tour.

2009 Indy Solar Tour
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009

2 pm to 6 pm

Please join us for the kickoff of our local, self-guided Indy Area Tour at Keep Indianapolis Beautiful at 2 PM.

The Indy Solar Tour will include homes and businesses utilizing renewable energy technologies (PV (Photovoltaic), wind, solar thermal, and passive solar). The sites will be available for public tours from 2 PM to 6 PM unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact Mark Oehler at 317.844.6712 or maoehler@aol.com

This local tour is coordinated by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association (InREA), the state chapter of the American Solar Energy Society. For more info about InREA, visit http://www.indianarenew.org/ or contact Laura Arnold at 317.635.1701 or LauraArnold@IndianaRenew.org .

2009 Indianapolis Solar Tour Sites

KIBI (Keep Indianapolis Beautiful Inc.), 1029 Fletcher Ave, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN 46203. 317.264.7565.


KIBI's new award-winning office building includes the following green features: white "cool" roof, 10,000 gallon cistern to recycle rain water, daylighting, rain garden, wind energy, and pervious pavement (allows rainwater to soak through). The building is expected to use 21% less energy than a standard design. KIB was the first civic Indiana nonprofit to receive LEED Gold green building certification.

www.kibi.org/building/index.htm

Schmidt Associates, 320 E Vermont St, Indianapolis, IN 46204. 317.263.6226.

The solar canopy is comprised of 20 @ 150 kW PV (Photovoltaic) panels. The system is grid tied and was completed in August 2006. The solar canopy replaced a deteriorating fabric canopy and so additionally provides a passive cooling benefit to the south façade of the building. It was designed to be educational by making the technology visible (versus putting the array on the roof).

http://www.schmidt-arch.com/


Hilton Garden Inn Indianapolis Downtown, 10 East Market St, Indianapolis, IN 46204. 317.955.9700.

Located just 1 block from Monument Circle, the Hilton features a 4.05 kWh PV array on the top of the 16-story hotel. The actual electricity produced represents only a small portion of total energy consumption, but does help shave peak demand on highest consumption days. The Hilton is on the national register for historic preservation.

Note: Hourly escorted tours will be offered of this installation. Because of the need to climb a 1-floor spiral staircase, flat shoes are required and casual clothes are recommended. Attendees must be over 12 years of age.

http://www.hiltongardenindianapolis.com/


Henning Residence 10304 Starhaven Court, Indianapolis, 46229. Contact phone: 812.342.7226.

The Henning residence has a recently installed 4 kW PV system using 20 Sanyo Hit 210 panels mounted on a Unirac Rail System. Materials sourced and system installed by EcoSource, Inc. (http://www.ecosource-inc.com/).


Mirise Residence, 3325 W CR 100N, Bargersville, IN 46106. Contact phone: 765.702.0231.

This rural home features a 20 kW grid tied PV system and a 10 kW wind system. Within ½ hour of downtown Indianapolis, this is one of the largest residential systems in Indiana. The system was installed by ECI Wind and Solar LCC (http://www.eciwindandsolar.com/) .


Gange Residence, 7920 Farrell Lane, Indianapolis, IN 46280 (near 79th and Spring Mill Rd).

This urban home features a 1.3 kW PV system with tracking system and solar domestic hot water system. Installed in 2007, this installation was featured on Channel 13.


Conner Prairie, 13400 Allisonville Rd., Fishers, IN 46038. 317.776.6006.

Note: The Conner Prairie is open to 5 PM on Saturday, October 3rd. Please visit this site before 4:30 PM.

This installation includes a 45 ft Skystream wind turbine near Lenape Village and an Uni-solar PV array on the roof of the Welcome Center. To gain entrance, mention “ASES Solar Tour” and show a copy of this guide. The solar array is viewable from the employee parking lot (head left at the entrance to the Welcome Center). A better view of the array is available from the “1859 Balloon Voyage” exhibit, but at an additional fee payable to Conner Prairie. Discount coupons for the Balloon ride are available from participating BP AM/PM stores.

http://www.connerprairie.org/

Broad Ripple Brewpub, 842E 65th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46220. Contact phone: 317.809.4383.

The Broad Ripple Brewpub recently installed a solar thermal system that uses Apricus evacuated tube technology and heat exchangers to heat water to temperatures up to 170ºF. The heated water can be used for domestic hot water or space heating. The system was installed by IDS (http://www.idsustainability.com/) .

http://www.broadripplebrewpub.com/



The Indiana Renewable Energy Association is the Official Indiana State Chapter of the American Solar Energy Society. For more info, http://www.indianarenew.org/ .

Several of the installations in this tour were partially funded by grants from the Indiana Department of Energy and Defense. (www.in.gov/oed/) .

CLICK HERE for Indy Solar Tour brochure with photos and maps to individual sites.

See separate Tour Directions, for suggested driving direction to each site.

Indiana Legislators to Hear Testimony on Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts

ADVANCE MEETING NOTICE

The third meeting of the Regulatory Flexibility Committee will be held on
September 29, 2009. The meeting will convene at 10:00 A.M. in the Senate
Chambers of the State House, 200 W. Washington St., Indianapolis, Indiana.
Although an official agenda will be posted before the meeting date, the tenative agenda includes testimony on Advanced Renewable Energy Contracts or Feed-in Tariffs.

Please contact Sarah Freeman at (317) 232-9594 or
sfreeman@iga.in.gov with any questions.

(The meeting will be broadcast over the Internet for those unable to attend.
Visit http://mediaserver.ihets.org/senateto listen to the Webcast.)



Members
Sen. James Merritt, Co-Chairperson, (R-Indianapolis) (317) 849-6310 s31@in.gov
Sen. Edward Charbonneau, (R-Valparaiso) (219) 462-0031 s5@in.gov
Sen. Beverly Gard (R-Greenfield) (317) 462-2527 s28@in.gov
Sen. Dennis Kruse (R-Auburn) (260) 927-9999 s14@in.gov
Sen. Jean Leising (R-Oldenburgh) (812)934-4118 s42@in.gov
Sen. Marlin Stutzman (R-Howe) (260) 562-3303 s13@in.gov
Sen. Carlin Yoder (R-Middlebury) (574)642-3940 s12@in.gov
Sen. Jean Breaux (D-Indianapolis) (317) 546-5136 s34@in.gov
Sen. Robert Deig (D-Mt. Vernon) (812) 985-5777 s49@in.gov
Sen. Sue Errington (D-Muncie) (765) 292-3581 s26@in.gov
Sen. Lonnie Randolph (D-East Chicago) (219) 397-5531 s2@in.gov
Rep. Win Moses, Co-Chairperson, (D-Ft. Wayne) (260) 420-8710 h81@in.gov
Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington) (812) 339-2980 h61@in.gov
Rep. Kreg Battles (D-Vincennes) (812) 882-1522 h64@in.gov
Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) (574) 271-8006 h8@in.gov
Rep. Sandra Blanton (D-Paoli) (812) 723-7993 h62@in.gov
Rep. Scott Reske (D-Pendleton) (765) 778-9937 h37@in.gov
Rep. Dan Stevenson (D-Highland) (219) 922-9874 h11@in.gov
Rep. Jack Lutz (R-Anderson) (765) 378-0476 h35@in.gov
Rep. Robert Behning (R-Indianapolis) (317) 244-2190 h91@in.gov
Rep. David Frizzell (R-Indianapolis) (317) 882-2146 h93@in.gov
Rep. Eric Koch (R-Bedford) (812) 279-6367 h65@in.gov
Rep. Edward Soliday (R-Valparaiso) (317) 232-9603 h4@in.gov

Enter your zipcode + four to determine your elected officials.

Indianapolis Power & Light Proposes Modest Midwestern Feed-in Tariff Program

The central Indiana utility joins a growing list
of Midwestern utilities with voluntary programs.

August 26, 2009, Ver. 02

By Paul Gipe

Indianapolis Power & Light (IP&L), an electric utility that provides retail electric service to 470,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in and around Indianapolis, Indiana, proposed a pilot feed-in tariff program in a regulatory filing earlier this year.

IP&L's proposal to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) will become part of the utility's Demand Side Management program. The IURC is expected to rule on the proposal later this year.

Several Midwestern utilities either have feed-in tariffs in place or have proposals before state regulatory commissions. Without exception, these voluntary programs are extremely limited in the maximum capacity that is permitted. None of the programs in Wisconsin and Michigan conform to best practices of successful policies elsewhere and none have resulted in any significant renewable energy development to date.

For example in Michigan, Consumers Energy has proposed a tariff only for solar PV, though the tariffs themselves exceed those of other Midwestern utilities. IP&L, in contrast, has proposed a series of tariffs for different technologies, not solely solar PV. IP&L includes tariffs for wind and biomass as well as solar PV.

Further, IP&L's proposal caps total capacity of the program to one percent of retail sales. This greatly exceeds that of Consumers Energy where their program is limited to only 2 MW.

IP&L delivers 15 TWh per year to retail customers. Under IP&L's proposal, the program would be limited to some 150 million kWh per year. Under Hoosier conditions that's equivalent to 75 MW of wind or 150 MW of solar PV. While that's 75 times greater than the Consumers Energy program, German farmers and homeowners install that much solar every month.

IP&L itself is developing a 106 MW wind project with French company EnXco in northern Indiana.
Below are some elements of IP&L's proposed three-year pilot program.

• Contract term: 10 years
• Technologies included: Solar PV, wind, biomass
• Project size minimum: wind, 50 kW; solar PV, 20 kW
• Project size cap: 10 MW
• Program cap: 1% of retail sales
• Solar 20 kW-100 kW: $0.24 USD/kWh
• Solar >100 kW: $0.20 USD/kWh
• Wind 50 kW-100 kW: $0.14 USD/kWh
• Wind 100 kW-1 MW: $0.105 USD/kWh
• Wind >1 MW: $0.075 USD/kWh

Biomass: $0.085 USD/kWh (with a capacity payment)

The tariffs were derived using the problematic Discounted Cash Flow model that is highly reliant on federal tax subsidies. As a consequence, the proposed solar PV tariffs are one-third less than those in the much sunnier city of Gainesville, Florida. The wind energy tariffs are also substantially less than those recently implemented in Vermont. Thus the tariffs are not particularly attractive, notably in light of the short contract term of only 10 years.

Most successful programs internationally have contract terms of 20 years or more. Ontario's program uses 20 year contract terms for most technologies, as does Vermont.

"When you do the math," says Renew Wisconsin's Michael Vickerman, "there's not enough [money] there to get you over the hump. The tariffs, by themselves, are simply not high enough." Vickerman speaks from experience. Similar tariffs in Wisconsin have not resulted in any significant development-and Wisconsin has a state subsidy program on top of the federal tax subsidies.

In another twist on feed-in tariffs, Midwestern utilities often limit participation with a high lower threshold that is nearly certain to limit development. IP&L's proposal is no exception.

For wind energy, the minimum size to participate is 50 kW. There are few new wind turbines manufactured in that size class. Hoosiers will be limited to importing used wind turbines from Europe or California to use the tariff. Similarly, the 20 kW lower threshold for solar PV will exclude all homeowners except only the largest McMansions.

IP&L says in its filing that this severe limitation on the program is intentional. The utility says it doesn't have sufficient resources to read the meters if there was any substantial uptake of the program.

Internationally, successful feed-in tariff policies have no lower thresholds for participation. These programs welcome all participants, even the smallest generators.

Still, IP&L has proposed a far greater program limit for its service area than that in California, once a leader in renewable energy. Current California feed-in tariff policy as well proposed legislation limits total contribution to only 500 MW, well below the one percent cap in the I&PL proposal.

Though IP&L's proposal is another marker in the development of feed-in tariff policy in North America, the program is unlikely to result in any significant renewable development outside a few "show case" projects.

-End-

This feed-in tariff news update is partially supported by the Jan & David Blittersdorf Foundation in cooperation with the Institute for Local Self Reliance. The views expressed are those of Paul Gipe and are not necessarily those of the sponsors.


Paul Gipe
661 325 9590, 661 472 1657 mobile
pgipe@igc.org, www.wind-works.org