Carrying on one of the most annoying campaign memes (and boy is that bar high) into current policy discussions, the New York Times published an article that begins with the line:
Move over Joe the Plumber. Spencer the Solar Installer is here.
Every group under the sun has ideas for how their issue could be made a part of the stimulus package to create green jobs and power an economic renaissance, and solar advocates are no different. The Solar Energy Indstries Association posted their priorities here [PDF].
There are several phases to the effort of turning the economic crisis into solar opportunity. First are ideas that can legitimately turn into paychecks for American workers in the next few months—those go in the stimulus.
One idea we sent to the Obama transition team is a pitch for massive federal procurement of solar. With 500,000 buildings, the federal sector represents about 0.5 percent of the entire U.S. building inventory. And each year, U.S. taxpayers spend more than $3 billion to heat, cool, light, and power those buildings. A massive investment in solar energy to power the federal government could lower electricity bills, reduce carbon emissions, and develop energy security for the country’s most important missions. Rooftops of federally owned buildings have an estimated capacity to support at least 2,000 MW of solar. And with some 588 million acres under federal management, there’s clearly room for any amount of large-scale solar power plants to serve, say, the large military bases in the Southwest.
Longer term will be the major policy changes, including a federal RPS and a real focus on transmission. More on that later.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
mikewhite Posted 7:48 am
19 Dec 2008
The Maine Renewable Energy Sources Act
Operators of the electric power grid in Maine purchase fossil fuel-generated electricity because it is inexpensive. Each year the federal government spends billions of dollars on subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries for research and development and on discounting royalties for the extraction of fossil fuels from public lands. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, half of all federal energy subsidies go to fossil fuels, while those for renewable energy total 18 percent of the funding, mostly to promote corn-based ethanol, which also relies on fossil fuels for its production. Current federal policy therefore interferes with the market by stacking the cards in favor of fossil fuels.
A feed-in tariff law, first introduced in Germany, levels the playing field without increasing government subsidies. It (1) requires by law that utilities purchase renewably produced electricity from all qualified suppliers; (2) sets by law the rate which electric utilities must pay for such power; (3) requires that utilities enter into a standard contract with all renewable energy suppliers for a set term specified by the law; (4) establishes management and oversight responsibilities; and (5) reserves to the legislature the power to periodically review and revise the tariff and the terms of the standard contract in the public interest; i.e. based on criteria independent of the short term interest of either the utilities or the feed-in power suppliers.
The Maine Renewable Energy Sources Act will create an incentive structure tied to performance by making multiple payments over a long period of time based on actual energy production of a given renewable energy generating system. The rationale behind this renewable energy investment incentive legislation is to provide a temporary pathway for investment until such time as prices decline to the point of cost-effectiveness in the marketplace.
To take into account technological developments and their economic efficiency, the law guarantees that grid operators must compensate producers for green electricity, but it also decreases the rate grid operators must pay under newly executed contracts each year. This structure ensures both that green power producers will have high security in their investments and that the legislation will not prop up inefficient technologies as the market grows and becomes more efficient.
This is similar to the rationale behind the German legislation: the decreasing payments encourage investors to install their equipment as quickly as possible to obtain the highest payment for their power. It also ensures that people install high quality units. Since the green electricity producers receive payments per kilowatt-hour produced, there is great incentive for operators to run their installations efficiently and with as little interruption as possible.
The benefits of a feed-in tariff law in Maine go beyond direct economic benefits for renewable energy investors. As green producers multiply, utilities benefit from not having to install expensive new central generating capacity. At the same time the law will be a catalyst for growing a green energy sector in Maine. Since introducing its own feed-in tariff law, Germany experienced phenomenal growth in all sectors of the renewable energy sector. The photovoltaics industry, for instance, grew six-fold in three years. In 2006, 241,000 Germans were employed in the renewables sector and 124,000 of those jobs were created as a direct result of the German Renewable Energy resources Act. The Act also resulted in environmental benefits; among them a 45 million ton reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in 2006 alone.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 6:27 pm
19 Dec 2008
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 4:08 am
21 Dec 2008
I will use AB 811 "loan" program in CA as a model, where cities and counties can access the property tax system to repay "loans" for efficiency and renewable generation, then point out the, the 3 factors that will make sense of it in a SERIOUS way:
1. we need to allow people to oversize their systems. Big Energy has insisted that we are NOT allowed to build systems that will feed excess power into the grid, and if we accidentally do, we have to give it for free. this, of course, means NO conservation, and false "demand" for building wilderness-killing, eminent-domain stealing Big Infrastructure (profit center for utilities), rather than clean, green power, generated by the people.
2. if we are allowed to generate power, we need to be PAID for it. we need generous feed in tariffs that reward investing in oversized generation and conservation. this will obviate the need for more power plants, more power lines, more GHG emissions and ruined lives. the rate will depend on when we get number 3, below.
3. why, since cities and counties have ENORMOUS purchasing power, should they not do an RFP for BULK purchasing/installation of PV and Microwind, and pass the COSTS onto the property owner, rather than loan us the money to go and struggle to pay on our own? it's like mandating that everyone must buy health insurance but not making it affordable.
example: LADWP should be doing an RFP for 100,000 10 kW residential systems and 10,000 50 kW commercial/industrial systems. They can easily get the price into the $3 - $4/watt range (SCE is paying $3/watt for their bulk installations), and homeowners can get 10 kW systems for about $13,000, repayable at $1,300/year (tax deductible!) for 10 years through their property taxes. this is less than half the cost if we all have to buy separately.
between total offset of electrical bills, and a modest cash profit from the FIT (in #2), EVERYONE will want to do this. conservatives are some of the biggest adopters of roooftop solar in Germany, you know. this is a TOTAL WIN. and best of all, LADWP will not need to raise rates 1 cent, and will not destroy the Joshua Tree area with it's ill-conceived massive power corridor "Green Path" (snort).
This solution saves wilderness, GREATLY reduces the GHGs that remote power (including Big Solar and Big Wind and Big Transmission) will pour into our environment, it GREATLY stabilizes the grid, makes solar and wind AFFORDABLE for property owners to install and ratepayers to buy, won't force families from their homes, improves property values, saves views and rural communities, and ENGAGES all of us in our sustainable energy future.
the best of environmentalism meets the best of free market economies of scale and reduces the chokeholds of rapacious Big Energy monopolies. this is a REAL solution, with REAL, current feasibility, that EVERYONE wants. so, how can we make this work?
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
kyotousa Posted 5:00 am
22 Dec 2008
While Adam and Mike are working on those solutions, the rest of us who are itching to get involved, need to look no further than our local public schools. Beset by growing budget shortfalls our schools are in real jeopardy. They can, however, begin to address their fiscal problems by implementing strict conservation requirements, improving efficiencies in existing energy systems, and adding renewable systems to their rooftops and parking lots.
We've developed a model (HELiOS) for California public schools (that should work in any state that offers rebates or incentives for renewable energy systems) that demonstrates how it is possible to install a PV system without increasing a school district's operating costs. All that it requires is the modest financial support of the local community. Once installed, the district pays for the PV system from its avoided electricity costs.
California has nearly 10,000 public schools and many additional district owned buildings. It's not hard to imagine California's schools producing 500 to 1,000 MW and more while creating good paying jobs, reducing carbon emissions, and showing our children that we're serious about addressing climate change.
You can see how HELiOS works at our in-progress, not yet released website: http://www.heliosproject.net And you can always contact us if you want more information.
Tom Kelly
Permalink