Green Counsel

Net Metering Bill in CT Needs Help

Renewable energy (such as PV) is booming in states such as California and NJ where there are subsidies (that help compensate for the subsidizes received by traditional energy producers) and where there is a fair legal and regulatory environment. One of the major needs is for net metering -- a mechanism that allows distributed electricity producers to place their excess electricity onto the grid and receive a credit on their electric bill. Their electric meter literally goes backwards -- hence "net metering."  This is important because renewable energy sources such as PV are intermittent frequently producing excess electricity in the day that would be wasted if it could not be sold back into the grid.

New Jersey -- that permits net metering up to 2 MW -- currently has the best net metering law in the United States, and the solar business is booming.  New York by contrast excludes commercial application and has limits of 10 kW for residential solar (25 kW for residential wind; and 125 kW for farm-based wind); as a consequence, there are many new installations of small residential solar in NY, but commercial PV applications are much rarer.

There is an important, pro-renewable energy bill in the Connecticut legislature, that has become stalled in the final days of the session: Substitute Bill No. 211, An Act Concerning Renewable Energy. Among other things, the bill would 1) increase net metering limit from 100 kilowatts to 1 megawatt; 2) increase the net metering carryover period from 1 month to 12 months; and 3) exempt solar systems from the sales tax. 

The Solar Energy Business Association of New England is requesting that Connecticut legislators be contacted, asked to move the bill forward and told that it is an important bill for the environment and the solar energy industry. Obviously, contacts from Connecticut residents will carry the most weight. Legislators to contact:  Representative Fontana steve.fontana@cga.ct.gov 860-240-0434 Senator Fonfara fonfara@senatedems.ct.gov 860-240-0043; Representative DelGobbo kevin.delgobbo@housegop.state.ct.us 860-240-8700;Senator Herlihy thomas.herlihy@cga.ct.gov 860-240-0436

Who Killed the Electric Car... and Framed Roger Rabbit??

My lawyer friend Ray Dowd (who has an excellent blog on small firm law practice called SmallFirmLife), has reminded me that a movie that played this year's Sundance Festival and received excellent reviews in the NY Times and Grist, will be playing in film festivals in upcoming weeks, and opening more broadly in June.  It will be playing at the Tribecca Film Festival in New York next week. 

The movie's called "Who Killed the Electric Car" and it's about how the oil companies, auto companies and others killed the implementation of the electric car in California between 1990 and 2003. Hey, it sounds like some of the same culprits who killed the Los Angeles street car system to support the building of freeways that formed a part of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." 

"Who Framed Roger Rabbit"?  "Who Killed the Electric Car"? Coincidence, or conspiracy theory?  I guess we'll need to see the movie to find out for sure.

Greenwashing Your Ford Mustang?

Several days ago, I questioned whether "offsets" really "offset" greenhouse gas emissions (see "Offset My Ass").  Today, Ford Motor Company  announced it is doing a deal with Terrapass to market offsets to Ford, Lincoln and Mercury owners.
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=basicIndustries&storyID=nN26296006&imageid=&cap. Ford isn't  buying offsets themselves, they're just marketing offsets to their customers.

Hello?  Ford is helping to burn the world with its core products and they're marketing offsets???  Can you say "hybrid"? Can you say "Fuel Efficiency"? Can you say (let's go on a limb here, I know you guys at Ford are smart) "80 MPG"? 

At least we're going to heaven.

"Polar Bear With Nowhere to Go" Animation

Art and the Internet can be a powerful way to inform and alarm about environmental issues.  Check out this powerful climate change animation from Hippoworks, who are doing great work in this area.  It's called "On Top of This Planet."    As my 11 year old daughter said, it's "very good and very sad." 

We also love their "Extinction Sucks" animation.

Hippoworks makes it easy to post their animations from your website or blog.  See them at: http://www.hippoworks.com/

Offset my ass??

The New York Times has an excellent article today about "offsetting":  a mechanism where you calculate the amount of carbon emissions that your energy use creates, and then purchase an "offset" that pays for an equivalent amount of clean energy.  Numerous websites, such as www.carbonfund.org and www.terrapass.com, now use these mechanisms.  (See Gas Guzzlers Find Price of Forgiveness, April 22, 2006)

Certainly these programs serve two excellent and necessary purposes: first, they inform people about their carbon emissions; and second, they provide a means of funding clean energy -- both of which are critically needed.

But are these "offsets"?  Dictionary.com (one of the most useful sites on the Internet - sign up for their word of the day)  defines "offset" as "An agent, element, or thing that balances, counteracts, or compensates for something else."

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does my purchasing 1,000 kw/hr of wind energy "offset" the CO2 emissions from my use of 1,000 kw/hr of electricity generated from coal?  I can't offset my carbon emissions with something that's carbon neutral, but rather need to take action that is actually carbon negative -- such as actually planting trees, or taking carbon out of the atmosphere and actually sequestering it.

The New York Times notes that these "voluntary offset programs" have become increasingly popular in the past two years.  But, according to the Times, "it is not clear whether they actually do any good, or are just one more way for Americans to feel good about doing things that pollute the atmosphere."   And as Chip Giller, President of Grist.org stated:  "To some extent it's a way for people to buy their way into heaven. . . On the other hand, this is such a big macro problem that this is one of the few things people can do to really make a difference."

Those of us who advocate for clean energy and sustainability should be accurate in what we sell, and not overstate the benefits.

   

NYS Legislature Threatening to Harm Renewables in New York

The New York State Legislature is threatening to move the authority for spending money received from the Systems Benefit Charge (SBC) -- that funds substantial renewable energy projects in the State -- from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to the New York State legislature. This change will subject SBC funds to general legislative haggling and bureaucracy, and means that money raised for renewable energy and energy efficiency, may be used for unrelated purposes.

The authority to spend these funds should remain with NYSERDA.

Governor Pataki recently vetoed the legislature's attempt to make this change in the annual budget. The Senate will be voting early next week to override the veto.

It is imperative that Senators be contacted and asked to VOTE NO ON THE OVERIDE of the GOVERNOR'S VETO and KEEP SYSTEMS BENEFIT CHARGE SPENDING AUTHORITY WITH NYSERDA. You can get your NYS Senator's contact info here:

http://www.senate.state.ny.us/senatehomepage.nsf/senators?OpenForm

Cape Fear, Massachusetts

The Boston Globe reported this week that the Cape Wind project is nearly dead, with a new proposed amendment to the Coast Guard Bill in Congressional Committee that would defer decision-making authority to Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is opposed to the project. It's like a bad remake of Cape Fear where you're just about to save yourself but then your internal Kennedy, so often the victim of being divided and conquered, divides and conquers yourself.  And when you're about to lift your head, the Fossil Fuel Gods come in for the final bludgeoning.

Here's Greenpeace's call for help:

*****************************

We've seen the political influence of big oil before, and even drawn a connection between financial contributions and congressional voting records - before anyone had heard of Jack Abramoff. But this takes the cake. Congress is actively killing America's first offshore wind farm, and only YOU can stop them. Even President Bush has admitted that our nation is addicted to oil and we need alternative energy. But Congress can't seem to get enough of the oil drug, or at least the financial contributions from the oil industry. Oil industry lobbyists negotiated an 11th hour back boardroom deal that could kill Cape Wind forever.

Congress comes back to Washington in two weeks, and I hope they'll return to find a mountain of angry emails, faxes and phone messages. Take Action! Tell Congress not to block the future of wind energy.

<http://usactions.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=97&ref_source=listssavecapewind>

This is just the start. We've been working to make Cape Wind a reality for more than two years, and we can't give up now. As soon as Congress comes back, you'll be hearing from us again, and I hope you'll be ready to act quickly.

Sincerely,

Kate Smolski

Clean Energy/Cape Wind Campaigner

Greenpeace USA <http://www.greenpeaceusa.org>

Plumbers Like Water... duh!

If sustainability is ever going to take off, it will  be crucial to get the trade unions suppportive.  Indeed, the idea of a a blue-green alliance between traditional blue collar workers and environmentalists has tremendous potential and is one of the motivations in the founding of the Apollo Alliance.  It could even be key in bringing the Presidency back to the Democrats.

But how to get them aligned?  In Philadelphia, the  plumbers union is blocking Liberty Property Trust's plan to install no-flush, water-saving urinals in the men's rooms at the Comcast Center. Without the toilets, the 57-story skyscraper would use extra 1.6 million gallons of water a year, and may have trouble obtaining U.S. Green Building Council certification and beating out Manhattan's Bank of America Tower as the nation's tallest green building.

According to the Phildalephia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14131612.htm),  "Those involved in the urinal debate say the plumbers object to the waterless devices because they require less labor to install than the traditional kind. The city's building code has no provision for waterless urinals. And because the plumbers are so opposed to the technology, Philadelphia officials are reluctant to introduce its use in the city. . . Ironically, the Philadelphia Water Department has been looking for ways to reduce the water flowing into the city's overburdened sewer system. After a heavy rain, the city must often release untreated sewage into the Delaware River. 'Waterless urinals would certainly be in line with our sustainable goals,' said Glenn Abrams, the department's urban watersheds planner."

So how do we get people to see beyond their narrow and short-term self-interest and have a more world-centric view of life?

The Solar City

After five years of feasibility studies, legislative approvals, financing, and contract negotiations, the City of Brockton, Massachusetts announced several weeks ago that it would be breaking ground on what will be New England's largest solar array: a 425 kw project on a remediated brownfield to be constructed by Global Solar Energy. The project has a budget of $3 million, which will be paid through $2.1 million in city funds and grant funds from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust and the US DOE. The project design will commence immediately - site preparation will begin in April and system installation will begin in May.  http://www.sebane.org/news_room/news_releases_viewer.asp?id=118

During the Clinton Administration, there was much interest in placing solar panels on former urban industrial sites, turning brownfields into "Brightfields." Hopefully, this is a sign of many more similar developments. Urban solar projects make tremendous sense in cities such as New York. PV can help with:

Electricity Generation.  Peak electricity demand is estimated to grow dramatically in the near future. New York City alone will need 2,600 megawatts of new electricity resources by 2008, according to the New York City Energy Policy prepared for Mayor Bloomberg in 2004 (“NYC Energy Policy”).  The NYC Energy Policy recommends that at least some supply be met by clean on-site generation including PV.

Solar PV is becoming economically viable. The cost of PV has declined by 80-90% in two decades -- PV is now a $4.7 billion industry, projected to grow to more than $30.8 billion in 2013.  Large portions of urban areas are well positioned for PV. Many square miles of upper Manhattan and the outer boroughs consist of 3-4 floor brownstones, or 6-8 floor apartment buildings.  These building frequently have flat roof space with direct sunlight unblocked by trees or large buildings. 

PV can provide great reliability to a city’s electric system because it is not dependant upon fuel supplies, fuel costs or transmission lines. This is a particular advantage in New York City where 80% of NYC’s peak load (11,020 megawatts in 2003) must be supplied by in-City capacity.  Furthermore, PV can help shave peak demand because PV generation is greatest on hot summer afternoons when demand is greatest.

Environmental Benefits.   Over 90% of US electricity comes from unsustainable fossil fuel and nuclear plants.  The electricity industry is the single largest source of industrial air pollution in the world and one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear waste remains radioactive for thousands of years. Urban areas bear a terrible burden from power plant pollution resulting from the release of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and toxins.  PV electric generation is environmentally clean and limitless in supply.  PV use can help reduce pollutants in urban areas not in compliance with federal clean air standards, and can help meet New York's Renewable Portfolio Standard, that mandates 25% renewable electricity by 2013.

Health.   PV can alleviate the adverse health effects of industrial electricity pollution. New York City has one of the highest asthma rates in the nation. The EPA  estimates that power plant pollution shortens the lives of more than 1,200 people across the state; fine particle pollution causes 164,612 lost work days, 1,191 hospitalizations, and 28,665 asthma attacks every year. These negative health effects are often worst on hot summer days when dirty back up generators are used to meet peak electricity demands.  Since PV electricity production is greater on hot summer days, PV is an ideal way to reduce the use of such generators.

Jobs and the Economy.  Solar PV has tremendous potential for job creation.  According to a study funded by the US Department of Energy, the solar industry can create more than 100,000 jobs in the next 20 years, and Business Week recently identified solar as one of 5 innovative industries that could drive a new job boom.  For every megawatt of installed solar PV, it is projected that 35.5 jobs are created in manufacturing, installation, servicing, sales and marketing. Accordingly, 100 MW of installed PV could create as many as 3,550 jobs in New York.

Solar Photovoltaics Best for Meeting Peak Electricity Demand

The New York Times today had an interesting article on the front page of the Metro Section about NYC's use of back-up diesel generators to meet peak electricity demand (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/nyregion/08generator.html).  The article pointed out numerous problems including that they are incredibly dirty and contribute to smog and the release of huge amounts of asthma-causing particulate matter (NYC has one of highest asthma rates in the country).  Also, these generators are frequently used in non-emergency situations which may have contributed to the spill of 231 million gallons of raw sewage into the Hudson during the 2003 electricity blackout.  To save money, the City turned on the generator at the North River plant in Harlem several hours before the blackout as part of the City's power reduction program, and by the time of the blackout when the power was needed, the generator had overheated and was shut down.

In response, I wrote at letter to the editor pointing out that Solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity provides a better solution.  In addition to being clean, studies by Richard Perez of the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center of SUNY Albany, demonstrate that PV output peaks at the same time as peak demand, typically hot summer afternoons.  Richard Perez has done excellent work documenting the effectiveness of solar power.  To see some of his work, see his website: http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/