ABOUT ME

  • This blog is maintained by Stephen Filler, a New York-based attorney with expertise in business law, contracts, intellectual property and litigation. He represents a wide variety of businesses, technology, media companies and individuals. He also provides legal and consulting services to sustainable, environmental and renewable energy businesses, non-profit organizations and trade organizations. He is on the board of the New York Solar Energy Industries Association and Secretary of the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater. His business website is www.nylawline.com.

    The Green Counsel consulting website is www.greencounsel.com.

Sustainability Ring

  • Sustainability Web Ring 
control panel
Blog powered by TypePad

"Talking 'bout My (Distributed) Generation"

Several years ago, I attended a conference about renewable energy at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The City Bar is a great granddaddy of a bar association -- housed in a beautiful but stodgy old building with many of its members hailing from the largest and oldest law firms in New York -- and I was pleased that the City Bar was so forward-thinking to have a conference on renewables.

The conference, however, was immediately disappointing; it was mostly about financing and siting issues relating to large wind projects, with almost nothing about solar, distributed generation or energy efficiency -- the things I was most interested in.

Upon reflection, the reasons were obvious. Clearly, large wind projects were moving forward and law firms wanted the legal work. But beyond that, why is large wind moving forward faster in the U.S. than other renewables? Is it solely that large wind technology is inherently better and more cost efficient than other renewables? Is it a quirk of nature that large wind is more efficient than solar? Or is something else going on?

Whatever technical advantages large wind may have, one major institutional factor favoring large wind is that it fits the model of traditional electricity generation. Although large wind has great environmental benefits, from an energy and economic perspective it is similar to coal, natural gas and nuclear. The power is generated in large facilities and transmitted through the electric grid to consumers. Large wind is financed, sited, developed, and implemented almost identically to how the energy business has been conducted for years by utilities, governments, lenders and lawyers.

By contrast, distributed generation -- where energy is produced at the point of use and every home and business can be an energy producer -- is revolutionary and threatening to those who benefit from the current infrastructure. For that reason (and others), it doesn't receive the same favor from governments as coal, natural gas and nuclear, and is resisted by utilities and other entrenched interests. This is one reason why, for example, utilities in the United States are almost universally against improved net metering laws (that allow locally generated electricity to be put back into the grid). Utilities claim there are "safety" issues, but there doesn't appear to be evidence of danger, and the real reason appears to be that distributed generation is threatening to utilities' income base and method of doing business.

The benefits of distributed generation are great: a more stable grid, more energy security, more efficiency, elimination of transmission costs and waste, and more possibilities for use of renewables such as solar and small wind. Fortunately, the institutional barriers against distributed generation can be largely overcome by good government policies and sufficient incentives to get the industry started, as evidenced by German and Japan. New Jersey and California have made signficant strides, and the province of Ontario just implemented a "Standard Offer Contract" (similar to feed-in tariffs in Germany).

All the states and the federal government need to implement similar programs so that the next City Bar program on renewables will focus on legal issues relating to distributed generation.

Gas Still Too Cheap

NPR's Morning Edition had an interesting story this morning ("High Gas Prices Quietly Welcomed by Environmentalists") about whether gasoline consumption can be better curbed through regulation or through high prices (particularly a tax).  Economists feel that gasoline prices would need to double and remain there (i.e. $7-8/gallon) before behavior would really change, and advocate a gas tax to get us there.  The externalities (accidents, smog, global warming, etc.) are simply not reflected in the current price of gasoline. Environmentalists, however, feel that a gas tax is a complete political dead-horse, fearing that it would be extremely unpopular with most Americans, and advocated regulations requiring 40mpg automobiles (as exist in Europe).  Economists note that the 40 mpg averages in Europe exist, not because of regulation, but because of high prices (through taxes) that have existed for decades.   

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that we are going to get better fuel efficiency (through either taxation or regulation) until we have leadership from either side of the aisle in Washington.

Note also another story on Morning Edition this morning concerning an organization in Indiana promoting car pooling by matching people up using a method similar to online dating ("Carpooling Best Sampled One Day Per Week").

Male Bonding is so 20th Century; How About Climate Neutral Bonding for the 21st?

As part of its continuing effort to encourage local rules that respond to global issues, the New Rules Project of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance proposes "Climate Neutral Bonding."  Their strategy is for tax payers to convince state and local bond issuing agencies across the United States to adopt climate neutral bonding policies to allow citizens to "live lightly on the earth."

Tax-exempt bonds -- or munis  -- finance a huge number of public works projects by local governments, school boards, and public agencies.  In 2004 alone, there were about $230 billion in munis for 9,000 projects (excluding refinancings) in the United States.  These projects consume vast amounts of energy over their lifetime.

The proposal is that all projects funded by municipal bonds be climate neutral: i.e., any increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the project be offset by reductions elsewhere within the bond agency's geographic jurisdiction. Methods for achieving green house gas neutrality include: efficient design, renewable energy development, renewable energy purchasing and tree planting. Benefits include:

  1. Reduced operating costs;
  2. Job creation and new expertise of architects, engineers, and builders in efficient design and construction;
  3. Environmental (not just climate, but also less pollution, fewer toxics, better air and water quality); and
  4. Psychological.

The memorandum also includes a "Climate Neutral Bonding Resolution" that can be enacted by local municipalities.  The proposal is described in a February 2006 memorandum, "Climate Neutral Bonding: Building Global Warming Solutions at the State and Local Level." www.newrules.org/de/climateneutralbonding.pdf .

Subscribe

  • Subscribe to GreenCounsel feed:
  • Recieve GreenCounsel posts by email:
    Enter your Email


    Powered by FeedBlitz



  • Headlines from the Green Blogosphere
    Provided by First Sustainable
    Add this box to your site
    Add your feed to this box



Copyright Information

Bottom of Page