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.

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>

Cape Winding Down?

Typical of how renewable energy policy is conducted in Washington, Alaska Congressman Don Young seeks to derail the Cape Wind project off the Massachusetts coast by imposing a 1.5 nautical mile ban of off shore wind farms from shipping channels or ferry routes.  The ban would apply to all offshore wind projects, and not just Cape Wind. By comparison, the buffer zone for offshore oil and gas rigs is 500 feet.

Young seeks to "backdoor" the legislation by attaching it to the Coast Guard Reauthorization Bill in Conference Committee. The purpose of a Conference Committee, theoretically, is to reconcile differences between house and senate bills, and not to introduce new substantive provisions that have not been reviewed by either chamber.   

According to the NY Times, the project would displace the equivalent of 113 million gallons of oil per year and generate 3/4 of the energy needs of Cape Cod and its Islands, and is supported by residents, regional newspapers and most major environmental groups.  Congressman Young, however, has reportedly only been speaking to "NIMBY opponents" of the Cape Wind Project.

European offshore windfarms, located between 1/4 -1 nautical mile from shipping lanes, have had no reported problems.

Source:

Alaskan Lawmaker Threatens to Halt Cape Wind Project Alaskan Lawmaker Threatens to Halt Cape Wind Project, Renewable Energy Access, February 22, 2006  http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=43890

NY Times, Editorial, 2/28/06, "Sneak Attack on Cape Wind," http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/opinion/28tue2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Subscribe

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


    Powered by FeedBlitz



Recent Posts

  • 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