Cooler Planet

It’s fascinating to discover that the same day - that is, Monday, May 12 - John McCain delivered his speech in Oregon touting his stance on energy, the environment, and his support for nuclear power, the US Department of Energy held its own press event to announce the viability of wind power.

DOE’s report, “20% Wind Energy by 2030” addresses how the USA could harness wind energy and fulfill 20 percent of its electric power needs by 2030 if it made a concerted effort. 

To accomplish such a goal, the country would have to overcome hurdles such as improving its current transmission infrastructure and streamlining site and permit regulations.  Nevertheless, reaching 20 percent wind capacity is within reach using current technology available today. 

According to the DOE, the US currently leads the world in new wind installations and could potentially become the number one country capitalizing on wind by 2010.  That said, to grow its wind capacity by 2030, the US will have to increase its annual installations at least threefold from roughly 2,000 installations in 2006 to nearly 7,000 by 2017.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to overcome will be to ensure that transmission lines and grid are expanded to provide seamless connectivity.  Much of the best wind is located in places with low population densities.  To take full advantage of wind from these regions it must be efficiently transported to larger population centers.

The DOE report proudly asserts that, “supplying 20% of U.S. electricity from wind could reduce electric sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 825 million metric tons” (which is essentially 25%).   

The report did not compare the capacity of wind energy to other types of energy sources.  Thus it’s not possible to assess whether John McCain’s push for nuclear energy would have a better cost-benefit ratio than wind.  Certainly both energy types would require considerable infrastructure upgrades and improvements to permit and site guidelines.  Nuclear power has arguably steeper political obstacles than wind.  Wind is likely a more feasible strategy, politically.

It’s hard to know how the Bush Administration will react to the report.  The DOE’s Assistant Secretary Andy Karsner presented the report’s findings, yet made no mention of whether the current administration has plans or will approve measures to advance a wind energy infrastructure.  Hopefully the next administration will not let this report languish.

Here’s a link to DOE’s full report: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

Senator John McCain is making environmental news headlines again for taking a stance on climate change and distancing himself from the Bush Administration.  In recent days, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate has campaigned in the Pacific Northwest touting his pro-environment commitment and agenda.  McCain’s commitment to fight global warming differs from current Administration policy and from many other standard-bearing Republican Party agendas.

For McCain, the cornerstone of his environmental plan mandates a “cap and trade” system.  McCain argues that establishing a cap on carbon emissions and setting a national goal to reduce overall carbon emissions to 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 is a realistic, and effective way to tackle climate change.  (In contrast, both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton have said they would set a goal to reduce overall carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by mid-century.)

In McCain’s analysis, establishing a national standard for tradable carbon emission permits will allow the so called “good carbon emitters” to offset the “bad” ones.  Furthermore, a nationwide cap and trade system would provide the necessary incentives to promote growth of solar, wind, and other renewable energy industries.  McCain does not offer specific policy or market tools for solar or wind technologies because he is confident that a cap and trade system would sufficiently bolster those and other similar renewable energy markets.  Nor has McCain outlined a more detailed plan on how his cap and trade system would work or what industries and activities would be targeted.

For McCain, alternative energy means energy independence.  As we’ve mentioned in previous posts, of the three current presidential frontrunners, John McCain most vocally favors reinvesting in nuclear power.  He views nuclear energy as the most viable technology to meet the nation’s electricity demands.  In his speech he made in Oregon (and posted on his website), McCain views the nexus among energy, the environment, and national security as one of the most important issues facing our nation.   

McCain’s voting record, however, leaves critics dubious about his intentions and commitment toward the environment.  The League of Conservation Voters who created a National Environmental Scorecard gives McCain a lifetime rating of 24 percent for his previous voting record regarding the environment.  For this year’s legislative session, McCain gets a Zero; thus far he’s been absent for any of the environmentally related bills that have come up for a vote.  

Critics point to inconsistencies in McCain’s voting record.  As an article in Monday’s Washington Post points out, McCain has embraced some environmental provisions, yet shunted others not so seemingly different from the ones he supports.  

Supporters contend that McCain, as a political maverick, has consistently distinguished himself from conventional Republicans.  They cite that McCain was one of the first in Congress to acknowledge climate change and introduce legislation addressing the issue.   

He’s certainly savvy when it comes to renewable energy photo-ops.  In February McCain stood in front of a solar photovoltaic manufacturer when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his endorsement for the Senator.  On Monday, McCain restated his environmental policy at a wind power company in Oregon. Time may reveal whether these press events truly signify McCain’s intentions toward renewable energy.

There’s a village on the island of Jeju-do in South Korea that relies completely on solar energy to light and power its buildings.  

The village of Donggwang is small (40 homes), yet its environmental non-impact is huge.  In 2004, the South Korean government covered 70 percent of the installation costs to place solar photovoltaic panels on the roofs of all the homes, schools, and other buildings in the village.  Now the sun supplies 100 percent of the village’s electricity needs. 

Treehugger.com picked up on the blog originally posted on Ecoworthy.com over the weekend.  The author does not say why the Korean government offered to cover 70 percent of Donggwang’s installation costs.  Videos on YouTube depict Jeju-do as a beautiful and lush semi-tropical island that tourist websites call a lovely vacation and popular honeymoon destination.

Now all us solar fanatics have another reason to visit!

It’s great to see that our neighborhood pub uses solar energy to light its sign.  At Cooler Planet we’re starting to notice more devices harnessing solar power around town.  Have a beer for solar power . . . 

Though the State of Washington did not make Home Power magazine’s top ten list, we at Cooler Planet believe our home state deserves an honorable mention.  Washington has a history of adopting innovative legislation.  While Washington laws are not perfect, many of its mandates have inspired other states to adapt and customize similar types of laws for themselves.
 
For example, in 2005, Washington was the first state in the nation to pass a green building mandate.  The legislation requires all major renovation projects and new construction funded with state monies to meet the US Green Building Council’s LEED Silver rating system or higher.  That same year, Washington State passed two laws to advance solar electric use and nurture the solar industry’s development throughout the state.

The State’s two renewable energy bills specifically try to bolster solar photovoltaic manufacturing and wide spread use of solar electric systems.   One law provides tax breaks to the manufacturers of solar photovoltaic modules and components that locate in economically depressed and low population counties within the state. 

The other law, based on a successful program in Germany, provides a tax credit to residents and businesses that have renewable energy systems (which includes solar photovoltaic, wind, and anaerobic digesters).  However, unlike other states that set aside funds to pay property owners an upfront rebate for installing a renewable energy system, Washington law rewards property owners for their system’s production of electricity.

The Washington legislation establishes a $0.15 per kilowatt hour minimum credit for all the energy generated from a resident’s or business’s renewable, on-site power system (with a cap of $2,000 annually for households).  If the solar electric system components (modules, inverters, rack, etc.) come from Washington State manufacturers, then the property owner is awarded additional funds per kilowatt hour (which can amount to roughly $0.54 per kilowatt hour).  The property owner can also take advantage of the state’s net metering laws, thus make additional cents from its system.

Yet because these two solar bills provide complementary approaches to help jump start the nascent solar photovoltaic industry in Washington State, the $0.54 credit is not yet a reality.  Several companies do manufacture inverters in Washington, but no module photovoltaic manufactures currently exist. 

Perhaps the most innovative part of the Washington solar legislation is how the state structured its funding.  All utilities – regardless of this legislation – must pay a “utility use tax.”  The solar legislation enacted in 2005 promises the utilities an equal dollar match for every dollar the utility pays its customers for their own electricity production via renewable energy.  In essence, the tax becomes a closed-loop system:  the state does not set aside additional funds for the program instead it returns potential revenues to the utilities.  The utilities, in turn, get “a wash,” the portion of the utility use tax used for renewable energy is handed back to them.  The utility does incur the adminstration cost to track the funding; the state tried to minimize that cost by requiring utilities to report only once per year.  

Unfortunately, it’s still too early to determine what state’s approach and funding strategy works best to advance renewable energy.  

Washington State continues to move forward and enact legislation aimed at tackling climate change, and to a lesser extent renewable energy.  In March 2008, Washington made headline news again when Governor Christine Gregoire signed a measure that requires both State government and private industries to reduce their carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and meet further reductions by 2035 and 2050. 

Nice to see that national columnist Thomas L. Friedman has returned from his leave and has resumed his discourse on national energy policy.  On Wednesday, April 30 Friedman devoted his New York Times column to our federal government’s failure to focus on a viable and sustainable energy policy.  Friedman specifically cited Congress’s inability to extend the federal tax credits for solar energy and other renewable energy sources, like wind. 

At Cooler Planet we applaud Friedman for raising awareness.  Already, the Times posted roughly 100 responses to Friedman on its link to Blogrunner; all of you have probably already looked at Friedman’s editorial as well.

As we’ve mentioned before, the federal tax credit for residents who install solar energy systems (up to $2,000) is set to expire this December.  Arguably, $2,000 is not much, however, it does send a message that the US government takes a bit of a stance on solar.

Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama are in a fierce race to gain national attention.  Currently they are not talking about solar, rather are focused on a summertime suspension of the gas tax.  Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt that some of what they say is purely for political gain, it doesn’t say much for any of them if they dumb down issues.  Nor does it say much for Congress, or the American public if we can’t overcome our collective quibbles over solar.

Just in case you missed it, here’s a link to Friedman’s column, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

Home Power magazine named ten top solar states.  We’ve talked about nine of them.  The final state that won the magazine’s admiration is Oregon (which happens to be the home state of the magazine). 

Oregon rightly deserves the accolade.  The State has long supported solar energy and has offered renewable energy tax credits since President Jimmy Carter famously (or infamously) encouraged energy conservation at a national scale in 1979.

Oregon offers attractive tax credits to residents and businesses for both solar electric and solar hot water systems.  For homeowners, once a qualifying PV system is installed, residents can receive $3.00 per watt for systems that are at least 200 watts or more.  The State caps its credit at $6,000, and only $1,500 can be claimed each year.  Qualifying solar hot water systems can earn property owners $0.60 per kilowatt-hour saved, up to $1,500, or 50 percent of the total system cost, whichever is greater. 

Net metering laws apply as well, allowing residents to recoup credit for any net excess energy they generate.  At the end of the annual period, unused credits are either credited to the customer or can be granted to low-income assistance programs.

Not only does Oregon offer its residents incentives for solar electric and hot water, but also offers tax credits for other types of solar heating systems.  Homeowners who install solar pool hot water systems can obtain $0.15 per kilowatt-hour saved (up to $1,500) and up to 50 percent of the system’s total cost.  Additionally, the State recognizes the value of taking advantage of passive or active solar technologies for space heating and offers similar types of tax credits.

Oregon’s commitment to renewable energy does not stop there.  Similarly generous incentives are available to businesses who install solar systems and to manufacturers to encourage growth of the renewable energy industry.  In February 2008, for example, the Oregon House unanimously approved a measure that would increase its tax credits for manufacturers of renewable energy equipment from the current $10 million to nearly $100 million by 2013.

The Oregon Legislature has consistently passed bills to advance renewable energy.  Like other “super solar states,” in 2007 Oregon passed a law that requires its largest utilities to acquire 25 percent of its energy come from renewable energy sources by 2025; smaller utilities must get 5 – 10 percent of the energy from renewable sources by that year as well.  Another state law mandates that any new state-funded public building must earmark 1.5 percent of the budget and use it to install solar technology in the building.

Oregon law does not stop there.  State property tax law dictates that any added value from a solar or other qualifying renewable energy system cannot be included in the assessment of the property’s value for property tax purposes.  And, like Minnesota, Oregon law allows municipalities to create solar access laws so that solar access to south-facing sides is protected from potential obstructions.

The State’s attractive incentives are working.  Solar World, a manufacturer of solar photovoltaic systems is moving one of its manufacturing facilities from Vancouver, Washington to Hillsboro, Oregon where its expected output will reach 500 megawatts by 2009. 

Large businesses within the state are investing in solar.  A Pepsi-Cola bottling plant in Eugene, Oregon opened its recently remodeled site in Eugene, Oregon earlier this year.  The facility includes a one-plus acre solar PV rooftop array that should generate 10 million kilowatt-hours of electricity over its expected lifetime of 35-years – enough to power approximately 21 Eugene homes during that same time period.  Pepsi-Cola also upgraded its lighting system and installed skylights, the company plans to save roughly 200,000 kilowatt hours of electricity each year from its renovations.  

In addition to the State of Oregon incentives, the government sanctioned, non-profit Energy Trust of Oregon provides residents throughout most of the Oregon with additional monetary incentives aimed at solar photovoltaic and solar hot water systems.  For information about the incentives Energy Trust provides, follow this link:  http://www.energytrust.org/solar/residential/provide.html.

Oregon has become a hotbed for green building and solar energy initiatives.  No wonder Home Power magazine recognized the state for its efforts.  Oregon’s plethora of integrated incentives makes it one of the nation’s leading states for advancing viable and effective solar energy policies and strategies today.

Moving away from New England toward the Midwest, Home Power magazine gives accolades to Minnesota, another state on its “Solar Super States” list.  Minnesota is a state known for its progressive “green policies;” no wonder the state has embraced solar energy initiatives as well.  In fact, Minnesota was the first state to adopt net metering rules.  Since 1981, residents who install solar electricity systems receive a check at the end of each month for any excess energy they generate.

Minnesota demonstrates that latitude does not stand as a detriment to harnessing the sun’s energy.  At a statewide average of 4.5 daily peak sun hours, Minnesota’s average is not much different from other Home Power super states like Maryland and Massachusetts.  On Minnesota’s Energy Info Center website, the state boasts that it has potential to receive more annual solar energy than Houston, Texas and nearly as much as Miami, Florida.

Minnesota has several state laws to encourage solar photovoltaic installations.  Its Solar Rebate Program, established in 2002, offers $2.00 per watt for solar electric systems up to 10 kilowatts in size, essentially reducing a system’s cost by 20 percent.  In addition, the state exempts solar equipment from sales tax.

In Minnesota the sun trumps shade.  State law gives local zoning boards the authority to create solar access easements to protect a property owner’s solar array from shading.

In 2006, Minnesota, like other fellow top solar states, set a goal requiring that energy companies must source 25 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2025.

Minnesota is the only Midwestern state to make Home Power magazine’s Top Ten Solar States list.  This state has “solar chutzpah” further dispelling the myth that solar energy is only viable in hot and arid regions.

Happy Earth Day. 

We’re glad this tradition continues after 38 years.  Of course, 38 is just a blip in the actual age of the planet.  Yet our increasing awareness and reverence for our home is as critical as ever.  The groundswell of ideas and trends – such as increased consumer demand for “green” products and public support for “green collar” jobs – that have entered both our collective consciousness and the marketplace bode well for our planet.  We hope they stick. 

We live on a really cool planet.  Let’s keep it that way.

One other New England state shares Home Power magazine’s Top Ten Solar States stage with Massachusetts:  Connecticut.   Connecticut residents who install solar electric systems no larger than 10 kilowatts, can receive $5.00 per watt for the first five kilowatts and then $4.30 per watt thereafter, with a maximum reimbursement of $46,500 per household.  The state also authorizes net metering allowing residents to be compensated for any net excess electricity they produce.  Here’s a link to the state’s consumer guide:  http://www.ctcleanenergy.com/documents/ConsumerSolarGuide.pdf

Like other notable solar states, Connecticut established a goal to have 20 percent of its electricity sourced from renewable energies by 2020.

Connecticut also gets credit for having within its borders the largest photovoltaic installation in New England.  In December 2007, United Natural Foods, one of the country’s largest distributors of organic and natural foods, switched on its distribution facility’s 550-kilowatt solar electric system.  The photovoltaic array is expected to generate 600,000 kilowatt hours of electricity each year for the facility to help offset its substantial energy needs. 

At another United Natural Foods facility in Rocklin, California, the 7,000 panel PV array on its 4-acre distribution center powers the facility’s freezers and coolers.  Because the system can fully power those cooling areas, the company expects the California PV array to pay for itself within four years.  In Connecticut, United Natural Foods executives calculate that their investment will be recouped within six to seven years.  We at Cooler Planet salute another cooler idea:).