Cooler Planet

Maryland’s neighbor, Pennsylvania also makes the grade.  Home Power magazine lists Pennsylvania in its Top Ten Solar States not so much for installed capacity, but for expanding renewable energy jobs.  Home Power applauds Pennsylvania for going “far beyond other states to attract solar-related companies.”

In November 2004, when Pennsylvania passed its Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard, it was one of only five other states at the time that required a specific amount of its energy to come from the sun.  Although a seemingly modest goal – half a percent by 2019 – Pennsylvania’s initiative was still the third largest of any state (after the sun-drenched states of Nevada and Colorado).   Overall, Pennsylvania set a goal to meet 18 percent of its electricity requirements from renewable energy sources by 2021.

In 2006, the state doubled its purchase of electricity from renewable energy sources to from 10 to 20 percent.  By purchasing 200,000 megawatts of green energy to fuel the state government (20 percent of its needs), Governor Edward Rendell explained that Pennsylvania not only helps to keep electricity rates down, but also significantly boosts jobs with in the RE industry.

In March 2008, Pennsylvania state lawmakers were nearing final negotiations on energy legislation that would provide another strong boost to solar.  Anticipating that a 10-year electricity rate cap set to expire in 2010 and 2011 may spike electricity rates as much as 30 percent, state lawmakers are devising plans to proactively address rate hikes.  The proposed legislation provides state funding to further develop renewable energy infrastructure and offers incentives to utilities and ratepayers to seek out alternatives such as solar energy.  If passed, the bill could allocate as much as $200 million to give manufacturers, homeowners, and businesses a mix of rebates to bolster demand for solar energy equipment and capacity to increase manufacturing. 

Though solar energy systems alone are not responsible for Pennsylvania’s commitment to grow “green jobs” (wind, hydro, and – controversially – waste coal are included in the state’s portfolio as appropriate energy alternatives), the state has made steady progress toward increasing viable alternative energy projects throughout the state.  Since 2003, Pennsylvania initiatives have helped create 3,000 green jobs. 

Governor Rendell, addressing attendees at the recent Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania - March 14 – 15, 2008 - noted that world-leading RE companies had established operations in the state and that Pennsylvania was well poised to attract further industry growth as well.  Let’s hope that commitment lives on.  Growing networks of solar and other renewable energy infrastructure across the USA can and will significantly alter our resource portfolio and make for a cooler planet indeed.

Maryland is another state that relatively recently stepped up its solar energy policies and incentives.  Its aggressive initiatives have won Maryland notice on Home Power magazine’s list of Top Ten Solar States. 

Similar to New Jersey’s explicit goal for solar power, Maryland not only set a goal for its utilities to provide 7.5 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2019, but also in 2007, passed legislation that specifies that 2 percent must come from solar energy in addition to the already established 7.5 percent goal by 2022.   The intent is to have at least 1500 megawatts of solar capacity installed by 2022.

Maryland’s Solar Energy Grant Program enacted in 2005 offers property owner’s incentives to install solar photovoltaic or thermal systems.  Residents can obtain grants for 20 percent of the system cost (up to $2,000 for a solar thermal or $3,000 for a solar photovoltaic system).   The state also supports net metering for systems that are up to two megawatts in size.  Net excesses are carried over each month for a year; at the end of the 12-months any remaining net excess is zeroed out of the customer’s account balance.

Maryland State Senator Robert Garagiola who sponsored the successful 2007 solar energy legislation has pointed out that the resultant growth in solar energy is equivalent to the capacity of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant, located along Chesapeake Bay.  Proponents have also boasted that the new legislation will allow Maryland to meet the state’s projected new energy needs through its expanded solar power infrastructure.

Maryland’s wholehearted embrace of policies to promote the future growth of renewable energy and energy efficiency demonstrates the power of leadership and vision.  We at Cooler Planet salute the “Free State.” 

When the New Jersey legislature passed its solar energy friendly legislation in 2001, it probably didn’t anticipate the just how successful the program would become.  Home Power touts New Jersey as a solar super-state, second only to California in terms of installed capacity.  In fact, New Jersey wins first place in terms of solar energy installations per capita.  And its statewide daily average of 4.6 sun-peak hours proves once again that solar power works pretty much anywhere.

Like other “solar states,” New Jersey established ambitious goals to increase renewable energy.  The State mandates that 22.5 percent of its electricity comes from renewable sources by 2021.  The mandate also specifies that 2.12 percent must come from solar.

New Jersey’s policies and incentives for building a solar energy infrastructure have evolved over time.  In 2001, when the program began there were six solar panels installed somewhere in the state, by the end of 2007 the number of solar installations exceeded 2,700 – with the bulk of installations occurring between 2004 and 2006.  

The original legislation relied on a statewide tax to fund the program and offered generous benefits to participants.  At the time of the program’s inception, residents could receive a one-time rebate of $5.50 per watt, or 70% of the cost for the installed system (whichever was lower) for systems no larger than 10 kilowatts.  The state also had attractive net metering policies so property owners could gain revenue from any excess electricity they generated.

Perhaps it’s not surprising the program succeeded so well, with average electricity rates at about 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour in 2004 to a jump of 6.5 cents in 2005 (and then to 9.88 cents per kilowatt by 2007), many residents could not pass up the State’s generous offer.

Though over time the rebates were slightly reduced to keep pace with consumer demand, by the end of 2007 the state had essentially depleted its fund.  Recognizing the need to restructure its incentives, New Jersey has adopted a new and still innovative policy to ensure solar energy infrastructure still grows within the state.  Now New Jersey’s program will move from one where its upfront incentives were based on the capacity of the system installed to one that pays for energy produced by each system. 

The new model, which will begin in earnest in 2009, relies on Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SREC).  One SREC will be issued for each 100 kilowatt hours of electricity generated.  System owners can then sell or trade their SRECs to the utilities who can count these credits toward meeting the State’s renewable portfolio goal. 

In the meantime the statewide tax will be reduced, though not entirely go away, and the rebate program phased out by 2012.   New Jersey’s net metering policies are also being revised to complement the new initiatives.  And in a separate, yet complementary, move the state’s largest utility PSE&G announced in October 2007 that it would lend nearly $100 million to customers who install solar photovoltaic systems which can be repaid with interest over 15 years.

It seems that the “Garden State” has added even more substance to its nickname – it’s not just about gardens, New Jersey has embraced arrays of solar gardens as well.

California, Colorado, and New Mexico have established some of the most attractive financial incentives to promote solar power.  However those “sunny states” are not alone, a surprising number of states in less sun-drenched parts of the USA have created aggressive programs as well.  For example, in the Northeast, where residents pay some of the highest residential electricity rates in the nation, states such as New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts offer substantial financial subsidies.  In fact, a few of those states – Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania – make it into Home Power’s Top Ten Best States for Solar.

Stay tuned for our posts about these states in the coming days.

When it comes to readily available sunlight, the State of New Mexico is a no-brainer.  With a statewide average of 6.2 daily sun-peak hours, New Mexico is ripe for tapping its solar energy.  Home Power magazine calls out New Mexico as one of its Top Ten Solar States, but acknowledges that it took the state a while to favorably align its policies and incentives.  The magazine credits former Department of Energy Secretary and now state Governor Bill Richardson for much of the state’s success.

Similar to Colorado, New Mexico has established aggressive goals to fulfill its energy requirements with renewable energy.  In 2007, the state legislature mandated that its public utilities must generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020 with an interim goal of 15 percent by 2015.

To meet the state’s mandate, utility companies and industry associations have established favorable solar-focused initiatives for residents.  For example, the New Mexico Zero-Energy Home program in concert with the state’s Built-Green New Mexico have instituted standards that include credits for photovoltaic installations.

Customers serviced by PNM, the state’s largest electricity and natural gas provider, can receive 13-cents per kilowatt-hour for renewable energy certificates (REC) as part of their monthly billing.  Net metering also applies, so that each month a customer can receive credit toward their next month’s electric bill for any excess energy their PV system generates.  If a customer nets over $20 worth of electricity in any given month, then PNM will directly pay the customer the balance.

Overall, New Mexico’s legislation created a tax credit of up to $9,000 (or a maximum of 30% recouped) for its residents and small businesses and farmers for solar photovoltaic or hot water systems installed by 2015.  If a property owner installs both types of systems, then they can claim credit for each, again up to $18,000. 

The state has also committed to expanding its photovoltaic manufacturing capacity.  Last June (2007), Governor Richardson announced that the state would invest $10 million in Advent Solar a company that manufactures photovoltaic cells and modules.  The move marks a commitment to grow “green collar jobs” within New Mexico.  In January (2008), Governor Richardson welcomed Schott Solar, a German-based photovoltaic manufacturer, that has broken ground on a $100 million new facility near Albuquerque.  According to Home Power, the state’s Renewable Energy Transmission Authority Board plans to devise a system that will allow New Mexico to sell its renewable energy generated power to other states. 

Health House is the American Lung Association’s green building certification guidelines to build a healthy home – free of indoor pollutants.  According to the EPA, Americans spend 90 percent of their time indoors!  If ventilation systems that flush indoor air out and bring outdoor air in do not work properly, occupants can find themselves in buildings susceptible to levels of pollutants that are 2 – 5 times higher than surrounding outside.   High temperatures and humidity levels can also contribute to poor indoor air quality in a home.

The American Lung Association’s interest in keeping our homes free and clear of pollutants – in part to protect children from another one of our nation’s growing health concerns, asthma – led the American Lung Association to create Health House.  Their certification system focuses on the construction of a building, the materials, and heating and cooling systems to maximize a healthy and clean indoor environment.  The guidelines include protocol for maximizing air filtration and ventilation systems within a home and avoiding building and finishing materials that off-gas (such as urea-formaldehyde laced products like some laminated wood or furniture products, or oil-based paints and floor finishes).  For more information about Health House, you can visit www.healthhouse.org and download a copy of their Health House Builder Guidelines.

These days, there are seemingly endless amounts of “green labels” out there.  What do they all mean?   

In the world of green building there are a variety of green building rating systems.  Some take a holistic approach and evaluate all the various systems inside and outside your home; others examine a narrower band of categories such as indoor air quality or energy efficiency.  Complicating matters further, different – yet similar – names are used within different regions (or even smaller jurisdictions) throughout the country.  Take, for example, this dizzying sampling of names:  Built Green, Build Green, Earth Advantage, Earth Craft Home, Green Home Choice, I-Built, EcoBUILD. 

Generally, to achieve certification in any of these green building rating systems designers produce designs and specifications that incorporate the required goals and then builders incorporate requirements into their construction practices.   What generates confusion for home owners and buyers is trying to understand the myriad of different goals and check-list requirements applied to each prospective home.  Green labels wouldn’t do much good if consumers did not understand them and what they are trying to achieve. 

Understanding and appreciating the design, engineering and finishing choices builders include can help prospective home buyers differentiate between homes beyond an aesthetic appeal.  Builders often tout a home’s “green features.”  However, until a single building standard is adopted what is called “built green” may differ between programs.

So how do you distinguish between green building certifications?  Let’s start at the national level.  Both the National Home Builders Association (NAHB) and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) have developed rating systems for residential construction.  The NAHB calls it guidelines, the Green Home Building Program; the USGBC who created the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system, calls its system:  LEED for Homes.  Both of these rating systems include a wide-range of protocol for how to build a green home. 

At first glance, both the NAHB Green Home Building Program and the USGBC LEED for Homes look similar.  They are.  Both organizations have published lengthy checklists and guidelines that define categories such as Energy Efficiency, Water Conservation, and Indoor Environmental Quality.  Both describe criteria and objectives to meet in order to obtain points toward a rating.  And each rating system has different levels – the Green Home Building Program has 3-levels:  Bronze, Silver, and Gold; LEED for Homes has 4-levels:  Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum.  The higher the level, the more green features a home has incorporated.  Both rating systems aspire to design and build homes that are energy efficient, use water wisely, are well placed on a site, and incorporate building materials and best construction management practices that tread lightly on the earth.

The differences between the programs are subtle.  Many of the variances relate to how the homes are rated, how the programs are executed, and plain old competition for brand name recognition and dominance.   The USGBC rating system relies on third-party certification to determine how many points to award each house.  The NAHB allows local builders and jurisdictions to establish their own certification process.  For example, the local home builders’ chapter in King and Snohomish counties, two counties in Washington State, has established a rigorous green building rating system that requires third-party certification to achieve its highest green building levels whereas the lower-point levels are based on the builder’s self-verification. 

In future posts I’ll explain the actual differences between other types of green building certifications, labels, and standards.