Cooler Planet

There’s an article in today’s Wall Street Journal that contrasts Barak Obama’s and John McCain’s views on energy policy.  We’ve contrasted both candidates’ views on solar energy in previous blog posts.  The Wall Street Journal  article focuses on how each men view the role of the federal government in changing US energy policy.

On the surface, their rhetoric sounds the same.  Both McCain and Obama talk about the importance of achieving energy independence.  Both are willing to consider nuclear power.  And both recognize the importance of addressing global warming via carbon dioxide emissions.

In the end though both men embrace relatively classic Republican and Democratic solutions toward energy independence.  John McCain favors a government hands-off approach, whereas Barak Obama is more willing to fund programs that foster the development of alternative energy technologies.  McCain is wary of incentives, such as tax credits for renewable energy because he views them as subsidies, something he is disinclined to support.

Obama, on the other hand, believes the industry could greatly benefit from a government boost and has stated his intention to create a goal that the USA obtains at least 25 percent of is electricity from renewable sources by 2025.  Obama wants to challenge the country to reduce its carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels; McCain seeks a 60% reduction.

The article also points out the inconsistencies within each candidate’s position.  McCain has successfully remained absent from voting on all the major legislation involving climate change and energy policy over the last couple of years.  Obama walks a fine line between the coal and ethanol interests he represents for his home state of Illinois, and his more aggressive approach toward carbon emission reduction and renewable energy.

With gas prices rising almost daily, the public has a heightened interest.  Let’s see if McCain and Obama refine their energy policy approach in the days ahead.

Queen Elizabeth, Great Britian’s royal icon, has directed her managers to purchase one of the world’s largest offshore wind turbines from a California energy company, Clipper Windpower.  The turbine will be placed offshore in Scottish waters on Crown property.

The 7.5-megawatt MBE turbine will start in 2010 and the electricity it generates will be sold to the nation’s grid.  The Queen’s property company estimates that the turbine will generate the comparable amount of electricity from one million barrels of oil during its 30-year life span.  

Evidently, the Crown Estate owns the waters 12 nautical miles around the United Kingdom.  It has already invested in wind power and has leased areas to companies that specialize in offshore wind turbines.

The Crown’s support is part of a larger effort by the European Union to increase its renewable energy sources by 2020.  Couched under the goal to reduce carbon emissions, the EU set a goal to cut overall emissions 20 percent by 2020, of which the UK should reduce its share by 16 percent.  For the UK, that translates into generating 33,000 megawatts of power by 2020.  Currently, the country produces roughly 500 – 600 megawatts of power.  

That’s quite a tall order.  Still, by 2020, according to Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low Carbon Life, the UK will need approximately 148 gigawatts of electricity.   So by then, the nation’s wind farms will likely supply roughly 22 percent of the UK’s total electricity needs.  

Twenty-two percent is not shabby.  The Crown stands to benefit from substantial revenue and the country gains a significant wind resource. 

Starting on July 1, 2008 San Francisco area businesses will pay a 4.4¢ tax for every metric ton of CO₂ they emit.  The region’s Bay Area Air Quality Management District, responsible for air quality oversight in nine counties, voted 15-1 to impose the carbon emissions fee.  Citing that impacts from climate change are raising surface temperatures, air quality, in turn, is negatively impacted.  

The District expects that over 2,500 businesses – including gas stations and grocery stores – will be subject to the fee though the majority of businesses will pay less than a dollar.  However, approximately seven power plants and oil refineries exist in the area and may pay $50,000 or more each year.    

The District hopes that the fee will send a message and inspire businesses to reduce their carbon emissions even further (after all, the less C0₂ each business emits the less it will have to pay).  The District will earmark the money to fund its efforts to collect and track data on greenhouse gases.

Of course as the news reports, not everyone appreciates the Board’s decision.  Critics note that the state’s California Air Resources Board is also assessing policies to curb carbon dioxide emissions as directed by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.  Pundits fear that a regional mandate will confuse efforts and ultimately lead to a hodgepodge of policy.  Cynics also warn that the region’s cars and trucks fall outside the agency’s purview, yet account for over 50 percent of the area’s carbon dioxide.  Too bad the Bay Area Air Quality Management District cannot instead use the fee it collects to provide incentives for hybrid and electric vehicles!

Boulder, Colorado won’t be going off-grid or relying on 100% solar energy anytime soon, instead it is pioneering the nation’s first fully integrated digital technology system to manage its electrical grid.  Xcel Energy, one of the nation’s leaders in supporting aggressive renewable energy programs, selected Boulder to test its Smart Grid technology.  The system will track power loads from devices installed on homes and businesses around the city so that supply can be met from all its power sources, including wind farms and solar installations.

Working with the City of Boulder and sharing funding with a consortium of technology vendors, Xcel plans to spend $100 million over the next 2-years to install 50,000 smart meters on buildings throughout the city.  Xcel expects to switch on the system this August.

Boulder’s abundant sunshine and commitment to carbon-neutrality helped make it the winning recipient of Xcel’s pilot (in 2006, Boulder was the first US city to pass a local carbon tax).   

Cooler Planet applauds Xcel and Boulder for taking on a truly cool project.  We look forward to hearing about its results.

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!

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. 

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:).

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.”