Summer 2007 - Solar Times

Solar TIMES
it’s All About Energy
S T I N S O N
Summer 2007
Volume 1 Issue 4
FILL ER UP
unstable gas prices Obama and Clinton
symptom of bigger
Sign Landmark
energy worries
Global Warming Bill
A survey conducted by AAA earlier this
year of 85,000 gas stations across the US,
documented off-the-chart gasoline prices
in May, 2007, with prices hitting historic
highs by Memorial Day weekend. When those prices began stabilizing
in June, American consumers heaved
a collective sigh of relief, filled up their
SUVs and hit the road in record numbers,
apparently comforted that their summer
vacation plans would remain in tact.
But some economists are warning that
this perception may be lulling consumers
into a false sense of economic security.
When it comes to energy costs, they
contend, ‘pain at the pump’ is the least
of the problems faced by American
consumers.
High Pump Prices a Worrisome Symptom
While the majority of surveys taken in
the US since gas prices began their upward
trend last Spring, show that Americans
are ‘somewhat concerned’ or ‘very
concerned’ with gasoline prices, most are
not as worried about the economy overall.
Yet, say a growing number of economists
and energy analysts, it is rising energy
costs and energy insecurity in general not just the price of fuel - that threaten to
put US consumers out of business as usual
- whether they drive or not.
Americans, they say, will pay one way
or the other for the growing unease that
currently plagues the international energy
market.
Already, with crude oil prices hovering
at around $70 per barrel, Americans
are paying higher prices on things like
home heating, plastics, jet fuel and
transportation costs.
Pump Pressure Eases, Tension Remains
Most economists predict that motorists
can expect gradually declining gasoline
prices through July 4, not going up again
until after the Fourth.
“Barring any unforeseen event like war
with Iran,” one analyst stated on MSNBC,
“the cost of gas will largely depend on how
the hurricane season shapes up.” In This Issue:
MOMENTUM BUILDS FOR SENATE’S STRONGEST GLOBAL
WARMING LEGISLATION
Presidential frontrunners Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
added their names this Spring to what is widely considered the most farreaching of any
climate change legislation to date.
In signing on to the Global Warming
Pollution Reduction Act (S 309), the
two Senators joined a growing list of
Democratic Senators who appear to be
putting climate change - or mitigating it at the top of their political agendas.
S 309, co-sponsored by US Senator
Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works and Senator Bernard
Sanders (D-VT), lays out a roadmap of
targets, requirements and incentives to
reduce US emissions and help stabilize
global atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases. It further requires that
the US reduce its emissions by 2050 to a
level that is 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Other senators signing on this Spring to
S 309 include Joe Biden (D-DE), Barbara
Mikulski (D-MD), and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD).
“I am very pleased that five more
Senators have joined the list of sponsors of
the Sanders-Boxer bill, which now brings us
to 17 co-sponsors,” Boxer stated in a May,
2007 press release. Continued pg 15...
Local-BayArea: Fairfax’s FatKat Surfshop
Acts Locally on Climate Change: Pg 3;
California: Solar Snafu Rocks Industry: Pg 7;
Major Economic Report Warns of CCA Risks: Pg 9;
Nation: PoorHitHardbyRisingEnergyCosts:Pg14;
World: US Military World’s Biggest Polluter: Pg 16;
Legislative Action: ContactYourReps: Pg 19;
“That’s the really big story,” Michael Davies, an
analyst at commodities brokerage firm Sucden
Ltd. told reporters in June. “There are going to be
concerns whether the US can cope with gasoline
over summer.”
If predictions of a nasty hurricane season in
the US gulf are realized, it could produce a double
whammy effect to the energy economy. A major
hurricane combined with already dwindling oil
stockpiles, say analysts, could further exacerbate
the ongoing refinery problems that precipitated
the sky-high gas prices in the first place.
While many energy experts blame ‘refinery
under-utilization’ for the instability of gas prices
Look Who’s Reading
StinsonSolarTimes!
Whitney Vest, co-owner and manager of FatKat Surfshop
in Fairfax relaxes with SST in front of her parents’ 5Kw
solar array in Stinson Beach...See pg 3
and still others blame market manipulation by
OPEC, most believe the market is likely to remain
unpredictable into the unforeseeable future for a
host of reasons.
Consumer nations are on edge because of
supplydisruptionsinNigeria,wheremilitantattacks
have shut down a full 26 percent of the country’s
three million barrel per day production capacity.
“There are, of course, uncertainties, which could
shift the market. Nigeria, geopolitics, economic
growth and the weather could swing the balances
in either direction,” one International Energy
Agency (IEA) spokesperson told reporters.
As if all of this were not enough to give
consumers (and the world energy market) jitters,
Venezuela, the world’s third largest oil importer,
refuses to play by western oil companies’ rules and
the Middle East has been plagued by relentless
conflict in the past year, especially on the
West Bank and Gaza Strip. The war in Iraq and
concerns over a possible US invasion of Iran are
further fueling the uncertainty.
All of this prompted one CNBC analyst to
declare that, when it comes to energy prices,
the US was in ‘uncharted territory.’
SLV
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/12/news/
economy/gas_prices/index.htm
Bolinas Residents Go Solar
in a BIG Way
See pg 4...
summer 2007
2 StinsonSolarTimes
Local / Bay Area
Editor’s Desk
SST Celebrates First Birthday
here, many of them covered by SST in this issue;
With the completion of StinsonSolarTimes’ (SST) Summer • PG&E is warning San Joaquin Valley’s CCA that
2007 edition, the paper customers who sign on to the plan will likely have higher
marks its fourth season in electric bills;
publication - a full year of • President Bush’s refusal to join with other G8 nations
in a serious effort to fight global warming;
being a newspaper.
Since the first issue hit • The CPUC’s push for energy de-regulation (again).
the newsstands back in Fall In other energy news:
of 2006, SST has more than The US Government Accountability Office reported
quadrupled its circulation. recently that over 2,600 mergers were approved in the US
We now have over sixty petroleum industry since the 1990s.
retail distribution outlets In only the last few years, mergers between giant oil
countywide and the paper companies, such as Exxon and Mobil, Chevron and
can be found at most Marin Texaco, Conoco and Phillips, have resulted in a handful of
County libraries, the Marin companies controlling enough of the US gasoline supply
County Civic Center and to effectively squelch competition. And, according to
Marin Community College. The list of distribution outlets Public Citizen’s Tyson Slocum, “the mergers continue
continues to grow with each issue.
unabated as the big just keep getting bigger.”
Key
acquisitions
Like every edition of SST, the
over
the
last
few years
Summer 2007 issue is packed to
Tune
in
to
the
include:
the seams with energy news In
August
2005,
the good, the not-so-good and,
Morning Blunders Show
C h e v r o nTe x a c o
well, the terrible.
for Sandy LeonVest’s Local Energy Updates
acquired
Unocal;
Some of the good energy news on KWMR Radio at 8:45 AM (89.3 in Stinson/
ConocoPhillips
acquired
in this edition includes:
Bolinas or 90.5 in Point Reyes Station/
Burlington Resources in
• Pacific Green Energy begins
December 2005; and in
Inverness), alternating Thursdays
construction this fall on a 13.7
June 2006, Anadarko
kW rooftop PV system for the
Petroleum announced
Bolinas Community Center it would simultaneously
Now that’s what SST calls ‘good
acquire
Kerr-McGee
and
Western
Gas
Resources.
energy’;
The
DOE
says
that
ExxonMobil,
ChevronTexaco,
• The merciful death of AB 719, California’s ‘nuclear revival
ConocoPhillips,
BP
and
Shell
produce
10
million barrels
bill,’ introduced earlier this year by Assemblyman Chuck
of
oil
per
day,
more
than
the
combined
exports
of Saudi
DeVore (R-Irvine);
• SolarCity’s completion of two of many cooperative Arabia and Qatar. Recently ExxonMobil’s new CEO told The Wall Street
solar power programs in Mountain View and Woodside;
• 75 megawatts of clean, biomass energy will go online in Journal that although American fuel consumption will
continue growing for decades, Exxon has no plans to
the Central Valley later this year;
• The California General Assembly approved landmark build new refineries: Exxon believes that, by 2030, hybrid
gasoline-and-electric cars and light trucks will account for
solar water heating legislation in June;
• Wind generation is expected to expand in the US by a nearly 30% of new-vehicle sales in the US and Canada.
Now, that does sound like a good thing, but whatever
whopping 1000 Megawatts before the end of 2007;
• Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have (finally) the reason, SST wold submit that no new CO2-emitting
signed on to S 309, a landmark piece of climate change refineries might be just the kick in the pants America needs
to begin facing up to the fact that the fossil fuel era is over.
legislation that is rapidly gaining momentum in the Senate.
Just think how far all that ExxonMobil money would go if
Among the not-so-good news in this edition:
it was invested in clean, renewable energy... SLV
• The California Solar Initiative (CSI) fiasco; lots of subplots
Renewable Energy Events
Calendar:
m
SolFest 2007
August 18th and 19th
Hopland, CA
SolFest is the world’s premier two-day celebration of
renewable energy and sustainable living. Since SolFest
began in 1996, over 100,000 people have learned how to
change the world while having fun. Each summer SolFest
transforms the Hopland into the global epicenter of green
living with speakers, workshops, music and more.
www.solarliving.org/
m
Solar Power Conference and Expo
September 24-27
Long Beach, CA
The business-to-business solar conference and expo
where industry comes together with potential customers,
policymakers, investors and other parties essential to
continued rapid growth. Considered the premiere solar
event in the US, achieving an attendance growth rate of
more than 600 percent in just 4 years!
www.solarpowerconference.com/about/
m
West Marin Alliance and MMOB
is working with several local groups, including Mainstreet
Moms (MMOB), to host a roll-up your sleeves “let’s take
action[on climate change] together” meeting in the Fall,
along with some films this summer. If you’re interested in
working on this, email Kris Brown at: [email protected]
More information: www.themmob.org
m
Solar Power 2007
Organized by: Solar Electric Power Association
(SEPA); Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
September 24-27, 2007
Long Beach, CA
www.solarpowerconference.com
mmm
Stinson
Solar Times
m
Volume 1, Issue 4
Summer, 2007
Publisher, Managing Editor: Sandy LeonVest
Design, Layout: Sandy LeonVest
Business Manager: James Vest
Advertising, Distribution Manager: James Vest
Staff Photographer: James Vest
Staff Support: Stinson Beach Solar Committee
Research Assistance: Juliette Anthony, James Vest
Distribution: Pamela Lichtenwalner, James Vest, Whitney Vest
M
SST is an independent, not for profit newspaper lending a global perspective to local, state and national issues. SST is dedicated
to raising public awareness about energy issues through encouraging and facilitating government transparency and public
participation in the process - at federal, state and local levels. We depend on small businesses for support and accept no corporate
sponsorship.
You can support SST’s independent status by becoming a local distributor, purchasing a subscription to or placing an ad in SST.
All donations, however small, will receive a one-year subscription to SST.
m
Student & Low Income Supporter Subscription: $15.00
Sustaining Supporter/Subscriber: $60.00
Major Supporter/Subscriber: $100 and above
Sustaining Supporter/Subscribers ($60.00 rate) will receive a free SST-shirt.
Major Supporter/Subscribers ($100 and above) will receive two SSTees if requested.
Please be sure to include size and color!
Send subscription or ad requests to:
[email protected]
OR
SST, Box 1061, Stinson Beach, CA 94970
get your SST-shirts
now !!!
All Sustaining Supporters ($60.00 rate)
receive a FREE SST-shirt:
Major Supporters ($100 and above)
receive two SSTees if requested.
Please be sure to include size and color!
SST is now online at
www.solartimes.org
summer 2007
StinsonSolarTimes 3
Local / Bay Area
Bolinas Community
Center Goes Solar
The Bolinas Community Center has long dreamed of becoming
a model of sustainability for the community.
Now, with the help of Pacific Green Energy, a local, familyowned ‘alternative energy integrator,’ that dream is about to
become a reality.
The company, owned by brothers Scott and Darren Malvin,
is planning to install a 13.7 kW solar photovoltaic (PV) system
on the roof of the Bolinas Community Center (BCC).
The PV system is expected “to almost entirely offset the
BCC’s current electric usage,” says Darren Malvin, who, along
with brother Scott, is designing and installing the system.
“This system will save the community center more than
$120,000 over the next 25 years,” says Scott. “And since
we’re very much a part of this community (as well as solar
advocates), Pacific Green Energy will be offering the center a
substantial discount.”
Scott says the company is committed to raising $20,000
toward the installation of the project, “which will bring the
cost down even further. The BCC will end up paying far
below market value for their system.”
The two brothers stress that the community center has a
‘pretty modest budget,’ and will need all of the (financial) help
it can get. “Even with discounts and net-metering rebates,”
says Scott, “the center could definitely use donations from
the community.”
The installation of the 13.7 kW system is expected to
begin in the fall of this year and the Bolinas brothers say they
are doing a lot of fundraising these days.
“I grew up in Bolinas,” says Scott, “and one thing I know
about this community is that it has a big heart, especially
when it comes to worthy projects like this one.
“People here are very much aware of global climate
change, and many of them understand the social, economic
and environmental issues around fossil-fuel consumption...
It’s just not an option anymore if we want our children to
have a future worth living.”
Scott and Darren Malvin say they have ‘total faith’ that the
community will rise to the occasion and support their cause
“because it’s the right thing at the right time,” says Darren.
To make a tax-deductable donation or learn more about the Bolinas solar
project, please contact Marcella at the Bolinas Community Center;
415 868-2128 or [email protected]
Send checks to: BCC Solar Fund, Box 122, Bolinas, CA 94924
Local Surf Shop
Tackles
Climate Change
FatKat Surfshop owners Chad Peterson and Whitney Vest
believe in what they do.
Their little surf shop located in downtown Fairfax is
literally a dream come true for local surfer/entrepreneur
Chad Peterson, who says he was finally able to realize his
dream when he met his now-business partner, Whitney Vest.
The two have only owned FatKat for just over a year, “but
already it feels like part of who we are,” says Chad.
Chad says that he and Whitney both care deeply about
the environment, “and we use the shop to send a message
about what we think of this [Iraq] war and everything that
is going on.
“We try to do business with companies that share our
values,” he says, “like www.satorimovement.com or
www.bodyglove.com - the ones that carry ‘green materials.’”
Spreading the word with SST
Back in the Fall of 2006, FatKat began carrying
StinsonSolarTimes.
“I put the paper right on the front counter,” says Whitney.
“If people didn’t pick it up, I’d stick it in the bag with their
other purchases. Pretty soon, customers began asking for
it...If it wasn’t right there on the counter, they’d say, ‘Where
is it?’ or ‘When’s the next issue coming out?’”
1906 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.
Fairfax, CA 94930
415.453.9167
www.fatkatsurfshop.com
Local Fire Station Sets
Green Example for Community
The Marin County Fire Department recently completed
construction on its new environmentally friendly, state-of-theart Throckmorton Ridge fire station, featuring a 38 kW solar
photovoltaic (PV) system.
The system was designed and installed by SPG Solar, Inc.
of San Rafael, CA. The Throckmorton station also has a new
geothermal system and a host of green building materials.
The new station’s solar energy system will provide over
40% of the station’s annual electricity needs, with an expected
production of over 67,000 kWh each year.
The station also features natural light and ventilation,
green carpeting, flooring, insulation and structure steel and
the implementation of a waste diversion program during its
construction. “This station reflects two important goals of
the County; to provide for a sustainable future and encourage
community partnerships. From concept to completion, these
values helped to drive the project forward,” said Ken Massucco,
Marin County Fire Department Chief. “This station will serve as
a model for other fire departments to emulate across the state
and country.”
“Over a 25-year period, the Throckmorton Ridge station is
expected to displace over 2 million pounds of greenhouse gas
emissions” said Dan Thompson, CEO of SPG Solar.
FatKat Facts:
Whitney Vest with best friend and FatKat mascot Henry
It wasn’t long before the two new business owners decided
that taking out an ad in SST would be a great investment.
“We believe in what the paper is conveying, and surfers especially
are interested in anything that impacts the ocean,” says Chad. “That’s
our element...most surfers already understand that if we don’t do all
we can to protect our environment, our kids won’t have it to enjoy.”
With a 20% national renewable
electricity standard, America would
increase its total homegrown renewable
power capacity six times over present
Couple of Beach Kids With a Dream
levels—from about 20 gigawatts (GW) A
The two young Marin County locals, now in their midin 2005 to 121 GW by 2030.
twenties, both grew up as ‘beach kids.’
Union of Concerned Scientists
Solar Power for Mill Valley’s
Throckmorton Ridge Fire Station
Whitney, who was born in Woodacre, moved to Bolinas
in 1986 with her family when she was in second grade. Her
family now lives in Stinson Beach, but, says Whitney, “Some
of my best childhood memories are of growing up on the
beach in Bolinas.”
She recalls that when her family moved to Bolinas, “it was
kind of strange and a little lonely at first.
“Being from the San Geronimo Valley was like being from
another planet,” she says. “It took awhile for the other kids to
get used to me. Bolinas is a totally different culture than the
Valley, even though they’re both considered West Marin.”
“Our house was right on the beach, and it didn’t take long
before I was out on Brighton Beach body surfing and boogie
boarding with the other kids.
“After that,” she says, “I was hooked on the ocean.”
Chad, for his part, started surfing when he was still in
grade school.
“I was born in San Francisco,” he says. “My family moved
to Seadrift in 1982 when I was 4 years old during the big flood
and I’ve been obsessed with the ocean ever since. >>>>>
-FatKat is listed in the San Francisco “Greenopia” guide to
eco-friendly living;
-All FatKat brand merchandise is manufactured in the US;
-FatKat will soon be carrying Body Glove, the world’s first
biodegradable wetsuit, coming out in July: the ecosuit;
-FatKat carries Arbor skateboards (skateboard decks made
from fallen koa and bamboo, no harvesting);
-FatKat carries Satori Movement, an SF-based skate
company that carries an all organic line of clothing - cotton, hemp,
and bamboo;
-FatKat carries Surfer’s Path, a periodical using recycled
paper, and soy based ink - most of the articles focus on
environmental issues, not cool gear like some other surf mags;
-FatKat carries Cult Industries, the surf and clothing company
that co-founded Cult Aid (www.cultaid.org) in Nembrala,
Indonesia. Now in several countries, Cult Aid organizes
materials and people to create sustainable income for rural
villages, primarily through farming and export. A percentage
of all Cult clothing/surf purchases fund this program;
-FatKat carries M10 all-epoxy surfboards; these boards are
exponentially more durable than the previous standard, lasting
much longer, and in turn reducing waste;
-FatKat carries Rainbow Sandals, manufactured in San Clemente,
CA. Their sandals have a lifetime warranty, and are so well made that
they really never break, thus the nick-name ‘Eco-sandal’;
-FatKat supports ProjectBlue, organized by the Surfrider Foundation
to protect and clean the coastline. Several of FatKat’s vendors are
participating in this project by donating a portion of their proceeds
to the program:
-FatKat always gives Fat discounts to repeat customers.
Chad says he and Whitney are “excited about some of the new
enviro-friendly products available for surfers right now.” “Body glove is releasing a non petroleum based wetsuit
that FatKat has already ordered, and we have clothes made
from hemp and bamboo and other natural fibers and dyes.”
FatKat also carries M10 surfboards (www.m10surfboards.
com), “made with epoxy rather that polyester.” They last longer
“and use less materials and toxic chemicals,” says Whitney.
As part of its commitment to ‘right living,’ the shop
generally stays away from companies that employ
sweatshops, “although it’s hard,” admits Chad. “Most major
companies still use cheap off shore labor.
Whitney says FatKat is active in the immediate
community, “because our shop is downtown...We try to
give encouragement and direction to some of the misguided
youth who have gotten into trouble.”
4 StinsonSolarTimes
Summer 2007
Local / Bay Area
Global Warming Enlarging SF Bay Bolinas Residents Install 22kW
Solar Array Overlooking
- Scientists Alarmed
Bolinas Lagoon
In one of the most detailed looks at global
warming’s impact on the Bay Area, scientists
painted a grim portrait this Spring, of
increasing heat waves, droughts, water
shortages and wildfires accompanied by
more severe thunderstorms, flooding and
coastal erosion.
Low-lying areas like Alviso and the
Oakland and San Francisco airports could
be under water by 2100 if seawalls aren’t
erected to protect them from the already
rising sea, scientists warn. And some bird
and fish species could become extinct as
ecological changes affect their local habitat.
“This is not fantasy,” David Reynolds, a
meteorologist with the National Weather
Service told the San Jose Mercury. “These
sorts of things are already occurring.”
Will Travis, executive director of the San
Francisco Bay Conservation agrees with his
colleague. “The problem of climate change
is local,” he said. “It will have a tremendous
impact on San Francisco Bay.”
And the need for major solutions to slow
the warming trend is even more urgent here
than in other parts of the country because
there’s so much development close to
the bay, Travis said. The severity of global
warming has not been consistent around
the globe, according to researchers. In this
country, for example, the westernmost
states have been - and will continue to feel
- the effects the most. The scientists gathered this April in San
Francisco for the workshop on California
climate change sponsored by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Sea level rising
One of the most graphic examples of climate
change can already be seen in the San
Francisco Bay, where the sea level is already
seven inches higher than it was little more
than a century ago. Scientists expect that, if
greenhouse gases are not kept in check and
global temperatures continue to rise, the bay
could rise an additional 1 to 3 feet by 2100.
“The bay is going to get bigger,” Travis
told the Mercury. “And for large swatches of
real estate - primarily areas built on landfill
- the end result could be devastating. “It
will absolutely flood lots of homes and
businesses.”
Before the Gold Rush, the bay used to be
much larger, measuring about 787 square
miles, Travis said. Rising sea levels could
bring the bay back to its original size, wiping
out myriad housing developments and
business parks in the process.
And global warming isn’t just making the
area warmer, it is subjecting the Bay Area to
more extreme weather.
Evidence points to an increase in heavy
rainstorms in California, Reynolds said.
Coastal flooding and erosion are also more
prevalent because of the stronger storms
and rise in sea levels. And while daytime
temperatures are largely the same, there
has been a significant increase in overnight
temperatures.
The “San Jose heat storm of 2006,” as
Reynolds called it, may have baked the Bay
Area in 100-degree-plus temperatures, but
it alarmed scientists because “the hills did
not fall below 90 degrees at night,” a fact
Reynolds called ‘sobering.’
Oceanographers are also lamenting
climate-induced ecological changes which,
they say, could reduce or displace fisheries,
affect the reproduction and migration of sea
life, and reduce coastal water quality.
Full story: www.mercurynews.com/ci_
5974320
Photo by James Vest
The massive solar array pictured above provides Bolinas residents Mark Buell and Suzy
Tomkins Buell with a total 22 kW of clean, renewable electricity.
The two ground mounted systems, designed by Cooperative Community Energy (CCE)
in San Rafael and installed by Solaris Solar, has a total 147 modules manufactured by Solar
World and five Sunny Boy inverters. Each module produces 175 watts of clean power.
The system, says Project Manager Jeffrey Commons, is projected to save a grand total of
400 pounds of CO2 emissions per day.
Further, it will save tens of thousands of dollars in electric bills over its lifetime. But, says Commons,
“The net benefit [of solar energy] is considerable no matter what size system you do.”
SolarCity Brings Power to the People
SolarCity, a community-wide installer of
solar systems, has completed two new
cooperative solar power programs in
Mountain View and Woodside, where
residents subscribed to 557kW of renewable,
neighborhood-produced energy during a
six-week pilot program this Spring.
SolarCity plans to complete installation
on all the homes this summer.
The Collective Power Program is an
innovative solar purchasing program that
encourages community residents to join
purchases together in order to receive special
pricing incentives on solar installations.
In Mountain View, 118 homeowners
installed a total of 355 kW of power. In
Woodside, where the company helped
usher in solar programs by working with
officials to revise their solar permitting
process, SolarCity subscribed 202 kW of
solar power.
Think Globally, Eat Locally
BOLINAS PEOPLE’S STORE
Offering Organic and Natural Foods since 1976
14 Wharf Rd., Bolinas
Behind the Community Center
Open Daily 8:30 to 6:30
415 868-1433
“These successful programs in Mountain
View and Woodside demonstrate just
how much can be accomplished when
communities take a stake in their energy
future,” said Lyndon Rive, SolarCity’s CEO.
“The result is lower energy bills and
clean energy from the sun. It’s a win-win for
everyone.”
The Collective Power Program has
attracted a total of 934kW worth of solar
installations to date. A previous program in
Portola Valley, CA drew 77 households to
subscribe 377 kilowatts-worth of renewable
power, eliminating 11 million pounds of
carbon emissions.
Collective Power Programs are planned
for communities in San Jose, Castro Valley,
Menlo Park, Los Altos, Berkeley, San Carlos,
and Santa Monica. SolarCity says it will
continue to bring innovative programs like
the Community Power Program to other
communities throughout the state, as it
expands to new markets in the Los Angeles
and Fresno areas.
Summer 2007
StinsonSolarTimes 5
California
California Scrambles CA Attorney General
to Meet
Jerry Brown May Sue
Renewable Goals
EPA over Emissions
CEC member John Geesman told the San Jose
Mercury this summer that there might not be
enough renewable energy available for the
utilities to provide 20 percent of their power
from renewable sources by 2010, as mandated
by AB 32 (the state’s ‘Global Warming Solutions
Act).
California still lacks the power lines
needed to transport the energy produced by
renewable sources to the state’s electricity
grid. Moreover, Geesman worries that most
of the venture money is going to technologies
that will take years, even decades, to develop.
Michael Miller of the Electric Power
Research Institute estimated that billions of
dollars will be needed to improve alternativeenergy options and build out the state’s
electricity grid.
Only vehicle emissions contribute more carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere than the utilities,
and if the utilities fail to meet their goals for using
renewable energy, it will be harder for the state to
reach its carbon-cutting goals, Miller told the San
Jose Mercury.
State leaders, writes Sarah Jane Tribble in
the Mercury, “believe the utility companies’
contribution [to global warming] is so great that
the Public Utilities Commission is considering a
way to require that utilities provide 33 percent
of their power from renewable energy by 2020,”
she told the Mercury.
Still, of the seven new plant applications
the CEC has approved, six are fossil-fuel-based
natural gas plants. An additional 14 plants are
under review and could be built by the end of
2010. But, says Johnson-Mezaros, if California
wants to drastically reduce carbon, it should be
approving carbon-free plants. “How can you let
this kind of contradictory policy behavior exist?”
she asks.
The answer, say utility executives is that the state
must not only replace old plants, but provide
energy for new residents as well. Even California’s
most established renewables - wind and solar
- don’t provide the kind of dependable energy
needed for daily life, PG&E’s Tom King told the
Mercury. “People like to know that when they
flip a switch, a light comes on,” he said.
PG&E currently derives only 13 percent of its
energy mix from renewable sources. And, says
King, if California eliminates natural gas and
coal from the energy mix, “we’re not confident
that without something as large-scale as a
nuclear facility that we can completely meet
the objectives.
“Nuclear,” King insists, “has an opportunity
to play a big part.”
www.mercurynews.com/
Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr (exCalifornia governor, Jerry Brown) says he’ll
sue the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) if it refuses to allow California and
11 other states to curb their own vehicle
greenhouse gas emissions.
The 11 other states are Connecticut, Maine,
Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
An EPA hearing held in Sacramento this
Spring marked the second and last public
hearing on landmark regulations requiring
automakers to reduce vehicle greenhouse
gas emissions 30 percent by 2016. California
and the other states need a waiver from the
EPA to implement the rules adopted by the
state in 2002, and Brown is preparing to sue
the agency if it does not comply with the
state’s request.
Under the Clean Air Act, California
can adopt standards stricter than federal
rules by requesting a waiver from the EPA.
If approved, the other states would get
approval automatically. Congress expressly
allowed California to impose stricter
environmental regulations in recognition of
the state’s “compelling and extraordinary
conditions,” including topography, climate,
high number and concentration of vehicles
and its pioneering role in vehicle emissions
regulation.
The Bush administration has long opposed
any targets aimed at reducing greenhouse
gases and even opposed a consensus
greenhouse gas reduction proposal at the
G8 summit this June in Germany.
Brown says the EPA should resist what he
calls “Bush’s dangerous strategy for endless
stonewalling.
“It’s interesting to note,” said Brown, “that
the same day (May 14) Bush was speaking in
the Rose Garden about expediting action on
climate change, Justice Department lawyers
were in a San Francisco federal courtroom
fighting charges that the Bush administration
adopted legally insufficient fuel efficiency
standard for SUVs, pickups and minivans.”
The National Academy of Sciences
reported last week that the rate of humancaused carbon dioxide emissions were
much greater than previously estimated by
the International Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.
New State Regulations
Restrict Dirty Energy
Purchases
The California Energy Commission (CEC) has
approved regulations that limit the purchase of
electricity from power plants that fail to meet
strict greenhouse-gas emissions standards.
The regulations in Senate Bill 1368 prohibit the
state’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs) from
entering into long-term financial commitments
with plants that exceed 1,100 pounds of carbon
dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour (MWh). The implementation of SB 1368 is part of the
CEC’s implementation of AB 32, which calls
for California to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide and other gases by 25% by 2020.
Pathfinder
Communications
Peter Asmus
PO Box 436
Stinson Beach, CA 94970
415 868-9866
email: [email protected]
www.peterasmus.com
California Solar Initiative Irks Installers,
Confounds Solar Customers
The California Solar Initiative (CSI) passed
in January, was promoted as a program that
would encourage solar energy across the state
and inspire new business as well.
But a growing number of solar customers
say they’re already confused about the state
of the solar industry, and many inside the
industry maintain that, at least so far, CSI has
only added to that confusion.
CSI, writes Dale Julin, of Stardate Solar, is
morphing into “a bureaucratic/utility company
squeeze play that is sapping the financial
strength of smaller solar companies.”
Julin points out in a commentary first
published at SantaCruzSentinel.com that the
shenanigans are “all going on under the media’s
radar screen.” He observes that, “the powers
that be are benefiting at the expense of smaller
solar companies and homeowners.
“I’ve been hearing “rumblings from my solar
business colleagues for months...” writes Julin.
For their part, solar owners complain that
they must jump through a host of bureaucratic
hoops in order to ‘go solar,’ yet many of those
same owners find themselves tested at every
turn - even once the system is installed.
Some, like Margaret Black of Santa Rosa,
who had her PV system installed two years
ago,
feel
like they are
ef fectively
penalized by
their utility
(in this case,
PG&E)
for
the decision
to use clean,
renewable
energy.
Black, who
practiced law
for decades,
says she wonders how other solar customers
cope with the complications of going solar.
“If I don’t understand the billing system,” she
muses, “I wonder how others deal with it.”
Few solar customers would deny
that the billing system can be a morass
of incomprehensible paper work and
terminology, causing them to wonder if their
investment was worth the trouble.
And the passage of CSI, writes Julin, has only
made things worse. He points out that since CSI
was signed, customers applying for rebates that
once eased the path for potential buyers are even
more complex. As Julin puts it, “There used to
be a simple, one page rebate application form.
Now the state and the utilities want much more
information about a proposed system’s solar
savings, or “proof of performance.”
The utilities insist that the longer, more
complicated application is necessary partially
because of ‘unscrupulous installers’ who might
exaggerate how much a system will produce to
qualify for a larger rebate.
But Julin notes that most installers already
guaranteetheirinstallations.Thosesameinstallers,
he writes, “are currently pleading with the
CPUC to streamline the process.” And until that
happens, “many installers say they’re shying
away from installing systems on homes,” instead
concentrating on commercial jobs. “They’re
seeing their home system sales dropping
dramatically because their sales people must
now do all kinds of new estimates. It’s a lot of
work for what used to be...simple.”
Before the CSI took effect, installers were
required to check on the pitch of the roof,
the angle of the sun and possible shading
issues. Now, says Julin, “they are being asked
to determine the species and growth rates
of nearby trees, for fear that they’ll someday
grow too big and cast a shadow. “The installers I know say they’re complying
with the new requirements by telling their
salespeople to greatly underestimate the
potential power produced by their solar
systems, even though the systems will certainly
produce more power. But underestimating
production also makes it harder for a
homeowner to see the savings that solar will
actually render. That, writes Julin, makes for a
harder sale.
“Add to the equation the fact that there
are now different sized rebates for different
zip codes. The new requirements are so
complicated that one veteran solar installer
jokingly told me he now has to use a crystal ball
when he gives an estimate to a customer.”
In his piece, Julin writes about a PG&E
solar workshop in San Francisco he recently
attended.
He recalls one installer asking a PG&E rep
how many applications for new solar home
installations the company had received. “More
than a thousand,” answered the rep.
“How many have been deemed completed?”
(A good question, writes Julin, because until a
system is completed the homeowner cannot
turn it on
and the
installer
must wait
to
get
paid).
T h e
PG&E rep
again answered,
‘None.’
Before the CSI took effect, installers were
required to check on the pitch of the roof, the
angle of the sun and possible shading issues.
Now, says Julin, “they are being asked to
determine the species and growth rates of
nearby trees, for fear that they’ll someday grow
too big and cast a shadow.” ‘None?’ the installers asked.
‘None.’
Julin says the other PG&E representatives
in the room quickly tried to explain. The
company hired outside inspectors. They’re
working as fast as they can. The first checks
should go out anytime now.
“Imagine,” writes Julin, “the cash-flow problems
for solar companies when no cash is flowing.
“As of May 31st, every one of the many
installers I know is still saying one thing, ‘Show
me the money.’ Some final notices have now
been sent out. That’s nice. But you can’t cash a
notice. Where’s the money?”
When Julin went to PG&E’s website to
check the dates for ‘completed systems after
January 1, 2007,’ he says there were none.
“The same goes for residential and commercial
applications in Southern California Edison, and
San Diego utility territories. As of May 31st,
when this article was last updated, there was not
a single system marked completed for 2007,”
writes Julin. None.
“What’s going on here?” he asks. “Just how
much money did the CPUC allow the utilities
to keep in their bank accounts for almost six
months now, drawing nice interest rates?
Millions? Where does that extra money go?
To the CSI program? To the utility’s other
programs?
“Meantime, hundreds of homeowners are
still waiting to turn on their solar systems, and
dozens of solar companies, many of them
start-ups, are wondering when California’s
solar revolution will really...start-up.”
SLV:
Excerpts from article by Dale Julin, posted at
www.RenewableEnergyAccess.com
Summer 2007
6 StinsonSolarTimes
California
FERC Removes Regulatory
Obstacles to Renewables
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has
approved the California Independent System Operator’s
(CAISO) proposed mechanism for financing facilities to
interconnect location-constrained renewable resources to
the operator’s transmission grid.
The Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) has
noted that electric-generation resources become ‘locationconstrained’ because of relative size and immobility of their
fuel source.
“This order will encourage greater fuel diversity in our
electricity supply and help California meet its renewableenergy targets,” said FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher. “We
recognize unique characteristics of renewable-energy
projects, but have been careful not to grant an undue
preference. Our action today is fully consistent with both
federal and state policy.”
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)
applauded FERC’s decision (Docket No. EL07-33-000),
which the US wind-energy industry worked to develop.
AWEA says the policy aims to address the “chicken or egg”
problem that has bedeviled wind-power development
where no wind farms are built unless there is transmission,
and no transmission is built unless there are wind farms
already in place.
AWEA says that the FERC’s ruling in effect states that, in
windy areas where there is no transmission, the infrastructure
should be financed and built first, as long as it is clear that
there is a large energy resource to be tapped and that there
is some financial commitment on the part of generating
companies to eventually develop projects in the area.
“This decision is great news,” said AWEA Policy Director
Rob Gramlich. “Several hundred gigawatts of cost-effective,
inexhaustible, 100% clean wind power are now a step closer
to being tapped for the benefit of the nation’s economy,
environment, and energy security.”
IREC says there is evidence that insufficient interconnection
capacity may have been preventing the development
of wind power in location-constrained resources. The
CAISO’s proposal is intended to overcome this hurdle.
FERC also found that the CAISO’s proposal includes several
mechanisms that protect ratepayers.
Interconnection Newsletter
Southern California
Edison Will Expand
Renewable Biomass
According to a California Energy Commission (CEC) report
on biomass, the state has 4,700 MW of potential biofuel
energy, enough power to serve 3 million average homes...
Making good on that potential, Southern California
Edison (SCE), the nation’s leading purchaser of renewable
energy, has issued a new power contracting option known
as a “Biomass Standard Contract.”
The contract will help smaller biomass generators
contribute to reaching California’s aggressive renewable
energy and environmental goals.
“Governor Schwarzenegger asked our industry to find
ways to step up the use of the state’s renewable biomass
resources to generate electricity,” said Pedro Pizarro, SCE’s
senior vice president of power procurement. “We believe
this innovative approach will do just that, prompting
many small biomass generators to join California’s growing
renewable energy industry.”
Prior to SCE’s initiative, California biomass projects with
generating capacities between 100 kilowatts and 1 megawatt
(MW(1)) had limited opportunities to sell their energy. SCE’s
Biomass Standard Contract opens the door for these projects,
and provides a more efficient way for biomass projects under
20 MW to sell their power to utility customers. One MW is
enough power to serve approximately 650 average homes
at one point in time.
The utility plans to accept up to 250 MW of new biomass
capacity through the new program. Final agreements are
subject to review and approval by the California Public
Utilities Commission.
Biomass projects eligible for SCE’s new standard contracts
include landfill gas, municipal solid waste, wood, fuel cell,
digester gas, and sewer gas.
www.businesswire.com
Additional information available at
www.sce.com/energyprocurement
Two New Biomass
Energy Facilities for
California
California to Hold Cities, Counties
Accountable for Emissions
75 megawatts of renewable energy to go
California is pioneering what could be the next battleground
against global warming: filing suit to hold cities and counties
accountable for greenhouse gas emissions caused by poorly
planned suburban sprawl.
The unprecedented action is being closely watched by states
that have taken aggressive steps to combat climate change
— including New York, Massachusetts and Washington.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown has already filed
suit against San Bernardino County, the USA’s largest in land
area and one of the fastest growing, for failing to account
for greenhouse gases when updating its 25-year blueprint for
growth.
“California is just leading the way for other states and
jurisdictions that will ultimately follow,” Richard Frank of the
Center for Environmental Law and Policy at the University of
California-Berkeley told reporters.
The California lawsuit, filed in the spring, argues that
the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act requires
greenhouse gases to be regulated like any other type of
pollution. Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and Guam have similar laws, but no other state has used
these laws to sue over global warming.
If the suit is successful, California cities and counties could
be forced to take steps to limit sprawl, promote compact
development, require builders to design energy-efficient
houses that offer solar power, and encourage less driving,
more mass transit and use of alternative fuels.
www.usatoday.com
online in the state later this year...
California will soon add two biomass energy facilities and a biomass
fuel management business to its renewable energy portfolio.
The facilities, totaling 75 megawatts, are expected to be up and
running by the end of 2007 and will all be located in the Central
Valley.
Covanta Holding Corporation, which is involved in the
development and operation of large-scale energy-from-waste and
renewable energy projects, announced its agreement to purchase
the facilities in June.
Covanta already owns four biomass facilities and more than 30
energy-from-waste facilities. In addition, Covanta expects to invest
between $15 and $20 million in capital improvements to increase
the facilities’ productivity and environmental performance.
Closing of the acquisition remains subject to regulatory
approvals, expected to come later in the year.
Solar Hot Water Heating Bill
Passes out of Assembly
Gas&Electric Industry
Oppose
On June 6, the California General Assembly approved a
measure to create the nation’s largest solar water heating
program right here in California.
The Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (AB
1470), authored by Democratic Assembly member Jared
Huffman and supported by hundreds of organizations and
businesses, would create a $250 million ten-year program to
provide consumer rebates for solar water heating systems,
an under-utilized form of solar power in the US, but one that
is thriving in European and Asian countries.
“Solar power represents a significant energy resource for
California,” said Huffman in a statement. “With more solar
power, we can enjoy greater energy independence, fight
global warming, and save California families and businesses
money by encouraging a mainstream market for solar water
heating technologies.”
A report issued last Spring April by Environment
California says that California is in a position to spearhead
the move away from fossil fuels through the use of solar
water heating to replace the state’s current dependence on
imported natural gas.
The bill is not without its detractors though, and is being
opposed by gas and electric companies, including PG&E
and Calpine Corporation, which owns 22 gas-fueled power
plants in the state. They don’t want the plan funded through
a surcharge on residential and commercial gas bills, although
the CPUC says residential gas users would pay only about 13
cents a month extra.
Studies by KEMA-Xenergy, an energy consulting firm, show
that using solar systems in California homes and businesses
with access to sunlight could cut the use of residential natural
gas by about 24% and reduce total statewide consumption
by more than 5%. By focusing on solar thermal, Environment
California believes that California could save up to 1.2 billion
therms of natural gas a year. That is 24% of all the natural gas
used in California homes at present.
In opposing the bill, Calpine and PG&E are joined by San Diegobased Sempra Energy, which owns Southern California Gas Co. and
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. But the gas companies and Huffman
said they would work to forge a compromise, and there are signs
that momentum is building for solar thermal, especially with
mounting opposition to proposed liquid natural gas terminals.
Historically, California has used solar water heating since
as early as the 1800s and, the report states “as a reliable and
renewable fountain of free water heating, solar thermal energy
really is the best alternative available in California even today.”
A residential solar water heating system can cost $4,000 to
$6,000, but with the incentives proposed under Huffman’s bill,
consumers could recoup their costs in less than 10 years through
reduced gas bills. On average, a solar system takes the place
of about 75% of the gas normally used in a home. For hotels,
restaurants, apartment buildings and other big hot water users,
the savings can make the difference between profit and loss.
Unlike solar photovoltaic electricity, the technology for solar
thermal is hardly new. The world’s first solar water heater was
patented in 1891. By 1897, a third of all Pasadena homes had
them. But with the discovery of cheap natural gas in the Los
Angeles Basin in the 1920s, solar went out of fashion.
The 1970s energy crisis revived the industry. Federal and state
subsidies that together covered 80% of costs led to a proliferation
of fly-by-night installers charging high prices. Solar water heating
got a bad name and when the energy crisis lifted subsidies dried up
and the industry all but collapsed. Last year, only 1,000 solar water
heaters were installed in all of California. Nationwide, 9,000 were
installed, nearly half in Hawaii, where hefty rebates are offered.
AB 1470 now heads to the State Senate to be heard in the
Energy and Commerce Committee later this summer.
http://solar.rain-barrel.net/solar-hot-water-heating-in-california/
Learn more: www.environmentcalifornia.org;
www.commondreams.org/news2007/0607-03.htm OR
solarhotwater: www.mercurynews.com/ci_6085767
Summer 2007
StinsonSolarTimes 7
California
CA Nuke Bill Dies
In Assembly
Greens Oppose Legislation to
Revive Nuclear in California
A bill that would have struck down California’s long standing
ban on nuclear reactor construction died in the California
State Assembly’s Natural Resource Committee on April 16,
2007.
The Green Party of California, which fought against the
legislation, applauded the bill’s defeat, as did Comittee
Chairwoman Loni Hancock, who noted in a statement
that the federal waste disposal program “has been plagued
with technical and legal challenges, managerial problems,
licensing delays, persistent weaknesses in quality assurance
for the program, and increasing costs.”
AB 719, authored by Republican Assemblyman Chuck
Devore, claimed to address the need to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions to curb global warming. But according to
the California Energy Commission (CEC), the most significant
reductions in CO2 emissions from electricity generation
are best achieved through energy efficiency programs and
integrating renewable energy resources - solar, wind, thermal,
biomass and hydropower - into electricity supplies.
AB 719 suggested that nuclear energy could “reduce
greenhouse gas emissions” and would have repealed the
1976 statute prohibiting any new nuclear fission power
plants until the CEC determines it is safe to dispose of highlevel nuclear waste.
The CEC says the disposal technology does not exist.
www.cagreens.org/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Docket #: R.06-03-004
[email protected]
PUC REMOVES MANDATORY TIME-OF-USE RATES FOR
SOLAR CUSTOMERS
On June 7, the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) removed the California Solar Initiative’s (CSI) time
variant pricing requirement until the CPUC develops timeof-use (TOU) tariffs in the next general rate cases of utilities
in 2009.
Senate Bill 1 requires all California Solar Initiative incentive
recipients to take TOU rates. TOU rates value daytime peak
energy usage and production higher than off-peak energy
usage at night and in the morning. Most solar customers
benefit from TOU rates, because solar production replaces
peak load and is credited to the customer at the higher-cost
peak price.
However, some percentage of utility customers
unexpectedly discovered that their electric bills on TOU
rates could actually be higher with solar than if they stayed
on their existing rate without solar. To alleviate these unintended consequences, Assembly
Bill 1714, passed by the State Legislature yesterday and signed
by Governor Schwarzenegger today, allows the PUC to delay
implementation of the mandatory TOU requirement.
“The TOU requirement contained in SB1, though wellintentioned, has clearly resulted in some unintended
consequences, which may slow the development of solar
in the residential and small commercial markets. I thank the
Governor and Legislature for their quick action on this issue,
expressly providing the PUC the authority to remove the
mandatory time-of-use pricing element of the program until
more accommodating TOU tariffs can be developed.” said
PUC President Michael R. Peevey.
California has set a goal to install 3,000 megawatts of new,
customer-sited solar projects by 2017 under the California
Solar Initiative.
The proposal voted on by the PUC is available at
www.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/AGENDA_DECISION/68815.doc.
www.cpuc.ca.gov.
CPUC Corrects Glitch that Caused Solar
Rebate Applications to Plummet
The CPUC says applications for residential solar systems dropped their bills with solar would be lower, the TOU requirement
78 percent in the first three months of 2007 compared with the could reduce the amount of those savings substantially, and
same time last year - likely due to a glitch in the language of the dramatically increase the payback period of a solar system.
California Solar Initiative (CSI).
Glitch nearly kills state’s solar industry
The problem was created back in December, 2007, when
the CPUC moved to implement the CSI by requiring solar Just before the CPUC jumped in to revise the CSI,
users to switch to the higher Time of Use (TOU) rates for Consultant Glenn Harris had remarked to reporters that the
their supplemental electricity. SB1, the bill that created residential market in California “could collapse in 100 days
the solar program, mandated that TOU rates apply to all if high electricity rates scare potential customers away from
customers, including those who invest in solar.
buying rooftop solar systems.”
TOU rates are important for encouraging energy That likely won’t happen now, but it threw a scare into the
conservation, especially during the summer months but they industry - and potential solar customers - that some believe
slow the financial payback for customers who use power could have a lasting psychological effect.
during peak times. With the higher rates, solar power offers Solar installation firms, environmentalists and government
less savings on electricity bills and in economic terms may officials are dumbfounded that the much-lauded solar
not justify the investment - even with a rebate of as much as program got off to such a rough start. “These are very
50% of the cost and a federal tax credit.
real problems,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, a lobbyist for
Consequently,
many
Environment
California.
homeowners decided against
“Nobody foresaw the
going solar because under the
outcome would be a whole
new requirements it was costset of consumers basically
prohibitive.
priced out of the market.”
The irony of the California
In the first three months
Solar Initiative (CSI) wreaking
of 2007, homeowners
havoc on an industry it was
filed rebate applications
supposed to help didn’t elude
for only 1,415 kilowatts
Governor Schwarzenegger,
of solar power statewide.
who moved quickly, along
A year earlier under the
with the CPUC, to fix the
previous program, the state
problem.
approved
applications
Michael R. Peavey, CPUC President
On June 6, the problem
totaling 6,417 kilowatts.
was at least deferred when the
“We’ve come to the
CPUC nixed the requirement
conclusion that we can
for solar customers to be on
no longer sell to a good
a ‘Time-of-Use’ (TOU) rate schedule in order to access CSI percentage of potential clients because they don’t have
benefits. For now, or until the CPUC and the utilities devise a roof that is big enough,” said Patrick Redgate, owner
a ‘solar friendly’ rate schedule, customers will be allowed to of Ameco, a Long Beach solar installation company with
stay on their current rate schedule.
33 years in the business. “This is kind of a punishment for
As things currently stand, new CSI customers will go on people going solar.”
flat tariffs going forward, while customers signed on after Gordon Bloom, executive vice president of GenSelf
January 1 but before the stay may remain on TOU or switch Corp. in Irvine, said he was forced to lay off two employees
to flat rates.
after doubling his workforce in 2006. “Residential sales in
the Edison territory are down 75%, and I’ve only gotten eight
How TOU backfired on solar owners
jobs this year,” he said.
Under TOU, prices go up during the day when demand is new
Sue Kateley, executive director of the California Solar
highest, and down at night when it is reduced.
The difference between peak and off-peak rates is Energy Industries Association, told reporters that the rebate
particularly steep in the 11 counties of Central, coastal and changes [in CSI legislation] backfired. “It’s a mess,” she
Southern California, where Southern California Edison said. “It was everyone’s intent to expand the use of solar in
California, not throw it into the ditch.” provides electricity service to 13 million customers.
The problem occurred where customers had high “The solar industry in the desert in the Southern California
daytime electric use - as in warmer parts of the state where Edison territory is dead until this thing is fixed,” said Pat
air conditioners can run all day during summer months - but Conlon, an energy-efficiency expert with the city of Palm
couldn’t install a solar system to meet 100 percent of that Desert. “As of Jan. 1, there have been no new installs.”
SLV
demand. If a solar customer can’t meet their full peak period
needs with solar, that customer must buy the remaining
www.newsdata.com/cem/thisweek
electricity at the higher, daytime peak TOU rate, resulting
www.latimes.com
in a higher bill. Similarly, for some customers, even though
www.renewableenergyaccess.com
“The fact that some customers
may find themselves paying higher
electricity bills if they decide to
install solar … is unfortunate and
indeed perverse…”
California Macy’s Go Solar
Updates posted at:
http://calseia.org/csi-updates.html
Macy’s will install rooftop solar power systems in 26 of its
stores throughout California in partnership with SunPower, it
announced in June.
“We...believe a successful business is dependent on a healthy
environment,” Macy’s, Inc. Vice Chair Tom Cole told reporters.
Macy’s hopes that combining solar power with energy
efficiency measures will allow its stores to achieve an estimated
40 percent reduction in electricity that they draw from the
grid.
The combined measures are expected to offset 24 million
kilowatt hours of energy consumption annually, and Macy’s
further estimates that its carbon footprint will be reduced by
more than 195 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions over
the lifetime of the systems.
Great CA Energy LInk:
http://www.newsdata.com
www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-07-09.asp#anchor6
#(#BU FT3FBM UPS
W B M V F T 8 F T U . B S J O Q S P Q F S U J F T
/FFEUP#VZP S4 FMM
$BMMUIF
8FTU.BSJO&YQFSU
X X X C H C B U F T D P N
Summer 2007
8 StinsonSolarTimes
California
Paramount Farms Opens Dems, consumer groups
Schwarzenegger Calls
cry foul as CPUC moves to
Ethanol Subsidies ‘Crazy...not Largest US Single-Site
deregulate energy (again)
in the interest of customers’ Agricultural Solar Plant in Democratic
Lawmakers say they will oppose the California
Public
Utility
Commission’s (CPUC) move to deregulate a
Governor Schwarzenegger continued this summer to
California
portion
of
the
state’s electricity market.
articulate his ambitious energy vision for the state of
California in a speech at Livermore Labs, stating that he
wants to eliminate subsidies and tariffs related to ethanol
and to allow the market to set policies on low carbon fuels.
”We need to take down the barriers we have created,”
Schwarzenegger said at the symposium on low carbon fuels at
the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in Berkeley, California.
Schwarzenegger noted in his speech that the US subsidizes
domestic corn-based ethanol and imposes a 54-cents-pergallon tariff to limit cheap ethanol imports from Brazil, a
practice that he said “makes absolutely no sense. It’s crazy,
and it’s definitely not in the best interest of the customers.”
Brazil, which uses sugar-based ethanol, is the No. 2 producer
of the biofuel after the US and its corn-based fuel. The governor
said the market should be allowed to come up with the best
solutions after targets are set by governments like California’s.
“We set the targets. The market decides how best to
get there,” Schwarzenegger said. The booming US ethanol
production has increased corn costs and in turn feed costs
for chickens, hogs and cattle. The result is a $47-per-person
increase since last July in the average US grocery bill, a study
by Iowa State University found. US fuel ethanol gets a 51cents-per-gallon tax subsidy.
Low carbon fuels create a system by which markets decide
the best way forward on alternative fuels, the governor said.
He has already called for California to set a “low carbon fuel
standard” meant to cut carbon emissions in transportation
fuels by 10 percent by 2020.
Schwarzenegger said the federal government’s help is essential
in establishing standards that stakeholders — from industry to
scientists to environmentalists — can then strive to meet. He
called on Congress “to adopt a fuel policy that works.”
Transportation accounts for about 40 percent of the climate
changing carbon emissions in California, and the state now relies on
petroleum-based fuels for 96% of its transportation fuels. Record
gasoline prices can also be helped by less reliance on oil-based fuels and
more on alternatives that cut carbon emissions, Schwarzenegger said.
”The low carbon fuel standard is our best weapon against
rising oil prices and gas prices,” Schwarzenegger said.
www.californiaenergycircuit.net
California to Rank Content of
Greenhouse Gases in Fuels
California plans to rank greenhouse gas emissions from motor fuels
with the goal of encouraging people to use low-carbon alternatives.
Scientists will reveal the formula for calculating the amount
of greenhouse gases emitted from the full cycle of fuels — from
extraction and harvesting to combustion — said David Crane,
advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger.
The rankings will calculate emissions of inputs used to make the
fuels, such as the fertilizer and diesel used to grow and harvest cornbased ethanol from the Midwest, or the diesel and natural gas burned
to dig and melt crude from Canada’s tarry oil sands.
If the governor has his way, beginning in 2010 California businesses
that sell low carbon fuels could earn credits they would sell to oil
companies that can’t meet the new rules, said Crane.
He said it could be just as likely that future fuels, such as those
made from cellulosic ethanol, which uses sources like switchgrass and
poplar trees, would have the lowest carbon emissions — even if it was
produced in other states and needed to be transported to California.
The rankings would combine with the lower emissions standard
to encourage tough competition between companies for making the
lowest carbon fuel comparable.
The California EPA said the ranking formula has the potential to
become an international standard for calculating greenhouse gas
emissions from various fuels.
californiaenergycircuit.net
Supported by the California Solar Initiative, Paramount Farms’ $7.5
Million, Eight-Acre Solar Plant Will Alleviate Demand on Central
Valley’s Municipal Power Grid During Summer Months...
Paramount Farms, the world’s largest vertically integrated
supplier of pistachios and almonds, today announced the
opening of the Paramount Farms’ Solar Plant, a 1.1 megawatt, $7.5 million solar energy plant in California’s San
Joaquin Valley. Spanning eight acres, it is the largest singlesite, privately-owned, operating solar plant in the US and is
expected to supply about 15 percent of the energy that the
company’s nut processing facility uses each year.
The plant represents a significant initiative undertaken
by the Central Valley’s farming community to lessen the
burden on local municipal power suppliers by generating
environmentally-friendly, sustainable alternatives. According
to the state’s Department of Food & Agriculture, California
is the nation’s No. 1 agricultural producer and exporter with
$32 billion in direct farm sales in 2005. Of California’s Top 10
agricultural communities, seven are located in the Central
Valley, representing a combined agricultural value of more
than $20 billion.
The alternative power generated by the plant will ease
the burden on local power supplier Pacific Gas & Electric
Co. (PG&E) and the California power grid while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption. Energy
generated by the plant contributes to the municipal power
grid, supplementing the city’s power supply. The Central
Valley is the state’s fastest growing region and home to about
6.5 million people. According to PG&E, the base demand
for electricity in California continues to grow four percent
each year. A hot summer could put a further demand on the
state’s electrical supply.
Chris Bunas, vice president of SolarCraft, the company
that built the plant says it is expected to generate enough
clean electricity each day to power about 300 average
homes, sparing nearly 2,600 tons of harmful greenhouse
gases annually.
www.businesswire.com
California Ties for First on
Energy Scorecard
The states of California, Connecticut, and Vermont led the US
in energy efficiency policies, programs, and technologies in
2006, according to a ranking issued in June by the American
Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy, ACEEE.
The State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 2006,” places
the three states in a tie for first place because of their
spending on energy efficiency programs, their efforts to set
efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, and other
energy efficiency programs.
The new report was issued as Congress takes up pending
federal energy legislation this month, which is viewed as
“a crucial opportunity to adopt energy efficiency policies
proven in these top-ranking states to help address perhaps
the preeminent public policy concern of our day,” said
Maggie Eldridge, ACEEE policy program research assistant
and report co-author.
The bottom 26 states “seriously lag behind the rest,”
Eldridge said. “We hope that highlighting the leaders in
our Scorecard will encourage the laggards to catch up with
the front runners as if our lives depended on it – because it
does.”
“States are leading the nation in mining efficiency as the
first fuel in the race to solve America’s energy security and
global warming challenges,” said ACEEE Acting Executive
Director Bill Prindle, who co-authored the Scorecard.
“Unless we accelerate the pace of efficiency investment,
no clean energy strategy will work,” he said.
www.ens-newswire.com
In May, the CPUC voted 4-1 to explore whether it has the
legal authority to re-institute a program known as ‘Direct
Access,’ that allows large commercial customers, such as
hospitals, universities and businesses, to buy service from
electricity providers other than their regular utilities.
The commission’s action came despite opposition from
consumer groups and four top Democratic lawmakers,
including Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland,
and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles. In a
letter, they said that only the Legislature can reinstate retail
energy competition until 2017.
Consumer advocacy groups blame similar deregulation
moves in the 1990s for contributing to California’s infamous
power crisis in 2000 and 2001. They point to Enron and
other energy providers who, left to their own devices,
unscrupulously manipulated the market, leading to soaring
utility prices, rolling blackouts and bankruptcy for the state’s
largest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
“Introducing competition has not always brought about
lower rates for customers,” said Timothy Simon, the sole
PUC commissioner to vote against the move.
Deregulation supporters include California State
University, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and dozens of other large
energy users. They argue that direct access, also called retail
energy competition, allows them to shop for lower rates.
In December, 2006, a consortium of energy producers
called the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets filed a petition
with the CPUC arguing that the market had stabilized enough
to reinstate direct access by next year.
The state Legislature suspended direct access during an
emergency session at the height of the power crisis in 2001.
That action required large energy users to buy their power
from traditional utilities, ensuring those utilities a steady
revenue stream. The law also gave the state Department
of Water Resources temporary authority to buy energy for
customers of investor-owned utilities.
The emergency energy law enacted in 2001 stated that the
program will remain suspended until the water department
stopped supplying power. The department stopped buying
power on Jan. 1, 2003, but contracts it signed before that
date are good through 2017. Consumer groups such as The Utility Reform Network,
based in San Francisco, argued that the five-member CPUC
has no authority until 2017 to implement direct access. Large
commercial customers said that authority returned to the
PUC once the Department of Water Resources stopped
buying power.
The CPUC vote taken in May authorizes the commission
to look at the issue in three phrases. First it will determine
whether it has the legal authority to implement direct
access. It then will decide whether it should. If so, members
will decide how and when to implement the plan.
A CPUC report said it will take at least 18 months, and
probably longer, to decide whether direct access can be
reinstated. A ballot initiative that would have banned direct
access failed at the polls in 2005.
StinsonSolarTimes 9
Summer 2007
California
Major Economic Analysis Cites CCA Risks:
‘Significant and Unpredictable Costs’
In June, 2007, the Bay Area Economic Forum, an ad hoc partnership of members of the Bay Area
Council and the Association of Bay Area Governments, issued the third in a series of joint reports on the
economic viability of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). CCA, authorized in 2002 by the California
Legislature with the passage of AB 117, allows local governments to pool together (aggregate) residents,
businesses and municipal facilities for the purpose of purchasing electricity. In its report the forum states:
“The focus on economics is critical because it is most likely that the economic viability of a CCA is a
precondition to its ability to accomplish environmental and other goals. While communities have the
option of subsidizing a CCA as a good cause even if the economics do not pan out, few communities
appear to have excess funds to do so.”
THE ECONOMICS OF COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION provides detailed
economic analysis of CCAs. Below SST has excerpted some of the forum’s key findings. The
full report can be found at www.bayeconfor.org/pdf/PowerAcquisition-June2207.pdf.
In sum, the report concludes that:
1) “If the incumbent utility (in this case, PG&E) owns and operates generation plants, then a
new CCA cannot reliably compete on average rates while purchasing all of its power supply
in the competitive wholesale market; 2) The CCA’s ability to compete rests with its success
in using its tax advantage in financing, developing, owning and operating efficient, high
capital-intensive generating plants. Though more expensive in the short-term, generation
from renewable sources may offer the advantage of hedging the long-term price and supply
risk associated with fossil energy.”
The report further states: “The limited availability of renewable generation at scale, and the fact
that much of that capacity will be heavily competed for by IOUs [Investor Owned Utilities] and other
utilities that are also seeking to expand their renewable energy portfolios, suggests that securing
these resources may not be easy. The implication is that communities considering CCAs should first
develop detailed resource plans that specify the types and sizes of generating plants that will be
developed to serve the community’s load, where they will sited, and what the site-specific installed
production costs will be. Once a competitive resource plan...has been developed, the community
can make an informed decision on whether to proceed with the establishment of a CCA and make
the investment needed to acquire the necessary generation capacity. For those communities that
decide to proceed with the formation of a CCAs, the first order of business should be to commit
to the necessary siting decisions and expeditiously develop those generating facilities. To avoid
unnecessary subsidies by taxpayers, the transfer of customers from the incumbent utility should
take place after competitive generating plants are in operation.”
Consumer Participation Options
Page 10: “A fundamental consumer protections stipulation of AB117...is that every customer
eligible to receive CCA electric supply services must also be given the opportunity to opt-out
of the CCA Program and receive bundled electric services from the utility. While all customers
in a CCA area will initially be...automatically in the CCA, when the program is certified and
initiated, they will be given 60 days in which to opt-out without penalty, and resume service
from the utility under the same terms that apply to customers who return to utility service
from direct access services. Under those terms, the utility can charge the CCA reentry fees for
resuming bundled service to opt-out customers (as specified on utility tariffs).
The CCA may also be entitled to impose opt-out charges on departing customers. The
consumer opt-out privileges create generic uncertainty in the CCA organizational structure
and management that may impose significant and unpredictable costs and risks associated
with load forecasting and developing contracts to initiate CCA service. The CCA must
develop its supply plan, estimate revenue requirements, allocate revenue requirements...
design rates, issue a binding notice of intent to serve customers - all without knowing with
certainty what customers it will serve.
Some prior studies have made relatively sanguine assumptions about the proportion of
customers who may opt-out of California CCA programs, but have not provided evidence
to support these assumptions nor provided analysis of the implications of differing opt-out
rates. However, one study reported scenarios with differing opt-out rates and found that
the opting out of large customers led to projections of poor performance of CCAs relative
to PG&E’s rates.”
Page 11: “In light of the importance of large commercial and industrial customers to the
potential success of CCAs, it appears to be a significant analytic omission that none of the
studies have reported the results of surveys or analyses about the attitudes of large businesses
concerning the CCA/IOU cost differential thresholds that they would tolerate before opting out. Many
large customers are energy intensive, compete in global markets, must operate as efficiently as possible
and may have little flexibility for supporting the aims of CCAs if a CCA cost advantage does not materialize
or cannot be sustained.”
Page 8 [footnote]: “The consumer opt-out privileges could conceivably be the Achilles Heal of AB117.
Should CCA rates drift higher than IOU rates and several large customers return to IOU bundled service
leaving stranded generation, CCA rates would have to rise which could prompt more customers to also
opt-out, setting off a death spiral of rising rates and departing customers.”
Page 19: “...the economic viability of a new CCA depends primarily on the potential for the CCA to develop
efficient owned generating capacity. Until such time as a CCA can utilize its tax advantage by developing
and bringing on-line generating resources that meet or exceed the cost benchmark criteria of [the energy
equation] EQ9, the CCA will have to collect higher rates from its customers or finance subsidies...”
Page 20: [16] [Communities considering CCAs should know] “precisely how, where and when the
prospective CCA can site, build and operate efficient generating facilities and precisely what the operating
characteristics and generation costs of those specific plants will likely be. In spite of the critical importance
of plant-specific operational and cost data to the economic viability of CCAs, such data is conspicuously
absent from most CCA plans being proposed to Northern California communities [16]. Unless the
proposed CCA can verify that the operating characteristics are consistent with load requirements of
the community and that the costs of specific plant technologies built out at specific sites meet or exceed
the appropriate benchmarks against the incumbent IOU’s costs, the community will lack the economic
information it needs to decide whether to invest in the CCA...”
Page 21: “...the competitive position of the CCA is to a large extent affected by forces outside its
control - the market and the incumbent utility. The only variables in the model that the CCA can
affect are its overhead and its choice of owned production... The real issue for CCAs is to develop
generation plant[s] that will give them a sustainable cost advantage.”
Page 27: “For those communities that decide to proceed with the formation of CCAs, the first order of
business should be to commit to the necessary siting decisions and expeditiously develop those generating
facilities. To avoid unnecessary subsidies by taxpayers, the transfer of customers from the incumbent utility
(ED’s note: in this case PG&E) should take place after competitive generating plants are in operation.”
ED’s Note: The Bay Area Economic Forum does not specifically address solar energy in its report, although it does mention
geysers and wind power, but warns that competition for that kind of renewable power would make it difficult to obtain.
The Big Question for renewable energy advocates in Marin may still revolve around whether CCA can
realistically develop enough cheap power locally and, more importantly, how much of that power would,
in fact, be clean and renewable...SLV
California EPA Official Calls for ‘Energy Revolution’
Nearly one year after California passed
landmark legislation to cut carbon-dioxide
emissions 25 percent in 13 years, energy
officials worry that the state already risks
failure. Among the challenges:
» California’s utilities, required by law to ensure
that 20 percent of their power is renewable
by 2010, are struggling to reach that target
because there is not enough energy from solar,
wind and other low-carbon sources - and no
certainty that will change in three years.
» The federal government is blocking a key
part of the state’s plan to dramatically cut
vehicle emissions.
» The state is still approving carbon-dioxidespewing natural gas plants. And the most
promising new energy sources are more
expensive than natural gas and coal.
“There needs to be an energy revolution,”
said Dan Skopec, undersecretary for the
California Environmental Protection Agency.
For decades, California has been a leader
in energy innovation. About 11 percent of the
state’s power already comes from renewable
sources, one of the highest levels in the nation.
But that percentage has been stagnant for the
past four years.
To meet the state’s emissions goals, every
resident would have to make changes both big
and small, from replacing light bulbs to cutting
commutes. Fractious state agencies would
have to cooperate in unprecedented ways.
New regulations would have to be passed.
And businesses need to cooperate on energyefficiency standards.
California’s new law, AB 32, which took
effect in January, sets a series of benchmarks
for cutting carbon emissions starting in 2010,
then 2020. The state also has separate goals
for 2050.
Most experts say the 2010 goals should be
relatively easy to meet, with already established
changes such as a low-carbon fuel program
passed in January. Even so, Assembly Speaker
Fabian Nu`ñez, (D-Los Angeles), who co-wrote
AB 32, is concerned the state could be turning
too soon to market-based mechanisms that
essentially would allow businesses to trade
carbon credits. California should focus on
new regulations and better energy-efficiency
standards, he said.
How California achieves the 2010 goals
sets the stage for the next benchmark - which
represents the biggest challenge. Under AB 32,
or Global Warming Solutions Act, California
seeks to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions 25
percent by 2020 - the same level as 1990. That
reduction would come even as California’s
population is projected to increase 47 percent
over those 30 years.
Put another way, California produced 426
million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1990,
or more than 31,500 pounds for every person
in the state. By 2020, the state needs to slash
that to 21,400 pounds per person.
Schwarzenegger Chief of Staff Susan
Kennedy said she believes the goals are
“definitely a challenge” but the administration
does not consider failure an option. Using
market-based mechanisms will be necessary
to reach the goal, she said.
To do that, California must tackle its
residents’ long-running love affair with the
automobile. One key element is a law that
requires automakers to cut the emissions from
the cars they sell in California, which would
save about 30 million metric tons of carbon,
or about 17 percent of the state’s 2020 goal.
But this regulation faces strident federal and
industry opposition.
The state’s plan also calls for a broad swath
of other changes including eliminating 6 million
metric tons of carbon a year through waste
management, and eliminating more than 30
million metric tons by selectively growing
trees and cutting down others in state forests,
possibly using the debris for biofuel.
The state plans to eliminate nearly 30 million
metric tons by requiring energy-efficient
products and buildings as well as changing
manufacturing standards; and an additional
million metric tons by using less water, which
reduces the amount of carbon expelled when
transporting the water around the state.
But California’s size also means its actions
capture global attention, and its leaders have
few examples to follow. No other state has
passed a plan like AB 32.
If California moves too slowly, a report by
the Climate Action Team predicts the state
will face diminished drinking water supplies,
rising sea levels, and more droughts, forest
fires and withering hot days.
“The longer that business as usual goes on,
the more difficult challenge it becomes,” said
Chuck Shulock, manager of the greenhousegas reduction program for the Air Resources
Board, charged with making sure the state
reaches its carbon-cutting goals. “It’s a
question of sort of turning a very large ship.”
Excerpted from an article by Sarah Jane Tribble,
published in the Mercury News
www.mercurynews.com
Summer 2007
10 StinsonSolarTimes
ShortCircuits
‘Water wars’ can be
avoided if countries take
action now
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change recently released alarming data on
world water shortages in the world’s poorest
regions if global warming continues at its
present pace.
By 2100, the panel states, one to three
billion people worldwide are expected to
suffer from water scarcity. Global warming
will increase evaporation and severely
reduce rainfalls - by up to 20 per cent.
Former Soviet president and Nobel Peace
Prize winner Mikhail Gorbachev has stated
that ‘water wars’ can only be avoided if
countries take action now.
www.scotsman.com
Scott Malvin
[email protected]
www.pacificgreenenergy.com
415 868-1111
“For all your local solar needs”
US Oil Reliance Strains Military
Pentagon study urges military to
develop alternative fuel sources
A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns
that the rising cost and dwindling supply of
oil - the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships,
and tanks - will make the US military’s ability
to respond to hot spots around the world
“unsustainable in the long term.”
The study concludes that all four military
branches must “fundamentally transform”
their assumptions about energy, including
taking immediate steps toward fielding
weapons systems and aircraft that run on
alternative and renewable fuels. Thereportfurtherstatedthatitis“imperative,”
that the Department of Defense “apply new
energy technologies that address alternative
supply sources and efficient consumption across
all aspects of military operations.”
www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/
articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_
reliance_strains_military/
Japan to Slash Emissions
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
announced at the G8 summit of industrialized
nations in Heiligendamm, Germany in June
that it would cut its CO2 emissions in half by
2050 to limit the effects of global warming.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.
cfm?tid=52&id=808262007
“Saving the environment
is saving ourselves.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Former Soviet President
& Nobel Peace Laureate
Stinson solar times’ mission statement
SST’s editorial mission is - but is not limited to - the raising of public awareness and
the education and empowerment of citizens regarding all things energy.
SST believes energy to be one of the most urgent issues of the 21st century
- and that the reasons for this urgency are not limited to global climate change.
Because war, poverty and environmental destruction do not take place in a
vacuum, SST seeks to lend a global perspective to local, state and national
energy issues by illustrating the ways in which these conditions are exacerbated
by today’s global energy cycle, which is in dire need of transformation.
Moreover, SST views clean, sustainable, renewable energy as essential to the
future of human life on the planet. Thus, our mission entails shedding literacy
and light on the darker aspects of the energy cycle, while illustrating the infinite
possibilities of a better world - one where clean, renewable energy is the norm,
as opposed to the “alternative.”
By adding this perspective to the historical library, SST hopes to enlighten,
embolden and empower its readers so that they can make informed choices
regarding all things energy.
Sandy LeonVest
Editor/Publisher
StinsonSolarTimes
CEC Says Utilities
Undervalue Renewables in
Procurement Forecasts
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is
considering changing the rules under which
utilities forecast peak demand and prices
to ensure that renewables get a more level
playing field. The commission is not happy
with how the state’s utilities, including
municipalities, consider renewable energy
in the long-term forecast models upon
which procurement plans are based.
Cal-ISO Urges Transmission
Owners, CEC to Fix Problems
With Forecasts
Transmission owners are worried that
California Energy Commission load forecasts
are not aligning with utility forecasts, throwing
off the California Independent System
Operator’s wires assessments. Stakeholders
wanted the Cal-ISO to pressure the CEC to fix
the problems, but the grid operator said it was
not its job to reconcile the forecasts, though it
did warn that the problem needed fixing. Stakeholders recently criticized Cal-ISO
for its accounting practices and the “strange”
way it determines fees.
Nuclear Requirements Differ
Based on Jurisdiction
The US Supreme Court decided earlier
this year not to review a Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals ruling from June 2006. The
ruling states that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) must consider the
environmental impacts of terrorist attacks
at a proposed spent fuel storage facility in
California under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Since the high court decided not to review
the ruling, the NRC complied with the lower
court’s requirement to complete a revised
environmental study. The Draft Supplemental
to the Environmental Assessment for Diablo
Canyon’s independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI) released in May found no
significant impact from potential terrorist
attacks to the construction and operation
of the ISFSI, “as the security and design
requirements already in place provide
adequate protection against any potential
attack on dry cask storage of spent fuel.”
www.ncsl.org/programs/environ/cleanup/
newsmenu.htm
G8’s HEAVY FOOTPRINT
A study by consultancy ClimatePartner for
Der Spiegel magazine found that the G8
summit in Germany, where world leaders
met this June to tackle climate change
would produce some 30,000 tons of carbon
dioxide emissions.
The study showed that cars taking
participants to the summit in the Baltic resort
of Heiligendamm from the airport and back
would emit 7,138 tons of greenhouse gases.
Each G8 country’s delegation numbered
at least 20 people, with the US sending far
more, plus an armour-plated limousine for
president Bush, the survey found.
Guests from developing countries,
Brussels and the United Nations will emit
another 5,000 tons of emissions. Police,
technical support staff, 4,700 accredited
journalists and up to 100,000 demonstrators
will contribute almost a further 6,000 tons
of , said the study.
WE BELIEVE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY YOURS AND THE PLANET’S
Healing Arts Store
415 868-9305 Stinson Beach CA
www.artheals.org
Summer 2007
StinsonSolarTimes 11
ShortCircuits
FACTS THAT MATTER
Greater energy efficiency in buildings and
industry could slash CO2 carbon dioxide
pollution by over a billion tons per year
worldwide, with most measures being not
only cost-effective but also profitable;
Profitable investments in energy-efficient
buildings could save some 400 million tons of
carbon dioxide pollution a year in Asia alone;
Insurance costs from rising sea levels, more
droughts and other consequences of climate
change, will total $265 per year in the US by
2010, according to re-insurer Swiss Re;
The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1991. In 2005, Kyoto Protocol took
effect, requiring a 5.2 per cent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels to 2012;
Crude oil price has more than doubled
in the last five years. Eighty per cent of oil
producers in oil producing countries are now
facing or struggling with declining production,
leaving the largest reserves in only four nations;
In the US, a new national energy plan will
give tax credits of up to US$2,000 (RM6,700)
for those who efficiently insulate their homes.;
In Canada’s British Columbia, energyefficient purchases , including insulation, have
been exempted from provincial sales tax.
New Straits Times Online
www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/
Sunday/Focus/20070602152514/Article/index_html
Americans Locked in to
Driving Habits
Before the run of record-high prices this Spring, the
highest price for gasoline ever recorded in current
dollars was $3.057. That record, according to a
recent AAA survey, was set on September 4th and
5th, 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The
storm disrupted refinery operations and pipelines,
causing a temporary spike that sent prices above the
$3 mark for eight days.
Yet most Americans say they are locked in
to their driving habits, and can do little to alter
their fuel-buying patterns - even when prices
rise. For example, the number of workers with
commutes lasting longer than 60 minutes
grew by almost 50 percent from 1990 to 2000,
according to Census Department data.
That often means they have to cut back
elsewhere, as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is finding.
The world’s largest retailer said its earnings
in the second quarter will fall short of Wall
Street expectations, in part because of higher
gas prices.
Experts disagree over how high prices have
to rise before US consumers are shocked into
driving less — at least temporarily.
“In the scramble for the world’s remaining oil
(20 percent of the remaining reserves are now in
Africa), it is not inconceivable that issues relating to
human rights and democratization will be pushed
offstage. China justifies this as “non-interference
in internal affairs,” but isn’t it known that leaders
of Angola and Equatorial Guinea have been
entertained at the White House?”
ValiIVJamal,SeniorEconomistattheInternational
LabourOrganization,1976to2001
Stinson Beach Health Club
415 868-8801
3605 Star Route No. 1
Stinson Beach, CA 94970
Workout Where You Live
THE SANDPIPER
Lodging at the Beach
1 Marine Way, Stinson Beach, CA 94970
415 868-1632
www.sandpiperstinsonbeach.com
email: [email protected]
US Ranks First in
International Renewables
Investment
Ernst & Young’s Renewable Energy Country
Attractiveness Indices provide scores and rankings
for 25 countries’ renewable-energy markets. The
2007 edition of the publication includes a focus on
renewable-energy policies.
The US ranked first in Ernst & Young’s “All
Renewables Index,” followed by India, Spain,
Germany, the UK, China, Portugal and France. The
analysis notes that the US retained first place in this
category because of continued strong renewables
growth as more states adopt renewable portfolio
standards (RPSs). The US also ranked first in Ernst &
Young’s Long-Term Wind Index, followed by India
and Spain; and first in the “Near-Term Wind Index,”
followed by Spain and India.
Read full report: www.ey.com/GLOBAL/content.
nsf/International/Oil_Gas_Renewable_Energy_
Attractiveness_Indices
Stefano’s
Solar Powered
PIZZA
383·9666 Mill Valley
11East Blithdale Ave.
924·9666 Cor te Madera
225 Cor te Madera Ave.
12 StinsonSolarTimes
Summer 2007
Nation
US Solar Resources ‘Best
Asks Why Supply Goes Down, Profits Go Up in Industrialized World,’
Leadership Lacking
Exxon Mobil and Chevron earned a combined
Congress Takes Big Oil to Task,
$14 billion in the first quarter of 2007...
The House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust task force
opened the first of a number of hearings this Spring on oil
industry concentration with its chairman asking, “How did
we get into this mess?”
“Oil companies today are enjoying record profits,”
noted Representative John Conyers Jr., (D-MI), “and while
they could use those profits to invest in more production
capacity, instead they use the money to buy back shares in
the markets.”
Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the nation’s
largest oil companies, earned a combined $14 billion in the
first quarter. Exxon bought Mobil in 1999, while Chevron
acquired Texaco in 2001.
Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich), who crafted a bill
that would make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime,
questioned why gasoline prices continued to spike this
Spring even as crude oil prices dropped.
“In April ... crude oil was $7 a barrel cheaper than last year
(but) gas prices were almost 50 cents a gallon higher,” said
Stupak. “Clearly there’s more at play than simply the world
crude oil market.”
Industry experts and DOE’s Energy Information
Administration have cited an unusual number of refinery
outages for the tight gasoline supply, resulting in higher
prices, but consumer advocate Mark Cooper questioned at
one of the hearings whether the industry may be keeping
supplies tight on purpose.
“By creating a situation of extremely tight supply, the oil
companies gain control over price at the wholesale level,”
said Cooper, who monitors energy industries at the
Consumer Federation of America. He argued that despite
huge increases in refinery profits, there have been no
investments in refinery capacity.
Felmy said that while no new refinery has been built
since the 1970s, the industry has expanded existing refinery
capacity at a pace equivalent to one additional new refinery
a year over the last decade. Still, he said the decision to build
refineries is made on whether it’s “in the interest of your
shareholders given the uncertainties.”
Conyers said one problem has been industry consolidation.
“In 1993 the five biggest refiners in the US controlled 35 percent
of the market. By 2004 they controlled 56 percent,” he said,
adding that in some regions a few refineries control the market.
“With this type of market structure, each individual refinery
can limit capacity and drive up prices,” said Conyers.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal told
the task force that “lax and lackluster” federal enforcement
of antitrust laws has led to an explosion of oil industry
mergers, “many of them profoundly anticompetitive and
anti-consumer.”
“That Congress is now moving ahead
to consider cap and trade legislation
(to curb climate-warming emissions)
and the US states ... have taken the
lead on this issue, they are showing the
rest of the world that there is more to
America’s position on global warming
than the administration’s ‘Just say no’
approach.”
Continued Next Column, Top of Page >>>
Annie Petsonk, International Counsel
Landmark Global Warming Bill Gains Momentum
for Environmental Defense
...Continued from Front Page
“Public support for swift action on global warming is
growing, and more and more Senators are joining the call
for strong, mandatory action to control greenhouse gas
emissions,” said Boxer.
Calling the Sanders-Boxer bill “the gold standard,” Boxer
said the legislation “would set us on a path to the emissions
reductions the scientists tell us are necessary to stabilize the
planet’s climate.”
There is no question,” said Senator Sanders, “that the
American people want strong action...They know we can
reverse global warming and in the process create millions
of good paying jobs as well. I am delighted to see so many
senators signing on to our legislation to dramatically reduce
heat-trapping emissions, make the United States a leader
in energy efficiency and conservation technology, and
promote clean, sustainable sources of energy.”
The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act sets out
a roadmap of targets, requirements and incentives to
reduce US emissions and help stabilize global atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases. It requires the US to
reduce its emissions by 2050 to a level that is 80 percent
below 1990 levels.
In doing so, the two senators have followed John Edwards
down the ‘80 by 50’ road.
The complete list of sponsors of S 309, as of this writing,
is as follows: Sen. Bernard Sanders (D-VT); Sen. Barbara
Boxer (D-CA); Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Sen. Russell D.
Feingold (D-WI); Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Sen. Edward
M. Kennedy (D-MA); Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Sen.
Jack Reed (D-RI); Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Sen.
Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT); Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY);Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski
(D-MD), Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) and Sen. Benjamin L.
Cardin (D-MD).
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has
also called for a federal investigation into possible anti-trust
violations by the oil industry and criticized oil companies for
raising gas prices. “There’s absolutely no justification for the
gas companies to be as profitable as they are and have the
taxpayers subsidizing the industry,” Edwards said.
CTL: Wrong Fuel, Wrong Time,
Wrong Place
The Energy Department estimates that a plant capable
of making 50,000 barrels of liquefied coal (CTL) per day
— a tiny fraction of the nearly 9 million barrels in gasoline
burned daily in the US — would cost $4.5 billion.
CTL, once called ‘Nazi Oil,’ was used by Germany
during World War II and by South Africa during the
apartheid era because both countries were blocked by
international embargoes from buying oil. But no company has built a commercial-scale plant
that also captures carbon, and experts caution that many
obstacles lie ahead. “At best, you’re going to tread water on
the carbon issue, and you’re probably going to do worse,”
said Howard Herzog, a principal research engineer at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a co-author
of “The Future of Coal,” a major study published in March by
MIT “It goes against the whole grain of reducing carbon.”
The MIT team expressed even more skepticism about the
economic risks of CTL. It estimated that it would cost $70
billion to build enough plants to replace a mere 10 percent of
American gasoline consumption. The study estimates that
the construction costs for coal-to-liquid plants are almost
four times higher than the costs for comparable petroleum
refineries, and it argues that cost estimates for synthetic fuel
plants in the past turned out to be “wildly optimistic.”
If renewable energy is to reach its full potential, the US needs
coordinated, sustained federal and state policies that expand
renewable-energy markets, promote and deploy new technology, and
encourage renewable-energy use in all critical market sectors.
That, according to a report coordinated by the American
Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE).
The 2007 Joint Outlook on Renewable Energy in America
was conducted to help communicate what renewable
energy is capable of achieving with the appropriate mix of
policies and market-based incentives and standards.
“Steady, long-term policy support is crucial to sustain
this growth and attract investment,” said Randall Swisher,
executive director of the American Wind Energy Association.
“A national renewable portfolio standard and a long-term
extension of the renewable energy production tax credit
are measures that can be adopted now and would unleash
billions of dollars in new projects and manufacturing plants,
create tens of thousands of jobs and generate revenue for
farmers and rural communities, while jump-starting costeffective action against global warming.”
“The United States has the best solar resources in the
industrialized world, but we need federal leadership to put
these resources to work for all Americans,” said Rhone Resch,
president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Other nonprofit and organizations that participated
in the report include the US Combined Heat and Power
Association, the National Hydropower Association, the
Geothermal Energy Association, the Biomass Coordinating
Council, the Virginia Tech Advanced Research Institute and
the Ocean Energy Council, the American Solar Energy Society,
The Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the
University of California at Berkeley, Union of Concerned
Scientists and Worldwatch Institute.
Interconnection Newsletter
Wind Generation to
Expand 1,000 MW in US
The AES Corporation is expanding its wind generation
business in the US to 1,000 megawatts (MW) through the
acquisition of two wind farm projects totaling 186 MW.
“The global market for wind generation is expected to
more than triple in size by 2015, and we see tremendous
opportunities in wind,” said Ned Hall, AES President,
Renewable Generation. The two wind farms are Lake Benton I, a 106.5-MW wind
farm in southwestern Minnesota, and Storm Lake II, a 79.5MW wind farm in northwestern Iowa.
Both Iowa and Minnesota have set aggressive growth
targets for renewable energy and require that utilities source
a portion of their electricity from renewable resources,
such as wind. Several neighboring states also have similar
renewable energy requirements for purchases, part of
which may be met through the purchase of out-of-state
production.
In addition to the projects in Minnesota and Iowa, AES
also finalized an agreement to purchase an additional 4.25
MW of wind generation assets in Tehachapi, California
from a California-based wind farm owner. While AES wind
development projects are primarily in the US and Europe,
AES has plans to expand its wind business to China, India,
Pakistan and Central and South America.
www.renewableenergyaccess.com
Summer 2007
StinsonSolarTimes 13
Nation
US Energy Policy - Who’s On First?
Do any of the current 2008 presidential candidates have the leadership skills and
vision to offer a sustainable energy policy that can be implemented soon enough
to change the course of global history?
Editor’s Note: The article below takes a look at the presidential
frontrunners’ positions on energy. The original piece was written
by Nation Editor/Publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel with Robert L.
Borosage, and published in The Nation magazine. It was subsequently
posted on a host of progressive websites, including tompaine.com. SST
has edited for content and brevity. We thank the authors for their
valuable contribution to the national dialogue.
Confronted with the Iraq War, the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, rising gas prices and the inconvenient truth of global
warming, Americans are looking for leadership on energy
independence and the threat posed by catastrophic climate
change.
A recent poll taken by the Center for American Progress
shows that 60 percent of Americans support bold action
on global warming, with 79 percent saying they believe
alternative energy sources will help the economy and create,
not cost, jobs. Voters think the US is falling behind other
countries, and they want government to lead.
GOP candidates, while speaking rhetorically about energy
independence, offer little policy vision and fewer proposals,
although Senator John McCain has distinguished himself to
some degree by co-sponsoring a cap on carbon emissions.
Unfortunately, he couples this with strong support of
nuclear power, dismissing continuing concerns about cost,
waste storage, safety and proliferation.
In contrast, all the Democratic candidates offer
bolder initiatives. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,
to their credit, finally signed on to the SandersBoxer Global Warming Bill (S-309), and John Edwards,
Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have embraced the
need for an Apollo-like program - a multilayered drive for
energy independence. Barack Obama eloquently depicts
a generational challenge: “At the dawn of the twenty-first
century, the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism
and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of
oil.”
League of Conservation Voters head Gene Karpinski
praises John Edwards for having the “most comprehensive”
plan. Edwards argues generally that dealing with global
warming is more important than closing budget deficits or
sustaining the Bush tax cuts. He would generate $13 billion a
year from a carbon dioxide cap and a rollback of oil subsidies
and use that to finance renewable energy technologies.
He calls for reducing oil consumption by increasing the
percentage of biofuels in the fuel supply and by giving
subsidies to auto manufacturers to produce more efficient
vehicles. He would mandate that 25 percent of our electricity
come from renewable resources by 2025 and require that
all new demand through the next decade be met through
improved energy efficiency. He’d give consumers tax breaks
for purchasing efficient cars and appliances and increase
spending on clean-energy research and development.
Edwards says this will help generate jobs and growth,
estimating that 1 million jobs would be created.
Senator Chris Dodd berates the much-touted ‘cap and
trade’ program as ‘ineffective,’ while most of the other
candidates support it. He says a carbon tax could generate
$50 billion a year to be spent deploying clean energy and
energy-efficient technologies. Dodd also calls for a jobtraining program to help workers gain experience and
upward mobility in emerging clean-energy markets.
Senator Clinton makes jobs central to her argument. She
alone of the leading candidates attended the January Apollo
Alliance summit, where she argued that “the clean energy
agenda is a jobs agenda.” Her signature initiative is a Strategic
Energy Fund of $50 billion over ten years, to be raised by
taxing the “excess profits” and rolling back the subsidies of
Big Oil. The fund would subsidize existing technologies and
seed research and development. Of the candidates, Clinton
is the most forceful in taking on the oil companies and
challenging Bush Administration failures.
Senator Obama’s eloquence is unmatched - unfortunately,
even by his policies. He has aggressively pushed for coupling
renewable fuels and vehicle efficiency. His initiative links
mandates for higher mileage standards to billions in
incentives to auto companies to retool assembly lines to
produce high-mileage vehicles. He would do this by having
the government take over a portion of the companies’
retiree healthcare costs in return for spending half the
savings on retooling - but the policy is limited to a handful
of companies in one industry. Obama has also championed
the use of liquefied coal as an alternative to gasoline, which
would aid energy independence but add to global warming
and pollution.
In sum, Democrats do call for a dramatic change from
Bush’s policies. But, with the exception of John Edwards,
they still shy away from radical transformation, instead
emphasizing caps, regulations and taxes, lending validity to
Republicans’ assertions that Democratic policies will hurt
the economy.
Worse, Democrats seem to belie their own rhetoric by
treating the issue as simply one part of a broader policy
agenda. Not one has yet portrayed the scope and urgency
of this national imperative. A bold leader would summon
the nation to action. She or he would call for a crash drive
for energy independence, spurring individual, business
and government action. Public investment in research and
development would galvanize the scientific community;
investment in rebuilding our cities would create jobs and
pay for itself in lower energy costs; aggressive support for
renewables would secure our energy supply, lower trade
deficits and free us from future resource wars. A green job
corps could train workers and harness the idealism of the
young. Contrast this vital investment in our future—and the
economic growth it would stimulate—with the nearly $500
billion (headed toward $2 trillion) the Bush Administration
has squandered on the Iraq War.
Amid all the pre-election rhetoric and presidential
politics, at least one thing is increasingly clear.
We have no choice but to move rapidly to a new energy
future. Corporations are getting the message. Al Gore is
electrifying activists and the young. Americans will respond
to a leader who inspires us to meet that challenge, unleashes
our energies and imaginations, acknowledges the costs
and wrenching changes required while demonstrating the
benefits—new jobs and technologies, cheaper and more
dependable power, cleaner air, lower trade deficits. The
transition to clean energy is both an immense challenge and
an immense opportunity. Under Bush, the right has failed
the test, and so far the Republican candidates have punted.
The public is looking for leadership. That job is still open.
Robert L. Borosage is co-director of Campaign for America’s Future.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation, where
this article originally appeared.
It is also published at www/tompaine.com
According to Representative Marcy Kaptur
(D-Ohio), a billion more barrels of oil per
year are being imported since 2001 when
President Bush took office. With over 60% of
US oil being imported from other countries,
this could precipitate a nationwide crisis in
the event of an unforeseen event overseas or
even another major hurricane in the gulf.
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
TENS OF THOUSANDS
IN US
LIVING OFF THE GRID
California, Texas, New Jersey, Wisconsin are
leading the way, as more Americans abandon
utility monopolies to go off the power grid
A growing number of Americans, fed up with their electric
power providers, are abandoning the giant utility monopolies
for energy independence.
Reasons cited by consumers include lousy service by
power providers, unstable electric rates, deteriorating
and unsightly electrical infrastructure and dirty, unreliable
power.
An article written by Joseph P. Frazier (published by AP)
documents some examples of these off-the-grid pioneers.
In Three Rivers, Oregon, where the owners of about 250
homes are producing their own electricity, sans the electric
companies, Frazier says everyone “gets most of their power
from...solar panels,” but that, “some supplement it with
energy generated by windmills.”
The off-grid trend is occurring mostly in the West,
according to Frazier, “because of people moving into remote
areas that are beyond the reach of commercial power,
because of ample sun and environmental conscientiousness,
and possibly because of Westerners’ traditional independent
streak.”
“With power lines come streetlights, and there go your
stars at night,” one resident told Frazier. “And there are no
power outages here.”
Off-grid residents have a guaranteed power supply at a
time when the emphasis on clean energy is on the rise. Solar
energy uses no resources to speak of, emits no pollution and
is immune to energy price hikes. “Ninety percent of the people here, if (outside) power
were offered to them, they’d turn it down,” said resident
Gary Sweet.
Off-the-grid living is edging into the American mainstream.
It isn’t there yet, but about 180,000 homes, mostly in the
West, operate on it.
The number of people going off the grid increases by
about a third each year, Richard Perez, publisher of Home
Power magazine told AP. And much of that growth is in
California. Off-the-grid living is also growing in Texas, New
Jersey and Wisconsin.
Savings over commercial power costs depends on the
investment and durability of the system as well as on local
energy prices.
“Ninety percent of the people here, if (outside) power
were offered to them, they’d turn it down,” said resident
Gary Sweet, who moved to the high desert community in
Central Oregon a couple of years ago.
There is little question that off-the-grid living is edging
into the American mainstream. It isn’t there yet, but about
180,000 homes, mostly in the West, operate on it.
Silent and simple, with no moving parts, solar panels
convert sunlight to DC energy, send it through inverters that
change it to AC and ‘off-gridders’ can store it in batteries that
can supply the 110-volt needs of a home for three or four
days. The panels last about 25 years, the banks of batteries
about 10. If the batteries run low during cloudy periods,
generators recharge them.
“We went from Feb. 11 to Sept. 15 (in 2006) and the
generator never ran. All solar,” said one resident.
And Homeowners aren’t alone in going off-grid.
The Los Angeles Community College District hopes to
start moving its nine campuses, plus two in development,
off the grid and on to solar power beginning next year.
Larry Eisenberg, executive director for facilities planning,
said with credits and other incentives through private
contractors, systems will cost between $900,000 and $1.8
million each and that energy savings should recover capital
costs in about two years. “We want to show people this can
work,” he said. “If we can do it, anyone else can do it too.”
www.msnbc.msn.com
14 StinsonSolarTimes
Summer 2007
Nation
US Lawmakers Push for Huge Coal Subsidies
US congressional leaders pushed to subsidize the world’s
most CO2-producing fossil fuel as an oil alternative, even
as those same legislators were drafting legislation to reduce
greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Prodded by intense coal-industry lobbying, a powerful roster
of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers proposed
this summer that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in
construction loans for coal-to-liquid (CTL) production plants,
guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big
government purchases for the next 25 years.
Coal supporters argued that synthetic fuels from coal would
reduce US reliance on foreign oil and are potentially better for
the environment than ethanol, the New York Times reported.
But environmental groups say coal-based diesel fuels will
do little to slow global warming and could produce nearly
twice as many greenhouse gases as petroleum.
Ironically, the move to subsidize coal fuels was taking
place at the same time as Democrats were drafting globalwarming bills to restrict coal-fired electric power plants. The
simultaneous actions seemed to reflect the political tension
between the need to mitigate global warming on one hand
and to reduce foreign oil dependence on the other.
Coal companies are hardly alone in asking taxpayers
to underwrite alternative fuels in the name of energy
independence and reduced global warming. But the scale
of proposed subsidies for coal could exceed those for any
alternative fuel, including corn-based ethanol.
The industry has spent millions of dollars lobbying the
issue, and has rallied allies in organized labor, the military
and big fuel-burners like the airlines. Peabody Energy, the world’s biggest coal company, urged
in a recent advertising campaign that people “imagine
a world where our country runs on energy from Middle
America instead of the Middle East.”
Among proposed inducements being considered by
Congress: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid
(CTL) plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit
of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through
Rising Energy Costs Hurt
America’s Poorest
A study released this summer by Americans For Balanced
Energy Choices (ABEC) reveals that America’s poorest families
will be the hardest hit by skyrocketing energy costs.
“The Rising Burden of Energy Costs on American Families, 19972007,” predicts that the residential and transportation energy bills
of America’s poorest families will rise from 23 percent of after- tax
income in 1997 to an astonishing 46 percent in 2007.
“The prices of most consumer energy products have
doubled in the past five years. In 2007, the 61 million
American households with annual incomes of $50,000
or less - the majority of American households - will spend
nearly 20 percent of their after-tax income on energy,” said
Joe Lucas, executive director of ABEC.
Key findings include:
-- For a majority of low- and middle-income families, energy
costs are consuming nearly one-fifth of after-tax household
income, an amount traditionally spent on food, housing or
health care. In 1997, low- and middle-income families spent
about 10 percent of their after-tax income on energy.
-- Between 1997 and 2007, average energy bills for American
working families earning between $10,000 and $50,000 per year
will nearly double, from $2,401 in 1997 to an estimated $4,468 in
2007. Most of this increase is due to higher costs for gasoline, which
will increase from $1,143 per family in 1997 to an estimated $2,654 in
2007. These estimates may be conservative if gas prices continue
their steady escalation above $3 per gallon.
-- The poorest families, well below the federal poverty line
and earning less than $10,000 per year, are being squeezed the
hardest by recent energy cost increases. Their residential and
transportation energy bills will rise from 23 percent of after-tax
income in 1997 to an estimated 47 percent in 2007.
To see a full copy of the report:
www.balancedenergy.org.
2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel;
and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for
almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel.
Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat whose
district is dominated by coal mining, wrote key sections of
the House energy bill. In the Senate, champions of CTL fuels
include Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, Jim Bunning of
Kentucky and Larry Craig of Wyoming, both Republicans.
President Bush has often stressed the importance of coal
as an alternative to foreign oil. In calling for a 20 percent cut
in projected gasoline consumption by 2017, he repeatedly
Coal industry lobbying has reached a fever
pitch. The industry spent $6 million on federal lobbying in 2005 and 2006, three times
what it spent each year from 2000 through
2004.
Politicalmoneyline.com.
references the need for “alternative” fuels rather than
“renewable” fuels. Administration officials have admitted
that this language was used specifically to make room for
coal.
But CTL fuels not only produce nearly double the volume
of greenhouse gases as ordinary diesel. In addition to the
carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production
process creates nearly a ton of carbon dioxide for every
barrel of liquid fuel.
Some energy experts, as well as some lawmakers, worry
that the scale of the CTL incentives could lead to a repeat
of a disastrous effort 30 years ago to underwrite a synthetic
fuels industry from scratch.
When oil prices plunged in the 1980s, the governmentowned Synthetic Fuels Corporation became a giant
government albatross that lost billions and remains a symbol
of misguided industrial policy more than 25 years later.
“This is the snake oil of energy alternatives,” said Peter
Altman, a policy analyst at the National Environmental Trust,
an environmental advocacy group. “The promises are just as
lofty and the substance is just as absent as the first snake oil
salesmen who plied their trade in the 1800s.”
www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29coal.html?ex=1338091
200&en=7c0346180c71f4e0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&em
c=rss
SST’s Good Energy Link List:
www.newrules.org;
www.californiaenergycircuit.net;
www.renewableenergyaccess.com;
www.nrdc.org;
www.treehugger.org;
www.powertothepeople.org;
www.votesolar.org;
http://allafrica.com
SST is now online at:
www.solartimes.org
Senate Passes 35mpg
Fuel Standard, Rebuking
Powerful Auto Industry
On the first day of summer, the US Senate agreed to approve the first
increase in total fuel-economy standards since 1975.
Backers of a 35-mile-per-gallon standard by 2020 won
over enough senators to overwhelm the opposition of
Michigan’s two senators and Detroit’s automakers.
The bipartisan deal, attached to the larger Senate energy
bill, comes as a rebuke to Detroit’s automakers and Toyota
Motor Co., which had lobbied furiously for a lower standard
after calling the 35-mpg target unachievable.
Now the auto industry and its allies, including the UAW,
have turned their attention to the US House, where the
battle over CAFE (average fuel-efficiency) standards could
restart later this summer. But even if both chambers approve
the increases, they would have to settle any differences
before sending a bill to President Bush, who has already
criticized the deal, saying it was less than the goal of 35 mpg
by 2017 that he proposed in his State of the Union address.
Environmental groups note the Bush goal was misleading
because it was pitched as a target for federal regulators who set
the final standards, not a legal requirement for the industry.
Fuel economy standards notwithstanding, the use of coal
as a motor fuel, and requirements for utilities to use more
wind or biomass to generate electricity are also complicating
current negotiations over energy legislation in both Houses
of Congress.
Members have been inundated this summer by lobbyists
for automakers, electric utilities and the coal industry. The
industries are determined to confound Democrats’ efforts to
forge a less-polluting energy policy. In an effort to move forward with an energy bill in the House,
Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.) said at a press conference in
June that he would drop a provision to boost fuel economy from
a draft bill, along with incentives for the development of liquefied
coal as a motor fuel. Dingell said he would also nix proposals that
would have blocked California and 11 other states from cutting
greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, all opposed by
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Dingell wrote in a memo
that he would do this as part of climate change legislation next fall
“so we can rapidly complete work on a bipartisan (energy) bill.”
Senate Democrats are determined to resurrect a proposal to
require electric utilities to use more renewable fuels and spur
development of wind, solar and biomass energy sources. But an
intense GOP fight against the proposal has been waged largely
at the behest of two of the country’s biggest coal-burning
electricity producers - the Atlanta-based Southern Company
and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The coal industry continues to push hard for huge
subsidies to CTL (liquid coal) and nuclear reactors (currently
being rejected by senators), while chief executives of the Big
Three automakers continue to insist that average fuel economy
(CAFE) standards approved by the Senate can’t possibly be met.
Auto industry lobbyists said it would mean fuel economy would
have to more than double by 2030 to a fleet average of 52 mpg.
www.enn.com/todays-news/12982
FAIR USE NOTICE
Except where otherwise noted, articles published in
StinsonSolarTimes (SST) are excerpted, edited and/or written
by Sandy LeonVest. Copyrighted materials are linked to original
publications when available. Re-writes are multi-sourced and
contain links to and/or give credit to original author.
SST may contain some copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. SST makes such material available in an effort to advance
understanding of issues of environmental, scientific and
humanitarian significance. SST interprets this to constitute ‘fair
use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17, USC
Section 107, the material in SST is distributed without profit to
those who are interested for research or educational purposes.
For more information on copyright law:
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107/.shtml
StinsonSolarTimes 15
Summer 2007
Nation
US Awarded
Climate Change
Booby Prize
None of the Group of Eight (G8) countries is doing enough
to avoid a dangerous escalation of global warming, but the
booby prizes go to the US, Canada and Russia, environmental
group WWF said.
In its “climate scorecard” issued on the eve of the threeday G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, WWF said none
of the participants had taken sufficient steps to prevent
Earth’s average temperature from warming by less than two
degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
The 2 C goal has been endorsed by the European Union
(EU) and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, had sought to
enshrine it in the final G8 communique.
“Three countries have failed the test: USA, Canada and
Russia,” WWF said in its survey.
The US scores the worst of all G8 countries, not having
ratified the Kyoto Protocol, nor having put any substantive
federal measures in place to curb emissions in the short
term. “Russia and Canada also have increasing emissions
and no policy in place,” said WWF. Of the two, in particular,
Canada has taken little measures to curb its greenhouse
gas emissions and the current government has taken a
policy stand which puts its sharply at odds with its Kyoto
obligations as an advanced industrialized country.”
The G8 consists of Britain, Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Russia and the US.
WWF said the US, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse
gases that trap solar heat and warm the planet’s surface, had
an increase of 16.3 per cent between 1990 and 2005.
Worsening this poor performance, said WWF, was President
George W Bush’s decision in 2001 to abandon the UN’s Kyoto
Protocol, the only treaty that sets down targets for reducing
emissions. Russia’s emissions rose by 28.7 per cent between 1990
and 2005, and Canada’s by 27 per cent between 1990 and 2004.
Italy, which had an increase of 12.1 per cent between 1990
and 2005, and Japan, with a rise of eight per cent from 19902004, “rank a little better but are still far away from making a
contribution to staying below 2 C,” said WWF.
“The three countries furthest along this track are UK,
France and Germany, but each is likely to see increases in
emissions if further measures are not implemented soon.”
WWF also observed a rise in carbon emissions among five
big developing countries — Brazil, China, India, Mexico and
South Africa — whose leaders were invited to the summit.
China is fast becoming a source of concern as well, recently
replacing the US as the world’s biggest polluter.
However, WWF said, it was not possible to score these five
poorer countries in the same manner as the G8 group “due to
their different national circumstances and level of development.”
The mean global temperature has already risen by some
0.7 C over the last century. This has already led to significant
loss of Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and permafrost, the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned.
www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=59270
“In Nigeria, the late General Sani
Abacha used to give away 10 percent
of his daily oil output to his cronies
- 200,000 barrels or four million
dollars. Now, an equal amount is
tapped off from the pipelines by
“unknown agents” and shipped off to
neighbouring countries.”
Vali I V Jamal, Senior Economist at the International
Labour Organization from 1976 to 2001.
Censored NASA Scientist
Says Climate Clock Ticking
Faster Than First Predicted
A stern warning that global warming is nearing an irreversible
tipping point was issued in June by the climate scientist who
the Bush administration has tried -and failed - to muzzle...
James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for
Space Studies in New York, has published a study showing
that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities have
brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points,
with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet.
“If global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise at the rate
of the past decade,” said Dr. Hansen, “this research shows that there
will be disastrous effects, including increasingly rapid sea level rise,
increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress
on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones.”
Tipping points can occur during climate change when the
climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying feedbacks
are activated by only moderate additional warming. Dr. Hansen
has said in the past that a global tipping point will be reached by
2016 if levels of greenhouse gases are not reduced.
This study finds that global warming of 0.6ºC in the past 30
years has been driven mainly by increasing greenhouse gases and
“Every minute, the sun bombards the Earth
with enough energy to supply its power needs
for a year.
Yet only 0.02 percent of all electricity fed into
the US grid originates from sunlight… The
world still...relies on diminishing supplies of
environmentally unfriendly and politically
destabilizing fossil fuels.”
San Francisco Chronicle
only moderate additional climate forcing is likely to set in motion
disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet and Arctic sea ice.
Dr. Hansen’s research appears in the current issue of
“Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.”
In January 2006, Dr. Hansen said that officials at NASA
headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review
his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard
website and requests for interviews from journalists. In March 2007, Hansen told the House of Representatives,
“The effect of the filtering of climate change science during
the current administration has been to make the reality of
climate change less certain than the facts indicate, and to
reduce concern about the relation of climate change to
human-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
From a combination of climate models, satellite data, and
paleoclimate records, Hansen and co-author Makiko Sato of
Columbia’s Earth Institute, conclude that the West Antarctic ice
sheet, Arctic ice cover, and regions providing fresh water sources and
species habitat are threatened from continued global warming.
Based on climate model studies and the history of
the Earth, Hansen and Sato conclude that additional
global warming of about 1ºC (1.8ºF) or more, above global
temperature in 2000, is likely to be dangerous.
In turn, the temperature limit has implications for
atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, which has already
increased from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per
million, ppm, to 383 ppm today and is rising by about two
ppm per year. “The temperature limit implies that CO2
exceeding 450 ppm is almost surely dangerous, and the
ceiling may be even lower,” said Sato.
The study also shows that the reduction of non-carbon dioxide
greenhouse gases such as methane and black soot can offset some
of the increase in carbon dioxide, but only to a limited extent.
For more on Dr. Hansen’s work, Google:
‘House Panel Investigates Bush’s Climate Science Manipulations’
‘Outspoken American Climate Scientist Honored By WWF’
US Leads World in
Wind Power Growth
US wind power capacity increased by 27 percent in 2006
and the country had the fastest growing wind power
capacity in the world in 2005 and 2006, according to
Energy Department’s first Annual Report on US Wind Power
Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends.
The report, which provides a comprehensive overview of
development and trends in the US wind power market, notes
that more than 60 percent of US total wind capacity - over
7,300 Megawatts (MW) - has been installed since 2001.
The Energy Department report says wind power has
consistently been priced at or below the average price
of conventional electricity generated by coal, nuclear, or
natural gas, but the cost of turbines has risen since 2002,
driving the cost of wind power up.
Wind project performance has increased sharply over the
last several years, the Energy Department said. This has been
driven in part by improved project siting and technological
advancements.
In 2006 the US installed 2,454 MW of wind power
capacity, enough to power the homes in a city the size of
Philadelphia. The US produced roughly 16 percent of the
worldwide wind market, followed by Germany, India, Spain,
and China.
But the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)
warns that a new bill making its way through Congress could
derail the wind power industry for years.
The measure introduced by Congressman Nick Rahall,
a West Virginia Democrat who chairs the House Natural
Resources Committee would “essentially outlaw the
generation of electricity from new wind power plants in the
United States and even phase out power production from
existing wind turbines,” said AWEA.
The provision, Subtitle D of HR 2337, would bar any new
wind power project until new Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) rules are issued and require FWS certification of every
turbine, even small residential units.
The bill would make it a crime punishable by a $50,000
fine or a year in jail to construct or generate electricity from
an unapproved turbine, even for home use.
AWEA says the certification process is likely to take years,
would undermine state and federal efforts to promote
renewable electricity generation and create an unworkable
bureaucracy that will delay wind energy projects throughout
the US.
AWEA Senior Director of Government and Public Affairs
Gregory Wetstone said, “Wind energy requires no mining
or drilling for fuel, no fuel transportation, no hazardous
waste disposal, and no water use. And wind energy
generates electricity without toxic pollutants like mercury,
without greenhouse pollution, and of course without the
conventional pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. Is
this really an energy sector Congress should close down, for
environmental reasons?”
www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-04-09.asp
FOLLEN COMPANY
Supporting Small Business Growth
707 484-4990
[email protected]
Summer 2007
16 StinsonSolarTimes
World
US Military Biggest Global Warming
Contributor in the World - By Far
The US military is by far the largest environmental polluter in the
world, generating one-third of all yearly toxic wastes in the US...
This, according to a presentation by Professor of
Chemistry Karl Abrams given at the University of Venice
this Spring. The military, says Abrams is also the biggest
oil polluter in the world, consuming hundreds of millions
of barrels per year and burning 30 percent more per year
during war time. This is about the same as the entire country
of Greece, making America’s military the single largest
contributor to global warming.
“The Department of Defense controls 25 million acres
of military bases and training facilities,” said Abrams, “all
of which are all laced with unexploded and corroding
bombs and rockets and enough slowly leaking chemicals to
permanently poison the entire planet. “
Abrams says that such military bases are spread out
among 11,000 military sites all over the US and the rest of
the world. Worse still, notes Abrams, “The US Military is not
required by law to cleanup most of the 737 overseas bases
they have polluted.”
“100 percent of Iraqis live in a
completely poisoned country.
And, although billions have been
spent on cleaning Iraq’s nightmare
environment, it still remains a
human and ecological disaster
which may never fully recover. “
In the US alone, the EPA has counted over 29,000
“environmental hot spots” saturated with fuel spills,
dangerous heavy metals, and quickly spreading volatile
solvents like trichloroethylene and ammonium perchlorate,
a solid rocket and missile fuel. These and other chemicals
have contaminated public drinking water across half of our
American states, covering 40 million acres of land.
As a result, says Abrams, “the US Military is now a
major threat to our global environment and to domestic
safe drinking water across thousands of American
communities.”
Abrams further notes that “a whopping 10 percent of
Americans (about 29 million) live within 10 miles of hundreds
of superfund toxic dumps. Unfortunately, 100 percent of
Iraqis live in a completely poisoned country. And, although
billions have been spent on cleaning Iraq’s nightmare
environment, it still remains a human and ecological disaster
which may never fully recover. “
Radioactive military pollution, says Abrams, “may take
centuries to be satisfactorily removed from the environment.
Sadly, the US military has already used more than a million
pounds of depleted Uranium (read, partially depleted) in
their war against Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Besides its verifiable alpha particle radioactivity, depleted
uranium is a toxic heavy metal that is known to cause DNA
damage and severe birth defects in doses much lower than
the military wants to admit. Its horrors have already caused
an 8 to 10-fold increase in cancer and a 4 to 5-fold increase
in Iraqi birth defects.”
Not surprisingly, Abrams notes, “80,000 US vets from
the 1991 Iraq Gulf War have claimed chemical and Depleted
Uranium exposure. Ten thousand vets may have already died
because of it, while many other claims are being categorically
ignored.”
Abrams further accuses one US military contractor
(Alliant) of producing over 15 million 30-mm shells for the
Air Force and over a million 120-mm rounds for use in US
tanks and howitzers. Alliant, says Abrams, “conveniently
removed all references to uranium on their website, just in
case too many activists and concerned citizens find out.”
According to Professor Abrams, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), “is quickly losing power to the
Pentagon and the current administration.
“Since President Bush came into office,” Abrams notes,
“the DOD has been trying to win exemptions from laws
covering toxic sites and clean air. The DOD feels that it is
beyond accountability and should be, especially during
war time, exempt from the law. The DOD has pressed for
unregulated “Military Readiness.”
Using Bush appointees and political influences within
the EPA, “inspections are down 10 percent, fines are down
25 percent, military site cleanups are down 20 percent
and less of the military budget is available for appropriate
environmental cleanup.”
Karl Abrams is a tenured professor of Chemistry. He ran for assembly
in Venice, California in 2006 on the Peace and Freedom ticket.
www.peaceandfreedomjournal.org/
“Your president is embarrassing
you and the nation. This year’s
G8 host, Germany, proposed a
declaration to limit global warming
to a 2-degree Celsius increase; all
participating heads of state agreed
-- except President George Bush.”
Friends of the Earth in a 2007 Statement to the G8
Global Warming in Brief
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Scientists say global warming has already caused rising temperatures
and sea levels during the past few decades. Erosion is more prevalent,
the Sierra snowpack is melting earlier each year and storms in
California have become more severe. Even if moderate steps are taken to curb greenhouse gas
emissions contributing to climate change, experts expect
the Bay Area to see:
• A rise in air temperatures of 2 to 10 degrees by the year
2100 - compared with a 1 degree rise in the last 100 years.
• A rise in sea level of 1 to 3 feet by 2100 - compared with
a 0.6 foot rise in the past century.
• Severe flooding every 10 years.
• Stronger El Niños, bringing increased rain to the area.
• Extended drought periods that are drier and longer
than in the past.
• Water shortages caused by the Sierra snowpack
declining and runoff occurring earlier in the season.
• More extreme urban wildfires.
All of the G8 members except for the
United States are legally bound by the
protocol to reduce their emissions of six
greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2
percent by the end of 2012.
www.ens-newswire.com
Another Study Shows
Global Warming Worse
Than Experts Predicted
Global warming is occurring faster than predicted because rapid
economic growth has resulted in higher than expected greenhouse gas
emissions since 2000, according to an Australian report released in
June.
Emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased about
3 percent a year since 2000, up from 1 percent a year during
the 1990s, according to Australia’s peak scientific body,
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization (CSIRO).
“A major driver of the accelerating growth rate in
emissions is that, globally, we’re burning more carbon per
dollar of wealth created,” CSIRO scientist Mike Raupach said
in a statement.
“It means that climate change is occurring faster than has
been predicted by most of the studies done through the
1990s and into the early 2000s,” he said.
Raupach led an international team of carbon-cycle
experts, emissions experts and economists, brought
together by the CSIRO’s Global Carbon Project, to quantify
global carbon emissions and demand for fossil fuels. The
report found nearly 8 billion tons of carbon were emitted
globally into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in 2005,
compared with just 6 billion tons in 1995.
“As countries undergo industrial development, they
move through a period of intensive, and often inefficient,
use of fossil fuel,” said Raupach.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, the US and
Europe account for more than 50 percent of global emissions
over two centuries, while China accounts for less than 8 per
cent, said the CSIRO report.
The 50 least-developed nations contributed less than 0.5
percent of global emissions over 200 years, it said.
Big Polluters
On average, every person in the US and Australia now emits
more than 5 tons of carbon per year, while in China the figure
is 1 ton per year, said the report.
“In addition to reinforcing the urgency of the need to
reduce emissions, an important outcome of this work is to
show that carbon emissions have history,” said Raupach.
The CSIRO report found Australia’s per capita emissions
were amongst the highest in the world due to a heavy reliance
on fossil-fuel generated electricity and a dependence on cars
and trucks for transport.
Australia, like the US, has thus far, refused to sign the
Kyoto Protocol setting caps on greenhouse gas emissions,
and has called for a global scheme to replace “Old Kyoto.”
Both countries say the pact is unworkable because it excludes
big developing nations such as India and China from binding
targets during the treaty’s first phase, which ends in 2012. China is
the world’s second top emitter of carbon dioxide after the US.
www.reuters.com
www.climatedefence.org.nz/news.shtml
International Energy Agency
Calls on US to Get in Synch
with Climate Change Efforts
Just prior to the G8 Summit in Germany, the International
Energy Agency (IEA), which advises some 26 nations on
energy issues, released a statement saying that the US needs
to move toward the United Nations in their efforts to set
targets to fight global warming.
Apparently responding to George W. Bush’s refusal to join
other G8 nations this June in setting tangible emissions targets,
IEA Deputy Director General William Ramsay told Reuters
that there was ‘no sense’ in [the US] developing a different
initiative from the UN efforts to combat climate change.
Bush’s rejection of the UN climate change goals has
horrified environmentalists and dismayed most European
leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
www.reuters.com
StinsonSolarTimes 17
Summer 2007
World
Environmentalists
Call US Climate Policy
‘Embarrassing,’
At a press conference just prior to the G8 meeting, the
president told reporters that “The United States is taking
the lead [on global warming]...that’s the message I’m going
to take to the G8.” But the President has opposed any
mandatory targets for greenhouse gas emissions cuts in the
US and his administration has a long record of international
obstruction on global warming.
Administration officials have attempted to cut language from
climate statements by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, and the G8 climate statement, which includes committing
to mandatory targets to stabilize heat-trapping emissions.
President of the National Environmental Trust Philip Clapp
said, “This is a transparent effort to divert attention from
the President’s refusal to accept any emissions reductions
proposals at...the G8 summit. After sitting out talks on global
warming for years, the Bush administration doesn’t have very
much credibility with other governments on the issue.
“All the other industrialized nations have been trying
for months to get the President to agree to an emissions
reduction framework, and the White House has rejected
every proposal,” Clapp said. “The White House is just trying
to hide the fact that the President is completely isolated
among the G8 leaders by calling vaguely for some agreement
next year, right before he leaves office.”
All of the other G8 countries are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol,
which means that they are legally bound to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent by the end of 2012.
The G8 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The
European Commission attends G8 meetings as well.
This year they were joined by leaders of five rapidly developing
nations - Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa - and the
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.
World Energy Consumption Global CO2 Emissions Down
to Grow a Whopping 57% Slightly: China Number One
Polluter; US Second
by 2030: Coal, Nuclear
In 2006, China produced more carbon dioxide (CO2)
Big Winners
emissions than any other nation in the world, more even
World marketed energy consumption is projected to grow by
57% between 2004 and 2030, according to the International
Energy Outlook 2007 (IEO2007), published by the US Energy
Information Administration (EIA). The report shows the most
rapid growth in energy demand is in nations outside the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), especially in Asia, where strong economic growth
drives the increase in energy use.
The report states that global energy demand is projected
to grow despite relatively high world oil and natural gas prices,
but that rising oil prices will slow demand for petroleum and
other liquid fuels after 2015. The energy shares of natural gas,
coal and renewable-energy sources are expected to grow over
this period.
The IEO2007 further states that coal consumption is
projected to grow at an average annual rate of 2.2%, making
coal the fastest-growing energy source worldwide. This
Coal consumption is projected to grow
at an average annual rate of 2.2%,
making coal the fastest-growing energy
source worldwide... notwithstanding
concerns related to the rising level
of energy-related greenhouse-gas
emissions.
US Energy Information Administration
www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2007/2007-05-31-02.asp
G8 on Climate Change:
Big Talk,
Little Commitment
G8 Leaders this year agreed that “resolute and concerted
international action is urgently needed in order to reduce
global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security.”
The countries also agreed that strong economies are needed
to “slow, stabilize and significantly cut global emissions of
greenhouse gases,” although they did not commit to it.
Moreover, the leaders did not commit to any specific
targets on greenhouse gas emissions reductions, instead
repeating the UN-proposed target of stabilizing greenhouse
gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous
interference with the climate system.
Among a broad range of measures given as examples of
how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was text recalling
previous G8 agreements that noted that some in the group
believed that the continued development of nuclear
energy would “contribute to global energy security, while
simultaneously reducing harmful air pollution and addressing
the climate change challenge.”
The G8 member countries, Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Russia, the UK and the US have all developed nuclear
energy sectors, but Italy chose to shut down its nuclear power
plants after a 1987 referendum while in 2001 Germany began a
more gradual phase out that would see all plants close by 2015.
www.world-nuclear-news.org/energyEnvironment/070607G8_
reach_agreement_on_climate_change_and_energy.shtml
projection assumes that existing laws and policies remain in
effect through 2030, notwithstanding concerns related to
the rising level of energy-related greenhouse-gas emissions. World coal consumption increased sharply from 2003 to
2004. With oil and natural gas prices expected to continue
rising, coal is a tempting fuel for nations with access to ample
coal resources, especially in coal-rich countries like China,
India and the US. These three countries combined account
for 86 percent of the increment in world coal demand by
2030 in the reference case projection.
Higher fossil fuel prices, energy security concerns,
improved reactor designs and environmental considerations
are expected to improve prospects for nuclear power
capacity in many parts of the world, and a number of
countries are expected to build new nuclear power plants. World nuclear capacity is projected to rise from 368
gigawatts (GW) in 2004 to 481 GW in 2030. Declines in
nuclear capacity are projected only in OECD Europe, where
several countries (including Germany and Belgium) have
either plans or mandates to phase out nuclear power, and
where some old reactors are expected to be retired and not
replaced.
Energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions are projected
to rise from 26.9 billion metric tons in 2004 to 33.9 billion
metric tons in 2015 and 42.9 billion metric tons in 2030.
The year 2004 marked the first time in history that
emissions from the non-OECD exceeded those from the
OECD countries. Furthermore, because non-OECD countries
are expected to rely on fossil fuels to supply much of their
future energy demand growth, carbon-dioxide emissions
from the non-OECD countries in 2030 are projected to
exceed those from the OECD by 57%.
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/highlights.pdf
than the US - for the first time ever.
This, according to the Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency (NEAA), which notes that in 2005, CO2
emissions from China were still two percent below those of
the US, but by 2006, they were eight percent higher.
“There will still be some uncertainty about the exact
numbers, but this is the best and most up to date estimate
available,” said Jos Olivier, a scientist at NEAA.
The figures are based on a preliminary estimate by the
NEAA that used recently published energy data from BP,
British Petroleum, as well as cement production data.
Cement clinker production is a major source of CO2
emissions in China.
China has a large share in global cement production about 44 percent in 2006. Nationally the cement industry’s
share in China’s CO2 emissions is nearly nine percent.
The use of fossil fuels and industrial processes like cement
production are the dominant human sources of carbon
dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Gases from the
burning of coal, oil and gas are increasingly blanketing the
planet, preventing the radiation of the Sun’s heat back into
space.
Of all industrial processes, cement clinker production is
the largest source of carbon dioxide. Globally, it contributes
around four percent to the total of CO2 emissions from fuel
use and industrial activities, the NEAA reported.
In 2006, at the same time as US emissions decreased by
1.4 percent (compared to 2005), says NEAA, China’s total
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by nine percent.
The agency notes that, in the original 15 European Union
countries, during that same year, CO2 emissions from fossil
fuels remained ‘more or less constant.’
Globally, in 2006, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use
increased by about 2.6 percent, which is less than the 3.3
percent increase in 2005.
The increase in 2006 was mainly due to a 4.5 percent
increase in coal consumption, the agency said.
www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-19-04.asp
“Setting aside Iraq, if there is one
issue that creates resentment, it is
the sense that the United States
is contributing callously, more
than any other country, to global
warming.”
Charles Kupchan, professor of international
relations at Georgetown University
The Sierra Club has a great website for contacting members
of Congress about pretty much anything to do with global
warming or the environment, with updates on everything
from active legislation like S155 (Obama-Bunning’s CTL or
liquid coal bill) to what’s going on in the Senate with fuel
economy standards (CAFE).
Just click on www.sierraclub.org/legislativetracker for
general information about legislation or learn about CTL and
what you can do about it at: www.sierraclub.org/coal/.
Another great website is www.treehugger.com; just use
their search engine right at the top of the website...You can
also click on the Cars + Transportation link for some great
information on greening the auto industry...
SLV
Summer 2007
18 StinsonSolarTimes
WHO in
China Outshines US
in Solar Power
Last year, China passed the US to become the
world’s third largest producer of solar panels,
behind only Germany and Japan...
Solar power is set to become a mainstream energy choice
in the next three or four years, according to Worldwatch
Institute - and China could play a key role in the trend.
Worldwatch, an environmental research group, recently
reported that the cost of solar power could drop by 40% if
companies continue to increase their output of polysilicon
(the ingredient used in solar panels to convert sunlight into
electricity) and as China emerges as a producer.
“We are now seeing two major trends that will accelerate
the growth of photovoltaics: the development of advanced
technologies and the emergence of China as a low-cost
producer,” Janet Sawin, senior researcher at the Worldwatch
Institute and author of the report, said in a statement.
Last year, China passed the US to become the world’s
third largest producer of solar panels, trailing only Germany
and Japan.
“To say that Chinese PV producers plan to expand
production rapidly in the year ahead would be an
understatement,” Travis Bradford, president of the
Prometheus Institute, a Massachusetts-based group that
promotes renewables, said in a release. “They have raised
billions from international IPOs to build capacity and increase
scale with the goal of driving down costs,” said Bradford.
More than a dozen companies in Europe, China, Japan,
and the US are ready to boost production of purified
polysilicon over the next few years. Although abundantly
available, a downturn in silicon refining after the high-tech
bubble collapse in the late 1990s had constrained the market
in recent years.
A drop in the price of solar panel prices, said Sawin, could
make solar more of a mainstream choice.
Investors have flocked to solar and other renewable
energy sources amid worries about the high costs of oil
and natural gas and greenhouse gas emissions, making solar
the fastest growing energy source on the planet. Yet solar
provides less than 1 percent of the world’s electricity, in part
because many consumers still find it beyond their means. But
that could change in the very near future, says Worldwatch.
Many companies are producing thin-film solar technologies
that cut the amount of silicon used in panels. Thin-film could
grab a 20 percent share of the market by 2010, up from 7
percent of the market in 2006, the report said.
www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archives/
business/2007524/110499.htm
Sri Lanka Provides Solar
to Rural Poor
This summer, Sri Lanka’s Women’s Empowerment and
Child Development Minister announced that the agency
had completed installation of 300 solar systems on
homes owned by low income families in the Monaragala
town area.
The project will provide electricity to households
in remote rural areas in Wellawaya, Madulla and
Siyambalanduwa - all poor districts that heretofore
have not had access to electricity.
The main objective of the project, reported the
Ceylon Daily News in Sri Lanka, “is to offer to the
children of those families read and study during the
night without using kerosene oil lamps.”
http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/05/22/news23.asp
the
WORLD
Sunny Spain Shines On
Spain will build two 50-megawatt power stations...
Israeli-Spanish thermo-solar power station developer Ener-T
Global Ltd. and Spanish renewable energy company Grupo
Enhol will jointly build thermo-solar power stations in Spain,
using Ener-T’s parabolic troughs.
The companies will own the power stations through the
joint subsidiary and jointly sell the electricity.
Ener-T said that it and Enhol would initially build two
50-megawatt power stations in the Extremadura province
in southwest Spain, which enjoys strong sun and a suitable
climate.
Ener-T predicts that the power station will come on line in
2009, after which construction of the second power station
will begin.
Parabolic troughs were used in the construction of 354megawatt thermo-solar power stations, known as Solar
Electric Generating System (SEGS). These SEGS have been
successfully operating in California’s Mojave Desert for more
than 20 years.
Canada Adds 9.12
Megawatts Solar to Grid
The Ontario Power Authority will install a 9.12 megawatt
solar facility in Norfolk County in South-Central Ontario.
CNW Telbec, a Canadian news service, reported that the
solar park “will generate enough green renewable energy to
displace 9,500 metric tons of carbon emissions annually.”
The news agency also reported that “approximately 50
local jobs will be created for construction of the plant, and
2 full time long-term positions will be created for operations
and maintenance of the solar park.”
Construction on the park is scheduled to begin in fall
2007 and is expected to be online by early 2008.
Kerry Adler, President and CEO of SkyPower Corp.,
commented: “This award allows Norfolk Power to meet
customers’ increasing energy demands with green power.
At 9.12 megawatts, this solar park could be the model for
how utilities can deploy clean solar energy. This is the first of
the targeted 50 megawatt deployments from SkyPower and
SunEdison Canada that will be spread across the province.
This will allow us to distribute the benefits of solar power
generation to multiple communities while generating clean
renewable solar power across Ontario.”
www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/May2007/18/c2571.html
South Korea Completes
2.2 Megawatt Solar Plant
SunPower Corporation, a Silicon Valley-based solar
manufacturer, announced that its subsidiary, PowerLight
Corp., has completed construction of Mungyeong SP Solar
Mountain, a 2.2-megawatt solar electric power plant in
Mungyeong, South Korea.
The plant is comprised of 10,500 panels and covers an
area of approximately 43,000 square meters. It uses high
efficiency solar cells mounted on a solar tracking system,
which tilts the panels toward the sun as it moves across
the sky, which increases energy production compared with
fixed-tilt systems.
SP Energy, Korea’s largest private solar plant operator,
owns the plant and is selling the electricity it generates to
the Korea Power Exchange.
“Korea is committed to becoming a world leader in
solar-electric power generation,” said Zachary Struyk,
PowerLight’s general manager there.
The Mungyeong SP Solar Mountain is the second major
solar power plant designed and deployed by PowerLight in
Korea in recent months.
In November 2006, a one-megawatt project in Gwangju,
Korea, was completed.
www.prnewswire.com/
Solar Lights Up Lives
in Bangladesh
Grameen Shakti, a non-profit organization linked to the
Nobel prize winning microcredit Grameen Bank, is a pioneer
in providing solar power systems in Bangladesh.
The group has installed a total of 93,000 systems up to
April, 2007 in the country’s 64 districts and on 11 islands
since taking on the project 10 years ago.
Last month Grameen Shakti sold 4,167 solar systems,
officials said, and is averaging 4,500 systems per month.
Besides Grameen Shakti, 15 other firms are involved in
distribution of solar power in the country.
Only 30 per cent of Bangladesh’s over 140 million people
have access to electricity, meaning the overwhelming
majority still depend on kerosene and wood for their daily
energy needs. But now villagers are buying more solar
panels, mostly on credit, from private organizations that
promote renewable energy.
A total of 37 families and shopkeepers now use solar
system in Patulia, where televisions and mobile phones are
now common.
http://in.today.reuters.com/
VATICAN GOES
TOWARD THE LIGHT
The Vatican’s Paul VI Centre will install a giant rooftop
garden of solar panels that will power all of the building’s
heating, cooling and lighting needs year-round.
Catholic News Service reports that the mastermind
behind the environmentally friendly project, Pier Carlo
Cuscianna, head of the Vatican’s department of technical
services, says that the sun will provide all the building’s
energy needs.
Cuscianna told the news service that he had in mind other
sites throughout Vatican City where solar panels could be
installed, but that it was too early in the game to name names.
While the Vatican City State is not a signatory of the Kyoto
Protocol (a binding international environmental pact to cut
greenhouse gases), its inaugural solar project marks a major
move in trying to reduce its own carbon footprint, that is,
the amount of carbon dioxide released through burning
fossil fuels.
The solar panels will be installed sometime in 2008 after
prototypes, environmental impact reports and other studies
have been completed, Cuscianna said.
In an article in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore
Romano, Cuscianna wrote that safeguarding the environment
was “one of the most important challenges of our century.”
The Italian engineer said appeals by Popes Benedict XVI
and John Paul II to respect nature inspired him to help power
the Vatican’s energy needs with renewable resources.
“We cannot continue to use the goods of the earth as
we have in the past,” the pope wrote, calling for “a new
ecological awareness” that leads to “concrete programs and
initiatives.”
When the project is finished, more than 1,000 solar panels
will cover the football field-sized roof.
www.cathnews.com/news/705/160.php
Cuba, India Sign Renewable
Energy Pact
The governments of Cuba and India have signed a renewable
energy agreement for the period between 2007-2009 that
includes scientific exchange and the development of joint
research projects in sources like wind, biomass, hydro,
photovoltaic and solar thermal energy.
Cuba is further considering a program to provide solar
energy to all homes and villages in remote and mountainous
areas in Cuba that are outside of the national power grid.
www.periodico26.cu/english/news_cuba/energy052507.htm
Summer 2007
StinsonSolarTimes 19
Legislative Action
It’s YOUR world - OWN IT:
SST Makes It Easy
TAKE BACK
the POWER
Your tax dollars pay the salaries of the
public servants listed below.
Phone, write, fax or Email and let
them know what you expect. Many of
the links in Legislative Action take you
to pre-written letters!
President George W. Bush (R)
PHONE: 202 456-1414
FAX: 202 456-2461
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
Email: [email protected]
US Senators:Barbara Boxer(D)
District Office
415 403-0100
FAX: 415 956-6701
1700 Montgomery St.,
Ste. 240
San Francisco, CA 94111
Email: [email protected]
Diane Feinstein (D)
District Office
415 536-6868
525 Market St., Ste. 3670
San Francisco, CA 94105
Email: [email protected]
Lynn Woolsey (D)
6th District (Marin)
District Office
415 507-9554
FAX: 415 507-9601
1050 Northgate Drive, Ste. 140
San Rafael, CA. 94903
Email: [email protected]
Act Locally
Tell the EPA to do it’s job:
Let California (and 11
other states) lead the way
to STOP global warming
Eleven states are following California’s lead
by establishing environmental standards
that would reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from cars and trucks by up to
30 percent. Together, these twelve states
represent about a third of the US car and
truck market. This means that their actions
could force automakers to upgrade vehicles
across the nation!
But none of these states can act without a
waiver from the EPA, which (after sitting on
California’s waiver request for a year and a
half) has finally decided to hold hearings on
the issue. It may well say “no” to California
and the other states once it gets around to
making a ruling, unless there is sufficient public
comment telling them to do the right thing.
Submit your comments to the EPA:
http://action.foe.org/dia/
organizationsORG/foe/campaign.
jsp?campaign_KEY=11852
Solar Hot Water Heating
Heads to CA Senate
The California General Assembly passed AB
1470, the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act
of 2007, in June. Now it’s going to the Senate.
Send a pre-written letter using the link
below to put this bill on the Governor’s desk.
www.environmentcalifornia.org/energy/solar-senate
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Regional Office
415 703-2218
555 California Street, Ste. 2929
San Francisco, CA. 94104
Complex 2030 is the Bush administration’s proposal for a $155 billion
new nuclear weapons plant to build a new generation of nuclear
weapons. This generation of nuclear weapons has been given the
innocuous sounding name of the “Reliable Replacement Warhead.”
Under this plan, the US would re-design and rebuild every weapon in
the US arsenal, functionally creating new nuclear weapons in violation
of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The US cannot design and
produce new nuclear weapons while simultaneously insisting that
other countries forgo nuclear capabilities.
Please urge your Senators to oppose this plan, using the link below to
take action NOW!
http://hq.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/Peaceact/campaign.
jsp?campaign_KEY=11806
For More Information, go to straight to the source, and read the official
proposal and reports at DOE’s Complex 2030 website:
www.complex2030peis.com.
HR 969, if Passed, Would Sign on to Groundbreaking
Global Warming
Mandate US Utilities to
Legislation
Generate 20% of Electricity
from Renewable Energy S 309: Senators Barack Obama and Hillary
As of June 13, 22 members of the California
congressional delegation, and nearly 100
members of Congress nationwide, have
signed onto the Federal Renewable Energy
Portfolio Standard of 2007, HR 969 – a bill
that will make sure 20 percent of US power
comes from renewable energy by 2020.
On April 30, Senators Barbara Boxer and
Dianne Feinstein joined a bipartisan group
of fifty US Senators in sending a letter to
Energy and Natural Resources Chair Jeff
Bingaman and Ranking Member Pete
Domenici calling for a strong renewable
energy standard.
Use the pre-written letter at the link
below to ask Congress to adopt a Renewable
Electricity Standard that would require that
utilities generate at least 20 percent of their
electricity from clean, renewable sources by
2020.
www.environmentcalifornia.org/action/
energy/energy-petition
S 987: Tell Senators to
Get it Right on Biofuels
The Bingaman–Domenici “Biofuels for
Energy Security and Transportation Act of
2007” is poised to become the backbone of
major Senate energy legislation, likely to be
voted on this summer by the full Senate. This bill proposes a significant increase in
our use of biofuels, but relies on corn ethanol
so heavily that most environmentalists
believe that it threatens the environment
more than it helps it.
Use the link below to learn more about
corn-based ethanol and/or to send a message
to your senators telling them to either scrap
or overhaul S 987.
http://action.foe.org/dia/organizationsORG/
foe/content.jsp?content_KEY=2597
Tell Senate to Cut Oil
Industry Subsidies
The House of Representatives passed
groundbreaking legislation earlier this year
that would cut off $14 billion in subsidies
to the oil industry and invest that money in
alternative energy.
The House Bill now sits stalled in the
Senate – blocked at the behest of the White
House and Big Oil lobbyists.
Now is the time to take the money we
are giving the oil companies and invest it in
energy for our children’s’ futures.
Under the House Bill, the $14 billion now
being given away to Big Oil would pay to
promote renewable fuels.
Use the link below to tell your Senators
to support the House Bill to cut Big Oil
subsidies and put that money where it will
do the most good: into alternative energy.
http://action.foe.org/dia/
organizationsORG/foe/campaign.
jsp?campaign_KEY=7118
Clinton signed on to this landmark piece of
global warming legislation this Spring.
The Global Warming Pollution Reduction
Act (S 309) would reduce economy-wide
greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below
1990 levels by 2050. The reason that’s
important is because it attempts to stabilize
global temperatures and contain carbon
dioxide atmospheric concentrations. It also
would regulate greenhouse gas emissions
from power plants and transportation,
and establishes a federal renewable energy
standard of 20% by 2020.
Use the link below to sign on as a co-sponsor
to S 309 at a site sponsored by Barbara Boxer:
www.ga6.org/campaign/citizen_cosponsor
It’s ALL About Energy
Legislation
The Senate is debating energy legislation
that must be strengthened to ensure
progress on important issues like global
warming, increased fuel economy standards
and clean, renewable energy sources. As
currently written, legislation now coming to
the floor of the Senate contains provisions
that would actually take us backwards.
The current Senate package contains:
insufficient vehicle emissions standards
with truck-sized loopholes; language that
strips the EPA of important regulatory
powers; and biofuels provisions that rely
on inefficient corn ethanol. It might also
get amended to include incentives for liquid
coal, even more filthy than gasoline.
Both links below contain pre-written
letters urging senators to support
amendments that strengthen the energy
bill.
www.nrdconline.org/campaign/
nrdcaction_061207
AND/OR
http://action.foe.org/dia/
organizationsORG/foe/campaign.
jsp?campaign_KEY=11897
Say NO to CTL
S 155 is an unfortunate piece of legislation,
even more unfortunately sponsored by
Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill).
Coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology uses a
highly energy-intensive process to convert
coal into diesel fuel for cars or jet fuel for
airplanes, appealing to the coal industry in
Obama’s home state of Illinois, but not to
anyone concerned about global warming. Creating liquid coal (CTL) is an expensive,
inefficient, dirty process. There are better,
cheaper, cleaner, and quicker ways to
decrease US dependence on oil while helping
to slow global warming!
The coal industry is pushing Congress for
huge subsidies and mandates for liquid coal
production, even though it is inefficient,
expensive and produces large amounts of
global warming pollution.
Use the link below to send a pre-written
letter to your Congressperson:
http://ga3.org/campaign/liquid_coal
20 StinsonSolarTimes
Summmer 2007
OWN YOUR POWER
Marin Solar
415 456-2800
www.marinsolar.com
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce or eliminate your electric bill;
Increase the value of your home with no added property taxes;
Become a producer of clean, renewable energy;
Insure your family against rising electricity prices;
Make the world a better place by insuring a livable future.
A 5 kW PV system eliminates 11,323 pounds of CO2 emissions from the air in the first year alone!