Renewable Communities Alliance

Response to “Global interdependence: The case for large-scale green energy” by Lee Temple

2012-01-30T13:47:00.000-08:00

Below is a response to, “Global interdependence: The case for large-scale green energy” by Lee Temple from Ceal Smith, Founder, San Luis Valley RenewableCommunities Alliance and co-founder, SolarDone Right.

“We can’t solve problems by using the samekind of thinking that created them.”

Albert Einstein

Taking a closer look reveals that there is nofree lunch, we have better (faster, cheaper, smarter) choices and depending on "business as usual" old energy thinking, is not a real solution. If we truly wish to address global climate change, we have no choice but to take our collective energy future into our own hands and demand new policies that promote a more democratic, decentralized energy system.

“Large projects are criticized for greater local disruption,while small ones are less disruptive (and less carbon-reducing)”

Ceal response: On a per megawatt basis, point of use distributedgeneration (DG) is 7-20% more efficient and cost-effective than remote, industrialrenewable energy (see Bettingon the Wrong Solar Horse, by Bill Powers). The cost and inefficiencies of transporting electricityover long distances is considerable. New transmission can cost $millions per/mile, further impact the environment (see below for SF6 impacts) and incur line losses up to 15%. In Colorado, theselosses effectively cancel the net gain of generating solar for export fromthe San Luis Valley. Because remote industrial solar is more costly and inefficient, the rate and amount of solar energy we get for our dollars will be reduced substantially, little worry to corporate investors, since many projects have been underwritten by taxpayers.

“It recognizes that neighboring bio-regions aren’t always sorenewable-energy-fortunate. Being a good bio-regional neighbor meanssharing our “solar wealth” with less fortunate neighboring bio-regions.

Ceal response: Wind, sun and other renewable energy sources are available virtually everywhere,and can be economically harnessed at small scales across theworld, country, state and community. According toEnergy Self-Reliant States, Coloradohas the resources to be 100% energy independent using available solar, wind,small hydro, geothermal and biofuel resources.

Allocation of limited transmission, finance and technical resources creates a pathdependency, on remote, corporate-owned industrial solar that primarily benefitsutility investors, while depriving local communities of the opportunity to develop, andbenefit (beyond a handful of unskilled jobs) from their own renewable resources.

Like most "carbonmentalists", Leeis ignoring the substantial ecological footprint imposed by large-scaleindustrial projects like SolarReserve. When viewed holistically from a total life-cycle perspective, will these projects really compare to DG in the built environment?

The assumption that these projects will lead to a net-reductionin C02 emissions is unproven.
Scientistsat the Universityof California, Riverside conclude that more research is needed before we plow ahead blindly withmassive industrial solar development. For example, do we know how much concrete will be produced to build two massive 656-foot towers, how muchdiesel fuel burned to transport all of the material and supplies to our remote location? Whatis the footprint of the additional transmission needed to move SLV energy tothe front-range?

SulfurHexafluoride/SF6 is a green house gas 23,900 times more potent as CO2. Most SF6 emissionsare generated in long-distance transmission of electrical power, the moreremote a new facility is, and the more additional miles of transmission lineneeded to deliver its power to the grid, the higher the SF6 burden ofeach new generating facility will be. In 2010 the EPA estimated averageemissions of between .58 and .89 kilograms of SF6for every mile of transmission line per yearover the last decade. For more on this, please see: GreenhouseGas Emissions From Industrial Solar.

None of these factors are included in the "carbon reduction" equation used to justify these projects.

Iagree with Lee that time is running out. We don't have time to do the research to know if industrialsolar will, in fact, result in emissions reductions. But can we afford to giveit the benefit of the doubt? Wouldn't it be wiser to follow the more certain and proven path forged by Germany and the increasing number of countries that have surged ahead of the US with the massive deployment of distributedgeneration?

Will solar energy generated remotely actually replace fossil fuel use, or willit simply be an add-on to the ever-growing energy pie, perhaps even encouragingpeople to use ever more energy, because, hey, its clean! Locally generated solar has obvious andtangible built-in incentives that are proven to reduce energy consumption atthe point of use.

Weknow that power towers kill birds but the only study we have is on a comparatively tiny 10 MWplant long since decommissioned in CA. It's possible that SolarReserve could cause the death ofthousands of migrant birds and bats over its lifetime. But most power tower impacts are unknown; microclimate impacts, visual (including retinal effects of glintand glare from 35,000 – 25 foot square helistat mirrors), groundwater, emergency & fire,other wildlife impacts and more.

At the very least, wouldn't it be wise to wait until the SolarReserve Nevada project (the first ever salt tower to be deployed at this scale) is operating and actual impacts known, before endorsing this project?

“The large-scale approach thus seeks fair, balanced tradebetween the valley and the larger world, a sharing of the corporateinfrastructure burden, and accepting at least some of the responsibility forsustaining it here. Thankfully, multi-decade transformative leadership byfar-sighted visionaries like Paul Hawken, Al Gore, Amory Lovins, WilliamMcDonough and Jeremy Rifkin pioneered green commerce models that have improved the global business activities ofestablished corporations and new ones like SolarReserve”

Ceal Response: I find this statement to be shockinglynaïve. The energy industry, inparticular, has amassed more political power than any industry, at any time inhistory. Industry tycoons like theKoch brothers have callously and deliberately used their wealth and power to undermine global efforts to combat climatechange and move aggressively towards a clean energy economy. The proponents of industrialsolar and wind are, in many cases, the same corporations (BP,Chevron, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, et al.) who are implicated in ourglobal environmental and economic crisis.

Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin, Bill McKibben and other energyvisionaries are, in fact, calling for massive deployment of distributedgeneration and Energy Democracy. See:

Jeremy Rifkin, the ThirdIndustrial Revolution: How Lateral (i.e. distributed) Power is TransformingEnergy, the Economy and the World

Emory Lovins, Small is Profitable. In a recent Circle of Blue story on big solar in the San Luis Valley, Jesse Morris, a solar analyst at the Rocky Mountain Institute (founded by Emory Lovins), agreed that the economics of clean energy production is likely to shift from big centralized solar installations to individual rooftop solar and smaller distributed systems and that large facilities, "have real issues.”

Hermann Scheer, theSolar Economy

Al Weinrub, Community Power(endorsed by Bill McKibben, AngelinaGaliteva, Paul Gipe, James Woolsey, John Farrell, Randy Hayes and others)

John Farrell, Democratizingthe Electricity System – A vision for the 21st Century Grid

Even William McDonough said, "there is no reason we can't put out a trillion solar panels and millions of solar water heaters starting right now. We have the tools and the willpower, now we need a new way of thinking"

“SolarReserve is currently SLV’s only larger-scale,high-effectiveness, quick-turn-around option. Each of its two planned 100MW phases (75% of SLV’s peak load ea.) take 2.5 years to build. Whenfully completed, it would single-handedly mitigate the majority of SLV’s carbonfootprint—2.4 million/tons/CO2/yr! Most or all the power will stay hereshort-term, enhancing our electrical resilience, self-reliance andenergy-independence while small-scale projects ramp up”

Ceal Response: A very undesirable side-effect, ignored by Lee isthat full implementation of SolarReserve would require a $.5 billion new transmission line and open the door tothe large-scale industrialization of the San Luis Valley.

SolarReserve is not our only "quick-turn-around" option. Oddly, its a little know fact that the SLV is already well on its way to being energy self-reliant. According to the Solar Energy Research Institute (now NREL), in the 1980's the SLV had more installed solar (all distributed) than anyplace in the nation. When Cogentrix goes on line later this year, the San Luis Valley will generate 100% of its average daytime electricity use from local solar. According to energy expert Bill Powers, the Valley has the potential to become 100% energy self-sufficient through local, distributed generation with a few, targeted policy changes.

It takes almost no time to permit andinstall distributed solar, compared to the 2-4 yr. (or longer) time required for industrial projects. With Property Assessed Clean Energy and German style Feed-intariffs, enough distributed solar, microhydro and onsite storage could beinstalled in a year to reliably meet the Valley's needs. A recentreport by Colorado Harvesting Energy Network revealed that San Luis Valley farmerscould generate 2,500 MW, using just the pivot crop circle corners. Local solar would generate magnitudes moreeconomic benefit for the valley while still allowing up to 1000 MW export onthe existing, but upgraded, transmission grid.

Germany is the world’s leader in solar energy, with 7,400MW of solar installed in 2010 alone. Over 80% of Germany’s solar generation isdistributed and 50% of its solar PV (17 GW) is owned by individuals and farmers.

Every location in the continental US has more solar energy than Germany, even rainy Seattle, WA has15% more solar than Germany, yet we barely generate 3.6 GW nationwide!

What the reason for this failure? In the US, corporate utility and other business interests have consistently fought the implementation of PACE, FITS and other proven policy tools. Grassroots efforts are beginning to take hold in Gainsville, Florida, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and California, but until we have the political will to overcome corporate opposition, the US will continue to lag behind the US.

"In the bigger picture, SolarReserve will greatly support thehealth and vitality of the larger whole, the global interdependence of humanityand nature. If we still had lots of time, and the SLV was an idyllic,autonomous world unto itself, we could legitimately wait for superiortechnologies and/or small-is-beautiful methodologies to save the day.Unfortunately though, time is short, we don’t live in a vacuum, and we can’tcontinue shirking the CC heavy-lifting. Although it’s imperfect, onetrait makes SolarReserve admirable and worthy of our support: its huge,global-interdependence-recognizing, carbon-saving paradigm is doable, righthere, right now, and hopefully, in time."

Ceal response: Relying on the SolarReserve path may well be the easiest, but it is not the fastest, most cost effective, efficient or smartest. Relying on remote, absentee-owned industrial solar will serve to drive the cost ofsolar energy up for all of us and perpetuate ourdependence on "out of sight-out of mind" energy sources and the same consumption-driven oldenergy system that got us into the global warming mess in the first place. Einstein was right when he said, “wecan’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking that createdthem”. It’s time for a newenergy paradigm.

Towers threaten world-class scenic values in San Luis Valley

2012-01-18T23:01:00.000-08:00

The San Luis Valley has long been known for its world-class scenic values. It's home to the Great Sand Dunes National Park and a place where extraordinary wildlife migrations miraculously reoccur every spring and fall.

~ 1 mile from the 600-foot power tower in Tonopah, NV. Basin and Range Watch

The Valley's Unique Sense of Place was recognized nationally when Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, a native son to "El Valle", unveiled a grand new conservation and tourism initiative last week.

The assessment of the regions historical, cultural and natural resources, could clear the path for a new National Park in the region.

While the Valley and State have been abuzz about the new plan, some locals and Coloradans are worried.

A little known proposal to build two 656-foot tall solar thermal tower powers could intrude on the Valley's unfettered views, wide-open spaces, decimate migrant eagle, Sandhill Crane, Brazilian Free-tail bat populations, and pose unknown hazards (such as retinal damage from glare) to surrounding communities.

The project was proposed by Saguache Solar Energy, LLC, a Project-specific entity owned by SolarReserve, LLC, based in Delaware. The company wants to build the massive twin towers on a 6,500-acre swath of land just north of the town of Center, located, not surprisingly, near the middle of the Valley.

Just 58-feet short of the tallest building in Denver -- the 56-story Republic Plaza -- the massive twin towers will dominate the mostly uniform plain of the 120 x 75-mile valley floor, for miles around.

The towers will rival the 650-foot "High Dune", the tallest dune in Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve - a mere 30-miles east of the towers.

On the left is the viewshed simulation submitted in SolarReserve's final 1041 application to Saguache County (the 2nd tower from the left is the theoretical view from 5 miles away).

Up top and below are photos of the actual 600-foot solar thermal power tower just completed by SolarReserve in Nevada, from 1 (above) and between 5 and 6 miles from the tower.

As you can see, the facility is sited in the middle of a broad basin, similar to the San Luis Valley, near Tonopah, Nevada (visit Basin and Range Watch to see more pictures and learn more about the very similar "Crescent Dunes" project).

According to the SolarReserve application, each of the two 100 MW units will contain up to 17,500 individual 24 x 28-foot tracking mirrors (called "heliostats") on 12-foot pedestals. The mirrors will be placed in concentric rings extending 1.6 miles in diameter around each tower in an approximately 6,500-acre field.

The Nevada heliostat field has not been built yet. If the above visual "simulation" is reflective of the "truth in advertising" that can be expected from SolarReserve, what can the citizens of Center, Saguache County and surrounding communities make of the rest of their analysis?

As the Saguache County Commissioners near a decision, many unresolved questions and concerns about the project remain, including:

1) What are the costs to the County? New short-and long-term costs will have to be absorbed for school, housing, emergency, road maintanence and other county services. How will the project impact housing costs and other infrastructure? (See "Big Solar's Promise" for an analysis of a similar project proposed by Tessera Solar last year).

2) What are the impacts on wildlife and agricultural resources? How will the power tower, mirrors and salt-saturated evaporation ponds effect migrant birds, including federally protected Golden and Bald Eagles, and the roughly 20,000 Sandhill Cranes and 200,000 Brazilian Free-Tailed bats that migrate to the valley (and provide free pest management services to farmers) each year?

According to local experts, the power tower is located on "some of the most productive agricultural land in the San Luis Valley". While the need for agricultural withdrawals is a daunting reality in the Valley, as farmers work to make aquifers "whole" again, is conversion of 6,500 acres of prime agricultural land the best choice when degraded or unused land is readily available?

Jobs from local vs absentee owned solar

3) What are the opportunity costs? It's no secret that local community power creates significantly more jobs and local revenue than absentee owned energy generation (See Al Weinrub's Community Power Report, for more on this).

What path dependencies would the San Luis Valley and Colorado be obligated to that could stymie the ability of our rural communities, farmers, ranchers and businesses to develop local, distributed solar generation in the future?

How will the project impact the ability of other Colorado communities to develop local renewable energy resources given the current limited utility market for renewable energy?

4) How will the project impact ratepayers? SolarReserve is promoting the power tower as a "proven technology", yet it plans to seek an exemption from the 2% rate cap required by the Renewable Energy Standard, allowed for "experimental" technologies. If such an exemption is granted, will there be no limit to what Xcel Energy can bill ratepayers should it negotiate a Power Purchase Agreement with Solar Reserve?

These, and other concerns deserve a full examination before Saguache County Commissioners approve a project that could severely impact the San Luis Valley's most precious natural resources and future prospects for locally-owned and controlled renewable energy development.

What you can do!

1) Submit written comments:

Deadline: 3 PM - Thursday, January 26, 2011

Email to: wmaez@saguachecounty-co.gov

Or snail mail to:

Saguache County Land Use Dept.

PO Box 326, Saguache, CO 81149

2) Attend the Public Hearing:

Thursday, February 2, 2012

2 pm to 8 pm

Center School Auditorium

Center, CO

3) SHARE this & help spread the word!

###

Who will control our solar energy future: people or corporations?

2012-01-09T22:38:00.000-08:00

Two key decisions lay before our federal and county elected officials that will greatly influence the energy future of Saguache County, the San Luis Valley and Colorado. We urge people throughout the San Luis Valley and Colorado to let the BLM and Saguache BOCC know which vision of our energy future you would like to see come to bear (details at the end of the post).

The San Luis Valley, CO has been in the national spotlight recently as one of the "coolest" hot spots for solar energy generation. Since around 2005, plenty of corporate solar energy developers have lined up to exploit the valley's cool sun and high generation values for private profit.

What most don't realize is that the people who make the San Luis Valley their home have been quietly stoking a different, more democratic, grassroots solar paradigm, going back more than a quarter of a century.

In the mid 1980's the Solar Energy Research Institute -- now the National Renewable Energy Lab in Boulder, Colo. -- credited the San Luis Valley with inspiring "an explosion in solar energy resulting in perhaps the highest per capita concentration of solar installations in the country."

The early San Luis Valley solar innovators knew what many are just beginning to discover: locally owned clean energy is the path to true energy independence and lasting prosperity that benefits real people and communities.

From: Community Power by Al Weinrub

John Farrell, with the Energy Self-Reliant States Project recently recognized Gainsville, Florida "among the world leaders in solar installed per capita", beating out Japan, France China and California with a whopping 36 kW for each of its 125,000 residents.

When the 30 MW Cogentrix facility goes online in April, the Valley will generate 1.78 kW of solar energy for each of its 50,000 residents. An impressive beginning given that the average household PV system is 2-10 kW. This is enough electricity to power 100% of the San Luis Valley's average daytime demand (on paper, more than 2/3 is exported, but the laws of physics dictate that the solar electrons be consumed at the closest point of demand).

As the Valley faces critical energy issues, such as the need for a $.5 billion new transmission line or whether or not to approve massive, industrial power plant proposals like Tessera Solar's failed 200 MW dish Stirling proposal and the 656-foot tall power tower, 4,000-acre facility currently under review in Saguache County, a grand opportunity is being overlooked by all but a handful of local energy visionaries.

The San Luis Valley's geographic isolation, extraordinary solar resource and abundant solar generation puts it in the unique position to become the nations first energy independent region and a model for every community in Colorado.

The little village of Wildpoldsried, Germany is a harbinger of what the San Luis Valley could become. In less than a decade and a half, the town installed enough renewable energy to produce 321% of its local energy needs – and it’s generating $5.7 million (US) in annual revenue by selling the excess back to the grid.

The key to Wildpoldsried's success is local ownership.

The town's local energy initiative was launched in 1997 when the village council made the decision to build new industries, keep initiatives local and bring in new revenue.

Over the next 14 years, the community equipped nine new community buildings with solar panels, built four biogas digesters (with a fifth underway) and installed seven windmills. In the village itself, 190 private households have solar panels. The district also benefits from three small hydro power plants, ecological flood control, and a natural waste water system.

Here in the San Luis Valley, outside corporate and government powers have a different plan. Rather than maximizing local benefits, they are proposing the same export dependent economic "development" model that has kept the San Luis Valley in poverty for decades.

The Bureau of Land Management is proposing to open over 111,000 acres of public land in the San Luis Valley to corporate solar development for massive centralized solar power plants that dwarf the small, distributed SunEdison, Iberdrola, Cogentrix and SunPower utility installations in Alamosa County (for a critique of the BLM plan see the Wrong from the Start report produced by Solar Done Right).

There is no doubt that these projects will provide limited tax revenue and sorely needed, but temporary construction jobs. But they also pave the way for 90% of the economic value of solar energy to flow straight out of the Valley into the hands of absentee corporate owners and investors.

Will the people and communities of the San Luis Valley really prosper by laying out the red carpet for industry to collect the gold at the end of our solar rainbow? Or is it time for real bottom-up economic development that allows San Luis Valley property owners, farmers, ranchers, small businesses and communities to reap the benefits from local solar generation?

Despite many obstacles, a brave new path is quietly being blazed by a small group of dedicated renewable energy innovators in the San Luis Valley.

Town of Del Norte (Rio Grande County) Solar-powered Water System

The Orient Land Trust near Poncha Pass has been off-grid for decades and recently expanded its hybrid geothermal-microhydro generation plant to meet 100% of its needs. The Town of Del Norte recently celebrated the completion of its 1.9 MW Net-Zero Solar network.

Town of Mesita, Costilla County, CO Biodiesel plant

In the tiny town of Mesita, the Costilla County canola/biodiesel plant also has plans to expand production to provide more clean, sustainable fuel from locally grown canola to more Valley customers. The 300 kW Humprey's microhydro generation plant made a big splash last fall when it went into the operation. The City of Alamosa, Alamosa, Del Norte, Costilla and Crestone District Schools, Adams State College, SLV Regional Medical Center and SLV Federal Bank have all gone solar.

Dozens of pioneering SLV farmers have installed solar PV panels to power irrigation pumps and efforts are moving forward to develop up to 2,500 MW of solar generation on crop circle pivot corners without adversely impacting valuable agricultural lands. And last, but not least, hundreds (perhaps as many as 1,000) homeowners have installed solar PV on their rooftops since the 1970's.

These locally owned installations create real energy independence that renews our communities from the ground up.

Some people think we can have both local and industrial solar development, but the evidence from renewable energy experts suggests otherwise. Industrial solar is more likely to absorb limited financial resources, monopolize existing transmission capacity, saturate markets and create a path dependency that leaves little room for local energy-based economic development. The diversion of limited resources for solar industrialization in the San Luis Valley could restrict the ability of all Colorado communities to generate, and reap the benefits of local renewable energy.

Two key decisions lay before our federal and county elected officials that could determine the energy future of Saguache County, the San Luis Valley and Colorado. We urge people throughout the San Luis Valley and Colorado to let the BLM and Saguache BOCC know which vision of our energy future you would like to see come to bear.

BLM SOLAR SPEIS PUBLIC MEETING

This week, Coloradans have a chance to endorse or reject the Bureau of Land Management, Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic Environmental Study (SPEIS), plan to open more than 100,000 -acres of public lands in the San Luis Valley (including 4 Solar Energy Zones) to massive corporate, industrial solar development:

Wed. January 11, 2012

7 pm (displays open at 6 pm)

Inn of the Rio Grande
333 Santa Fe Ave., Alamosa, CO

Call (800) 669-1658 for more information

Download the PEIS documents here.

For a critique of the BLM plan

see the Wrong from the Start report produced by Solar Done Right.

Comment deadline: Jan. 27th

Written comments on the SPEIS can be submitted through the Public Comment Form. Submitting comments through the Public Comment Form is the preferred method for purposes of tracking and providing confirmation of receipt. However, comments can also be mailed to:

Solar Energy Draft PEIS
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue, EVS/240, Argonne, IL 60439

SOLAR RESERVE 1041 PERMIT

Solar Reserve 650' tall power tower just completed in Nevada (solar mirror field is yet to be constructed)

The Saguache Board of County Commissioners is currently considering Solar Reserve's 1041 permit application to develop two 656-foot power towers on 4,000-acres near Center, CO, approximately 25 miles west of Great Sand Dunes National Park. The project could change the visual landscape of much of the San Luis Valley and irreversibly impact migrant wildlife, including the 20,000 Sandhill Cranes and 200,000 Brazilian free-tail bats that visit the SLV annually (more about the proposed project on our blog and the Crestone Eagle)

Comment deadline:

3 pm, Thur., Jan. 26th

Email to: Wendi Maez at wmaez@saguachecounty-co.gov

or mail to: Saguache County Land Use

PO Box 326, Saguache, CO 81149

PUBLIC HEARING

Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012

2 pm to 8 pm

Center School Auditorium, Center, CO

Instructions on how to access the Solar Reserve Permit Application here.

~~~

Local Renewable Energy on the Rise

2012-01-08T15:12:00.000-08:00

Few people realize that in the 1980's, the San Luis Valley, CO had the highest per capita solar in the nation and it very likely still does.

When the 30MW Cogentrix facility goes fully online (expected in April 2012), the Valley will generate more than 100% of its average daytime electricity use for a total of 89 MW. At ~ 50,000 residents, that equals 178 kW/person, the highest per capita anywhere in the world that we know of! These figures don't even include the thousands of grid and off-grid residential installations.

Unfortunately, the larger installations are all absentee owned. Restrictive utility rules that limit the purchase of locally generated energy and the lack of financing are huge constraints, but we know that interest is high, and growing, to find ways to achieve local ownership in the San Luis Valley.

A Colorado FIT would make it possible to fulfill the original promise of Amendment 37 (thus far not realized) to lower energy costs and spur rural economies. We will need a people-powered grassroots push from the bottom to overcome utility and government resistance to true energy independence.

Also see Matthew McDermitt's article:

Over Half of Germany's Renewable Energy Owned By Citizens & Farmers, Not Utility Companies

"slightly over half of renewable energy being owned not by corporations but by actual biological people means—obviously a democratic shift in control of resources and a break from the way electricity and energy has been produced over the past century.
A good thing: Decentralized power generation, more relocalization and reregionalization of economic activity, the world getting smaller while more connected and therefore in a way bigger at the same time... taking a step backwards, and perhaps sideways, while moving forwards"

Made possible by Germany's progressive Feed-in Tariff that requires utilities to purchase locally generated renewable energy at a fair price.

~~~~~~~~

This post originally appeared on Energy Self-Reliant States, a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's New Rules Project.

You don't have to be big to go big on solar power. That's the lesson from the Gainesville Regional Utilities, the electric utility whose feed-in tariff solar policy has brought over 7 megawatts (MW) of solar to the city's 125,000 residents. The raw number isn't much, but it puts Gainesville among the world leaders in solar installed per capita, beating out Japan, France, and China (and besting California, which has 32 kilowatts (kW) per 1000 residents).

The basic premise behind the feed-in tariff program is that anyone who wants to be a solar power generator can connect to the grid and get a 20-year contract for their power from the municipal utility. The long-term contract makes getting financing for solar projects easier, and the prices are attractive. The utility pays 24 cents per kilowatt-hour generated for large-scale ground-mounted systems and up to 32 cents for small, rooftop systems.

The price differentiation helps accommodate solar arrays of various sizes, from residential to larger commercial installations, spreading the economic opportunity. The differentiation may also help small-scale residential projects that can't use federal tax incentives for businesses.
Thus far, approximately one-third of the city's 7.3 MW of solar power is in relatively small systems, 100 kW and smaller. About half the installed capacity is in projects 500 kW and larger:

The solar feed-in tariff program also brings value to the local community and electricity system. A report released earlier this year found that the grid benefits and social benefits of solar power far outweigh the typical valuation of solar power by utilities. These benefits include reduced stress on the utility distribution system and reduced transmission losses.

The feed-in tariff program also means local economic development. With a rule of thumb of eight jobs per MW, according to a University of California, Berkeley, study [PDF] of the jobs created from renewable energy development, Gainesville has already generated 56 jobs. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has estimated that each megawatt of solar adds $240,000 to the local economy, and if Gainesville's solar projects are locally owned, the value could be much higher [PDF].
More than anything, Gainesville provides an important lesson in local energy self-reliance. While many communities must await action by a state legislature or investor-owned utility, the municipal utility has the authority to act quickly in support of the community. And when the utility is locally controlled, it can mean big things for local solar power.

John Farrell is an Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) senior researcher specializing in energy policy developments that best expand the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. He has written extensively on the economies of scale of renewable energy, the benefits of decentralized energy generation, and the policies and rules that support locally owned and distributed generation of renewable energy.His seminal work - Energy Self-Reliant States gave a vision of states meeting their energy needs with in-state sun and wind and spawned a rapidly expanding distributed generation resource: http://energyselfreliantstates.org. He also wrote one of the leading summaries of feed-in tariffs for the U.S. electricity policy market titled, Feed-in Tariffs in America: Driving the Economy with Renewable Energy Policy that Works.

Call to Action for Energy Democracy

2011-12-15T20:50:00.000-08:00

The San Luis Valley Renewable Communities Alliance is working closely with its partner Solar Done Right to invite organizations and people to join in a Call to Action for Energy Democracy.

This initiative will bring citizens across the Country together to demand a more cost-effective, faster, less damaging, and more democratic path to renewable energy. Our goal is to move destructive industrial energy development away from our ecologically rich public lands and generate clean, renewable energy from our farms and ranches, rooftops, parking lots, commercial buildings and already-developed areas.

Join the Call to Action for Energy Democracy:

Organizations - sign on by emailing us here.

Individuals - sign the online petition here.

Please help spread the word by sharing the Call to Action for Energy Democracy with friends, colleagues, community and grassroots groups you know—civic, social, education, sustainable economic development, municipal, charity, religious -- any! Once we have a groundswell (and we will) it will go to top energy policymakers in our government: The Governors Office, State and Congressional Representatives, the White House, Departments of Interior and Energy and others. To learn more about why our current renewable energy policy is on the wrong path and how we can do solar right, please visit solardoneright.org, where you will find briefings on many aspects of this issue.

Thank you!

CALL TO ACTION

For ENERGY DEMOCRACY

Whereas,

We must take rapid, effective, innovative action to change the ways we generate and use energy; Renewable energy is ubiquitous, offering a new model of energy generation that is local, democratic, and free from the abuses of a centralized monopoly;

A new report by John Farrell, ILSR

The US government’s current renewable-energy policy and the policies of most US states push industrial solar and wind development onto public lands;

This industrial development is proposed for hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of acres of our public lands—much of that acreage consisting of intact ecosystems which provide habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals, sequester carbon, and offer the chance for ecosystem adaptation to climate change;

The utility-scale solar and wind generating plants now proposed, most with footprints of several thousand acres, would transform these ecologically-rich, multiple-use lands to single use industrial facilities, in effect privatizing vast areas of public lands;

Once developed, those lands cannot be returned to their previous state after the life of a project– conversion is total and permanent, even though most such projects will generate power for only 15 to 30 years;

The thousands of miles of new transmission infrastructure necessary to carry power from remote solar and wind electric generating plants to urban demand centers drastically inflates the cost of renewable energy, while imposing its own serious environmental impacts;

The federal government has provided tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in cash grants, loans and loan guarantees for remote industrial-scale solar and wind development to many of the same corporations that have dominated the Fossil Fuel Era, created the problems renewable energy is designed to rectify, and helped hasten the recession, while states and local governments have incurred substantial costs to expedite these for-profit projects;

Efficiency upgrades and “distributed generation”—point-of-use energy generation on rooftops, in parking lots and highway medians, brownfields, and throughout the built environment—are cost-effective, efficient, clean, and democratic strategies that are quick to implement, and would serve communities, ratepayers, and taxpayers by improving local economies and adding to home values, and creating millions of local jobs;

Efficiency and distributed generation further have far less environmental impact than industrial scale solar or wind power on intact ecosystems, while making our electrical power grid far less prone to catastrophic failure;

Feed-In Tariffs (FITs) and true net metering programs, in which utilities purchase democratically produced, decentralized renewable energy at a fair price, have been proven a cost-effective way of stimulating rapid deployment of local solar and other distributed generation, while providing economic stimulus to communities rather than multinational corporations, even in cloudy countries like Germany;

The Environmental Protection Agency's “Re-Powering America’s Lands” program has identified 15 million acres of degraded or contaminated land potentially suitable for renewable energy development, and is committed to working with renewable energy developers to remediate these lands for use as utility-scale renewable energy generation sites where large projects may be desirable.

Therefore, we demand:

That the Federal and state governments abandon their current path of industrialization and destruction of our public lands;

That any large-scale solar or wind installations be restricted to degraded, contaminated, or already-developed lands, including those identified by the EPA;

That Federal, state, and local governments facilitate a massive deployment of efficiency upgrades and point-of-use solar power;

That no new large, long-distance electrical transmission projects be approved to serve remote solar or wind projects until distributed power generation and energy efficiency are maximized;

That the Federal Housing Finance Agency immediately lift its de facto freeze on property assessed clean energy (PACE) loans, which provide critical low-risk financing for efficiency upgrades and home energy retrofits;

That Federal and state funding and other incentives be made available to help states establish and expand generous Feed in Tariffs (FITs) modeled after successful programs like Germany’s, and improve net metering policies, and that Congress work to establish the proven solutions of German-style FITs and less-restrictive net metering at a national scale.
________________________________________________________________________________

Organizations - sign on by emailing Solar Done Right here.

Individuals - sign the online petition here.

Beyond Energy Independence: German renewables shoot through the roof, San Francisco reaches for new high

2011-12-09T18:13:00.001-08:00

Old energy interests (including utilities) and their media and government supporters, often repeat the mantra that renewable energy, especially decentralized, on-site generation, can't be implemented widely or fast enough to meet our energy needs.

Indeed, it's the only thing that can!

Spurred by Germany's model Feed-in Tariff (FIT), this small, rural town in Bavaria is 100% energy independent and generates millions in local revenue by producing 3 times more energy than it uses. This could be any town in the San Luis Valley, the Front Range, eastern Colorado, even your town!

And today, as the Durban, South Africa climate talks come to a close with no binding agreement (as expected), San Francisco takes a bold step towards 100% renewable energy by 2020 - a new high for the US (story below).

German Village Produces 321% More Energy Than It Needs!

Ok, those Germans are just showing off now. Not only has the nation announced plans to shut down all of its nuclear power plants and started the construction of 2,800 miles of transmission lines for its new renewable energy initiative, but now the village of Wildpoldsried is producing 321% more energy than it needs! The small agricultural village in the state of Bavaria is generating an impressive $5.7 million in annual revenue from renewable energy.

It’s no surprise that the country that has kicked butt at the Solar Decathlon competition (to produce energy positive solar houses) year after year is the home to such a productive energy-efficient village. The village’s green initiative first started in 1997 when the village council decided that it should build new industries, keep initiatives local, bring in new revenue, and create no debt. Over the past 14 years, the community has equipped nine new community buildings with solar panels, built four biogas digesters (with a fifth in construction now) and installed seven windmills with two more on the way. In the village itself, 190 private households have solar panels while the district also benefits from three small hydro power plants, ecological flood control, and a natural waste water system.

Despite only having a population of 2,600, Wildpoldsried produces 321 percent more energy than it needs. It is no surprise to learn that small businesses have developed in the village specifically to provide services to the renewable energy installations.

Read the full story here: German Village Produces 321% More Energy Than It Needs! Wildpoldsried Germany – Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World

SF Begins Down 100% by 2020 Clean Energy Path

by Angeli Duffin, December 9th, 2011

By 2020, the city of San Francisco aims to get 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources – and it just got the green ball rolling by giving Local Power a $390,000 contract to design a plan for moving the city’s power sourcing from centralized fossil fuel plants and toward locally generated renewables.

San Francisco is pursuing its goal using a community choice aggregation system (CCA), which allows cities and counties to aggregate the buying power of individual customers within a defined jurisdiction to secure alternative energy supply contracts. Using CleanPowerSF, San Franciscans will be given a choice to purchase green energy from a city-negotiated provider as an alternative to the giant Northern California utility Pacific Gas & Electric.

To fulfill CleanPowerSF’s call for “neighborhood-scaled green power,” Local Power will produce request for proposals (RFPs) to deploy at least 210 megawatts of renewable, localized energy technologies and distributed solar for San Francisco residents and businesses by 2017. Local Power will spend the next year completing a cost model, implementation schedule, and analysis of potential development sites to complete the RFPs by late 2012.

San Francisco is not alone in its local energy initiative. Local Power founder Paul Penn drafted the country’s first community choice aggregation bill, which has since spurred similar CCA laws across the country. Community choice programs currently provide service to over 1 million Americans, with hundreds of U.S. cities in the planning and implementation phase, according to Local Power.

When all is said and done, Local Power believes this project “promises to make San Francisco the world leader in green power, substantially reducing greenhouse gas pollution, and making innovative green technologies the standard rather than the exception, and creating new local green jobs here in San Francisco – all while maintaining competitive power bills.”

Read the New York Times story on San Francisco's new energy goals here.

The Brave New World of Microgrids

2011-11-30T18:15:00.001-08:00

The concept of a decentralized, stand-alone microgrid has long been viewed as the stuff of science fiction, so it may come as a surprise to many that U.S. military bases, college campuses and utilities are already moving forward with pilot projects and research designed to prove that microgrids are not only feasible, but they're a boon to system reliability.

San Diego Gas & Electric's Borrego Springs project is one example. In another, AEP's hosting, for more than a decade, of the Consortium for Electric Reliability Solutions (CERTS) test site (see "Not Just Any Microgrid") has allowed for key breakthroughs in potential microgrid commercialization.

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) has taken the CERTS research out of the laboratory and into the real world with its headquarters-based microgrid (download the SMUD project pdf here) that includes three 100 kW CHP combined-heat-and-power natural gas-fired generators, 10-kW of solar PV panels, and a 500-kW battery for storage purposes. The project will test, monitor and refine the electrical integration of micro-generation systems with the larger utility electrical supply systems and other small power sources such as photovoltaic or fuel cells.

University of San Diego, microgrid

The state-of-the-art UC-San Diego microgrid has four times the energy density as a typical commercial/ industrial complex. The campus can provide 85% of its own energy needs and the remaining 15% of power provided by SDG&E still allows the facility to rank as the utility’s fourth largest customer. The microgrid is therefore planned to operate in “island” mode for 85% of the time.

Brave new world?

According to the author of "Integrating distributed generation into electric power systems", Pecas Lopes, the architecture of our utility system is undergoing historic change. "The power system architecture of the future will look very different from that of today," he and his colleagues wrote. "Whilst the pace of change is likely to be evolutionary, the change itself is expected to be nothing short of a revolution as many traditionally held views and approaches to system operation and planning developed over the past 100 years are challenged and transformed to suit the requirements envisaged in the brave new world of the future."

To be continued......

Much of the information for this post comes from Kate Rolin's article, Enabling distributed generation, published for Intelligentutility.

Bigger Subsidies Make Bigger Solar a Bad Bet

2011-11-23T13:38:00.001-08:00

The latest from Energy Self-Reliant States....

Americans seem unable to resist big things, and solar power plants are no exception. There may be no reasoning with an affinity for all things “super sized,” but the economics of large scale solar projects (and the unwelcome public scrutiny) should bury the notion that bigger is better for solar.

In fact, smaller scale solar and the right solar policy could get more solar for the dollar and more public support for renewable energy.

There are three problems with large-scale solar (100 megawatts and up). First, no solar power plant of this size has ever been constructed without a government loan guarantee. The 250-megawatt California Solar Ranch is an example, and the project was recently targeted in a New York Times expose on subsidies for large solar power. The loan guarantee is extremely valuable to NRG, the project owner, so much so that its chief executive was rather hyperbolic when describing the opportunity to investors:

“I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects,” he said in a recent interview. “It is just filling the desert with panels.”

So far, the federal Department of Energy has provided loan guarantees to 16 large-scale solar power plants. The benefits for the California Solar Ranch (and likely other federally-backed large solar projects) also include lower interest rates (3.5% rather than 7%). No comparable subsidy exists for small-scale solar, despite there being many times more solar electricity coming off distributed solar projects (20 megawatts and smaller) than large solar plants. The irony is that these large loan guarantees typically back large corporations with deep pockets like NRG, whereas small-scale solar projects are frequently financed without comparable federal largess by individual homeowners or small businesses.

The second problem with large-scale solar is that it has a minimal cost advantage over small-scale solar. According to the LBNL Tracking the Sun report for 2010, there are economies of scale for solar power projects. But residential solar is installed for as little as $4.40 per Watt as part of a group purchase program in Los Angeles, whereas utility-scale solar is only marginally better at $3.75 per Watt in mid-2011. In Germany, small solar (up to 100 kilowatts) is installed at an average price of $3.20 per Watt.

There’s also the question of speed. A small-scale solar project can be operational in months, but the California Solar Ranch has been in development since mid-2008. Another large-scale solar project, the 280-megawatt Mojave Solar concentrating solar thermal power plant, has been in development for 5 years (as with most concentrating solar thermal power plants, it takes much longer to develop). For perspective, the U.S. has installed 1,600 megawatts of smaller-scale solar over the past three years, the Germans have installed 12,000 megawatts. J.R. DeShazo, director of UCLA’s Luskin Center for Innovation explains why small-scale solar can deploy faster (especially with the right policy).

Distributed solar has an edge in the speed with which it will respond to financial incentives...The private sector will begin to install solar panels in response to a feed-in tariff much more quickly than developers of large solar projects can negotiate power-purchase agreements with utilities and win regulatory approval from the government.

The Solar Electric Power Association has identified barriers to speedy deployment of large-scale (greater than 50-megawatt) solar power plants:

PV projects, which ranged in size from 1-kilowatt residential installations to 48-megawatt power plants, have much shorter planning horizons and project completion times, along with lesser siting, permitting, financing and transmission requirements at these small- and medium-sized scales.

However, larger PV and CSP projects (those greater than 50 MW) require overcoming financing, siting/permitting, and transmission barriers that might emerge at these larger sizes. [emphasis added]

Ultimately, it’s a question of picking winners: large corporations or the average citizen. Subsidies for solar that are only for big projects and big corporations don’t generate popular support for solar. In fact, the desert location of these power plants is often a point of contention.

In contrast, when solar policies support local ownership of solar, the average rooftop PV system generates two solar voters and greater support for favorable solar energy policy as well as electricity. This political value has been captured in a German study of attitudes toward more wind power, focusing on two towns with nearby wind projects, one locally owned and the other not. Support for expanding local wind energy is 40 points higher when existing projects are locally owned, and overwhelmingly negative when they are not.

The German energy program plays off the popularity of local ownership, with their easy-to-use feed-in tariff allowing anyone to become a clean energy producer by offering a guaranteed, long-term contract at an attractive price. Half of their 53,000-megawatt renewable energy market is locally owned, making their clean energy policies nearly inviolate despite the (completely transparent) cost increase to German ratepayers.

The German program is also equitable, offering contract prices based on project size, helping democratize their energy system by letting any citizen participate. The big boys can play, but without additional handouts.

Big solar projects shine with big numbers, but if Americans are serious about solar power they should support policies for smaller scale. Otherwise, the clean energy future may look a lot like the dirty energy past, with big companies in charge and ordinary citizens left holding the bag.

Local SLV Bank goes Green!

2011-11-19T22:14:00.001-08:00

Guest post from SLV solar advocate extraordinaire, David Lenderts, Alamosa, CO.

San Luis Valley Federal Bank is a positive force and role-model in the community it serves by installing sizable photovoltaic arrays on each of its three branches. Currently, the SLV Federal branch in Monte Vista and the western Alamosa branch each have a 21 kW polycrystalline PV array on its roof providing about one-third of the total electricity use of each building. The main office in central Alamosa is now placing mounting feet and racks on its roof for what will soon be a 54 kW polycrystalline array also sized to provide one-third of the bank's electricity use.

It is so encouraging to see an important valley institution leading the path to our Valley's green future. In sharp contrast, the behavior of the huge "too-big-to-fail" banks in the U.S. has been irresponsible, reckless, and greedy to the point that it crashed the national economy and continues to obstruct and delay recovery. This is the stark economic reality we all are dealing with.

The thinking and orientation of banks such as SLV Fed are an important part of the way out of the current crisis. They give justification for why hundreds of thousands of Americans (over 600,000 in a recent two-week period) have moved their money to similar small community-oriented banks from giants such as Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. These kinds of mega-banks are far more interested in acting as investment institutions that offer arcane and high risk/high return financial instruments such as derivatives and hedge funds to wealthy clients, with a sole emphasis on profit, not community development such as is occurring right here in the San Luis Valley.

I had the opportunity recently to speak with Duane Bussey, CEO and President of SLV Federal, about the bank's renewable energy effort. I asked him about the thought process on the part of the directors of the bank that led to the decision to install photovoltaics (Mr. Bussey is a graduate of Adams State College, lives in Alamosa with his wife Lorey, and their children attended local schools). Mr. Bussey said that, first and foremost, the bank wants to act in a way consistent with environmental consciousness and the "green movement". Next, the bank wants to show tangible leadership in a sector of the economy for which they will also offer financing. The bank's attitude is that if they want to offer public financing for locally-owned "distributed" renewable-energy development, they need to show the community that such energy development is not only feasible, but that they trust and value it to the degree that they will use it themselves. Finally, Mr. Bussey indicated that this move just makes good economic sense. The bank expects a payback on their investment in nine years and a period of at least 25 years of high-capacity output from the photovoltaic arrays.

San Luis Valley Federal is helping the community beyond being a good example. Because of the bank's commitment to financing green energy, local businesses and SLV communities will be able to invest in locally-owned solar with loans from SLV Federal. In addition, green jobs are created for local PV installers like Alpine Electric who is the contractor for the bank's three solar arrays.

The money saved in energy costs will stay in the community rather than being sent to the corporate headquarters of an electric utility. Moreover, the long-term situation for bank employees will be improved because the financial stability of the bank will be enhanced by a substantial portion of its electricity needs having a very predictable fuel cost well into the future: zero.

What a joy it will be to see the solar panels atop the roof of the 4th and Edison main office, connecting the community to the Sun as a symbol of SLV's bright future. Good work!

Xcel drops SoCo transmission line

2011-11-03T18:16:00.000-07:00

We hope Xcel's decision to drop the Southern Colorado Transmission Line project (SoCo) opens the door to a real dialogue about the San Luis Valley's energy future. This story ran in the Colorado Independent today....

Xcel plan to scrap San Luis Valley project greeted with cheers, jeers

By David O. Williams
Thursday, November 03, 2011 at 1:15 pm

Xcel Energy’s announcement this week that it’s pulling the plug on a controversial and hotly contested transmission line project in the San Luis Valley is being cheered by local environmentalists but viewed with skepticism by Xcel’s partner in the project, Tri-State Generation and Transmission.

Sangre de Cristo Mountains and Great Sand Dunes National Park (Park Service photo).

Tri-State, which provides power to the majority of Colorado’s member-owned rural electric co-ops, announced it will “move forward to identify options to ensure electric system reliability following Xcel Energy’s reconsideration of its participation in a joint transmission project …”

“The need for reliable electric service across the San Luis Valley, south-central Colorado and northern New Mexico has not changed,” said Joel Bladow,

Tri-State’s senior vice president of transmission. “Tri-State will examine all options to ensure reliable power for the region, and it is premature to eliminate any options without further investigation.”

A spokesman for Xcel Energy, the state’s largest power provider, told the Colorado Independent nothing has changed since the company filed its bi-annual electric resource plan and SB07-100 plan (which looks at related transmission needs) on Monday.

“We regularly look at how much energy our residential and business customers will need; it’s our job to ensure we have sufficient electricity for that demand,” Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said.

“This year we saw lower electricity load forecasts, low natural gas prices, lack of federal carbon regulation, expiring tax credits, potential future litigation and a continued sluggish economy. Our conclusion, in light of these factors and also to keep costs low for our customers, is to re-consider our participation in the Southern Colorado Transmission Improvements Project.”

The project had already been approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) but was opposed by local conservation groups worried about the scenic San Luis Valley becoming an industrial hub for utility-scale solar plants. The groups advocate for more distributed solar generation on residential and commercial rooftops across the state.

“Xcel has made a smart decision that will save rate payers $500 million and preserve one of Colorado’s last undeveloped wild-land corridors,” said Ceal Smith, founder of the San Luis Valley Renewable Communities Alliance. “Energy technology and market trends all point to a leaner, cleaner and smarter decentralized utility system in the future.”

Smith said she wants Tri-State and state regulators to see the light as well.

“We hope the PUC and Tri-State support Xcel’s decision and start to look more seriously at the San Luis Valley’s abundant and diverse solar, micro-hydro, geothermal and biomass resources to meet local energy reliability needs,” Smith added. “We want a more secure, efficient and democratic energy distribution system that benefits our local communities, not just a few big corporations.”

Xcel’s Stutz said the company had projected that by 2018 Colorado would need 2,000 megawatts of additional power, but in its filing on Monday dropped that forecast to 292 megawatts.

“There is not a great need for new generation period,” Stutz said, “thus lessening our need to participate in the transmission line project.”

Officials for Trinchera Ranch, owned by hedge-fund billionaire Louis Bacon, were cautiously optimistic about Xcel’s decision this week. Bacon has been the project’s biggest opponent, battling against it at every turn because it would cross the land he bought from Steve Forbes. But Bacon also has invested heavily in Minnesota-based Xcel.

“Trinchera Ranch remains committed to fighting for a win-win solution for the people of the valley that helps to improve energy reliability, bolsters renewable energy and conserves and protects this spectacular region of Colorado,” Trinchera Ranch spokesman Cody Wertz told the Valley Courier in Alamosa.

Can Big Solar Play Nice With the Locals?

2011-10-29T14:23:00.000-07:00

"Less than two months later, residents say First Solar has forgotten neighborliness in its pursuit of solar megawatts. The list of its alleged violations of commitments made to the community is long and growing longer."

First, it hired outsiders -- instead of locals, as promised -- to do biological reconnaissance at the site. These workers caused a fire that threatened nearby residents. Subsequently, heavy-duty construction vehicles have been using roads First Solar promised it would not use, increasing traffic, obstacles, wear and tear, and accidents.

They promised to clear and grade the desert floor carefully, yet created dust storms. The company promised to use precious desert water frugally, yet by one calculation is on track to use its entire allotment in three months.

Locals familiar with construction site safety laws are documenting a list of violations. First Solar promised not to build prison-like fencing, but photos show it is doing so.

The firm promised to be available for dialogue but has reportedly responded to locals’ questions with “We’ll get back to you” -- and often does not follow up on these promises. When there has been a response, locals say, builder First Solar has replied it cannot answer for the owners and owner Exelon has replied it cannot answer for the builder".

Can First Solar Play Nice With the Locals?

If this is First Solar being a good neighbor, renewables are in trouble.

A renewable energy boom in California’s Antelope Valley has developers scrambling to build utility-scale solar and wind projects and hotly pursuing power purchase agreements (PPAs), with utilities seeking to meet Governor Jerry Brown’s goal of getting a third of the state’s power from renewables by 2020.Promising support from his office, the governor recently told a conference of renewables developers there are “some kinds of opposition you have to crush,” adding, “You have to push ... [or] we’re not going to get to the goal.”

First Solar is building Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One (AVSR1), a 230-megawatt photovoltaic (PV) solar power plant it bought from eSolar and sold to Exelon. NRG Solar, Element Power, NextEra Energy, Silverado Power and Renewable Resources Group are planning other projects in the area.More are lined up behind them.

According to the California Energy Commission, 61 solar projects representing 3,340 megawatts and 20 wind projects representing some 2,500 megawatts are in the permitting stage.

But some Antelope Valley residents believe they are being invaded and that their way of life is about to disappear forever. Some are seizing the profit-taking opportunity. Some are resisting. Most are still trying to grasp the implications of tens of thousands of acres of mountainsides and valley floor being turned into a renewable energy mecca.

The Antelope Valley will, within a few years, look like nothing anybody on this earth has ever seen. Read the rest of the story here.

###

Is this what the San Luis Valley can expect from Solar Reserve, who filed a final application this week for a 6,200-acre industrial solar development with Saguache County this week?

More on Solar Reserves proposed 6,300-acre project in the SLV here.

DG or industrial? Read more about the difference and why can't we do both here.

The Economics of Local Renewable Energy Generation

2011-10-21T13:46:00.000-07:00

The following is Part 2 from a serialized version of the Institute for Local Self Reliance new report, Democratizing the Electricity System.

Click here for Part 1 or here to download the entire report.

The falling cost of distributed renewable generation has been one of the key drivers of the transformation of the U.S. electric grid.

The following chart illustrates the cost of power generation calculated by averaging the total lifetime cost over the total electricity generated (“levelized cost”), as estimated by the investment bank, Lazard.[1] Federal incentives cause a significant reduction in the levelized cost of renewable energy, in the form of upfront tax credits as well as ongoing production-based tax credits.

Levelized Cost of Renewable Energy (Lazard):

Levelized Cost of Fossil Energy (Lazard):

Wind, geothermal and biomass are already less expensive than any fossil fuel energy source, when factoring in federal incentives for all three sources.

Solar PV is the most expensive, but has strong prospects for lower price. Already, the average cost for German solar PV (10 to 100 kilowatt (kW) systems) has fallen to $3.70 per Watt,[2] and some 1 MW solar PV systems in the U.S. are being installed at $3.50 per Watt, pushing the lower bound of the prices in the chart. A design charette aimed at reducing balance of system costs found that best practices could reduce solar PV installed costs by nearly 60 percent within five years, not counting further cost reductions in solar modules.[3] At these prices, renewable energy competes very favorably against most new fossil fuel generation.

(Union of Concerned Scientists)

Not all costs are covered in this levelized cost comparison. A grid with majority renewable power (from variable sources like wind and solar) will require a different approach than the existing grid. Whereas current generation scheduling, peaking and backup are tailored to a system with large, centralized baseload power plants, a grid with distributed renewable resources will require new load balancing ingenuity. It will be necessary to use smart grid technologies to enable greater demand response and to defer elective electricity use (such as electric vehicle charging) to times with greater supply, and to use energy storage like pumped hydro or batteries to shift surplus production to times of higher demand. It’s also a question of whether any additional costs incurred would be offset by other economic benefits. These issues are discussed later in this report.

Likewise, hidden subsidies for fossil fuels – incentives they once received for technological development, the cost of military operations to secure fossil fuel energy sources, and massive environmental externalities – are also omitted.

The Issue of Scale

Average Size of U.S. solar PV project: 10 kilowatts

Average Size of U.S. wind power project: 80 megawatts

Even as renewable energy challenges fossil fuels on cost, the average size of renewable energy projects continues to defy the conventional wisdom that bigger is better. The average solar PV system in the U.S. is just 10 kW and the average wind power project is 80 MW.[4] Wind power is often seen as the largest scale renewable energy source, and it provides an interesting lesson.

While the average wind farm size has increased from 35 to 90 MW in the past 10 years, it’s almost entirely due to larger turbines (the average size has jumped from 0.71 MW to 1.74 MW in the same time frame).[5] Wind projects don’t have more turbines, they just use larger ones. While a wind farm of larger turbines may require more total land area (to space them further apart), the amount of occupied land is relatively the same, but delivers more power.

In the same fashion, solar modules have increased in efficiency and quality, allowing for greater electricity output per module. The technological advance actually reduces the need to be bigger.

Because renewable energy projects can lend themselves to smaller scale and geographic dispersion, they encourage the development of a distributed grid. It’s not always the case, however.

Solar Power

There are two electricity technologies, solar PV and solar thermal. Solar PV directly converts sunlight to electricity, and is modular, generating power by interconnecting individual solar modules of approximately 200 Watts into arrays of 5 kW to 50,000 kW (50 MW). Solar PV costs have fallen steadily,[6] with modules representing about half the cost of a solar PV installation, “balance of system,” and labor and installation the remainder.

Concentrating solar thermal generates electricity in several ways, with the common element of a solar concentrator (mirror or lens) used to concentrate sunlight to create heat that will be converted to electricity. Projects are generally 5 MW or larger, with several proposed projects in the U.S. and internationally of several hundred megawatts. Every commercial concentrating solar technology also lends itself to thermal energy storage, because the sun’s heat can be stored in a variety of methods (most involving molten salts) for several hours.

Because solar PV power is often installed on residential rooftops at a fairly small scale, many people believe that it is inherently more expensive than its central-station counterpart, concentrating solar.

The data suggest otherwise. The following chart illustrates the cost of electricity from two sample solar PV projects, one commercial and one residential, as well as the three most cost-effective concentrating solar thermal power plants.[7] Solar PV at commercial scale comes out cheaper. Even smaller scale solar is comparable to large-scale concentrating solar. These figures do not factor in the cost of long-distance transmission, a common additional line item for concentrating solar power plants.

Solar PV v. CSP Costs:

These costs are supported by the lower cost of distributed solar in Germany,[8] as well as recent bids for utility-run distributed solar programs in the United States.[9]

There may be prospects for price decreases for either technology, but it’s hard to see how concentrating solar could win the price war. An oft-shared graphic (below) illustrates the solar PV experience curve, and shows how solar PV module prices have dropped as the total installed capacity has grown (a ten-fold increase installed capacity has generally reduced module prices by half).[10] The small dots show actual module prices, and the large dotted line is the trend.

Solar PV Module Cost Drops by Half for 10-Fold Capacity Increase (Ken Zweibel):

The installed base of solar thermal power plants is just over 1,000 MW, split among several technologies, while solar PV is being installed at a rate of 4,000 MW per year in Germany alone. Since solar thermal projects tend to require years of planning, financing, and construction, it’s unlikely that centralized solar thermal prices will fall as rapidly as decentralized solar PV, supported by this excerpt from a recent Solar Electric Power Association report:[11]

[Concentrating solar power] (CSP) represents over 6,000 MW of the over 15,000 MW of future solar projects that SEPA is tracking, but there are differences in project development between CSP and PV. PV can be built and sub-sections of the larger project can be energized over time, resulting in lower construction risk and balance-sheet impact. CSP projects need to be completed in full before commissioning, a period which takes several years from start to finish.

Even if solar thermal power can keep pace on cost with solar PV, the latter is much more amenable to distributed generation and local ownership and would be preferable even if the costs were similar.

The second economies of scale question for solar power is big solar PV versus small solar PV. Here the data are less conclusive.

The following chart provides an illustration of the installed cost per Watt for solar PV at a range of sizes. The top three lines are historical data from Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBNL) and the California Solar Initiative (CSI).[12,13] The lowest line represents installed prices reported to the Clean Coalition from their network of installers in California.[14]

Solar PV Economies of Scale:

There are economies of scale for distributed solar, especially for very small (residential scale) systems. Historical U.S. data suggests that the savings from size level off beyond 10 kW, but contemporary installed data suggests that there are two breakpoints in economies of scale, at 10 kW and 1,000 kW.

Data from Germany’s feed-in tariff solar incentive program supports this theory. There is a 25% price differential between the smallest rooftop solar arrays (up to 30 kW) and the largest (over 1000 kW), with 15 percentage points of the savings in the jump from the 100-1000 kW size tranch to the largest one.[15]

In other words, there are valuable economies of scale for projects up to 1 MW. However, there are additional barriers to cost-effectiveness for larger solar PV projects, described in the Solar Electric Power Association’s 2010 Utility Solar Rankings report:[16]

PV projects, which ranged in size from 1-kilowatt residential installations to 48-megawatt power plants, have much shorter planning horizons and project completion times, along with lesser siting, permitting, financing and transmission requirements at these small- and medium-sized scales. However, larger PV and CSP projects (those greater than 50 MW) require overcoming financing, siting/permitting, and transmission barriers that might emerge at these larger sizes.

The trend noted by SEPA is illustrated in a particular example. Sunpower has a 250 MW centralized solar PV power plant planned for the California Valley, secured by a $1 billion federal loan guarantee. The installed cost of the system is $5.70 per Watt, 60% higher than installed costs for 1-20 MW projects.[17]

In short, PV is the preferential technology, and distributed solar is better than centralized. As we discuss later, this has significant implications for the economic benefits of solar power.

Wind Power

The economies of scale of wind power are similar. The power output of a wind turbine increases exponentially with higher wind speeds, as well as with larger diameter blades. Since wind speeds rise quickly as height increases, and taller turbines can host larger blades, utility-scale turbines (generally 1 MW and above) at heights of 80 meters or more are unquestionably more cost-effective than small-scale turbines.

When it comes to multi-turbine projects, however, the data show limited economies of scale. In their 2009 Wind Technologies Market Report for the U.S. Department of Energy, the Berkeley Lab authors showed that costs fell for projects that aggregated a few turbines (5 to 20 MW), but that larger projects had higher levelized costs of operation.[18] The following chart (redrawn from the report) illustrates:

Wind Projects 5 - 20 MW Have Lowest Cost per Kilowatt:

The lesson from the report is that wind projects built at a smaller scale capture most of the construction and project economies of scale, but also may avoid diseconomies of scale that affect larger projects. These diseconomies can include higher financing costs due to multi-billion dollar project costs, time and money costs for new transmission infrastructure, and legal costs to secure the land rights for a large project as well as the cost of overcoming local resistance. In Germany, home to some of the most effective renewable energy policies in the world, more than half of its 27,000 MW of wind are in projects 20 MW and smaller.[19] It’s no coincidence that half of Germany’s wind power capacity is also locally owned by farmers and cooperatives.[20]

There are also some potential economies of operation and maintenance, although these shrink as wind projects become more ubiquitous and services are more broadly available.

Is Distributed Solar Competitive at Retail?

For many distributed projects, the issue is not a comparison to other large-scale power plant costs or economies of scale, but how distributed generation compares to grid electricity. The liability in such comparison is that grid electricity is mostly from old fossil fuel power plants that were paid off years ago and that generate significant pollution (including carbon emissions). Furthermore, the price of grid electricity is not static (it’s gone up 3.8% per year since 2000).[21] However, many prospective customers use their existing electric bill when considering solar, so the comparison has merit.

Consider a residential solar PV system installed in Los Angeles. A local buying group negotiated a price of $4.78 per Watt, equivalent to 17.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) with federal incentives. Since the average electricity price in Los Angeles is 11.5 cents, solar doesn’t appear to compete. Or does it?

The following chart illustrates the difficulty in determining whether solar has reached “grid parity” (e.g. the same price as electricity from the grid).

Solar & Grid Parity – What is Solar’s Competition?

In Los Angeles, there are three sets of electricity prices. From October to May (off-season), all pricing plans have a flat rate per kWh and total consumption. During peak season (June to September), however, the utility offers two different pricing plans: time-of use pricing and tiered pricing. Time-of-use pricing offers lower rates – 10.8 cents – during late evening and early morning hours, but costs as much as 22 cents per kWh during peak hours. Prices fluctuate by the hour. Tiered pricing offers the same, flat rate at any hour of the day, but as total consumption increases the rate does as well. For monthly consumption of 350 kWh or less, the price is 13.2 cents. From 350 to 1,050 kWh, the price is 14.7 cents. Above 1,050 kWh, each unit of electricity costs 18.1 cents.

A very rough calculation of the expected time of day production of a solar array in Los Angeles finds that the average value of a solar-produced kWh is 15.1 cents over a year.[22] That suggests that solar power is not yet at grid parity, even with time-of-use pricing. A similar value was found when examining time-of-use pricing in PG&E’s service territory.[23] A more robust analysis with assumptions about higher levels of on-site electricity use during peak hours could change these estimates.

There are other considerations, as well. With a grid connected system, the most common policy governing the connection is net metering. It allows self-generators to roll their electricity meter backward as they generate electricity, but there are limits. Users typically only get a credit for the energy charges on their bill, and not for fixed charges utilities apply to recover the costs of grid maintenance (and associated taxes and fees). Producing more than is consumed onsite can mean giving free power to the utility company. So even if a solar array could produce all the electricity consumed on-site, the billing arrangement would not allow the customer to zero out their electricity bill. Some policies, like CLEAN contracts, eliminate this problem.

Based on ILSR’s analysis, solar PV is becoming competitive with average grid electricity prices in select areas of the United States. As prices fall to $4 per Watt, solar PV projects that can take advantage of the federal tax credits and accelerated depreciation – an incentive only available to commercial operations – would compete favorably with average grid electricity prices in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles (representing 40 million Americans).

Under a time-of-use pricing plan (where prices could be 30% higher during hours with good sunshine, as in Los Angeles), the equation changes. An additional 16 million Americans could use solar PV (along with both federal incentives) to beat their grid electricity price at an installed cost of $4 per Watt. Even at $5 per Watt, 40 million Americans could use solar PV and federal incentives to best their utility’s time-of-use electricity rate.

Falling Solar Costs Reach Grid Parity with Time-of-Use Pricing:

As noted above, this grid parity calculation assumes that solar producers can use federal depreciation, an incentive worth as much as 25% of the project cost and only available to businesses or to homeowners who lease their solar panels. Without any federal incentives, solar PV would have to be installed at approximately $2.40 per Watt to be at grid parity for 56 million Americans.

In the current environment of incentives, distributed solar is nearing a cost-effectiveness threshold, when it will suddenly become an economic opportunity for millions of Americans.

References here.

Community Power

2011-10-21T13:39:00.000-07:00

Al Weinrub's ground-breaking new report, Community Power, has made a big splash among local distributed renewable energy generation advocates.

Below is an excerpt from John Farrell's recent review of Community Power on Energy Self-Reliant States.

You can also listen to an hour long interview with author Al Weinrub by Solar Times editor Sandy LeonVest here, and view Al Weinrub's presentation, "Why A Decentralized Energy System?" from the 2011 Local Clean Energy Alliance Conference here.

From ESRS....."Our renewable energy goals can be met cost-effectively, more quickly, and with greater economics benefits by focusing on decentralized renewable energy".

That’s the powerful conclusion in the recently released report, Community Power: Decentralized Renewable Energy in California, and the lessons are applicable in every state across America. These lessons are attracting attention, as large-scale desert solar projects and new transmission lines meet stiff resistance from an increasingly broad-based opposition.

The cost-competitiveness of renewable energy is not news to anyone familiar with the industry, but Weinrub shows that for the most prominent decentralized renewable energy source – solar power – decentralized production from photovoltaics (PV) has better economics than centralized solar thermal power plants.

His research is reinforced by data from the California Solar Initiative that shows that a large majority of decentralized solar PV’s economies of scale are captured by projects as small as 10 kilowatts.

Weinrub also shows that California has plenty of decentralized renewable energy potential – with rooftop solar alone – to meet ambitious renewable energy target[s]. As he notes, the actual potential far exceeds the necessary amount required to meet state standard[s]:

The potential for decentralized solar generation goes well beyond the numbers cited in these studies, which represent only the most accessible commercial solar PV installations. Other, smaller rooftops are available for commercial PV power in urban areas, as are carports, parking lots, other disturbed land, rail and highway right of ways, and so forth.

As important as the actual potential, Weinrub illustrates how decentralized renewable energy is more likely (or perhaps the only) method for reaching ambitious near-term target[s] for renewable electricity.

Centralized renewable energy often requires new high-voltage transmission capacity, which can take 10 years or more to construct, before the renewable energy project itself begins construction.

Building a Renewable Energy Constituency

While all these arguments for decentralized generation make a compelling case in the electricity market, the most valuable of Weinrub’s findings is the massive economic benefits of choosing a decentralized model for renewable energy deployment. The jobs and economic impact advantage of dispersing wind and solar projects far outweigh the increased marginal cost – if any – of smaller scale projects. Weinrub also notes that this development model reduces environmental impacts, a hotly contested topic regarding centralized solar power and its attendant new transmission lines.

Weinrub references but doesn’t make explicit that decentralized energy carries significant political advantages. By spreading around wealth and expanding the field of energy producers, decentralized generation creates a political constituency to support renewable energy development, in stark contrast to the NIMBY response to centralized desert solar or new transmission lines.

From Community Power by Al Weinrub

Unfortunately, while identifying the significant benefits and potential for decentralized renewable energy, Weinrub illustrates a challenging picture for its adoption. For one, California regulators have allowed incumbent utilities to slip on their commitment to meet the state’s renewable energy milestones and instead invest millions in a fleet of new natural gas power plants. He also identifies the appropriately named “Legacy Model of Big Power:” a state and federal web of financial and regulatory rules favoring the development of large-scale, centralized power plants.

But the commonsense adage “follow the money” provides the most vivid illustration of structural barriers to decentralized generation. Rather than invest in decentralized generation, the dominant investor-owned utilities prefer to put their money in new transmission lines, where their investments get a guaranteed profit at the expense of ratepayers.

The striking growth in new transmission lines since 1999 stands in stark contrast to near-flat energy demand. And every dollar these utilities insist on using to overbuild transmission infrastructure is a dollar that can’t be spent on the tools of the future grid: new distributed wind and solar power, energy storage, or a smarter grid.

Overcoming Barriers

Weinrub offers two political options for overcoming the existing barriers to decentralized generation, although the road for each has its own perils. Community Choice Energy legislation first passed in California in 2002, but it wasn’t until a year ago that a community successfully overcame utility-funded opposition to take control of its energy future. Legislation recently introduced in the California legislature in 2011 hopes to fight utility intransigence by strengthening the 2002 law.

The second strategy – a feed-in tariff – has the best track record, but is the least developed in the United States. Jurisdictions with feed-in tariff (FiT) policies (such as Germany, Ontario, Vermont and Gainesville, Florida) have seen significant deployment of renewable energy (particularly solar) by offering standardized, long-term contracts and prices sufficient to offer developers a reasonable return on investment.

Feed-in tariffs provide cost-effective deployment of renewable energy by reducing the rate of return of developers in exchange for significantly reduced risk. While feed-in tariffs are actually quite similar to the model for deploying new power generation in regulated utility markets, they have yet to catch hold significantly in the United States.

Community Power makes a powerful case for decentralized renewable energy generation. After reading this report, it’s hard to imagine that policy makers would be content to allow renewable energy development to continue under the conventional central-station model.

Community Power is available from the Local Clean Energy Alliance at: http://www.localcleanenergy.org/Community-Power-Publication.

Task Force Considers Streamlining Transmission in Colorado

2011-10-09T14:19:00.000-07:00

Oct 13th UPDATE: The deadline for comment has been extended into November!

SB-45 is a bad idea that gives political cover to those who wish to undermine local control and democracy in Colorado. If the Task Force for Steamlining Siting of Transmission Facilities has its way, Colorado ratepayers will get artificially high electricity rates and a path dependency on old style remote, monopoly-controlled renewable generation. This could diminish opportunities to generate sun and wind energy in their own communities where it creates the most benefit for the least cost.

New transmission lines cost ratepayers billions of dollars while ensuring Investor Owned Utilities 100% cost recovery and high rates (10-17%) of return on investment.

As such, utility policy in Colorado has created perverse incentives for unnecessary new high voltage transmission while ignoring cheaper, smarter and less environmentally destructive alternatives like distributed generation on existing (easily upgraded) transmission lines.

Little known to most, the Task Force for Streamlining Siting of Transmission Facilities authorized by SB 11-045 earlier this year (see below), has convened several meetings this fall. While the legislation requires the Task Force to consider public input, that input has been limited to a very few people who are aware of and able to attend the Denver and Pueblo meetings.
The pubic has not been well informed of the existence or purpose of the Task Force or why the outcome of these meetings is important. You can learn more by reviewing the meeting agendas and web casts available on the CPUC Task Force website. If you don't have time to review the documents yourself, check back in a few days for a summary of the meetings and some suggested talking point.

We just learned that the public comment period has been extended into November and that the Counties, who are generally opposed to having their powers stripped away, will be presenting their concerns at the next meeting on Oct 19th.

More details coming soon. In the mean time, comments can be submitted to:

SB11-45TaskforceComments@dora.state.co.us

Previous coverage on SB 45 on this blog....

Mar 15, 2010 update:

Colorado Energy News - Who Will Have 'Power' Over Colorado's Power Transmission?

Gail Schwartz says "this bill is not intended to diminish local authority or input from the siting process", yet by giving task force decision-making powers to only 2 out of 64 counties and no public representation at all, how can it not have that effect?

The GEO Strategic Transmission and Renewables (STAR) Report (page 58), targets Trinchera Ranch and Louis Bacon ("an out-of-state billionaire") as the primary obstacle to new transmission in the San Luis Valley.

This analysis dismisses growing concern that the over-emphasis on absentee industrial solar generation in the rural San Luis Valley, will:

increase the cost of renewable energy for taxpayers and consumers
increase our energy CO2 footprint, and
unfairly constrain solar energy development in other parts of the state.

____________________________________________________________________________

Colorado counties could be stripped of their power to decide about siting transmission lines, if the utilities have their way in the Senate this week.

Senate Bill 11-045, "concerning a streamlined process for securing governmental approval for the siting of electric transmission facilities", pretty much says it all.

Initially, the bill established a Transmission Siting Commission to replace the "1041" land use permitting process adopted by many counties for siting transmission in Colorado. When Colorado Counties, Inc. balked, backers of the bill (with guidance from Xcel and TriState) quickly amended it to create a task force to "study" the idea.

The 16-member task force would be funded by and comprised mostly of industry and municipal interests and political appointees. It's task is to "take testimony" through a series of public meetings on the "siting of electric transmission facilities", and report back to the Governor by the end of the year before authorizing the Commission.

Only two of the sixteen member task force would represent Colorado's 64 Counties.

Such narrow representation would effectively silence the voices of rural Colorado and local community groups and ratepayers, who would foot the bill for transmission decisions the Commission could make, should it be approved.

Simply put; this bill ultimately seeks to disenfranchise people and local communities in Colorado from having a say in siting new transmission.

The bill was approved by a 7 to 1 vote in the Senate Agricultural Committee last week, including a thumbs up from Committee Chair, Gail Schwartz who represents the San Luis Valley. The Valley is at the epicenter of Xcel and TriState's hotly contested SoCo transmission line, recently approved by the Public Utilities Commission.

The bill sets the stage for authorizing an undemocratic, industry dominated Transmission Siting Commission during the 2012 legislative session. If appointed, such a Commission could effectively push aside rising public opposition to costly new transmission and large-scale solar industrialization of the San Luis Valley.

SB-45 is a bad idea that gives political cover to those who wish to undermine local control and democracy in Colorado. If the Task Force for Steamlining Siting of Transmission Facilities has its way, Colorado ratepayers will get artificially high electricity rates and a path dependency on old style remote, monopoly-controlled renewable generation. This could diminish opportunities to generate sun and wind energy in their own communities where it creates the most benefit for the least cost.

Monopoly Energy or Energy Democracy?

2011-08-28T00:23:00.000-07:00

Maybe it was the report from California that large solar lease investors are making an aggressive grab for Governor Brown's groundbreaking 12,000 MW of distributed generation in CA. Or it could have been an insiders comment that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is (once again) under explosive pressure to auction off Colorado's few untouched public lands for oil and gas leasing. This, on top of Secretary of Interior Salazar's push to open 22 million acres of ecologically valuable public land for industrial solar development.

Or maybe it was watching this hilarious, but tragically revealing, 2010 Daily Show where Jon Stewart reminds us that our last 8 Presidents have vowed, and failed in various degrees, to achieve energy independence and end our dependency on fossil fuels.

WATCH IT FOR YOURSELF HERE!

More likely, the State department approval of the Keystone 1 tar sands pipeline, was the final straw.

In any case, I am staring at the hard truth that we local, distributed clean energy advocates, climate and anti-frack/fossil fuel activists, and regular folks who just want affordable energy that doesn't wreck the environment, are losing. No, its worse than that. Our pocketbooks, planet, public safety and welfare have been hijacked as we are aggressively forced to depend on increasingly destructive and dirty energy sources.

Its been a discouraging year. Especially when measured against the encouraging gains being made by the rest of the world. Ontario, Canada's economy is bursting with clean energy generation and jobs. Despite being downplayed in the US, Germany has maintained its global lead in solar energy while pushing to go beyond nuclear. Now Japan, has adopted a new feed-in tariff (FIT) designed to spur 30,000 MW of renewable energy by 2020. (FIT's are unequivocally the most effective policy incentive for renewable energy).

The US is dragging desperately behind in the global "race" to keep climate change in check, which at this point (392.39 ppm and counting), demands no less than a complete and immediate transformation of our global energy system.

Adding insult to injury, we are even losing hard fought ground. Colorado's pioneer Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing program continues to be derailed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Xcel's abrupt and steep reduction in Solar*Rewards has cost Colorado thousands of good, green jobs, and even a very modest FIT study bill didn't make it past first base in the state legislature earlier this year.

While there have been a few hard earned gains, like Solar Garden's and solar permitting reform legislation, the bottom line - financing - for solar remains chronically anemic here and in most of the US.

In contrast, "monopoly energy" is moving full throttle ahead. Massive new natural gas, oil and industrial wind and solar "plays" are being staked out by industry across the nation; Many in areas that have hitherto been spared from destructive energy development, like Huerfano County in southern Colorado.

After decades of secrecy, exemption and billions in taxpayer subsidies, we are just beginning to understand the true cost of monopoly energy for our communities, public health and environment. And to make matters worse, when developed under the central, industrial old energy model, even 'renewable' energy sources like wind and solar, take on the same destructive qualities.

Monopoly energy continues to reap record profits while failing miserably to protect our health and environment. Public cries grow stronger and demonstrations grow larger and longer. Yet, our dutifully elected 'deciders' routinely shove our environmental "laws" aside and widen the path for unpopular and dangerous big energy projects at their bidding.

All of this is leading up to the painfully obvious question: Why have 'we as a nation' failed to move ahead in achieving wildly popular (and democratic) local clean energy goals, more than 40 years after we recognized the need?

Germany's solar champion, Hermann Scheer offered this answer in an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! shortly before his death:

“We’re in a race between centralized and decentralized, energy monopoly and energy democracy. The mobilization of society is most important and once people realize they can’t wait for the government or utilities, but can do it themselves, it will change.

Most importantly, Scheer said, "People need to act to overcome administrative and bureaucratic barriers that hinder renewable energy. The rules favoring conventional energy and blocking decentralized renewable energy need to be exposed and dismantled”.

Japan has learned the same lesson, albeit far more painfully than Germany. In a report by Paul Gipe on Japan's recent adoption of a feed-in tariff, designed to spur more than 30,000 MW of renewable energy by 2020, he pointed out that:

"Observers say a key feature of the new law is the creation of a special parliamentary committee to determine the details of the program, including specific tariffs. In the past, this function would normally have been assigned to the powerful Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). However, the political fallout from the nuclear disaster at Fukishima has led to a dramatic loss of trust in METI, which has opposed both the rapid expansion of renewables, and also the use of feed-in tariffs to do so. Taking program design and pricing away from METI is a major victory for renewable energy advocates in Japan"

Like METI in Japan, monopoly energy (including the utility industry) devoutly opposes progressive renewable energy policies that will decentralize and democratize energy systems in the US. A major player in the Corporatocracy, Monopoly Energy has captured the White House and most of Congress, dominates State energy politics and in many cases, even controls local agendas.

Until people unite with the understanding that monopoly energy's strangle-hold on our society and resources must be directly challenged and dismantled, as it was in Germany and now Japan, we will continue to expect unrealistic outcomes, bend our expectations to the needs of power and fall farther behind, as the rest of the world transitions to clean energy.

Read this on Common Dreams

California takes on 12K MW distributed generation challenge

2011-08-11T09:59:00.000-07:00

"A political battle over who will benefit from decentralized/distributed generation of renewable energy is shaping up. This is a battle for which our communities will need to mobilize if we are not to be first marginalized and then regarded as an opposition to be crushed."

California Governor Jerry Brown's progressive goal of 12,000 MW of distributed renewable energy by 2020 has the potential to move US renewable energy policy in a more sensible and democratic direction. Several of our Solar Done Right colleagues attended the Governors 2-day conference. The consensus is that energy democracy will not come easily.

Challenges Ahead:
Brown’s 12K MW Local Renewables Target
Commentary by Al Weinrub

Author of Community Power
Coordinator, Local Clean Energy Alliance

August 10, 2011

Jerry Brown led off his conference of 250 high level renewable energy stakeholders July 25-26, 2011 by calling for a “more secure, more sustainable, more American” energy system. The conference was organized to help chart the path to 12,000 MW of local renewable power by 2020, as called for by the Governor.

Key to achieving the 12,000 megawatts will be overcoming significant obstacles, among them being bureaucratic approval and permitting barriers, grid integration and interconnect difficulties, and finding appropriate amounts of investment capital. And, of course, building political consensus.

The conference started off with a bang as the governor, referring to some of these obstacles, blatantly asserted that “some kind of opposition you have to crush.”

With that auspicious beginning, and after the Governor and press cameras had departed, two intensive days of deliberation began. The by-invitation-only participants consisted of about 50% renewable industry representatives and consultants, 25% government personnel (the governor’s staff, energy agency commissioners and staff, a few legislators, and county and regional agency representatives), and the remainder representing investor-owned and municipal utilities, a few unions, financial institutions, environmentalists, and a smattering of decentralized/distributed generation advocates.

There seemed to be a great deal of consensus at the conference about the need to streamline renewable energy project approvals across the plethora of government agencies that are often involved, and also about the need for utilities to be more forthcoming about technical data required by project developers. There was much less consensus, however, about what kind of projects would be developed, where, and by whom.

In fact, the main contention at the conference was between those who emphasized least cost of energy as the main criteria for decentralized generation projects and those who stressed other values, such as local economic development, jobs, equity, community health, and the like. The conflict was framed in many ways, but emerged most directly between those parties who advocated for large projects (5 – 20 MW) through a renewable auction mechanism (RAM and those who advocated for community-scale projects (0 -5 MW) promoted through a feed-in tariff mechanism.

Not surprisingly, the utilities and big developers like Recurrent Energy were pushing the least-cost criteria, calling for the 12,000 MW to be developed as larger 10 -20 MW ground-mounted solar PV projects close to transmission substations and selected through a RAM program. Surprisingly, they were joined by The Utility Reform Network (TURN), which argued that this approach would result in the least cost of energy and hence best protection of ratepayers.

The other side included the Los Angeles Business Council, the California Environmental Justice Alliance, the Clean Coalition, the Local Clean Energy Alliance, Solar Done Right, and other long-time decentralized generation advocates who called for the 12,000 MW to be developed as smaller-scale projects in urbanized areas where economic recovery, jobs, equity, and health are key goals. These parties argued for a comprehensive feed-in tariff program that would promote this type of local renewable development. They also argued against the prevailing assumption that larger scale projects are less expensive, pointing not only to rapidly declining prices for solar PV installations, but to a fuller set of socio-economic costs and benefits, which the big players conveniently ignored.

Amidst the palpable jubilation of the renewable energy industry over Brown’s commitment to local renewable energy, the Governor’s conference revealed emerging battle lines over how that 12,000 MW target will be deployed. Will California’s “local” renewable energy projects primarily represent the interests of the big industry players or the interests of local communities?

This is a question for which the stakes are high; whether California will go down the old road (simply calling it something new) or whether it will take a qualitatively different approach. If the representation of invitees at this conference is indicative of the Governor’s leanings, there is reason for concern, if not alarm. Despite Brown’s campaign platform of more democracy and more local control, there was very little community present at this conference.

A political battle over who will benefit from decentralized/distributed generation of renewable energy is shaping up. This is a battle for which our communities will need to mobilize if we are not to be first marginalized and then regarded as an opposition to be crushed.

PACE and 10 Million Solar Roofs: urge Congress to support!

2011-07-29T12:26:00.000-07:00

There are two very important bills coming up in the House and Senate this week that will take local, clean energy a great step forward:

I. HR 2599: Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Assessment Protection Act. Read more about it here and take action here.

II. S 1108: 10 Million Solar Roofs Act. Read more about it here and take action here.

These measures will be a great boon to Energy Democracy. Please urge your Congressional representatives to support them and help us spread the word!

Tessera Solar withdraws Saguache County application

2011-07-16T14:35:00.000-07:00

The good news came just as it started to rain. In this drought prone land, Ranchers Julie Sullivan and George Whitten could not be happier when they received the call that Tessera Solar had withdrawn its bid to construct a 1,525-acre industrial solar power plant in the midst of their centennial ranching community.

They, and dozens of other Saguache County ranchers and citizens have been fighting the massive installation of 8,000 forty-foot hydrogen-fueled dish Stirling SunCatchers, for more than two years.

As reported in the Pueblo Chieftain, "Tessera's original proposal failed to meet state limits for noise and drew sharp criticism from county residents for its effects on neighboring property, wildlife and the environment".

"Now we can focus on what we do want, rather than fighting ill-borne projects generated by those who care nothing for rural places" said Sullivan, in an email to members of the San Luis Valley Renewable Communities Alliance (SLVRCA), the citizen group that worked to stop the destructive project.

"There are ways and means to utilize and increase the value from our resources, create jobs, and improve the quality of life for all of us, without sacrificing the livelihoods and properties of any of our neighbors", said Alliance board member Chuck Tidd.

Tidd and others in the Renewable Communities Alliance are working to develop solar gardens in Saguache County and create a roadmap for the San Luis Valley to become a model of energy self-sufficiency in Colorado rather than the State's first industrial solar sacrifice zone. But they admit it will be a long, uphill battle.

"Tessera is the first industrial solar proposal to get this far in Colorado, and even though this particular technology and company failed, it won't be the last", said RCA founder Ceal Smith. "If the utilities and 'Big Solar' industrialists have their way, all of Colorado's solar energy will be generated here", said Smith. "The San Luis Valley may have slightly better insolation, but the cost of new transmission lines and inefficiencies of moving electricity hundreds of miles to demand centers makes utterly no sense, unless you're a utility company with a legislative blank check for new infrastructure", said Smith.

In, Democratizing the Electricity System, a new report from the Institute for Self-Reliance, John Farrell makes the case that "wind and solar are available everywhere, and renewable energy can be economically harnessed at small scales across the country, state and community" through distributed generation, while saving ratepayers billions, spurring energy efficiency and renewing local economies.

"This is the model for the future that we'd like to see the San Luis Valley be a leader in, rather than more of the outmoded, centralized old energy model that no longer works for our communities, economy or environment", said Smith.

The Economics of Distributed Generation

2011-07-09T19:57:00.000-07:00

The following is part 2 from a serialized version of the Institute for Self Reliance new report, Democratizing the Electricity System.

Click here for Part 1 or here to download the entire report.

The falling cost of distributed renewable generation has been one of the key drivers of the transformation of the U.S. electric grid.

Levelized Cost of Renewable Energy (Lazard):

Levelized Cost of Fossil Energy (Lazard):

Wind, geothermal and biomass are already less expensive than any fossil fuel energy source, when factoring in federal incentives for all three sources.

(Union of Concerned Scientists)

The Issue of Scale

Average Size of U.S. solar PV project: 10 kilowatts

Average Size of U.S. wind power project: 80 megawatts

In the same fashion, solar modules have increased in efficiency and quality, allowing for greater electricity output per module. The technological advance actually reduces the need to be bigger.

Because renewable energy projects can lend themselves to smaller scale and geographic dispersion, they encourage the development of a distributed grid. It’s not always the case, however.

Solar Power

Solar PV v. CSP Costs:

These costs are supported by the lower cost of distributed solar in Germany,[8] as well as recent bids for utility-run distributed solar programs in the United States.[9]

Solar PV Module Cost Drops by Half for 10-Fold Capacity Increase (Ken Zweibel):

[Concentrating solar power] (CSP) represents over 6,000 MW of the over 15,000 MW of future solar projects that SEPA is tracking, but there are differences in project development between CSP and PV. PV can be built and sub-sections of the larger project can be energized over time, resulting in lower construction risk and balance-sheet impact. CSP projects need to be completed in full before commissioning, a period which takes several years from start to finish.

Even if solar thermal power can keep pace on cost with solar PV, the latter is much more amenable to distributed generation and local ownership and would be preferable even if the costs were similar.

The second economies of scale question for solar power is big solar PV versus small solar PV. Here the data are less conclusive.

Solar PV Economies of Scale:

PV projects, which ranged in size from 1-kilowatt residential installations to 48-megawatt power plants, have much shorter planning horizons and project completion times, along with lesser siting, permitting, financing and transmission requirements at these small- and medium-sized scales. However, larger PV and CSP projects (those greater than 50 MW) require overcoming financing, siting/permitting, and transmission barriers that might emerge at these larger sizes.

In short, PV is the preferential technology, and distributed solar is better than centralized. As we discuss later, this has significant implications for the economic benefits of solar power.

Wind Power

Wind Projects 5 - 20 MW Have Lowest Cost per Kilowatt:

There are also some potential economies of operation and maintenance, although these shrink as wind projects become more ubiquitous and services are more broadly available.

Is Distributed Solar Competitive at Retail?

The following chart illustrates the difficulty in determining whether solar has reached “grid parity” (e.g. the same price as electricity from the grid).

Solar & Grid Parity – What is Solar’s Competition?

Falling Solar Costs Reach Grid Parity with Time-of-Use Pricing:

In the current environment of incentives, distributed solar is nearing a cost-effectiveness threshold, when it will suddenly become an economic opportunity for millions of Americans.

References here.

Energy Democracy Now!

2011-06-28T07:16:00.000-07:00

The beauty of renewable energy is its ubiquity and thus, its potential to empower people and communities and spark a new era of energy democracy. According to the Institute for Self-Reliance, Energy Self-Reliant States, John Farrell's new ground-breaking report, "Democratizing the Electricity System", the dispersed nature of renewable energy is already transforming the nation's grid system from the utility dominated centralized 20th century "old energy" model to "a democratized network of independently-owned and widely dispersed renewable energy generators, with the economic benefits of electricity generation as widely dispersed as the ownership". Below are excerpts from Part 1 of 5.

The 20th century of electricity generation was characterized by ever larger and more distant central power plants. But a 21st century technological dynamic offers the possibility of a dramatically different electricity future: millions of widely dispersed renewable energy plants and storage systems tied into a smart grid. It’s a more democratic and participatory paradigm, with homes and businesses and communities becoming energy producers as well as consumers actively involved in designing the rules for the new electricity system.

Several decades ago, several people – Amory Lovins in Brittle Power, David Morris in Self-Reliant Cities – explored the implications of this decentralized vision. Most importantly, this vision represents a transformation in the ownership and control of the electricity system. Instead of a 20th century grid dominated by large, centralized utilities, the 21st century grid would be a democratized network of independently-owned and widely dispersed renewable energy generators, with the economic benefits of electricity generation as widely dispersed as the ownership.

This graphic from the European Commission illustrates the paradigm change:

The difference in the ensuing decades is the commoditization of distributed energy production (e.g. solar panels sold at Home Depot), the renewable energy industry growing to $100 billion, and the critical mass of such production on the electricity grid.

In the last two years a number of events have forced policymakers at the local, state and national level to grapple with the implications of a decentralized grid system and how the policies they adopt help or hinder such a 21st century energy system:

Sixteen (16) states of the twenty-nine (29) that have renewable energy mandates have added mandates for solar and other distributed energy technologies.
Germany installed an astonishing 7,400 megawatts (MW) of distributed solar PV in 2010. It has begun to change its incentive program to not only maximize solar power but on-site self-reliance via a combination of distributed generation, demand shifting and storage.
In this country’s largest solar market, California, the number of rooftop solar PV systems has grown from 500 to 50,000 in 10 years. [2] The number of buildings with rooftop solar in San Francisco alone has increased from 9 to 7,050 in the same period.
California’s governor announced his goal for the state to generate 12,000 MW from renewable distributed power plants by 2020. [3] The state public utility commission has established a new renewable auction mechanism for up to 1,000 MW of distributed renewable energy projects 20 MW and smaller.
Southern California Edison recently completed its solicitation for 250 MW of distributed solar PV on dozens of commercial rooftops with the price of electricity expected to be lower than natural gas generation. [4]
And many more [5]

These events coincide with a dramatic rise in the amount of renewable energy on the U.S. electric grid. Although total renewable generation is only 10 percent of total electricity, in some regions the concentration has reached 15 to 20 percent or more. The rapid growth rate of this distributed renewable energy means that regulatory and utility policy must change immediately, to plan appropriately for the coming distributed generation grid.

Why Distributed Generation?

There are a number of benefits to a democratized electricity system, in addition to the monumental shift toward energy self-reliance.

1. Vast potential and deployment speed. Nearly every state could meet 20 percent of its electricity needs with rooftop solar PV alone. Two-thirds of states have sufficient wind, solar and geothermal power to get 100 percent of their electricity from in-state (and distributed) sources. [6]

Distributed generation can also come online much faster than centralized generation. For example, while the entire world has installed barely 1,000 MW of centralized solar thermal power, Germany installed 7,400 MW of distributed solar PV in 2010 alone. [7] Similarly, large wind projects often experience long delays awaiting new transmission capacity whereas distributed wind projects can often connect to the grid without significant infrastructure upgrades. Ontario’s feed-in tariff program, for example, provides fast-tracking for small-scale distributed generation (projects smaller than 500 kilowatts) because it rarely creates significant grid impacts.

2. Favorable economics. Some renewable energy technologies (with federal subsidies) already compete toe-to-toe with fossil fuel generation, and others – like solar – are rapidly becoming less expensive. Furthermore, the vast majority of economies of scale for renewable energy technologies are captured at a modest size, well within accepted size definitions of distributed generation.

3. Local ownership and political support. The economic impact of locally owned renewable energy projects can be several times greater than absentee owned ones, and distributed generation lends itself to ownership. Such local ownership also dramatically increases local acceptance of more renewable energy production. And because it’s a more efficient use of the electricity grid, distributed generation reduces the number of political fights over new high-voltage transmission lines.

The political support for distributed generation also stems from its inherent democratic nature. By dispersing the sources of power generation and opening the grid to producers large and small, a distributed grid allows for maximum participation in power production, creating a constituency for supporting the expansion of clean energy and distributed generation.

4. Value to the grid. Distributed generation is more resilient to disruption, with power generation spread over thousands of generators and over a wide geographic area. This makes it harder for a large area to be without power and easier to maintain grid stability.

A distributed grid can also be more efficient, by maximizing the potential of existing infrastructure. In California, the Public Utility Commission requires utilities to publish data on “sweet spots” on their grids, to assist distributed energy developers plug in where it’s of greatest benefit. This efficient usage can reduce the demand for new grid infrastructure, particularly expensive high-voltage transmission lines.

For an exhaustive list of the benefits of distributed generation, see the 207 benefits of distributed resources in the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Small is Profitable. [8]

The Potential for Distributed Generation

Most U.S. states have enormous potential for renewable electricity production that could be developed in a distributed, democratic fashion. In the 2009 report, Energy Self-Reliant States, ILSR provided maps of the renewable energy potential by state based on current electricity demand.

Almost every state could get 20 percent or more of its electricity from rooftop solar. This does not include the electricity generated from ground mounted arrays. Sufficient sunshine falls on every state to meet all its electricity needs from the sun provided that enough energy storage was also available. The following map shows the portion of a state’s land area that would be required to meet all its electricity needs with solar power. California’s 0.32% is equivalent to about half of Orange County; New York’s 0.66% is equivalent to less than half of Long Island. While a fully renewable, distributed grid would benefit from greater diversity than just solar power, there is potential to power every state’s grid with local, distributed electricity.

The exponential growth rate of distributed generation like solar PV suggests that even if distributed generation makes up a small portion of generation now, its growth profile suggests that within the planning horizons of many utilities, it will comprise a significant and possibly majority portion of generation.

Germany, for example, deployed over 10,000 MW of solar PV projects in the past two years, over 80 percent on rooftops. Distributed generation is poised for massive growth in the United States.

References here.

La Veta threatened by Shell hydraulic fracturing

2011-06-27T20:04:00.000-07:00

The community of La Veta, in Huerfano County (just southeast of the SLV) faces an imminent threat of a hydraulically fracked 14,000-foot deep natural gas well just 2 miles west and upwind from the town. Shell Oil's proposal could threaten local drinking water wells, public health and more.

Below is a call for help from the newly formed grassroots Citizen's for Huerfano County who are fighting this onslaught. The pace and magnitude of destructive Big Energy development schemes are growing and we rural Colorado communities need to stick together!

Awareness about the dangers of fracking is spreading like wildfire and momentum is building for local and state moratoriums and bans. We have dedicated this page to keeping people updated on CHC's efforts. Check back frequently to stay engaged!

People Power is vital to the effort of saving the La Veta Valley from destructive fracking! The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and elected County Commissioners (Scott King, Art Bobian and Roger Cain) have completely ignored the concerns of hundreds of affected constituents. The Citizens for Huerfano County has filed a lawsuit against the COGCC for the reckless abandonment of its own regulations. We need your help!

* DONATE! Litigation is costly. We need to raise $15,000 immediately for our legal/strategy defense fund. Please make a secure online donation below or mail a check written to “Huerfano Community Corporation/CHC” to: P.O. Box 386, La Veta, CO 81055

* BECOME A MEMBER! Join the 100 (and rising) member Citizens for Huerfano County (CHC) by sending your Name, Address, Phone and Email to: citizensforhuerfanocounty@gmail.com (or PO Box 1142, La Veta, CO, 81055). Unless you tell us not to, we’ll add you to the list-serve to receive CHC email news and action updates.

* VOLUNTEER! We need your energy, passion and expertise to help with media, outreach, fundraising, membership, a website and things we haven’t even thought of yet. Email us today!

* SPREAD THE WORD! Tell your friends, family and neighbors about the threat fracking poses to our quality of life, air and water, tourism-based economy and wildlife and let them know how they can help. Hold a neighborhood screening of Gasland, or Split Estate, two award nominated documentaries.

* SPEAK OUT! Write letters to your local, state and federal elected representatives. Send copies to newspaper Editors to build awareness of these important issues.

LEARN MORE ABOUT FRACKING:

http://www.propublica.org/series/buried-secrets-gas-drillings-environmental-threat

"The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), which oversees natural gas drilling and has rules on the books specifically addressing fracking, is currently undergoing an independent review of those regulations".

http://coloradoindependent.com/91978/epa-selects-colorado-site-as-part-of-ongoing-study-of-fracking-impacts-on-drinking-water

"Already, preliminary water testing by sportsmen is showing consistently high levels of bromides and total dissolved solids in some streams near fracking operations, Dufalla said. Bromide is a salt that reacts with the chlorine disinfectants used by drinking water systems and creates trihalomethanes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says trihalomethanes can be harmful to people who drink water with elevated levels for many years".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/25/sportsmen-alliance-for-marcellus-conservation-fracking_n_884589.html

THANK YOU!

Citizens for Huerfano County, La Veta, CO

Citizens for Huerfano County is a group of citizens whose purpose is to protect our public health, safety and welfare, the environment, and wildlife from the threat posed by natural gas exploration and operations, drilling, and hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") .

Please tweet, share and join us on Facebook

Community Power

2011-05-19T11:21:00.000-07:00

Al Weinrub's ground-breaking new report, Community Power, has made a big splash among local distributed renewable energy generation advocates.

Below is an excerpt from John Farrell's recent review of Community Power on Energy Self-Reliant States.

You can listen to an hour long interview with author Al Weinrub by Solar Times editor Sandy LeonVest here and view Al Weinrub's presentation, "Why A Decentralized Energy System?" from the 2011 Local Clean Energy Alliance Conference here.

From ESRS....."Our renewable energy goals can be met cost-effectively, more quickly, and with greater economic benefits by focusing on decentralized renewable energy".

That’s the powerful conclusion of the recently released report, Community Power: Decentralized Renewable Energy in California, and the lessons are applicable in every state across America. These lessons are attracting attention, as large-scale desert solar projects and new transmission lines meet stiff resistance from an increasingly broad-based opposition.

The cost-competitiveness of renewable energy is not news to anyone familiar with the industry, but Weinrub shows that for the most prominent decentralized renewable energy source – solar power – decentralized production from photovoltaics (PV) has better economics than centralized solar thermal power plants.

His research is reinforced by data from the California Solar Initiative that shows that a large majority of decentralized solar PV’s economies of scale are captured by projects as small as 10 kilowatts.

Weinrub also shows that California has plenty of decentralized renewable energy potential – with rooftop solar alone – to meet ambitious renewable energy target[s]. As he notes, the actual potential far exceeds the necessary amount required to meet state standard[s]:

The potential for decentralized solar generation goes well beyond the numbers cited in these studies, which represent only the most accessible commercial solar PV installations. Other, smaller rooftops are available for commercial PV power in urban areas, as are carports, parking lots, other disturbed land, rail and highway right of ways, and so forth.

As important as the actual potential, Weinrub illustrates how decentralized renewable energy is more likely (or perhaps the only) method for reaching ambitious near-term target[s] for renewable electricity.

Centralized renewable energy often requires new high-voltage transmission capacity, which can take 10 years or more to construct, before the renewable energy project itself begins construction.

Building a Renewable Energy Constituency

While all these arguments for decentralized generation make a compelling case in the electricity market, the most valuable of Weinrub’s findings is the massive economic benefits of choosing a decentralized model for renewable energy deployment. The jobs and economic impact advantage of dispersing wind and solar projects far outweigh the increased marginal cost – if any – of smaller scale projects. Weinrub also notes that this development model reduces environmental impacts, a hotly contested topic regarding centralized solar power and its attendant new transmission lines.

Weinrub references but doesn’t make explicit that decentralized energy carries significant political advantages. By spreading around wealth and expanding the field of energy producers, decentralized generation creates a political constituency to support renewable energy development, in stark contrast to the NIMBY response to centralized desert solar or new transmission lines.

From Community Power by Al Weinrub

Local Power, Local Control: Lessons from around the world

2011-05-16T13:35:00.000-07:00

In the previous post, Bottom-Up Solar Power, we introduced John Farrell, senior researcher on the New Rules Project at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, through his examination of the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy.

Among a growing number of publications, John is the author of the second and expanded edition of Energy Self Reliant States, that illustrates the potential for every state to meet its renewable energy goals with in-state renewable energy sources.

Boulder's Clean Energy Action group recently brought John Farrell to Boulder, Colorado from his home state of Minnesota. I had a few minutes to talk with John about the San Luis Valley's unique history with solar power and our current struggle for Community Power, before taking in his riveting and data-rich presentation.

We've posted John's PowerPoint from the talk below, followed by as many live reference links as I could conjure up.

"Community Power 101" doesn't get any better than this!

Local Power, Local Control

Reference Links (in order of occurrence):

Renewable Energy Economies of Scale Are "Bullshit"

Solving Solar Variability With More Solar

High Penetration of PV No Issue for Kauian Grid

Opportunities for Cost Reduction (Germany)

Solar PV Balance of System, Rocky Mountain Institute, includes summary discussion to "Achieving Low-Cost Solar PV: Industry Workshop Recommendations for Near-Term Balance of System Cost Reductions," and other related reports.

Distributed Solar Worth Far More than Electrons

Putting Renewables to Work, UC Berkeley, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory report.

National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL): Economic Development Impacts of Community Wind Projects: A Review and Empirical Evaluation

FERC's High Voltage Gravy Train, Energy Self-Reliant States.

Tracking the Sun III: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the US from 1998 to 2009, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Dec. 2010 (large pdf).

Ontario's Buy Local Renewable Energy Policy: An Update, Energy Self-Reliant States

Poor Solar Permitting Rules Increase Residential Solar Prices by Up to 20 Percent, Energy Self-Reliant States

TO LEARN MORE

Listen to a KGNU/Connections program about "Boulder's New Energy Future" with John Farrell and Susan Perkins here.

Bottom-up Solar Power

2011-05-07T17:53:00.000-07:00

People in the San Luis Valley have been making electricity from the sun for a long time.

Nearly 50 years ago, a cadre of the nations first solar innovators flocked to the "Valley of the Cool Sun" where they devised a wealth of low-cost solar systems from locally available materials and a surge of youthful invention.

These devices were designed to generate electricity and heat for peoples homes and businesses that were simple to install and would eliminate the need to import dirty energy from far away places.

Energy self-reliance was a clear goal of the early solar engineers in this remote, southern Colorado hide-a-way, and they were remarkably prolific. By the early 1980's the Solar Energy Research Institute -- now the nations premier think tank, the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colo. -- credited the San Luis Valley with "inspiring an explosion in solar energy resulting in perhaps the highest per capita concentration of solar installations in the country."

Needless to say, the solar industry has come a long way since those early days. But given the San Luis Valley's bottom-up, "small-d" democratic solar legacy, it should be no surprise that the locals are resisting utility plans to monopolize the Valley's sun.

That story has been told before, in this blog and elsewhere, so in keeping with the valley's strong preference for decentralized power, this post is an introduction to the excellent work being done by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), in the spirit of the early SLV solar innovators.

What follows are highlights from "Grassroots Solar", a recent interview with ILSR's senior researcher, John Farrell by Brian Foley, as an introduction to the Institute's good work......

You hear about gigantic solar farms that require vast amounts of land. But what about the decentralized emergence of renewable energy on roof tops? John Farrell took a few minutes to answer questions about grassroots "bottom-up" energy, feed-in tariffs, and solar "community gardens."

BF: What are the challenges facing bottom-up, "small-d" democratic – as you describe it -- solar power?

JF: Two big challenges: One is that renewable-energy incentives rely largely on the tax code, which means it's complicated to figure out, especially for non-profits and schools. Two, traditionally we're used to big power plants and long-distance transmission lines. The utilities always plan grids in that fashion and they haven't incorporated smaller distributive projects. That's not a technical barrier -- it's really just a matter of changing what people are used to doing.

BF:What about political challenges?

JF: Actually, big, centralized power plants, like these solar plants in the desert, are the ones that have the most political trouble because some are in environmentally sensitive areas. And they require asking people to accept new transmission lines to bring this power into cities, which requires taking land from people.

BF: For bottom-up renewables, advocates point to feed-in tariffs as a market-based solution.

JF: First, the term "feed-in tariff" is the result of letting policy wonks name your policy rather than public relations folks. It's a terrible way to inform people of what it actually means. I'd name it "plug and play" or "anyone can generate" -– that it helps people to generate their own energy.

BF: What makes feed-in tariffs worth while is that you're paid for it.

JF: Exactly. Traditionally, if you generate your own electricity with a solar panel, the utility will reduce your bill. Through a feed-in tariff, the utility is required to buy your electricity over a long-term, 20-year contract for a price that gives you a reasonable return on your investment. Instead of getting 2 percent in savings, the utility is required to give you 6 percent for your investment, for example.

BF: It doesn't seem like utility companies would be too eager to take on something like that.

JF: Actually, some municipal utilities with a broader view of actual costs are offering feed-in tariffs. In Gainesville, Florida for example, they've replaced a solar rebate program with a feed-in tariff because they felt it was better for their balance sheet to give money out over a long period of time rather than all at once with a rebate. And there are quite a few other utilities, like in Ft. Collins, Palo Alto, and others that are considering doing this. The Gainesville model is pretty darn good. They have 20-year contracts and the price they offer I think is around 30 cents per kilowatt-hour.

###

Read the interview in its entirety here.

More on the benefits of local ownership and why people are sick and tired of seeing the economic benefits of their local resources (including solar) leave their communities: Ownership (and Money) a Cure for NIMBY

Read John Farrell's Renewable Energy World blog here.

The Solar Golden Mean

2011-04-26T21:07:00.000-07:00

When it comes to solar energy there's a lot of confusion about size. Still in its infancy, industry claims of "first" and "best" are reminiscent of two toddlers arguing over who's dad is bigger. While I don't expect to sort it all out in one short blog, some perspective is in order.

5.5 kW solar PV on a barn in Roxbury, VT, from Solar Specialists

Residential Roof-top

The easiest scale to relate to is rooftop and its what most of us imagine when we think of solar.

The average residential rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system is between 2-5 kilowatts (kW). Pictured at left is a 5.5 kW rooftop system in Vermont. It's about the maximum size you'd need to meet 100% of an average household's electricity needs (with batteries of course, for night and cloudy days).

When aggregated in large, urban residential areas, like this suburban district near Tokyo, Japan (below), residential roof-top solar has considerable solar generation potential.

While we lack the policy incentives that much of the developed world enjoys, residential rooftop is still a win-win in the U.S.

A new report by from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab found that going solar increases the value of homes equal to the amount of investment. That's in addition to the direct savings on energy bills owners enjoy while they live in their solar powered home.

The price of solar panels has been in steady decline. The expected 50% decrease could put solar on a par (called "grid parity) with fossil fuels in the very near future.

Commercial Solar

The next leap up in the solar generation scale is commercial. The possibilities for commercial scale rooftop and ground-mounted solar are unlimited. Solar panels can go almost anywhere the sun shines -- warehouse rooftops, hospitals, parking lots, high rises, crop circle corners, brownfields, road, train and transmission corridors, south-facing barn walls....you name it.

The picture on the left shows a 1 MW commercial rooftop installation, part of a planned 15 MW commercial project in Santa Clara, CA. and one of 16 installations on hospitals, parking lots, and administrative buildings owned or leased by Kaiser.

Our vast urban landscapes offer millions of acres of "solestate" (did I just coin that term?) like the industrial rooftops and brownfields shown in this Google map of Denver's east side. This is a very small glimpse of Denver's commercial rooftop potential, but see more here.

Google image of an industrial zone between Interstate 270 and 70, Denver, Colorado.

Commercial and industrial zones have few shade trees or residents who might object to large solar arrays in their back yards. Large onsite commercial projects avoid the need and inefficiencies of long distance transmission, burdensome permitting processes and can be permitted, installed and connected to the existing grid in very short order and can save business millions in energy costs.

Because of these advantages, utilities (especially municipal) are moving towards larger scale distributed generation at, or close to the point of use.

Commercial gone big: "Distributed Utility"

For example, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE) just announced plans to purchase up to 80 MW of electricity produced from distributed concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) installations.

According to Clean Energy Authority, the project will be developed on multiple sites, "scattered around the county.” Larger than most distributed generation projects, 60 of the 80 MW will come from dozens of sites ranging from 1 to 4 MW, with the average around 2 MW. The 30 remaining MW will be built at three locations in Eastern San Diego County. One installation will be 20 megawatts and two will be 5 megawatts each.

Jeff Brothers, president of project partner Sol Orchard calls it "distributed utility".

According to the report, "the solar farms are designed to be near local substations to help alleviate the need for central plants and big transmission lines". In addition, developers have "partnered with farmers or ranchers and found idle land" for sale or lease to install the solar arrays.

Utility scale solar farms

Moving up; "Utility" scale is the most confusing. The term is generally used to describe free-standing solar "farms" that vary greatly in size.

This familiar 8.2 MW SunEdison plant in the San Luis Valley is an example of a small end utility scale solar farm, also considered "distributed". At less than 20 MW, this type of installation can be sited near existing substations on brownfields or other already developed lands, relatively easily. Avoidance of unmitigatable impacts and sensitive habitats and species, results in a relatively small footprint.

Industrial, central station solar

In contrast, massive, remote central-station solar power plants, like those being proposed on public lands throughout the southwest (including the San Luis Valley) are also mistakenly often called "utility" scale.

These massive (1,000-10,000 acre) industrial scale solar installations require huge swaths of land and involve complicated and highly controversial siting and permitting processes.

Industrial solar is an attempt to squeeze solar into an "old energy" central station model that many predict will not survive the new energy revolution. Even David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, a majority holder in the troubled Ivanpah Solar Electric Generation Station (ISEGS) recently told Forbes, "We think over the next three to five years the solar business will migrate heavily from a utility-sized solar business to a more distributed solar model driven by consumer demand not by government largesse".

The Golden Mean

Despite the fanfare over industrial scale solar generation, examples of distributed utility generation are popping up everywhere.

A recent UCLA Luskin Center study found that Los Angeles has the potential to generate as much solar energy from rooftops as it uses. New distributed projects are underway and a 75 MW Solar Feed-In Tariff pilot is expected to spur more explosive growth.

Large scale distributed generation may be the "Golden Mean" of solar generation in the US. It offers a more organic model of energy production and distribution that matches the ubiquitous nature of renewable resources.

Like the human body, a honeycomb or an ecosystem, many, small installations (like cells) interconnected throughout our urban "demand centers", provide a far more resilient and efficient model for a new energy world.

Fibonacci was on to something.

Solar Gold: Will the San Luis Valley be Colorado's Mojave?

2011-04-24T13:50:00.000-07:00

The San Luis Valley is Colorado's sole target for massive solar development although efforts have not proceeded at the same pace as in California. Still, more than 150,000 acres of mostly intact public land are being offered up by the Bureau of Land Management for industrial scale (100-1,000 MW) solar development. Two controversial Big Solar projects (Tessera Solar and Solar Reserve) are underway on private lands in Saguache County. Is the San Luis Valley poised for its own solar conflagration?

Below are excerpts from the Desert Sun report on Big Solar in California's Mojave desert.....

Solar: California's new gold

Green energy offers the prospect of an economic boon, but some worry the environmental, cultural cost is too high.

It's been called California's second gold rush: the clamor by large solar companies to stake a claim in southern California's open deserts and capture one of its most abundant resources — sunlight.

While many cheer the cleaner energy and economic possibilities utility-scale solar development may bring to a job-starved region, some environmentalists, Native Americans and others are critical of the process, saying it's running roughshod over threatened plant and animal species and culturally sensitive areas.

The California Energy Commission and federal Department of the Interior have approved eight major solar projects in Southern California since last year, including seven projects in the deserts north and east of the Coachella Valley. All but two of the approved plans utilize largely undeveloped public land managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management.

Another eight utility-scale solar projects are also in the permitting pipeline for Riverside and Imperial counties. And long-range plans are in the works that could open up millions more public acres to solar development in six western states with the largest proposed solar energy zone in Riverside County.

Critics contend the politically driven fast track to approving projects on tens of thousands of acres of public lands will cause irreparable damage to threatened plant and animal species, as well as to historic, prehistoric and culturally important sites.

“The irony is, in the name of saving the planet, we're casting aside 30 or 40 years of environmental law. It's really a type of frenzy,” said Christine Hersey, a solar analyst at Wedbush Securities who closely follows environmental concerns associated with solar projects.

The state of California and federal government are spurring the desert solar development, offering billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees, cash grants and tax breaks. On Monday, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced $2.1 billion in federal loan guarantees for one project, a 1000-megawatt proposal near Blythe and another solar plant in development, Ivanpah in eastern San Bernardino County, received $1.37 billion in federal loan guarantees in February.

Janine Blaeloch, executive director of the nonprofit Western Lands Project, questioned the huge taxpayer commitment to the solar projects.

Blaeloch is a member of Solar Done Right, a coalition of public land activists, solar power and electrical engineering experts, biologists and renewable energy advocates critical of placing large solar projects on relatively unspoiled public land. She co-authored a report released earlier this month on governmental push for solar in the open desert, entitled “Wrong from the Start.”

She noted that corporate investors in companies developing solar projects in the California desert include Chevron, BP, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

“It's big money and big oil,” she said. “It's the same people who have driven us into the hole we're in now trying to get us into another one.” ....“They are not saying to the public, ‘We want to know how you feel about this;' They're saying, ‘We're going to do this and you can comment on it if you want,'” she said.

“These solar plants will introduce a huge amount of damage to our public land and habitat. The sites will be turned into permanent industrial zones. Even if the plants are dismantled after their life is expired, you cannot restore the desert to what it was.”

Solar Done Right's report contends government officials could take advantage of already disturbed lands such as brownfield sites and former agricultural fields.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified hundreds of thousands of acres of such sites with the potential to generate 920,000 megawatts of solar electricity, the [RE-Powering America] report notes.

Distributed generation [on residential and commercial rooftops, crop circles and other urban "solestate"] is another option, Blaeloch said [see the Luskin Center study, for an example].

Read the full story here.

Related news:
May 18, 2011, Los Angeles Times: The wrong sites for solar (OpEd)
Apr 25, 2011, Reuters: Tortoises Lead to Halt of Part of BrightSource's Solar Project
Apr 25, 2011, Greentechmedia: BrightSource Files for $250M IPO: A Closer Look
Apr 25, 2011, Desert Sun: Endangered tortoises slow push for power
Apr 24, 2011, Desert Sun: Tribes: Solar projects tread on sacred Indian ground

Solar Done Right blasts BLM Public Lands Solar Policy

2011-04-05T19:40:00.000-07:00

A closer look at industrial solar

2011-04-03T21:01:00.000-07:00

A picture is worth a thousand words to tell the unmitigated truth about industrial solar development, so I'll spare the words other than to explain that these images are from Phase One of BrightSource Energy LLC's Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System (ISEGS) 400 MW solar tower power development on 4,000 acres, (about 6.4 square miles) of intact publicly-owned Mojave desert in southern California.
ISEGS is the first solar power plant to be permitted under the BLM fast-track process implemented to allow corporate applicants to meet deadlines (since extended) to qualify for billions in federal cash grants and loan guarantees. Ostensibly, these projects will create green jobs and combat global warming through carbon emission reductions.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) now estimates that ISEGS could displace or kill as many as 140 federally endangered desert tortoises. Far more than the 36 tortoises that were estimated to occur on the site when BrightSource was first granted a permit to proceed.

As described by Basin and Range Watch:

"After the desert habitat is completely removed with large scraper machines, and the site is "cut and filled" 318,000 heliostat mirrors would be placed in curving rows aiming the sunlight up to boilers located on centralized 459-foot tall power towers. Each mirror would track the sun throughout the day and reflect the solar energy to the receiver boiler. In each of the 5 plants, one Rankine-cycle reheat steam turbine would then receive the steam from the solar boilers to turn turbine generators (for more on how concentrated solar power works see here). Herbicides would then be regularly sprayed, according to the PSA, to keep weeds down and prevent fire-fuel build-up".

Step I: parameter fencing....

Step 2: clearing and grading.....

BEFORE Image from Basin and Range Watch

AFTER IMAGE from Basin and Range Watch

First of five power tower circles, Basin and Range Watch

View more before and after images here

Xcel/PSCo banking on renewable energy

2011-03-27T19:42:00.000-07:00

When Coloradans approved Amendment 37 in 2004, they voted to move the state towards a renewable energy economy with cheaper energy and more green jobs, particularly for Colorado's rural communities.

Utilities fought this move.

This post explores 3 questions;

1) why are electricity rates going up so dramatically?

2) why is our thriving local solar industry being shut down?

3) why are Colorado's rural communities shut out of Colorado's renewable energy market?

1) why are electricity rates going up: to pay for coal and new RE infrastructure

Since 2007, the cost of energy in Colorado has increased at a much faster rate than the national average. According to the Denver Post, the cumulative increase in the cost of electricity to ratepayers in Colorado is about 21 percent in the past six years - almost double the rate of inflation. Not only that, rates are expected to rise another 20% or more in the next six years.

According to a Denver Post report, chief executive, Richard Kelly, says the rate increases are because Xcel has "gone down the environmental path, and that's more expensive than building coal plants".

Yet, the new 1.4 billion Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant completed in 2008 has been the single biggest driver in rates, says ????.

And that it has. Just last week, Xcel announced http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2011/03/16/xcel-prices-to-rise-in-q2.html"yet another rate hike, making this the XXth increase in XXX years.

Building new infrastructure is the single biggest reason for rising rates.

Xcel wants to build a new transmission lines, more wind and 60 MW of solar in the San Luis Valley

2) why is our thriving local solar industry being shut down?

In negotiations with the solar industry following proposed cuts to the Solar*Rewards program for small residential and commercial rooftop solar PV, Xcel said too expensive....$95 million in dept

"http://coloradoindependent.com/80991/puc-expert-use-existing-san-luis-valley-transmission-lines">http://coloradoindependent.com/80991/puc-expert-use-existing-san-luis-valley-transmission-lines

A closer reading of Mignogna's testimony reveals some startling facts about how Xcel/PSCo is profiting at the same time claiming it can't afford, and therefore must substantially reduce, the Solar*Rewards program. I would encourage ratepayers, solar advocates and RE wonks to read on, for example...

..."the Company has acquired far more RECs than needed for RES compliance for the next 10 years. As a result, the Company is allowed to profit from the sale of excess RECs into other markets" (pg 17)

"The Company has far exceeded its available budget under the RESA and is projected to end 2011 with a deficit of approximately $97 million. While PSCo typically argues that it is only charging customers the two percent allowed by the statute, that argument is disingenuous. As we now know, the Company has been loaning money to the RESA, earning its rate of return on the funds advanced, so that it can acquire more RECs than it needs only to sell them into California so that it can then claim a percentage of those proceeds" (pg 18)

The BIG answer to all 3 is:Xcel is abusing the RES for its own growth purposes (what else would you expect from a self-serving corporation?) need more public oversight, democratization of energy systems.

Xcel also changed its business model following deregulation. According to Xcel's CEO, after hitting a 2007 low on the tails of the Enron Corp scandal, Xcel's aim [became building] new facilities to increase its rate base — the company's "growth engine," Kelly said — and then file for rate increases.

Denver Post reported, "The meshing of Xcel's corporate strategy with Colorado public policy has been most visible in the legislature. A string of bills, often with Ritter's support, has given Xcel financial incentives for renewable energy, conservation and environmental programs".

Do we need all this new infrastructure?

So if we're already paying more for new coal, what's renewable energy costing us?

But not to worry, says Xcel CEO Kelly, "We are below the national average, so it is not as if our rates are outrageous".

Amendment 37 retrospective

2011-03-17T19:57:00.000-07:00

Colorado's rural San Luis Valley has become the epicenter of a growing debate over the state's renewable energy future. Much has been written about billionaire Louis Bacon's opposition to Xcel Energy's high-voltage transmission line proposal, intended to siphon gigawatts of solar energy out of the San Luis Valley to the state's "urban demand centers".

But little has been said of the growing numbers of San Luis Valley locals who are self described, Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) supporters of distributed renewable energy generation in their back yards, their neighbors back yards and crop circle corners and every other suitable location in the vast human-altered environment.

Coloradans came together in 2004 to pass Amendment 37, the nations first voter-approved Renewable Energy Standard (RES).   Since then, the legislature has twice amended the RES. First to allow utilities to increase ratepayer costs to 2% annually, (from the original $.50/mo., but see below), and then to raise the RES to 30% by 2020.

The original intent of the Renewable Energy Standard was, "to save consumers and businesses money, attract new business and jobs, promote development of rural economies, minimize water use for electricity generation, diversify Colorado's energy resources, reduce the impact of volatile fuel prices, and improve the natural environment of the state".

In the 6 years since its adoption, has the RES voter mandate been fulfilled so far?

In its interactive website, Who's Got the Power?, the Union of Concerned Scientists concludes that, "Unfortunately, we're letting utilities decide for us where our money should be spent - and they're not making smart or clean decisions". "They're sending our money out of state, buying dirty coal, and shipping off our clean energy resources overseas."

There is also evidence that utilities are using the RES to grow a bigger energy pie (click on "SLV Dog and Pony") and to justify lucrative but unnecessary new transmission. Because the RES has no replacement requirement, utility companies view renewable energy as an add-on that allows them to expand combined fossil and renewable energy markets.

Contrary to what Amendment 37 voters called for, the cost of energy in Colorado has also increased steadily, and at a much faster rate than the national average. According to the Denver Post, the bulk of this increase can be attributed directly to the $1.4 billion Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant outside Pueblo. But as Xcel Energy CEO Kelly warns, ratepayers should expect future rate increases to pay for new renewable energy infrastructure.

Recent testimony by Richard Mignogna, the Public Utility Commission renewable energy expert, reveals that Xcel Energy is abusing the RES to reap profits from rate payers well beyond the 2% allowable cap. According to Mignogna, "The Company has far exceeded its available budget under the RESA and is projected to end 2011 with a deficit of approximately $97 million. While PSCo typically argues that it is only charging customers the two percent allowed by the statute, that argument is disingenuous. As we now know, the Company has been loaning money to the RESA, earning its rate of return on the funds advanced, so that it can acquire more RECs than it needs only to sell them into California so that it can then claim a percentage of those proceeds" [emphasis added].

Furthermore, Xcel is pushing massive central-station solar power plants that will provide relatively little benefit to rural communities when compared to small to medium scale, locally-owned distributed generation. People in the San Luis Valley largely expect absentee-owned centralized power stations to destroy the environment and siphon profits out of their rural communities.

But the RES seems poorly designed to promote locally-owned renewable energy development, especially in rural communities that lack investment capital.

These trends point to some serious failings of the Renewable Energy Standard. Rather than reducing costs, the RES is costing Coloradans more while fueling more dirty energy use, not less. If implemented, impacts from new transmission and massive industrial solar development are likely to ruin, rather than "improve the natural environment of the state", as intended.

At the same time Xcel and other utility companies have drastically reduced funding for local solar generation, the primary source of green jobs, that threatens to bring Colorado's burgeoning renewable energy economy crashing down.

As I've written elsewhere, the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) (or Clean Local Energy Accessible Now or CLEAN contract), is the primary policy tool used around the world for spurring rapid renewable energy development cost-effectively, while creating a stable green jobs economy that benefits a broad cross section of the economy including rural communities.

The key has been the adoption of policies that guarantee access and investment security to ALL renewable energy investors, big and small.   Opening renewable energy market to millions of interested residential and small business investors will result in more, across the board economic benefits, less environmental impacts and a more democratic energy sector.

In just a few short years, Germany installed more than half the world's solar generation (8 GW in 2010 alone) from hundreds of thousands of small, distributed solar PV systems and created tens of thousands of quality green jobs in the process.

Ontario, Canada launched North America's first FiT in 2009 and has now set the stage for closing all its coal-fired power plants by 2014. Not only that, but its domestic content requirement is expected to generate 43,000 new jobs and dozens of new manufacturing plants to support the 5,000 MW of new clean energy. If adopted, California's new FiT is expected to generate $2 billion in additional tax revenue and $50 billion in new investment, while adding an average of 50,000 new jobs a year for a decade.

The FiT/CLEAN originated in the US during the first energy crisis of the 1970's. But following consolidation of the utility industry in the 1990's, the US is now one of the few developed nations of the world that doesn't have one.

In Colorado, passage of the Community Solar Gardens Act in 2010 was hailed as a great victory for community power advocates.   Even so, Solar Gardens are only allowed to generate 20% over the average subscribers energy use and a cumulative total of 6 MW in the first two years. Whether Solar Gardens will be allowed to proliferate beyond this small scale, remains to be seen.

Efforts to develop local clean energy in the rural San Luis Valley have consistently run into barriers from Xcel Energy. Despite the uphill battle, interest in distributed renewable energy generation remains high. In Saguache County alone, no less than 9 separate initiatives to bring affordable, clean energy to local communities are underway.

Until there's a state-wide political counter weight to utility opposition to proven policies like CLEAN, the success of these initiatives will be hard fought and energy democracy little more than a dream.

Response to: Who will have 'power' over Colorado's power transmission?

2011-03-15T14:03:00.000-07:00

We're reposting this with a response to the Mar 15, 2010 Colorado Energy News addition - Who Will Have 'Power' Over Colorado's Power Transmission?

Gail Schwartz says "this bill is not intended to diminish local authority or input from the siting process", yet by giving task force decision-making powers to only 2 out of 64 counties and excluding the public altogether (except as meeting attendees), how can it possibly not have this effect?

The GEO Strategic Transmission and Renewables (STAR) Report (page 58), targets Trinchera Ranch and Louis Bacon ("an out-of-state billionaire") as the primary obstacle to new transmission in the San Luis Valley.

Perhaps its time our elected representatives and the GEO acknowledge growing concern that the emphasis on absentee industrial solar generation in the rural San Luis Valley and utility efforts to undercut distributed renewable energy generation will:

increase the cost of renewable energy for taxpayers and consumers by incurring unnecessary new transmission costs and inefficiencies,
unfairly constrain more cost-effective, efficient and rapidly deployable consumer sited solar generation in our sun-baked urban environments,
deprive Colorado of thousands of quality green jobs resulting from distributed solar generation,
deprive rural communities of the opportunity to develop their local solar resources,
ultimately increase the CO2 footprint by industrializing intact desert and grassland ecosystems, especially on public lands now targeted for massive solar energy development.

Strong local control and citizen oversight over new transmission is one of the only tools citizens and communities have to redirect a misguided, utility-driven renewable energy agenda that will needlessly cost Colorado.
____________________________________________________________________________

CITIZEN ACTION OPPORTUNITY!!!

11-045 passed in the Senate on Monday,
Contact Gail Schwartz, (ph: 303-866-4871)

We're waiting for confirmation, but the bill is expected to move on to the House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee. Ed Vigil is on record as opposing the bill. Local representative names and contacts below:

District 60 - Representative Tom Massey, or call: 303-866-2747
District 62 - Representative Ed Vigil*, or call: 303-866-2916
District 64 - Representative Wes McKinley*, or call: 303-866-2398

Jerry Sonnenberg, Chair

Randy Baumgardner, Vice-Chair
Other members: J. Paul Brown, Marsha Looper, Glenn Vaad, Don Coram, Randy Fischer, Su Ryden, Roger Wilson, Matt Jones, and Ray Scott

Colorado to BLM: get behind Solar Done Right

2011-03-09T14:09:00.000-08:00

150 MW solar power plant, Kramer Junction, CA - Click to enlarge

Below is Saguache County resident Chuck Tidd’s statement to the BLM on the Mar 6th public meeting on the Solar PEIS. The BLM is proposing to open "large swaths" of ecologically valuable public lands in Colorado (mostly in the San Luis Valley) and six western states, for large0scale industrial solar development. Chuck is a member of the SLVRCA Board of Directors.

By putting forward a plan to approve large scale solar development on public land, the BLM is implicitly endorsing an energy paradigm whose time has come to an end.

This is the paradigm of large power generating facilities that transmit the electricity produced over thousands of miles of transmission lines.

This paradigm makes sense when talking about conventional forms of power generation – coal, natural gas, nuclear. But when talking about generating power from sunlight, this paradigm becomes far less efficient. It will destroy intact ecosystems on tens or even hundreds of thousands of acres of land, and it fails to use the built environment for point-of-use energy production.

Not only will the lands on which these projects be affected, but they will mandate the construction of expensive new transmission lines, which are not addressed in the PEIS, further unnecessarily degrading our open space. And who will pay for these expensive boondoggles? Electricity rate payers, that's who.

Studies have shown that:

a) Constructing energy options at the point of use, known as distributed generation, is more efficient, because the distributed generation option avoids the cost of and transmission losses involved with large-scale remote developments. Based on an Energy Foundation study, there are 35,000 acres of appropriate rooftops in Colorado alone, representing 3,500-4,000 MW, almost double the amount of electricity projected for Colorado under the Zone Alternative.

b) Distributed generation will create more jobs and more long term jobs than costly mega-power projects.

c) Distributed generation can be implemented faster without disturbing carbon sequestering soils, thus getting to the goal of reducing atmospheric CO2 faster.

d) Since distributed generation takes place in the built environment, open lands are protected for other uses.

What is preventing this alternative paradigm from taking root?

First, it's the policies of so called “public” utilities that are designed to hold rate payers hostage to the greed of shareholders. They maintain rate structures that effectively prevent individuals and businesses from investing in their own power generation.

They are resisting change, as we saw last week when Xcel Energy lobbied and won the rejection of legislation that would have done nothing more than examine the possibility of distributed generation alternatives.

The other trend preventing a more serious consideration of distributed generation is studies from NREL, studies like this one, not to mention short-sighted support from environmental groups that all seek to identify “the best” land areas for solar generation while failing to recognize that virtually the entire nation is suitable for solar power generation.

These attitudes play into the hands of power companies that are seeking to keep power users enslaved to their development plans. On the other hand, take the example of Germany, where insolation is approximately the same as the state of Alaska, and where distributed generation has been enabled by legislation for over a decade.

Today, PV panels can be seen on virtually every building, and Germany is closing in on energy independence. Meanwhile, we continue to think about how we can most directly reduce our open lands.

To the public utilities present I would like to say, “think out of the box and change your business model”. There is money to be made installing, maintaining, financing and distributing the excess generation of photo voltaic facilities placed on the buildings of companies and private individuals across the nation, while at the same time incentivizing them to use less energy.

To the environmental groups that are failing to recognize that effective distributed generation alternatives are vastly preferable to sacrificing public lands to the machinations of powerful utilities, I say, “shame on you”. You endorsed a similar sacrifice once before with a little dam called Glen Canyon, and we will forever be paying the consequences. Do your homework and get behind the Solar Done Right program that will heal, not harm, rate payers, our economy, and our environment.

Finally, to the BLM representatives gathered here, I want to say, “while the mandate for the PEIS may be the analysis of BLM lands for solar development, in a programmatic EIS it is irresponsible not to include the possibility of more effective alternatives for solar development that do not involve the destruction of public lands”.

I encourage you to include a study of distributed power generation, including the legislative and financial steps that would be necessary to make every building in the US a power generating station. If you do that, I think you'll come to the conclusion that the alternative is to fully utilize the built environment we begin to build on open land – land that has many other valuable uses.

CITIZEN ACTION OPPORTUNITY!!

Send your own written comment to BLM before April 16, 2011

(copy us here)

BLM solar zones wrong from the start

2011-03-04T15:21:00.000-08:00

Draft PEIS COMMENT DEADLINE EXTENDED to APRIL 16th.

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”

-Albert Einstein

The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and partner agencies are proposing to open much of our nation's public land holdings to large scale, industrial solar energy development despite the existence of more cost-effective, faster and less environmentally damaging alternatives.

Kramer Junction, CA ~150 MW/1,500-acre Solar Power Plant built in the 1980'

According to a coalition of industry groups scoping letter, developers have set their sites on accessing "large swaths of land" in California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

Industrial solar power plants, up to 12,000-acres in size, have already been proposed by BP, Chevron, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and other traditional energy investors, across the six states.

Six of the nine Big Solar projects granted fast-track approvals by BLM and partner agencies in California and Nevada are already under lawsuit. According to stakeholders involved in the litigation, important environmental and cultural resource reviews have been bypassed or rushed, under pressure from industry to meet federal funding deadlines.

The 11,000 page Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is available for public review and comment through Mar 17th (Volume 4 covers Colorado).The draft BLM study proposes three alternatives:

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: lease 21,580,000-acres in six western states/148,000 acres in Colorado. This is what DOI/BLM/DOE want.
SOLAR ENERGY ZONE (SEZ) ALTERNATIVE: Expedited permitting on 677,000-acres/21,050 acres in SLV. Most environmental groups support this.
“NO ACTION” ALTERNATIVE: NO limit on industry: 98,732,000 acres/7,282,000 in Colorado. Those who want a case-by-case project evaluation support this.

SLV RENEWABLE COMMUNITIES ALLIANCE POSITION:
We urge Federal agencies to take a sustainable renewable energy path. Siting large-scale industrial solar power plants on high-value public lands hundreds of miles from urban centers will delay progress on renewable energy, drive the cost of solar energy up unnecessarily, further destroy our environment and deprive people and communities across Colorado and the nation of the benefits of locally generated renewable energy.

Many environmental groups maintain that large-scale industrial solar development is necessary to combat climate change. However, recent research suggests these massive projects may not, in the long run, result in the assumed net CO2 reductions. Dr. Michael Allen, at the Center for Conservation Biology at UC Riverside, found evidence that disassembling intact desert ecosystems could disrupt ancient carbon sinks and sequestration processes and lead to a net gain in atmospheric carbon.

The release of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), a highly potent greenhouse gas used mostly for electric transmission and distribution, could also increase as new transmission is added to transport solar power hundreds of miles to urban centers. SF6 has a global warming potential 23,900 times higher than CO2.

Distributed Generation in the built environment and the EPA RE-Powering America Plan offer more responsible and cost-effective alternatives for solar energy development that can be implemented rapidly with the added benefit of creating more jobs. BLM has failed to consider how the existence of these alternatives effects the purpose or need for large scale development on intact public lands.

SLVRCA, in partnership with Solar Done Right, conclude:

“The PEIS is fundamentally flawed because it targets ecologically valuable, intact public lands first. The study fails to seriously consider faster, more cost-effective and environment-friendly alternatives including Distributed Generation in the vast urban landscape and the EPA’s “RE-POWERING AMERICA” Plan that identifies over 17,000 suitable sites on already disturbed, degraded and contaminated wastelands. There is no real need to sacrifice valuable public lands. The DOI/BLM and DOE have the discretion to, and must, change this destructive course”

Request a copy of our joint summary briefing on BLM's Solar PEIS here.

ACTION OPPORTUNITIES:

(TALKING POINTS COMING SOON)

NEW Comment deadline: April 16, 2011

Submit a written comment to BLM HERE
(please copy us here)

PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE WORD

click social media links below....

Xcel strangling Colorado's energy future

2011-03-02T17:54:00.001-08:00

When it looked like the people of Colorado were about to outpace Xcel through a fabulously successful local solar program, Xcel pulled the plug on the Solar*Rewards program.

When it looked like the people of Colorado were about to make significant progress on a study for a Clean Local Energy Accessibility Now (CLEAN) policy, Xcel killed the bill.

Its not more than falling solar PV prices and skyrocketing demand for rooftop solar.

It's not just about voting down the study for Clean Energy Accessibility Now (CLEAN) legislation. When they pushed for a vote against the Clean Energy Accessibility Now (CLEAN) study bill in the House Agricultural Committee, it was about more than GOP penny pinching and anti-renewable energy bias.

By threatening to "pull the plug" on the SoCo power line, Xcel bullied the PUC into approving an unnecessary and costly new transmission line into the San Luis Valley (we already have 3). Its not just about siting a single transmission line into the San Luis Valley.

It's all connected.

It's about Xcel Energy maintaining and expanding its energy monopoly at the expense of the people and communities of Colorado, our environment and our energy future.

The recent approval of Xcel Energy's 95-mile high Southern Colorado (SoCo) voltage power line into the San Luis Valley was about more than the billionaire owner of Trinchera Ranch, or even the "permanently scarred landscape" along the proposed southern transmission corridor into the San Luis Valley, although protecting Colorado's remaining wildlands is important.

The power line is about Colorado's energy future and what path the state is going to take in reaching its renewable energy goals. It's also about who will pay and who will profit from the deals being made around two competing models of renewable energy development.

On the one side, is Xcel Energy and its various partners and government apologists; Like TriState, large-scale solar developers and the Governors Energy Office. This vision of Colorado's renewable energy future is about maintaining the status quo. Proponents of this view see a massive, centralized new energy system built on top of the current (mostly investor-owned) utility dominated energy marketing and distribution system. This is the model we've all become accustomed to over the last hundred years. It requires we (ratepayers) spend billions of dollars on a whole new transmission infrastructure, to deliver remotely located renewable energy resources to urban demand centers.

The SoCo line is just one of dozens of new high-voltage transmission lines being proposed across the West.

In Colorado, the Governors Energy Office sanctified this vision in the aptly named Senate Bill 07-091 report, "Connecting Colorado's Renewable Resources to the Markets". In 2010, the GEO updated the vision with its Renewable Energy Development Infrastructure Report (download here) targeting the San Luis Valley for 1,000 MW of industrial solar by 2020. In addition, it recommends substation upgrades to "accommodate 1,000-1,500 MW" energy injection out of the SLV to front range urban demand centers. [The PUC staff has since testified that the line should be increased to a double 345 kV line to accommodate 5,500 MW of solar energy development in the San Luis Valley].

California and presumably other states have similar, publicly financed reports and studies laying out an industry dominated RES scenario almost exclusively benefiting large, centralized renewable energy procurement.

In Colorado, these reports put the San Luis Valley in the center of Colorado's solar energy bulls-eye. The idea is to sacrifice the San Luis Valley for large scale (hundreds of thousands of acres) solar industrialization so that Xcel and its industry pals can control and profit from a ever growing "renewable" energy pie. Playing the "renewable energy green card", Xcel gets to justify one of the most lucrative activities of IOU's - building new transmission.

Our legislators happily paved the way for this enormous IOU boondoggle by passing consecutive bills providing lavish financial incentives to the big IOUS.

HB 100 - cost recovery
HB ??? - revenue allows Xcel 100% cost recovery plus an approximate ??? to 12% guaranteed profit that, in the end, will add up to the SoCo line costing closer to $500 million, but that's not the price tag we've been given (by "we", I mean rate-payers and the public who will pay for the line and new generation infrastructure). while looking heroic for helping us meet the State's Renewable Energy Standard and saving the world from climate change. At least that's what we're all been told.

On the other hand, are thousands of real people in Colorado who are beginning to understand that the status quo approach will cost Coloradan's billions more for renewable energy, ignite a protracted resource war (SLV'ers will not concede to the sacrifice without a fight), and deprive people and communities throughout Colorado from benefiting from local renewable energy generation.

From our little rural outpost, the San Luis Valley Renewable Communities Alliance has been organizing regionally, and now state-wide for a more rapid, cost-effective and environmentally friendly renewable energy future for all of Colorado's communities on the existing transmission infrastructure.

To learn more, download the "Community Power" report by Al Weinrub for free at: http://www.localcleanenergy.org/Community-Power-Publication) and visit our website/blog at:http://slvrenewablecommunities.blogspot.com