To Really Save the Planet, Stop Just Going Green
"To really save the planet, stop going green." Those powerful words headline a recent piece by Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) and our nation's leading visionary for a cleaner, greener future. Strong, but true words, spoken at the exact right point. I believe that we've now reached a tipping point in the world of all things "green." Every business with even a hint of a consumer face now has some "green" statement, message, program or item. Businesses across the nation, including Clean Currents, are committed to some sort of voluntary environmental pledge. The greening of America's businesses is done. No, not literally done. There's still a lot to do. But the process has been started and will only continue to grow. Everybody is already, or about to, "go green." That's great, but now it's time to move to the next phase and that's where Mike Tidwell's strong words come in.
The recent news about companies leaving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is perhaps the first battle in the next phase of our march to a secure climate, free of global warming. Apple led the charge of companies leaving the Chamber, which also included electric utilities such as Exelon. Nike resigned from the Board of the Chamber. All of this was done because of the Chamber's stance on climate change legislation. Apple and these others are showing that just 'going green' is no longer enough. That was Climate 1.0. In Climate 2.0, all of us, consumers, businesses, etc. will be judged on our greeness not just by our voluntary actions, but by our commitment to positive legislation that will dramatically cut the greenhouse gases causing climate change.
I'm proud to work together with my colleagues in the non-profit environmental advocacy world to push for this kind of legislation at both the state and national level. At Clean Currents, we incentivize our employees to get involved by providing a subsidy for membership in environmental organizations and by encouraging them to make their voices heard in the climate debate. We need to change the laws of this nation to better protect our environment. Yet, we should also continue our voluntary efforts. They make a small difference, perhaps, but they also introduce people to important environmental values. They educate the broad swath of the population that helping the environment can sometimes help protect your bottom line as well. I understand that it is a combination of voluntary actions and positive environmental legislation that will save the planet. Thus, I would tweak Mike's words to perhaps say, "to really save the planet, stop just going green."
In 2010, Clean Currents will commit to improving our environmental performance. We will work for positive environmental legislation in the nation's capital, and in our home state of Maryland. We will help our employees and customers understand the nature, and urgency, of the energy choices before us. We aim to be a leader in Climate 2.0 - to advocate for green laws as well as continue to make green choices. Our planet's future is at stake, so we can do no less.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Is a Company Green Because it Sells Green Products?
Solar companies (installers, manufacturers, etc.) are generally thought of as "green" companies by the general public. But I wonder if this is true? Not just for solar - but for any company selling something green. Does selling a green product make for a green company? The answer is important, because many consumers want to "vote with their wallets" by supporting sustainably oriented companies.
Leafing through the goodie bag given out at the recent Solar Energy Focus 2009 conference, for example, I was struck by the fact that not a single piece, except for the Clean Currents piece, appeared to be printed on FSC paper (paper certified as coming from a sustainable source by the Forest Stewardship Council). This is not a knock on other solar companies, but just illustrates the point that companies selling green products are not necessarily green in all of their operations and actions.
At Clean Currents, environmental sustainability is part of our core business ethic. We are far from perfect, but we do our best to not only sell green products, but to adopt green practices and to support positive environmental advocacy. As part of our commitment to running a green business, we have recently gone through the process of getting our HQ operations certified as green by Montgomery County. An official announcement will be coming shortly. The certification process focuses on areas in which a business can effectively reduce its environmental impact. A few highlights of what Clean Currents is doing:
* We have an environmental mission statement. This is a key first step for any business that wants to be green. The statement includes our policies for purchasing green products (ie. using FSC paper for printing).
* We have a green benefits package for employees, which encourages employees to help the environment.
* We actively support positive environmental advocacy. This is crucial. We are not going to solver climate change with voluntary actions alone. We need a combination of voluntary actions and new legislation to require the use of clean energy and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
* We got our landlord to buy wind power and we offset emissions from employee travel.
* We are members and sponsors of sustainable business groups and environmental non-profit organizations.
Look at other companies in the area. Are they selling green products but not acting in a sustainable way? Are they only pushing legislation that has a direct financial benefit for them? Look around in the solar field. Do the local installers you know walk the environmental walk? Is their care for the environment solely wrapped in the package of solar panels they want to sell you or does it go a little deeper? Look at the ownership and associations of these companies. Do they share your views on the environment and sustainability?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but looking through my solar goody bag, I suspect that the public may be surprised by the variety of approaches (or lack thereof) to sustainability in the clean energy world. There are many great companies out there. But not all are committed to a cleaner environment to the same degree. It's important for environmentally conscious consumers to know who or what is standing behind those nifty green solar panels.
Leafing through the goodie bag given out at the recent Solar Energy Focus 2009 conference, for example, I was struck by the fact that not a single piece, except for the Clean Currents piece, appeared to be printed on FSC paper (paper certified as coming from a sustainable source by the Forest Stewardship Council). This is not a knock on other solar companies, but just illustrates the point that companies selling green products are not necessarily green in all of their operations and actions.
At Clean Currents, environmental sustainability is part of our core business ethic. We are far from perfect, but we do our best to not only sell green products, but to adopt green practices and to support positive environmental advocacy. As part of our commitment to running a green business, we have recently gone through the process of getting our HQ operations certified as green by Montgomery County. An official announcement will be coming shortly. The certification process focuses on areas in which a business can effectively reduce its environmental impact. A few highlights of what Clean Currents is doing:
* We have an environmental mission statement. This is a key first step for any business that wants to be green. The statement includes our policies for purchasing green products (ie. using FSC paper for printing).
* We have a green benefits package for employees, which encourages employees to help the environment.
* We actively support positive environmental advocacy. This is crucial. We are not going to solver climate change with voluntary actions alone. We need a combination of voluntary actions and new legislation to require the use of clean energy and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
* We got our landlord to buy wind power and we offset emissions from employee travel.
* We are members and sponsors of sustainable business groups and environmental non-profit organizations.
Look at other companies in the area. Are they selling green products but not acting in a sustainable way? Are they only pushing legislation that has a direct financial benefit for them? Look around in the solar field. Do the local installers you know walk the environmental walk? Is their care for the environment solely wrapped in the package of solar panels they want to sell you or does it go a little deeper? Look at the ownership and associations of these companies. Do they share your views on the environment and sustainability?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but looking through my solar goody bag, I suspect that the public may be surprised by the variety of approaches (or lack thereof) to sustainability in the clean energy world. There are many great companies out there. But not all are committed to a cleaner environment to the same degree. It's important for environmentally conscious consumers to know who or what is standing behind those nifty green solar panels.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Time to take another look at small wind
I've been in the clean energy field for close to ten years, and I've had a pretty bearish view on small wind's potential in the Maryland area. The problem was that there was a huge gap in the available technology in this area. There were tiny 2.4 kilowatt (KW) turbines, good only really for a home, and then nothing of significance until you hit the big 1.5 megawatt (MW) utility scale turbines. Now, the situation has changed.
I was at a wind energy conference in Baltimore this week, and heard about companies installing all kinds of different sized turbines. There are 10 KW, 20 KW, and even 100 KW machines that are being used commercially. This means that you can now install turbines to power farms, schools, small businesses, and large businesses. That opens up a whole new market for wind in Maryland and elsewhere. If we do things right, we could see these mid sized turbines springing up all over the state, but especially on the Eastern Shore and Southern Maryland. We can see small "Community" scale wind farms made up of these medium turbines feeding clean energy into our grid.
This is a very positive development. Not only does small wind produce clean energy, it is much easier to get built than large utility scale wind. There is much less opposition and the permitting process appears to be easier. Also, small wind provides distributed power, in parts of the region closer to our large population centers. Don't get me wrong. I am all for large wind projects in western Maryland or offshore. But I'm also for speed, for a quick conversion to clean energy. Small, community sized projects may provide us facts on the ground immediately. We don't have to wait.
Small wind needs help, however. The Maryland Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) provides incentives for energy companies to buy wind and other clean, renewable energy sources. But the incentive is not enough to bring on the level of small wind projects we need. The incentive in the RPS needs to be more like the incentive in the Solar "carve out" in the RPS. I don't have space to explain what a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) is, (check out www.cleancurrents.com), but it's the primary tool that acts as the incentive to build clean energy to meet an RPS. The REC price for wind is currently around $1 or $2, while the REC price for solar is $300. If we allowed small wind systems (say, projects under 10 MW) to be part of the solar carve-out, and hence to raise the value of the small wind REC to that of the solar REC, we'd see an explosion of new wind development in Maryland. We'd see community wind energy developers bring new jobs to the state. The current explosion in solar that's bringing new solar jobs and new solar companies to the state would happen in the small wind area. I think our elected leaders should consider adding small wind to the solar carve out. Small wind is ready for the prime time, and Maryland should welcome it with open arms.
I was at a wind energy conference in Baltimore this week, and heard about companies installing all kinds of different sized turbines. There are 10 KW, 20 KW, and even 100 KW machines that are being used commercially. This means that you can now install turbines to power farms, schools, small businesses, and large businesses. That opens up a whole new market for wind in Maryland and elsewhere. If we do things right, we could see these mid sized turbines springing up all over the state, but especially on the Eastern Shore and Southern Maryland. We can see small "Community" scale wind farms made up of these medium turbines feeding clean energy into our grid.
This is a very positive development. Not only does small wind produce clean energy, it is much easier to get built than large utility scale wind. There is much less opposition and the permitting process appears to be easier. Also, small wind provides distributed power, in parts of the region closer to our large population centers. Don't get me wrong. I am all for large wind projects in western Maryland or offshore. But I'm also for speed, for a quick conversion to clean energy. Small, community sized projects may provide us facts on the ground immediately. We don't have to wait.
Small wind needs help, however. The Maryland Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) provides incentives for energy companies to buy wind and other clean, renewable energy sources. But the incentive is not enough to bring on the level of small wind projects we need. The incentive in the RPS needs to be more like the incentive in the Solar "carve out" in the RPS. I don't have space to explain what a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) is, (check out www.cleancurrents.com), but it's the primary tool that acts as the incentive to build clean energy to meet an RPS. The REC price for wind is currently around $1 or $2, while the REC price for solar is $300. If we allowed small wind systems (say, projects under 10 MW) to be part of the solar carve-out, and hence to raise the value of the small wind REC to that of the solar REC, we'd see an explosion of new wind development in Maryland. We'd see community wind energy developers bring new jobs to the state. The current explosion in solar that's bringing new solar jobs and new solar companies to the state would happen in the small wind area. I think our elected leaders should consider adding small wind to the solar carve out. Small wind is ready for the prime time, and Maryland should welcome it with open arms.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
How Green Should a Utility Be?
I'm really not sure how I feel about utilities in Maryland trying to appear environmentally conscious. Sounds weird, I know. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for anything that decreases our addiction to fossil fuels and helps fight climate change. But I don't know if it's good that Maryland utilities promote their "green" agenda, when it seems that most of the "green" they are doing is simply complying with state law and is on the ratepayers dime. Let me elaborate.
The utilities in Maryland are a strange beast. They are neither a government entity, nor a truly private company in the standard sense of the word. Unlike other private companies, their maximum profits are determined by a government agency (the Public Service Commission), but in exchange they do not have to worry about losing money. They do not acquire customers like a normal for-profit business. They are assigned a given territory. If you live or your office is in that territory, you automatically become their customer. If they want to make an investment in infrastructure, to improve operations or better serve their "customers," they need to get approval from the PSC, the government board. They have certain programs (ie. efficiency) they must run because of state law, yet they get to recoup every dollar they spend from every ratepayer in their territory. Despite all this, they are considered "for profit," and actually have shareholders/investors.
Thus, the utilities have jumped on the green bandwagon and are extolling their commitment to a greener world. If you don't think their green image is important to them, just check out this report by Pepco Holdings, owner of one of the state's utilities.
Why is it important for them to brag to investors and others about being green? Because it increases the value of the brand, and thus increases the company value for shareholders.
This is where it gets weird. When a utility in Maryland offers energy efficiency incentives, is that something they should get credit for, or get to brag about as a "green measure?" When they simply comply with the law passed by the state of Maryland, is that a "green" initiative? It's not so clear. A normal company would be using its own money to pay for a program it offers, and thus get to take credit for it, but really it should be something that is above and beyond the minimum requirement of the law, no? But if a utility in Maryland is using ratepayer money to fund the program, what exactly is that utility doing to go above and beyond business as usual?
For example, if Pepco spends money to sponsor something like Bethesda Green, does that money come from their profit or does it come from the Pepco ratepayers? It's really hard to tell. Bethesda Green is a worthy group to sponsor, don't get me wrong. Clean Currents is a proud sponsor. But we don't get to automatically recoup the money we spend on the sponsorship from a captured audience. When a utility does sponsor a worthy cause, should it be allowed to put its logo on the promotional material and get the PR benefit? I don't know. If the utility is using ratepayer money to fund the donation, I think the answer should be "no."
Pepco recently put a link to a carbon calculator on its web site. Ok. Not sure what the point is, but I sort of get it. A calculator only makes sense if it leads to direct action to reduce carbon. The question is, however, did the ratepayers pay to put that calculator up or did it come from Pepco's profits? I don't know the answer.
I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of how the utilities operate. But I think that's sort of the point. There is such a huge gray, undefined area of what a utility can do as this strange beast somewhere between private and public. The best thing to do is to follow the model in DC and Delaware, where the state and district set up a separate Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU). The SEU gets to run all the green programs, using the ratepayers money instead of the utilities doing it. This way, you don't have the ratepayers funding the increased brand value of a private company. You don't have the ratepayers funding the creation of a "green" brand to compete with companies that are in fact truly green.
Public policy, or the public good, is best served by having a neutral party disseminate public funds with an equal playing field for everyone. Putting a semi-for profit company, with an agenda to increase shareholder value in charge of disbursing public funds is not the best way to approach things. If the utilities want to be green, that would be great. But they should do it on their own dime, and they should take actions that go well above and beyond the basic requirements of the law.
The utilities in Maryland are a strange beast. They are neither a government entity, nor a truly private company in the standard sense of the word. Unlike other private companies, their maximum profits are determined by a government agency (the Public Service Commission), but in exchange they do not have to worry about losing money. They do not acquire customers like a normal for-profit business. They are assigned a given territory. If you live or your office is in that territory, you automatically become their customer. If they want to make an investment in infrastructure, to improve operations or better serve their "customers," they need to get approval from the PSC, the government board. They have certain programs (ie. efficiency) they must run because of state law, yet they get to recoup every dollar they spend from every ratepayer in their territory. Despite all this, they are considered "for profit," and actually have shareholders/investors.
Thus, the utilities have jumped on the green bandwagon and are extolling their commitment to a greener world. If you don't think their green image is important to them, just check out this report by Pepco Holdings, owner of one of the state's utilities.
Why is it important for them to brag to investors and others about being green? Because it increases the value of the brand, and thus increases the company value for shareholders.
This is where it gets weird. When a utility in Maryland offers energy efficiency incentives, is that something they should get credit for, or get to brag about as a "green measure?" When they simply comply with the law passed by the state of Maryland, is that a "green" initiative? It's not so clear. A normal company would be using its own money to pay for a program it offers, and thus get to take credit for it, but really it should be something that is above and beyond the minimum requirement of the law, no? But if a utility in Maryland is using ratepayer money to fund the program, what exactly is that utility doing to go above and beyond business as usual?
For example, if Pepco spends money to sponsor something like Bethesda Green, does that money come from their profit or does it come from the Pepco ratepayers? It's really hard to tell. Bethesda Green is a worthy group to sponsor, don't get me wrong. Clean Currents is a proud sponsor. But we don't get to automatically recoup the money we spend on the sponsorship from a captured audience. When a utility does sponsor a worthy cause, should it be allowed to put its logo on the promotional material and get the PR benefit? I don't know. If the utility is using ratepayer money to fund the donation, I think the answer should be "no."
Pepco recently put a link to a carbon calculator on its web site. Ok. Not sure what the point is, but I sort of get it. A calculator only makes sense if it leads to direct action to reduce carbon. The question is, however, did the ratepayers pay to put that calculator up or did it come from Pepco's profits? I don't know the answer.
I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of how the utilities operate. But I think that's sort of the point. There is such a huge gray, undefined area of what a utility can do as this strange beast somewhere between private and public. The best thing to do is to follow the model in DC and Delaware, where the state and district set up a separate Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU). The SEU gets to run all the green programs, using the ratepayers money instead of the utilities doing it. This way, you don't have the ratepayers funding the increased brand value of a private company. You don't have the ratepayers funding the creation of a "green" brand to compete with companies that are in fact truly green.
Public policy, or the public good, is best served by having a neutral party disseminate public funds with an equal playing field for everyone. Putting a semi-for profit company, with an agenda to increase shareholder value in charge of disbursing public funds is not the best way to approach things. If the utilities want to be green, that would be great. But they should do it on their own dime, and they should take actions that go well above and beyond the basic requirements of the law.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Green Power Choice Grows Despite the Recession, in the Right Markets
Just back from the national Renewable Energy Marketing conference, held this year in Atlanta. The green industry is alive and well, and actually growing even in these tough economic times.
According to the Center for Resource Solutions, the folks who run Green-E Energy, Green-E energy sales increased a whopping 45% in 2008. They say more than 13 million megawatt-hours of certified renewable energy was purchased by 500,000 residential and 20,000 commercial consumers. That's great growth!
I've seen this kind of growth here in the DC area. Thousands of homeowners are making the choice to switch to clean energy along with hundreds of businesses. There's a real green movement in this area.
One interesting point - though 2009 is not done, there is some data to show green power sales trends this year, and it's not as good as 2008, in certain markets.
The markets where green power purchasing is down are markets that are fully "regulated," ie. markets where the only "choice" consumers have is the choice of their monopoly utility. In more open markets, such as Maryland and DC, where consumers have a real choice to buy power through competitive energy suppliers or innovative green startups, the green power market continues to rise.
This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Utilities, by nature, are about as innovative as a slice of bread. Many, if not all, are large, quasi-government run behemoths that don't know how to market, or how to take risks, or how to think in the new economy. The green power programs they run are considered a huge success if they sign up 4% of their market. There is practically never a chance for a consumer to save money and go green at the same time. Utilities such as BGE, Pepco and others may not have bad intentions, but they simply are not green companies. Asking utilities to offer innovative new green products is like asking the U.S. Postal Service to turn a profit. They just don't think that way.
On the other hand, companies like Clean Currents can innovate, market in new ways, and offer savings to consumers who want to go green.
It's no wonder that open markets work better for promoting green power than do monopoly utility markets.
According to the Center for Resource Solutions, the folks who run Green-E Energy, Green-E energy sales increased a whopping 45% in 2008. They say more than 13 million megawatt-hours of certified renewable energy was purchased by 500,000 residential and 20,000 commercial consumers. That's great growth!
I've seen this kind of growth here in the DC area. Thousands of homeowners are making the choice to switch to clean energy along with hundreds of businesses. There's a real green movement in this area.
One interesting point - though 2009 is not done, there is some data to show green power sales trends this year, and it's not as good as 2008, in certain markets.
The markets where green power purchasing is down are markets that are fully "regulated," ie. markets where the only "choice" consumers have is the choice of their monopoly utility. In more open markets, such as Maryland and DC, where consumers have a real choice to buy power through competitive energy suppliers or innovative green startups, the green power market continues to rise.
This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Utilities, by nature, are about as innovative as a slice of bread. Many, if not all, are large, quasi-government run behemoths that don't know how to market, or how to take risks, or how to think in the new economy. The green power programs they run are considered a huge success if they sign up 4% of their market. There is practically never a chance for a consumer to save money and go green at the same time. Utilities such as BGE, Pepco and others may not have bad intentions, but they simply are not green companies. Asking utilities to offer innovative new green products is like asking the U.S. Postal Service to turn a profit. They just don't think that way.
On the other hand, companies like Clean Currents can innovate, market in new ways, and offer savings to consumers who want to go green.
It's no wonder that open markets work better for promoting green power than do monopoly utility markets.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Brief Musings on the Loss of the Green Jobs Czar
The White House has lost Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar, sacrificed at the alter of the 24 hour news beast. I'm not going to wade into the controversy about Jones. You can find out more about that at other sources. I am extremely disapointed that we are losing a person who knows more about green job creation and community development than 99% of the rest of the country. On this subject, there are few, if any stronger than Van Jones. The question is - what will the Obama Adminstration do now?
Obviously, health care seems to be the top priority right now. But climate change is not going away, and there is a huge green energy/green jobs/climate bill still working its way through the Senate. The White House needs a point person on this issue. There must be somebody to focus the power of the White House bully pulpit on passing the bill. There needs to be somebody with Van Jone's weight in the progressive community to rally the grassroots. I don't know who the right person is, but I know that we need somebody and we need them now. President Obama should work with all due haste to fill these enormous shoes. The damage of delay will be immense. It will not only be a huge blow for a greener economy, but will also hurt Obama politically. He needs to show strength by appointing another fire-breating, take-no-prisoners, unapologetic green jobs warrior to take the batton from Mr. Jones. The climate cannot wait.
Obviously, health care seems to be the top priority right now. But climate change is not going away, and there is a huge green energy/green jobs/climate bill still working its way through the Senate. The White House needs a point person on this issue. There must be somebody to focus the power of the White House bully pulpit on passing the bill. There needs to be somebody with Van Jone's weight in the progressive community to rally the grassroots. I don't know who the right person is, but I know that we need somebody and we need them now. President Obama should work with all due haste to fill these enormous shoes. The damage of delay will be immense. It will not only be a huge blow for a greener economy, but will also hurt Obama politically. He needs to show strength by appointing another fire-breating, take-no-prisoners, unapologetic green jobs warrior to take the batton from Mr. Jones. The climate cannot wait.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Going on an Energy Diet
Of all the diets that one can go on, an energy diet has got to be among the easiest things to do. There are many low hanging fruit in every household, which will bring energy savings and the shedding of carbon pounds from your life. I know I'm a little bit of a zealot, but I actually look forward to seeing my electric bill every month. Why? Because I am so thrilled to see how little electricity my household uses compared to years past.
Not too long ago, my house of six people was pretty average in Maryland. We used about 1,000 KwH a month of electricity. In Summer, we would hit 1,400 or so, and in Winter, we'd drop to 600 or so. This Summer, in May, June, and July, we've been averaging 650 KwH a month! I'm not saying this to brag so much as to let you know how easy it is to go on an energy diet. Most importantly, you can do this without any loss of quality of life.
In my house, we've made investments over the years in insulation, air sealing, and energy star windows. When we've had to replace an appliance, we've purchased the most energy efficient one we could find (within our budget). We use CFL's and got rid of energy hogging halogen lights.
One of the best investments was a $45 programmable thermostat. By simply following the Energy Star guidelines, I knocked 3-5% off my energy use. Going beyond those settings (which I did), knocked off another few percent.
By doing all these great energy efficiency measures, I could now go solar and have the solar array produce 60%-80% of my Summer power. That's huge!
The point is that going on an Energy Diet is simple to do and should not be put off until tomorrow. Not sure how to get started? We at Clean Currents are proud to have partnered with ecobeco to provide Energy Efficiency and Green Energy Assesments for low cost. Have the folks from ecobeco come to your house and you'll find out how to get started on your Energy Diet today.
Not too long ago, my house of six people was pretty average in Maryland. We used about 1,000 KwH a month of electricity. In Summer, we would hit 1,400 or so, and in Winter, we'd drop to 600 or so. This Summer, in May, June, and July, we've been averaging 650 KwH a month! I'm not saying this to brag so much as to let you know how easy it is to go on an energy diet. Most importantly, you can do this without any loss of quality of life.
In my house, we've made investments over the years in insulation, air sealing, and energy star windows. When we've had to replace an appliance, we've purchased the most energy efficient one we could find (within our budget). We use CFL's and got rid of energy hogging halogen lights.
One of the best investments was a $45 programmable thermostat. By simply following the Energy Star guidelines, I knocked 3-5% off my energy use. Going beyond those settings (which I did), knocked off another few percent.
By doing all these great energy efficiency measures, I could now go solar and have the solar array produce 60%-80% of my Summer power. That's huge!
The point is that going on an Energy Diet is simple to do and should not be put off until tomorrow. Not sure how to get started? We at Clean Currents are proud to have partnered with ecobeco to provide Energy Efficiency and Green Energy Assesments for low cost. Have the folks from ecobeco come to your house and you'll find out how to get started on your Energy Diet today.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Checking In on the Maryland Renewable Standard
Some of us fought tooth and nail for several years to get Maryland to adopt a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in 2004. It wasn't easy. We had a reluctant legislature, a Governor opposed to us, and a large contingent of the business community expressing concerns about costs. There was a lot said in 2004 about the bill and its impact. So now that we are in 2009, it's worth checking the latest compliance reports to see what is actually happening. The results are very surprising. So far, it turns out, none of us were right.
First, a very brief background. The RPS requires any entity that sells electricity in Maryland (a "Load Serving Entity" or "LSE") to get a percentage of its power from clean, renewable sources. The percentage starts low (it is currently below 5%) and rises over time. The way electricity companies comply with the law is to submit Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) from qualified sources, to the Maryland Public Service Commission. If an LSE fails to meet the requirement, it must pay an "Alternative Compliance Payment" or "ACP" to the PSC. The ACP is meant to put a ceiling on how much an RPS would cost ratepayers, while also acting as a market setter for the cost of RECs. One of the biggest battles in the RPS war, besides the level of the ACP, was over the definition of clean, renewable energy. Solar, wind and sustainable biomass were all obvious choices to include, but industry and some politicians wanted us to include their favored sources, such as Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSW), or what I like to call, "burning garbage" and "black liquor," which is not moonshine, but actually a by product of making paper that can be burned to make electricity.
In the end, we compromised by making two tiers for the RPS, a Tier 1 and a Tier 2. The Tier 1 renewables are solar, wind, sustainable biomass... plus, "small" hydro, which is a hydro plant under 30 megawatts, wood chips used for co-firing with coal, captured methane from landfills (technically not renewable, but at least helping the climate by keeping methane out of the air), and yes, black liquor. This last item was inserted at the very last minute by Bill Pitcher, who was then the lobbyist for MeadWestvaco, a paper mill in western Maryland. At the time, he claimed, and the Senate Democratic leadership agreed, that including black liquor would only help MeadWestvaco meet the RPS without any hardship on them, thus avoiding the plant closing or leaving Maryland. Small hydro was including over our objections. It is clean and renewable, but there already exists many small hydro plants in the area and thus there is no need to incentivize them to get built.
Tier 2 includes burning garbage and large hydro. The good news is that Tier 2 ends in 2019.
So, now that you have the background, here is the update on what is actually happening.
In 2008, Tier 1 was met by the following sources
Black Liquor 37%
Waste Wood 30%
Small Hydro 17%
Landfill Gas 15%
Wind 1/2 of 1%
Solar too small to even count!!!
Sustainable Biomass None!
Tier 2 was met by:
Large Hydro 85%
Burning Garbage 15%
As you can see, it is not a very pretty picture.
Now let's examine claims that both sides made in 2004 and see who is right or wrong so far.
The Green Side
1. RPS will lead to development of wind power in the region.
WRONG. So far, it has done a lot for black liquor and wood waste but nothing for wind. Allowing black liquor and wood waste into the RPS has seriously crowded out wind power.
2. RPS will lead to clean energy development in Maryland.
WRONG. So far, litigation and the economy has prevented wind farm construction in Maryland. Also, allowing LSE's to meet their RPS obligation with RECs from all over the PJM electric grid and beyond has meant there was no incentive to build right here in Maryland.
3. RPS will not have a huge cost on ratepayers.
RIGHT. So far, the RECS used for compliance are so cheap to be almost worthless.
The Other Side
1. Black liquor will only be used to help MeadWestvaco.
WRONG. As we see, black liquor DOMINATES the RPS. It is a huge loophole in the law that allows ratepayer support for a source of energy that is not clean and not renewable and in no need of additional support.
2. The RPS will add 2 cents/KWh to everybody's electric bills.
DEAD WRONG. The RPS RECs in Tier 1 currently seem to go for about 4/100's of 1 cent. That is 40 times less than the opponents said it would cost.
3. The RPS will cause economic hardship for Maryland businesses.
WRONG. There has not been a single case of a Maryland business applying for an economic hardship waiver in the RPS. The costs are negligible.
CONCLUSION
Obviously, we need to do some things to fix the RPS. It was not meant to be a black liquor/waste wood incentive bill, but that's what it is right now.
Stay tuned for the next blog, exploring how the various LSE's responded to the RPS, to see how things are going in the Solar Carve-Out, and to see what we can do to fix things.
First, a very brief background. The RPS requires any entity that sells electricity in Maryland (a "Load Serving Entity" or "LSE") to get a percentage of its power from clean, renewable sources. The percentage starts low (it is currently below 5%) and rises over time. The way electricity companies comply with the law is to submit Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) from qualified sources, to the Maryland Public Service Commission. If an LSE fails to meet the requirement, it must pay an "Alternative Compliance Payment" or "ACP" to the PSC. The ACP is meant to put a ceiling on how much an RPS would cost ratepayers, while also acting as a market setter for the cost of RECs. One of the biggest battles in the RPS war, besides the level of the ACP, was over the definition of clean, renewable energy. Solar, wind and sustainable biomass were all obvious choices to include, but industry and some politicians wanted us to include their favored sources, such as Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSW), or what I like to call, "burning garbage" and "black liquor," which is not moonshine, but actually a by product of making paper that can be burned to make electricity.
In the end, we compromised by making two tiers for the RPS, a Tier 1 and a Tier 2. The Tier 1 renewables are solar, wind, sustainable biomass... plus, "small" hydro, which is a hydro plant under 30 megawatts, wood chips used for co-firing with coal, captured methane from landfills (technically not renewable, but at least helping the climate by keeping methane out of the air), and yes, black liquor. This last item was inserted at the very last minute by Bill Pitcher, who was then the lobbyist for MeadWestvaco, a paper mill in western Maryland. At the time, he claimed, and the Senate Democratic leadership agreed, that including black liquor would only help MeadWestvaco meet the RPS without any hardship on them, thus avoiding the plant closing or leaving Maryland. Small hydro was including over our objections. It is clean and renewable, but there already exists many small hydro plants in the area and thus there is no need to incentivize them to get built.
Tier 2 includes burning garbage and large hydro. The good news is that Tier 2 ends in 2019.
So, now that you have the background, here is the update on what is actually happening.
In 2008, Tier 1 was met by the following sources
Black Liquor 37%
Waste Wood 30%
Small Hydro 17%
Landfill Gas 15%
Wind 1/2 of 1%
Solar too small to even count!!!
Sustainable Biomass None!
Tier 2 was met by:
Large Hydro 85%
Burning Garbage 15%
As you can see, it is not a very pretty picture.
Now let's examine claims that both sides made in 2004 and see who is right or wrong so far.
The Green Side
1. RPS will lead to development of wind power in the region.
WRONG. So far, it has done a lot for black liquor and wood waste but nothing for wind. Allowing black liquor and wood waste into the RPS has seriously crowded out wind power.
2. RPS will lead to clean energy development in Maryland.
WRONG. So far, litigation and the economy has prevented wind farm construction in Maryland. Also, allowing LSE's to meet their RPS obligation with RECs from all over the PJM electric grid and beyond has meant there was no incentive to build right here in Maryland.
3. RPS will not have a huge cost on ratepayers.
RIGHT. So far, the RECS used for compliance are so cheap to be almost worthless.
The Other Side
1. Black liquor will only be used to help MeadWestvaco.
WRONG. As we see, black liquor DOMINATES the RPS. It is a huge loophole in the law that allows ratepayer support for a source of energy that is not clean and not renewable and in no need of additional support.
2. The RPS will add 2 cents/KWh to everybody's electric bills.
DEAD WRONG. The RPS RECs in Tier 1 currently seem to go for about 4/100's of 1 cent. That is 40 times less than the opponents said it would cost.
3. The RPS will cause economic hardship for Maryland businesses.
WRONG. There has not been a single case of a Maryland business applying for an economic hardship waiver in the RPS. The costs are negligible.
CONCLUSION
Obviously, we need to do some things to fix the RPS. It was not meant to be a black liquor/waste wood incentive bill, but that's what it is right now.
Stay tuned for the next blog, exploring how the various LSE's responded to the RPS, to see how things are going in the Solar Carve-Out, and to see what we can do to fix things.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Energy Musings
All the energy action is on Capitol Hill this month.
As Representatives Waxman and Markey sheppard through their climate legislation, many people of good will are debating what is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing the green energy economy. The debate has crystalized to three significant points of view. There is the "cap and trade" crowd, the "carbon tax" crowd, and the "cap and dividend" crowd. All three have merit.
Personally, I love the cap and dividend concept being pushed by climate champion, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. It makes so much sense politically and from a policy stand point as well. The idea is that the government would put a cap on emissions and polluters would have to buy permits for carbon emissions. That's just like the "cap" on the "cap and trade" bill. Where they differ is that Mr. Van Hollen's measure would take the money that's collected and distribute it to every single American as a payment. Just like Alaska share's oil revenue with its citizens, the U.S. government would be sharing carbon revenue with its citizens. Every citizen would thus have a stake in constraining carbon emissions, creating the widespread support that is desperately needed. The beauty of this approach is also in its simplicity. There would be no special interest exceptions, or extra benefits to any particular group or industry. Just like Social Security, every citizen would get a check regardless of income.
But right now, the big push is for the "cap and trade" bill. In fact, the bill could be on the House floor before Memorial Day. While the bill is not perfect, it would finally put this country on a path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something unthinkable during the long winter of the Bush administration. It would also establish a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring electricity providers in this country to get 15% renewable energy and reduce energy consumption 5% within a short time. This would have the effect of dramatically increasing the amount of clean, renewable energy available in many parts of the country.
Over the next few weeks and months, there will be a lot of debate within the green community about the pros and cons of the current climate bill. There will be a lot of hand wringing about concessions that are needed to get votes in Congress. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about finally cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. This is the Super Bowl of the climate movement that we've been waiting for, for so many years. We're finally here with our chance to literally save the planet. The magnitude of this moment is immense. There are climate activists who have labored in this field for years and years, with little to no results. They were ignored, belittled, and shunted aside. Now, finally the United States Congress and the President are on our side. What a moment in time!
As Representatives Waxman and Markey sheppard through their climate legislation, many people of good will are debating what is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing the green energy economy. The debate has crystalized to three significant points of view. There is the "cap and trade" crowd, the "carbon tax" crowd, and the "cap and dividend" crowd. All three have merit.
Personally, I love the cap and dividend concept being pushed by climate champion, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. It makes so much sense politically and from a policy stand point as well. The idea is that the government would put a cap on emissions and polluters would have to buy permits for carbon emissions. That's just like the "cap" on the "cap and trade" bill. Where they differ is that Mr. Van Hollen's measure would take the money that's collected and distribute it to every single American as a payment. Just like Alaska share's oil revenue with its citizens, the U.S. government would be sharing carbon revenue with its citizens. Every citizen would thus have a stake in constraining carbon emissions, creating the widespread support that is desperately needed. The beauty of this approach is also in its simplicity. There would be no special interest exceptions, or extra benefits to any particular group or industry. Just like Social Security, every citizen would get a check regardless of income.
But right now, the big push is for the "cap and trade" bill. In fact, the bill could be on the House floor before Memorial Day. While the bill is not perfect, it would finally put this country on a path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something unthinkable during the long winter of the Bush administration. It would also establish a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring electricity providers in this country to get 15% renewable energy and reduce energy consumption 5% within a short time. This would have the effect of dramatically increasing the amount of clean, renewable energy available in many parts of the country.
Over the next few weeks and months, there will be a lot of debate within the green community about the pros and cons of the current climate bill. There will be a lot of hand wringing about concessions that are needed to get votes in Congress. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about finally cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. This is the Super Bowl of the climate movement that we've been waiting for, for so many years. We're finally here with our chance to literally save the planet. The magnitude of this moment is immense. There are climate activists who have labored in this field for years and years, with little to no results. They were ignored, belittled, and shunted aside. Now, finally the United States Congress and the President are on our side. What a moment in time!
Monday, April 13, 2009
Two Sides to Energy Legislation in Maryland
Two Sides to Energy Legislation in Maryland
As I write this, another legislative session in Annapolis is drawing to a close. Two bills that emerged in this session illustrate the right way and the wrong way to handle energy related legislation. The fact that both bills were supported by Governor O'Malley is perhaps a curious case of an Administration with multiple personalities, or maybe just a case of politics trumping reason. In either event, I'm thrilled to see both the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) become law and the electricity Re-Regulation bill defeated.
The GWSA, championed by House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D - Rockville), is a progressive piece of legislation that puts Maryland at the forefront of efforts to address the very real danger of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions. The bill puts Maryland on course to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint as a state. It was crafted over the course of two years. The Department of Environment, under the leadership of Secretary Shari Wilson, led a process that brought in any interested stakeholders to come to consensus on the bill. Opponents of the bill, including labor unions and Maryland's remaining industrial manufacturers, had a fair chance to provide input on the legislation. In the end, Ms. Wilson was able to craft a compromise that change opponents into proponents while preserving the integrity of the bill. The end result is a bill that pleases the environmental community, labor unions, manufacturers and many others. Clean Currents was proud to be a supporter of this historic bill.
Contrast that with the botched attempt to end customer choice for electricity in Maryland. The so-called Re-Regulation bill (a misnomer because electricity is already regulated in our state) was hoisted upon the General Assembly in what appeared to be a hastily crafted attempt to score some political points on the anger many people feel over rising energy costs. The bill was introduced without any consultation with the solar energy industry or the major wind developers in Maryland. No environmental groups were brought on board. Instead, a bizaro world coalition of groups were brought together to support the bill. MaryPIRG, a consumer rights group, supported the bill because they said they thought it would prevent a new nuclear plant from being built, yet the chief sponsor of the bill talked about the bill being a main vehicle to build new power plants. AARP and the seemingly directionless Progressive Maryland supported the bill because they said it would lower electricity prices, yet the Chairman of the Public Service Commission said it would do no such thing. The Governor supported the bill, claiming it would be good for renewable energy. Yet the renewable energy industry came out against the bill, forcing the Governor to exempt wind power from the legislation.
Interested parties were not brought into the process until the very last moment, after the bill was already introduced. Confusion ran rampant among legislators, causing some to vote for this ill-conceived bill without really understanding it. Progressive legislators like Sen. Mike Lennet (D- Silver Spring), for example, voted for the bill despite opposition from his own constituents, clean energy companies (including Clean Currents), concern from environmental advocates, and no evidence whatsover that the bill would do anything positive for ratepayers. Others, like Sen. Rob Garagiola (D- Potomac) opposed the bill because they understood its promises did not match its reality. One of the original sponsors of the bill, Delegate Herman Taylor (D- Olney), a man on the Economic Matters Committee that would decide the fate of the bill was brushed aside by the Governor in favor of Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D- Bethesda), a well meaning freshman Delegate who has no real experience in electricity legislation.
All this confusion, total lack of consensus, and poor handling of the issue, doomed the Re-Regulation bill. The Governor seemed to be genuinely surprised by the opposition to his bill from the clean energy sector and the serious concerns expressed by environmental activists. That's unfortunate. Because while one part of his administration showed amazing leadership and vision in bringing all stakeholders together for the Global Warming Solutions Act, another part of his administration did just the opposite with the Re-Regulation bill. The Governor should use the interim to follow the path set by Ms. Wilson and Majority Leader Barve. Bring together interested parties, discuss the goals the Governor is trying to achieve, and forge a consensus. We all want a secure energy future in Maryland, so it shouldn't be impossible to find a means to get there.
As I write this, another legislative session in Annapolis is drawing to a close. Two bills that emerged in this session illustrate the right way and the wrong way to handle energy related legislation. The fact that both bills were supported by Governor O'Malley is perhaps a curious case of an Administration with multiple personalities, or maybe just a case of politics trumping reason. In either event, I'm thrilled to see both the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) become law and the electricity Re-Regulation bill defeated.
The GWSA, championed by House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D - Rockville), is a progressive piece of legislation that puts Maryland at the forefront of efforts to address the very real danger of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions. The bill puts Maryland on course to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint as a state. It was crafted over the course of two years. The Department of Environment, under the leadership of Secretary Shari Wilson, led a process that brought in any interested stakeholders to come to consensus on the bill. Opponents of the bill, including labor unions and Maryland's remaining industrial manufacturers, had a fair chance to provide input on the legislation. In the end, Ms. Wilson was able to craft a compromise that change opponents into proponents while preserving the integrity of the bill. The end result is a bill that pleases the environmental community, labor unions, manufacturers and many others. Clean Currents was proud to be a supporter of this historic bill.
Contrast that with the botched attempt to end customer choice for electricity in Maryland. The so-called Re-Regulation bill (a misnomer because electricity is already regulated in our state) was hoisted upon the General Assembly in what appeared to be a hastily crafted attempt to score some political points on the anger many people feel over rising energy costs. The bill was introduced without any consultation with the solar energy industry or the major wind developers in Maryland. No environmental groups were brought on board. Instead, a bizaro world coalition of groups were brought together to support the bill. MaryPIRG, a consumer rights group, supported the bill because they said they thought it would prevent a new nuclear plant from being built, yet the chief sponsor of the bill talked about the bill being a main vehicle to build new power plants. AARP and the seemingly directionless Progressive Maryland supported the bill because they said it would lower electricity prices, yet the Chairman of the Public Service Commission said it would do no such thing. The Governor supported the bill, claiming it would be good for renewable energy. Yet the renewable energy industry came out against the bill, forcing the Governor to exempt wind power from the legislation.
Interested parties were not brought into the process until the very last moment, after the bill was already introduced. Confusion ran rampant among legislators, causing some to vote for this ill-conceived bill without really understanding it. Progressive legislators like Sen. Mike Lennet (D- Silver Spring), for example, voted for the bill despite opposition from his own constituents, clean energy companies (including Clean Currents), concern from environmental advocates, and no evidence whatsover that the bill would do anything positive for ratepayers. Others, like Sen. Rob Garagiola (D- Potomac) opposed the bill because they understood its promises did not match its reality. One of the original sponsors of the bill, Delegate Herman Taylor (D- Olney), a man on the Economic Matters Committee that would decide the fate of the bill was brushed aside by the Governor in favor of Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D- Bethesda), a well meaning freshman Delegate who has no real experience in electricity legislation.
All this confusion, total lack of consensus, and poor handling of the issue, doomed the Re-Regulation bill. The Governor seemed to be genuinely surprised by the opposition to his bill from the clean energy sector and the serious concerns expressed by environmental activists. That's unfortunate. Because while one part of his administration showed amazing leadership and vision in bringing all stakeholders together for the Global Warming Solutions Act, another part of his administration did just the opposite with the Re-Regulation bill. The Governor should use the interim to follow the path set by Ms. Wilson and Majority Leader Barve. Bring together interested parties, discuss the goals the Governor is trying to achieve, and forge a consensus. We all want a secure energy future in Maryland, so it shouldn't be impossible to find a means to get there.
Monday, March 2, 2009
A Bad Energy Bill in Annapolis
Here is my testimony against SB 795, a very bad energy bill being considered right now in Annapolis.
Testimony submitted to: Senate Finance Committee
Submitted by: Gary Skulnik
President
Clean Currents
155 Gibbs Street, Suite 425
Rockville, MD 20850
Bill: SB 795
Position: OPPOSE (UNFAVORABLE)
Here in Maryland, we have renewed activity in the competitive electricity market. Commercial customers are locking in contracts for fixed rate power, for one to five years at rates not seen in years. This is saving businesses big time at a time when they most need it. Residents are finally getting into the act as well. Thanks to C Green and other programs, homeowners can sign up for alternative supplies of energy at below market rates, and get green power at the same time. This robust electricity market has spurred the growth of Clean Currents, a Rockville based sustainably operated clean energy company. At a time when many companies are talking layoffs and downsizing, Clean Currents is actually hiring. It has grown to a staff of ten, from two just a year ago. The company plans on adding more people as the year progresses. These are exactly the kind of green jobs that's on everybody's lips these days from the President on down.
Thanks to initiatives from Governor O'Malley, there is once again a vibrant market for energy efficiency in Maryland. Homeowners and businesses are now or will be very soon able to take advantage of fantastic new rebates, special discounts and other incentives that help them lower their energy use, and thus cut their energy bill. We have a real demand side management program in place after years of neglect, thanks to Empower Maryland.
Maryland's solar energy industry is finally ready for rapid growth. The state could very well put in over 6 megawatts of solar energy in 2009, far surpassing anything that's happened in the past. This solar revolution is part and parcel of the competitive electricity market we are in, with the framework of the Renewable Portfolio Standard on top.
Some people would look at this and say we have an unmitigated success here in Maryland. We have new green jobs, green businesses, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and opportunities to lower electric bills.
Unfortunately, some look at this and call it a "total disaster."
There is a real feeling in Annapolis, it seems, to do something about energy prices, even though much of it is out of our control.
SB 795 is the wrong bill for the environment, for clean energy, and ultimately for consumers.
Wrong for the Environment
In the current deregulated market, consumers can choose green energy from different energy suppliers. Clean Currents has signed up more than 1,500 customers (commercial and residential) to green power since 2006. Passing SB 795 will take away the option of choosing green power for consumers.
The utilities will be able to build coal-fired power plants and force the ratepayers to fund them. This is exactly what happened in Virginia recently. Dominion power is building a new coal fired power plant and the ratepayers of Virginia are footing the bill with an extra charge on their electricity bill.
Utilities are historically reluctant to participate in innovate programs to fund renewable energy development. For example, the three companies that have purchased the most Solar Renewable Energy Credits are Constellation, Washington Gas Energy Services, and Pepco Energy Services, all deregulated energy suppliers, not utilities. These purchase have resulted in major solar projects in Maryland, including the McCormick installation (Baltimore) and the Kelly Electric installation (Prince George's County).
SB 795 will create more greenhouse gas emissions in Maryland.
SB 795 will encourage the building of more coal-fired power plants. This is exactly the opposite of what Maryland leaders are committing to doing (reducing greenhouse gas emissions).
Wrong for the Economy
SB 795 will cost jobs and hurt the burgeoning clean energy industry in Maryland.
Competitive Energy Suppliers will layoff staff. Small green start-ups like Clean Currents will scale back and possibly close. The bill will stifle innovation in the energy sector just at a time when it's needed most.
SB 795 Just Doesn't Work
Commercial customers in Maryland are actively shopping for electricity. Many of them are getting deals that are much better than Standard Offer Service. There is no problem here to "fix."
Commercial customers of Clean Currents have purchased green power at rates below utility standard offer rates. They have saved money and achieved significant marketing/public relations benefits for their companies. This could not happen if SB 795 passes.
Clean Currents worked with residents of Catonsville to do a buying group for clean energy. More than 300 residents participated, getting stable electric rates and creating positive community feelings. This could not happen if SB 795 passes.
SB 795 has too many problems to be easily fixed. We respectfully ask you to OPPOSE SB 795.
Testimony submitted to: Senate Finance Committee
Submitted by: Gary Skulnik
President
Clean Currents
155 Gibbs Street, Suite 425
Rockville, MD 20850
Bill: SB 795
Position: OPPOSE (UNFAVORABLE)
Here in Maryland, we have renewed activity in the competitive electricity market. Commercial customers are locking in contracts for fixed rate power, for one to five years at rates not seen in years. This is saving businesses big time at a time when they most need it. Residents are finally getting into the act as well. Thanks to C Green and other programs, homeowners can sign up for alternative supplies of energy at below market rates, and get green power at the same time. This robust electricity market has spurred the growth of Clean Currents, a Rockville based sustainably operated clean energy company. At a time when many companies are talking layoffs and downsizing, Clean Currents is actually hiring. It has grown to a staff of ten, from two just a year ago. The company plans on adding more people as the year progresses. These are exactly the kind of green jobs that's on everybody's lips these days from the President on down.
Thanks to initiatives from Governor O'Malley, there is once again a vibrant market for energy efficiency in Maryland. Homeowners and businesses are now or will be very soon able to take advantage of fantastic new rebates, special discounts and other incentives that help them lower their energy use, and thus cut their energy bill. We have a real demand side management program in place after years of neglect, thanks to Empower Maryland.
Maryland's solar energy industry is finally ready for rapid growth. The state could very well put in over 6 megawatts of solar energy in 2009, far surpassing anything that's happened in the past. This solar revolution is part and parcel of the competitive electricity market we are in, with the framework of the Renewable Portfolio Standard on top.
Some people would look at this and say we have an unmitigated success here in Maryland. We have new green jobs, green businesses, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and opportunities to lower electric bills.
Unfortunately, some look at this and call it a "total disaster."
There is a real feeling in Annapolis, it seems, to do something about energy prices, even though much of it is out of our control.
SB 795 is the wrong bill for the environment, for clean energy, and ultimately for consumers.
Wrong for the Environment
In the current deregulated market, consumers can choose green energy from different energy suppliers. Clean Currents has signed up more than 1,500 customers (commercial and residential) to green power since 2006. Passing SB 795 will take away the option of choosing green power for consumers.
The utilities will be able to build coal-fired power plants and force the ratepayers to fund them. This is exactly what happened in Virginia recently. Dominion power is building a new coal fired power plant and the ratepayers of Virginia are footing the bill with an extra charge on their electricity bill.
Utilities are historically reluctant to participate in innovate programs to fund renewable energy development. For example, the three companies that have purchased the most Solar Renewable Energy Credits are Constellation, Washington Gas Energy Services, and Pepco Energy Services, all deregulated energy suppliers, not utilities. These purchase have resulted in major solar projects in Maryland, including the McCormick installation (Baltimore) and the Kelly Electric installation (Prince George's County).
SB 795 will create more greenhouse gas emissions in Maryland.
SB 795 will encourage the building of more coal-fired power plants. This is exactly the opposite of what Maryland leaders are committing to doing (reducing greenhouse gas emissions).
Wrong for the Economy
SB 795 will cost jobs and hurt the burgeoning clean energy industry in Maryland.
Competitive Energy Suppliers will layoff staff. Small green start-ups like Clean Currents will scale back and possibly close. The bill will stifle innovation in the energy sector just at a time when it's needed most.
SB 795 Just Doesn't Work
Commercial customers in Maryland are actively shopping for electricity. Many of them are getting deals that are much better than Standard Offer Service. There is no problem here to "fix."
Commercial customers of Clean Currents have purchased green power at rates below utility standard offer rates. They have saved money and achieved significant marketing/public relations benefits for their companies. This could not happen if SB 795 passes.
Clean Currents worked with residents of Catonsville to do a buying group for clean energy. More than 300 residents participated, getting stable electric rates and creating positive community feelings. This could not happen if SB 795 passes.
SB 795 has too many problems to be easily fixed. We respectfully ask you to OPPOSE SB 795.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Energy Confusion in Maryland
Marylanders have a lot to be proud of when it comes to setting a course for a clean energy future, but a lack of strong direction from the top could put a major road block in our way. The Governor and the Public Service Commission (PSC) have benefitted from a strong desire of Marylanders to change our energy path. They have been given unprecedented tools to change our energy picture. Yet, there is still a danger that they will not get it right. Here are some examples from the trenches of energy policy in Maryland:
Wasted Money and Effort. I was proud to be one of the main guys who passed a bill that forced then-Governor Ehrlich, against his will, to have Maryland join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI is a group of states from Maine to Maryland that are committed to reducing greenhouse gases from power plants. Polluters have to pay the state to get allowances to emit carbon. The state is awash in cash from this. The idea was for the state to then use this money to promote things that will reduce pollution such as clean energy and energy efficiency. Instead, the Governor has taken a huge chunk of the money and given it to ratepayers in the form of a credit on their electric bill. So, each ratepayer gets a couple of dollars a month back from the state and the Governor will claim he "lowered electric rates." This may make for great politics, but it is about the stupidest idea I've ever seen if you are trying to lower carbon emissions. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. It's like with gas prices, the lower the price, the more energy people consume. Right now, most of our energy comes from fossil fuels, so that means more carbon emissions.
Solar RECs
Legislators passed one of the most progressive policies in the nation to promote solar energy by requiring utilities and energy providers to derive a certain percentage of their power from solar energy. The law requires these entities to buy Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) from anybody in Maryland with solar panels on their roofs. In essence, it's a way for consumers to get the utilities to pay down the cost of installing solar energy. It's a great program, except for the way the PSC is implementing it. In the age of the Internet, they require homeowners to fill out a paper application and make 14 copies to mail in. Once your application is in, it could take up to six weeks to process and get approval. In one case, the PSC found a couple of sentences from old Maryland code to actually deny SRECs to a Marylander, even though the person followed the proper procedure (at that time) when he put in his solar system. There's no reason the PSC shouldn't have a one click system on a web page to register SRECs.
The Solar Grant.
Did you know you can get a grant from the state of Maryland for installing solar energy? Most people don't. But even if you do, you currently have no idea exactly how much of a grant you can get, or when you can expect to actually see the money. The Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) has a wait list of several hundred, and there's no telling when/if those people will get their money. How hard is it for the Governor to set a dedicated amount of money to solar grants for the next five years and provide transparency and certainty in the application process?
Gifts to Utilities
The Governor has charged the utilities with reducing energy use (lowering rates will have the exact opposite effect!). The PSC is finalizing the programs with each utility. The general framework is that the utilities get to charge ratepayers and use the money to fund programs to reduce energy use. So now you have a situation where the utilities claim to be "green" because they are funding these programs, while not exactly promoting the fact that they are using ratepayer money to do so. And in the BGE territory, BGE is proposing to do "quicky" energy checks on households (at ratepayer expense) while keeping out the growing small business-heavy energy efficiency industry in Maryland. There are great local businesses that do real energy audits (ecobeco, for example), but the PSC could put them out of business by allowing BGE to do faux-audits at little to no direct cost (again, thanks to the ratepayers). How can a small business that does real energy audits, which lead to real energy savings compete with this? A better approach would be to use ratepayer money to significantly lower the cost of real energy audits and to make that available to all Maryland energy auditors (not the utilities only).
Summary
There are many great programs in Maryland to get us on a path towards a greener future, but there appears to be no leadership providing a unified message and direction. One policy contradicts another. Information is not shared widely. Small businesses get shut out to the benefit of the established utilities. The consumer is left confused and unsure what he/she can actually get. Meanwhile, politically popular items that actually increase carbon emissions and discourage renewable energy are getting major financial backing. These problems are not insurmountable, but we need real leadership from Annapolis to solve the issues. Right now, that's sorely lacking.
Wasted Money and Effort. I was proud to be one of the main guys who passed a bill that forced then-Governor Ehrlich, against his will, to have Maryland join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI is a group of states from Maine to Maryland that are committed to reducing greenhouse gases from power plants. Polluters have to pay the state to get allowances to emit carbon. The state is awash in cash from this. The idea was for the state to then use this money to promote things that will reduce pollution such as clean energy and energy efficiency. Instead, the Governor has taken a huge chunk of the money and given it to ratepayers in the form of a credit on their electric bill. So, each ratepayer gets a couple of dollars a month back from the state and the Governor will claim he "lowered electric rates." This may make for great politics, but it is about the stupidest idea I've ever seen if you are trying to lower carbon emissions. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. It's like with gas prices, the lower the price, the more energy people consume. Right now, most of our energy comes from fossil fuels, so that means more carbon emissions.
Solar RECs
Legislators passed one of the most progressive policies in the nation to promote solar energy by requiring utilities and energy providers to derive a certain percentage of their power from solar energy. The law requires these entities to buy Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) from anybody in Maryland with solar panels on their roofs. In essence, it's a way for consumers to get the utilities to pay down the cost of installing solar energy. It's a great program, except for the way the PSC is implementing it. In the age of the Internet, they require homeowners to fill out a paper application and make 14 copies to mail in. Once your application is in, it could take up to six weeks to process and get approval. In one case, the PSC found a couple of sentences from old Maryland code to actually deny SRECs to a Marylander, even though the person followed the proper procedure (at that time) when he put in his solar system. There's no reason the PSC shouldn't have a one click system on a web page to register SRECs.
The Solar Grant.
Did you know you can get a grant from the state of Maryland for installing solar energy? Most people don't. But even if you do, you currently have no idea exactly how much of a grant you can get, or when you can expect to actually see the money. The Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) has a wait list of several hundred, and there's no telling when/if those people will get their money. How hard is it for the Governor to set a dedicated amount of money to solar grants for the next five years and provide transparency and certainty in the application process?
Gifts to Utilities
The Governor has charged the utilities with reducing energy use (lowering rates will have the exact opposite effect!). The PSC is finalizing the programs with each utility. The general framework is that the utilities get to charge ratepayers and use the money to fund programs to reduce energy use. So now you have a situation where the utilities claim to be "green" because they are funding these programs, while not exactly promoting the fact that they are using ratepayer money to do so. And in the BGE territory, BGE is proposing to do "quicky" energy checks on households (at ratepayer expense) while keeping out the growing small business-heavy energy efficiency industry in Maryland. There are great local businesses that do real energy audits (ecobeco, for example), but the PSC could put them out of business by allowing BGE to do faux-audits at little to no direct cost (again, thanks to the ratepayers). How can a small business that does real energy audits, which lead to real energy savings compete with this? A better approach would be to use ratepayer money to significantly lower the cost of real energy audits and to make that available to all Maryland energy auditors (not the utilities only).
Summary
There are many great programs in Maryland to get us on a path towards a greener future, but there appears to be no leadership providing a unified message and direction. One policy contradicts another. Information is not shared widely. Small businesses get shut out to the benefit of the established utilities. The consumer is left confused and unsure what he/she can actually get. Meanwhile, politically popular items that actually increase carbon emissions and discourage renewable energy are getting major financial backing. These problems are not insurmountable, but we need real leadership from Annapolis to solve the issues. Right now, that's sorely lacking.
Monday, January 26, 2009
StimPack - Here's how to Really Rev the Engine
StimPack. Sounds like something you'd get at the physical therapist's office or pick up at the pharmacy to get off some addiction. It's actually the short-hand name inside the beltway types are giving the new Stimulus Package that the President and Congress are preparing for the struggling (drowning?) economy.
Sounds like the basic outlines of the bill are already in place. There is a lot of good measures to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. I applaud that whole-heartedly. Where I get the heartburn is knowing that the massive Federal financial injection is going to end up in the hands probably exclusively of large, Fortune 500 type businesses. There will be no crumbs for the little guys.
The thing that really irks me is that leaders of both parties are constantly talking about "small businesses" in America. How we are the engines of growth and innovation, the doers, the risk takers. You'd think all this lip service to small businesses would translate to real dollars when StimPack comes around. You'd be wrong.
Let's take one example. There is an excellant provision to provide loan guarentees for renewable energy projects. Sounds great. Problem is that a small business will have extreme difficulty accesing that, or any other loan guarentee. See, we don't have the paid lawyers, lobbyists, or government procurement staff that the big companies do. We don't have the ability to devote countless hours to navigating the Federal waters like the big guys do. We don't have the ready access to large capital that the Fortune 500 companies do.
Yet, I believe that money given to small businesses has a direct impact on the local economies where those businesses are located. Instead of giving billions to large companies, how about giving billions to small businesses? I know what the impact of a loan guarentee or even a direct financial infusion would have on Clean Currents. We'd immediately hire people, spend money right here in the DC area, and invest in renewable energy projects. Money wouldn't sit on our balance sheets as it would with large companies. It would be directly injected into the local economy.
So, here comes StimPack. Hopefully it will work. And if it's not too late, maybe there can be a carve out for small businesses. After all, we are the engine that drives the economy.
Sounds like the basic outlines of the bill are already in place. There is a lot of good measures to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. I applaud that whole-heartedly. Where I get the heartburn is knowing that the massive Federal financial injection is going to end up in the hands probably exclusively of large, Fortune 500 type businesses. There will be no crumbs for the little guys.
The thing that really irks me is that leaders of both parties are constantly talking about "small businesses" in America. How we are the engines of growth and innovation, the doers, the risk takers. You'd think all this lip service to small businesses would translate to real dollars when StimPack comes around. You'd be wrong.
Let's take one example. There is an excellant provision to provide loan guarentees for renewable energy projects. Sounds great. Problem is that a small business will have extreme difficulty accesing that, or any other loan guarentee. See, we don't have the paid lawyers, lobbyists, or government procurement staff that the big companies do. We don't have the ability to devote countless hours to navigating the Federal waters like the big guys do. We don't have the ready access to large capital that the Fortune 500 companies do.
Yet, I believe that money given to small businesses has a direct impact on the local economies where those businesses are located. Instead of giving billions to large companies, how about giving billions to small businesses? I know what the impact of a loan guarentee or even a direct financial infusion would have on Clean Currents. We'd immediately hire people, spend money right here in the DC area, and invest in renewable energy projects. Money wouldn't sit on our balance sheets as it would with large companies. It would be directly injected into the local economy.
So, here comes StimPack. Hopefully it will work. And if it's not too late, maybe there can be a carve out for small businesses. After all, we are the engine that drives the economy.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Let's Give Carbon Tax a Whirl
With the new President and Congress getting set to (finally!) tackle climate change, the mainstream commentariat seems to be almost exclusively focusing on what is called a "cap and trade" system, whereby the overall level of greenhouse gas emissions is capped, but polluters who can't meet the cap have options to trade for credits or allowances. Very few are talking about the easiest, most direct way to change the market and lower greenhouse gas emissions - a carbon tax. Now, out of the blue, or should I say, out of the sludge and muck, comes word that Exxon Mobil has come out in favor of a carbon tax! This is, after all, the company that spent years and millions of dollars funding bogus "research" to say climate change is a myth. So, should we view this as a dastardly plot to trick people into supporting a carbon tax or should we take them at their word and try to pass legislation (with their support?).
I say give it a whirl.
Many economists believe a carbon tax is the best way to attack climate change. There is no need to create a complicated trading scheme, nor is there any room for gaming the system. It's a very straight forward approach - a tax on carbon emissions. Yes, this would impact our gas prices, and electricity prices... but that's a good thing. We need loud and clear price signals to make the market work. This is what happened earlier in 2008. When gas prices skyrocketed, sales of gas hogging SUVs dropped. Now that gas prices are lowering, sales of gas hogging SUVs are increasing. I'm not an economist, but even I can see the relationship there!
Politically, some people are afraid to death of the word, "tax." But I have more faith in the American people. They understand the need to stop climate change and know that some things must change. Setting a strong price signal will allow clean energy and green tech companies to invest in growth without fear of too-low fossil fuel prices.
And heck, maybe the folks at Exxon Mobil will actually lobby for it!
I say give it a whirl.
Many economists believe a carbon tax is the best way to attack climate change. There is no need to create a complicated trading scheme, nor is there any room for gaming the system. It's a very straight forward approach - a tax on carbon emissions. Yes, this would impact our gas prices, and electricity prices... but that's a good thing. We need loud and clear price signals to make the market work. This is what happened earlier in 2008. When gas prices skyrocketed, sales of gas hogging SUVs dropped. Now that gas prices are lowering, sales of gas hogging SUVs are increasing. I'm not an economist, but even I can see the relationship there!
Politically, some people are afraid to death of the word, "tax." But I have more faith in the American people. They understand the need to stop climate change and know that some things must change. Setting a strong price signal will allow clean energy and green tech companies to invest in growth without fear of too-low fossil fuel prices.
And heck, maybe the folks at Exxon Mobil will actually lobby for it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)