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.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)