Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Stimulus Package Only the Beginning: Renewable Energy Makes Strides in the US Political Arena

By Graham Jesmer, Staff Writer
March 23, 2009   |   12 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"We've seen a huge influx of new companies interested in being solar installers."

-- Rhone Resch, SEIA
12 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 12
March 23, 2009
The unholy alliance of the utilities, wind energy industry and environmentalists are forcing renewable portfolio standards down the throats of companies with other renewable energy technologies, which need feed-in tariffs. Renewable portfolio standards allow the utility to negotiate prices with suppliers on a discriminatory basis. That invariably results in higher prices for their own renewable energy generators and that of their affiliates and friends, particularly those in the wind industry. In comparison, feed-in tariffs, like those in Germany, are paid to all renewable energy producers at the same fair price. For example, all renewable energy producers would get say 7 cents per kWh for all power they generate.
Comment
2 of 12
March 23, 2009
The posting above is not correct in that feed-in tariffs in Europe have impacted electricity rates more significantly that renewable portfolio standards have in the U.S. Electricity rates are higher to begin with in Europe as compared to the U.S. and studies have shown measurable impacts on electricity rates there.

Studies in the U.S. indicate minimal impact on electricity rates from state-level renewable portfolio standards: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/901521-yteAB3/901521.pdf

Renewable portfolio standards employ market forces to bring renewable energy to consumers at lowest cost. Feed-in tariffs rely on governments to set a price that may or may not bring renewable energy on-line at the lowest possible cost to consumers. The "fair price" cited in the posting above may benefit generators in Germany, but may not be in the best interest of electricity consumers in terms of a "fair cost".
Comment
3 of 12
March 24, 2009
Here is a great move by a state:

"The Massachusetts legislature passed a resolution to Repower America with 100% clean electricity within ten years. Leading the effort was the Massachusetts Power Shift, a student-led environmental group. "

I believe it's now up to the individual states and people to push for a green energy America, circumventing the federal government if necessary.

Like many people I had high hopes for the Obama administration and the promises of investment in a new, green economy. I do not see the kind of funding or legislation needed for it, however, emerging from this administration when I look at the facts, though there are spots of light. The carbon tax plan is a major question mark in my view.

But should the green energy industry be determined by what the federal government does? Absolutely not!

States and counties, towns and communities can spearhead America's transformation into a clean energy, environmentally sound, healthy economy.

The green industry now needs to switch its lobbying and other growth efforts to states and the general public.
Comment
4 of 12
March 24, 2009
@Jeffrey Anthony. Of course, feed-in tariffs have impacted electricity rates more then renewable portfoilio standards since feed-in tariffs have been far more successful at adding renewable generation. Renewable portfolio standards have nothing to do with market forces, especially since there is no competition in either regulated or deregulated US markets to force utility monopolies to purchase the lowest-cost generation. You are just sprouting utility propaganda.
Comment
5 of 12
March 24, 2009
Apparently Mike has a different definition of "market forces", since an RPS sets a given level of renewable energy that an electric utility is required to obtain, and they most often issue a "Request for Proposal" (RFP) (which may include provisions for a self-build option, but not usually) and developers bid against each other to propose projects to meet the requirements for the utility. The utility will then select the projects that meet their requirements at lowest cost -- this is what most people refer to as "market forces". With feed-in tariffs, anyone and everyone who can meet the technical requirements can build projects if they can justify doing so at the pre-established prices set by the units of government -- thus, electric customers are saddled with those prices and innovative and lower cost projects do not benefit the electric ratepayers as a result.

Some EU countries have had great success in growing renewables rapdily with feed-in tariffs, but with the impact of even higher electricity rates. Utilities in the U.S. do not always support RPS requirements (in fact, many of them actively OPPOSE any RPS legislative efforts) -- even though many studies have indicated that RPS laws will actually save consumers money across the country. But feed-in tariffs would likely increase electricity prices significantly -- that's why the RPS is a preferred policy option in the U.S., since it does indeed rely on market forces to both grow renewable energy and minimize (or reduce) rate impacts to U.S. consumers.
Comment
6 of 12
March 24, 2009
@ Jeffrey Anthony. I have personally witnessed the implementation of your so-called RFP's in Minnesota and also Wisconsin. The RFPs were rigged by the utilities and with no oversight from regulators. The lowest-cost generators were not selected. You are from the American Wind Energy Association, a group that has gone to bed with the utility monopolies, with several among its members.
Comment
7 of 12
March 24, 2009
The facts bear out that RPS policies and RFP implementation result in renewable energy growth at lowest cost -- sorry, Mike. Regulators provide oversight to RFP issuance and implementation to ensure that your accusations do not occur.
Comment
8 of 12
March 24, 2009
Sorry, friend of the utilities. But you can't tell me the abuses don't occur because they occur more often than they don't. Like you, regulators are most often friends with the utilities, often getting jobs in the industry later. If you haven't seen the corruption you are either not looking or not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Comment
9 of 12
March 25, 2009
What ever happened to Life Cycle costing analysis ? Will this "renewable" reduce the capital investment in Power Plant Construction ? If not, that relegates the Utility into a position of providing "stand-by" capacity for peaking purposes. The Capital Construction of a power plant is recovered by Energy Sales. Building a Power Plant of any kind - and not having associated Energy Sales to go along with that investment ----- will only drive up the cost per unit of energy. The Electric Utilities should be proceeding with this --- if it is cost effective and beneficial to its customers.....Life Cycle costing theory should be enough of an incentive without any government "give away" program. Why should the people pay for something that is not cost effective over its life. The investment must be recovered somehow - or the project is a loser - long term. The wind must be reliable enough to be there when the utility peaks ......... or else storage concepts must be in place. Wind Power will result in less energy used....however, if it does not reduce the demand on the power plants at peaking times ........ it dilutes the sales ...... Yes, it is "emission free".......so are more reliable alternatives. A "happy combination" is needed. One would think if the systems are reliable and cost effective, the utilities would already be doing it on their own properties and interface it with their own existing grid. Windmills have been used in many places.....where there is no power system availability........ and where the wind blows.....look at western Kansas ..... they have been used since dirt ...... to provide pumping energy for water pumps........
Comment
10 of 12
March 25, 2009
Under current conditions, we have big industrial users bidding for shut-down at peak privileges, for a break in using power at sag time. This is consensual, and win-win for the rate payers, who don't have to finance new generation, and for the voluntary shut-down winner, who can drastically reduce costs in hard times.

Having this capacity undercuts the arguments of those who want enough capacity to ramp up to whenever. To me, assuming we always need this is akin to assuming that U.S. people aren't capable of changing with changing times.

I would also like to point out that FITs, or renewable energy payments (REP's) (I prefer this title as do some other RE producers) do not have to be set by government. A provider could set them at a rate that serves ratepayers, then greenwash themselves in PR against competitors who are late to the party.

We are in paradigm-changing times. Not getting with what advanced adopters are advocating is going to leave some players behind and vulnerable to whacking when the local pilot projects under the surface on the internet finally break out into mass attention.

Distributed energy, smart grid, micro-grids--these things are trickling up. They make sense from so many angles, not least from emergency-preparedness perspectives, on a local level. Katrina taught some of us some interesting lessons.

If the Obama regime decides to bust Too Big To Fail entities, this will speed it along. He is on record against TBTF, and there are going to be some grassroots trying to make him deliver on this one. He was a community organizer, after all, and controlling their own power is good for communities.

If he delivers on transparency promises, this would be another area boding well for new initiatives where the producers are willing and able to be transparent about production and use patterns.

We need good information to get good policy. Maybe it's coming soon.
Comment
11 of 12
March 25, 2009
Cost is not the only issue. Are you seriously still arguing the merits of renewable energy? We have 4 problems, all are solved by renewables. (1) war over oil, (2) sagging economy, (3) increasing pollution and the health problems this causes, (4) supply of oil diminishing. Number 3 should really be #1. We now have over 6B people and growing energy needs. We cannot continue to poison the planet to produce energy.

But, let's talk about cost because that's what is mentioned the most. Many will tell you that coal and oil are cheaper than wind and solar. But their figures don't include all the costs. Just use common sense. Coal is extremely efficient, but have you seen a coal mine? How much is the land? The equipment? How much gas do you think each of those immense trucks uses per day? You know, the ones with tires that cost thousands of dollars each? The hundreds of people working there every day? The transportation of the coal? The cost of the coal plant? Now look at solar and wind. Buy the equipment. Install the equipment. Done. Actually wind turbines take maintenance, but solar does not.

Utilities have already invested in many of the capital costs, which is why they don't want a sudden change. But all utility companies are investing in renewables as they expand or their plants need replacing. They just don't want to switch immediately. This is why we need to subsidize the switchover.
Comment
12 of 12
March 28, 2009
first off i have worked in the past with the kind of people who just start buisnesses without the proper knowledge. implying that anyone with a community college degree and a logo on the side of a truck can st6art the buisnesses we need in renewable energy is not so smart.don't get me wrong, i am currently in a community college studying renewables but i am looking to get into a company who will take me under there wing and allow me to learn instead of people thinking that negative about renewables because i botched the job.

second. i don't pretend to understand all the proublems in the economy but what about the strugleing middle of the road banks? don,t they all try to invest for pfofit ?are they getting any federal money ? are they investing in buisnesses that want to create kilo watts instead of mega watts? sure bigger is better but the other cliche is every little bit counts.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Graham Jesmer

View Graham Jesmer's Profile
About: I am currently a second year Law Student at Vermont Law School where I work as a Research Associate at the Institute for Energy and the Environment writing and ... more »

Advertise With Us

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut) Planet Solar Inc FC Business Intelligence US Solar Institute Texas Solar Energy Society Solectria Renewables LLC
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters