Energy Self-Sufficient Homes in Northern California

Note: This article was originally published in the April 2002 issue of Democratic Energy

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District's (SMUD's) Advantage Home program requires a home to consume 25-50 percent less energy for cooling than the existing state energy code allows. When coupled with rooftop solar cells, these Solar Advantage homes are nearly energy self-sufficient on an annual basis. A Solar Advantage Home can result in $450 in yearly energy cost savings for homeowners.

Nine buildings in 15 new residential communities have committed to an initial 133 homes producing 275 kilowatts (kW) of solar powered electricity. More than 20 of these homes were completed in 2001.

Morrison Homes, unveiled its first such home in July 2001 in its Bel Lago subdivision in the Elk Grove area. The house will cost about $8,500 to $9,000 more than other homes in Bel Lago.

A Beazer Homes house in the Roseview subdivision in Antelope will be topped with solar roof tiles will sell for about $10,000 more than typical houses in the subdivision.

California has a handsome financial incentive for photovoltaics, a rebate of $4.50 per watt, up to 50% of the installed cost of a solar power system (capped at $4,500).

Just outside Sacramento, in the town of Lincoln, CA, another planned community will have solar electric power integrated as a standard feature of the new homes. In April 2002, AstroPower, Inc. announced an agreement with Premier Homes that will supply a minimum of 50 solar electric home power systems. The companies have established a goal of building a total of 250 homes powered by AstroPower solar electric power systems by 2003. Premier Homes will offer AstroPower's 2.4-kilowatt SunLine packaged solar electric power system as a standard feature and homebuyers will have the option to upgrade their systems to 3.2 kilowatts and include a battery backup system. The larger systems with battery backup could be big enough to be considered a truly self-sufficient energy home.

In January 2002, SMUD announced that it had reached the 10 megawatts (MW) milestone in solar electric power installations, enough to meet the annual needs of more than 3,300 homes. The 10 megawatts in over 1,000 systems represents over half of all of the grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) systems in the United States. The growth in solar installations in SMUD's territory is likely to continue as more than 2,000 SMUD customers have signed letters of intent to purchase their own net metered solar power systems. The demand for solar has resulted in the opening of the CalSolar PV factory in Sacramento operated by TerraSolar Inc under license to Energy Photovoltaics Inc. Production began in 2001 and provides most of the PV modules used in the SMUD PV programs.

More:

SMUD

Chicago Plans for Energy Self-Reliance

Note: This article was originally published in the April 2002 issue of Democratic Energy

The City of Chicago plans to meet its growing electricity needs through improved efficiency, cogeneration, on-site electricity generation and renewable energy. Chicago is already working with four city agencies and 48 suburban governments to purchase 20 percent of their combined power needs from renewable energy sources. The city is also building a distributed source of electric capacity by amassing the capabilities of the emergency backup generators located at city facilities. Together, these generators will be equivalent to one 10-megawatt power plant. The City of Chicago is also examining its facilities for the possibility of installing small power plants that also generate useable heat - such combined heat and power facilities, also called cogeneration plants, operate at high efficiencies. Finally, the city has established building energy codes for energy efficiency and is retrofitting its facilities to make them highly energy efficient. Among the many energy-efficiency projects is a move to replace all traffic signals with low-energy light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which will save an estimated $4.4 million per year.

More:

Chicago Department of Environment

Spirit Lake School District - Wind Energy Economics 101

Note: This article was originally published in the April 2002 issue of Democratic Energy

If you're trying to persuade your school district to rely on wind power, contact the good folks in the School District of Spirit Lake, Iowa. They'll give you a detailed economic breakdown of the costs, and benefits, of their two wind turbines, with a total capacity of 1 MW. These turbines generate more than enough electricity for all of the District's facilities. By the year 2008 their original investments will be paid off and the district expects to save about $140,000 each year thereafter.

More:

Spirit Lake School District

Energy Efficient Neighborhoods

Note: This article was originally published in the April 2002 issue of Democratic Energy.

The Center for Neighborhood Technology's Community Energy Cooperative (CEC) is in its 2nd year of operation and is making headway in getting neighborhood businesses and residents to adopt energy efficiency improvements. Last summer thousands of residents responded to an air conditioner exchange program resulting in 5,500 window air conditioners and 800 central air conditioners being upgraded. A lighting rebate program, that helped around 55 businesses install energy-efficient lighting. Overall, the CEC programs reduced electric demand by more than six megawatts - enough to power more than 5,000 homes.

The CEC partners with Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), the Chicago Department of the Environment and the IL Department of Commerce to bring innovative energy-efficiency programs to the neighborhoods in the Chicago area. Community leaders help to develop and promote appropriate programs for their communities.

Residents become members of CEC by paying a nominal fee. In exchange they receive an energy efficiency kit. These kits contain compact fluorescent bulbs, energy/water reducers for the kitchen sink and showers and an assortment of other energy efficient products with a value of about $50.00.

The CEC has also established the Community Benefits Fund as another way for communities to enjoy the benefits of saving energy. The CEC Benefits Fund gets its revenue from ComEd based on reductions in peak load and improvements in place-based reliability. The money in the fund is re-distributed to select community-based projects proposed by CEC members.

More:

Community Energy Cooperative

States Encourage Farmer-owned Biorefineries

Note: This article was originally published in the April 2002 issue of Democratic Energy.

Ohio

In March 2002, Ohio Gov. Bob Taft signed a bill giving Ohioans a $5,000 state tax credit for every $10,000 invested in farmer-controlled ethanol plants located in the state. Under the legislation, if an ethanol plant is certified as majority-owned by Ohio farmers, investors will be eligible for the credit. The law creates an Ethanol Incentive Board, consisting of five members, including the Ohio Director of Agriculture, who will review the business plans submitted by owners of an ethanol plant wishing to receive the tax credits.

Missouri

In 2001 Missouri's legislature provided an incentive to Missouri school districts that use biodiesel for their bus fleets. Any school district may contract with an eligible farmer-owned cooperative (value-added manufacturer in the state) to purchase biodiesel fuel for its buses of a minimum of B-20 (20 percent vegetable oil). The state will then reimburse the school district so that the net price to the contracting district for biodiesel will not exceed the price of regular diesel. The law begins with the 2002-03 school year and lasts through the 2005-06 school year. As of this writing no schools are able to take advantage of this program since there are not any farmer-owned biodiesel manufacturing facilities operating in Missouri. According to the MO Dept. of Agriculture there are a few plants in the very early stages of development.

Minnesota

In the 1980s, Minnesota introduced a direct payment to ethanol producers located in the state. The 20 cent per gallon payment is capped at 15 million gallons. The result has been the construction of many small and medium sized facilities. That in turn has enabled farmer and local ownership. Today Minnesota boasts 14 biorefineries; 12 of them are farmer owned. A 1997 Minnesota legislative auditor's report concluded that the economic benefits from the state's ethanol incentives far surpass its public cost (see http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/1997/pe9704.htm )

More:
New Rules Project's Agriculture Sector

Minnesota Mandates Biodiesel

Note: This article was originally published in the April 2002 issue of Democratic Energy.

In March 2002, Minnesota enacted the nation's first biodiesel mandate. The new law requires nearly all diesel fuel sold in the state to contain at least 2 percent biodiesel by 2005. The mandate can go into effect earlier than 2005 if Congress enacts financial incentives for using vegetable oil in vehicles and if Minnesota has a sufficient in-state capacity to produce 8,000,000 gallons per year.

Biodiesel is a fuel additive derived from animal fats or plant oil, typically soybeans. The mandate is expected to raise the price of diesel fuel in Minnesota 1-2 cents per gallon. Currently, the state exports about 60 percent of the soybeans grown in the state. As the new manufacturing plants are built, the positive impacts of utilizing the crop locally are expected to ripple through Minnesota's rural economies.

More:
New Rules Project's Agriculture Sector

Nevada to the Union, "Why Should We Take Your Nuclear Waste?"

Note: This article was originally published in the April 2002 issue of Democratic Energy.

In a classic battle of state vs. Federal authority, Nevada faces country-wide opposition in its fight to prevent the nation's nuclear waste from being shipped to a mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Nevada has no nuclear reactors but will be home to radioactive wastes from the 31 states that do. Thirty-one states translates into 62 votes in the Senate, so Nevada faces an uphill struggle even if some of those Senators support its position.

In mid-February, President Bush made the underground storage site at Yucca Mountain his choice for storing the nation's nuclear waste. On April 8th, Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn formally issued his "notice of disapproval" declaring "the project is scientifically flawed, fails to conform to numerous laws, and the policy behind it is ever changing and nonsensical."

With his filing, Guinn became the first Governor to veto a President. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act gave him this legal right. Guinn's letter sent the issue to Congress which can override the Nevada veto on a simple majority vote in both houses. If both the House and Senate override Guinn's veto, the Energy Department will proceed by seeking approvals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct and license the site as a burial ground for 77,000 tons of the nation's highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Nevada's lawmakers and environmentalists argue that Yucca Mountain's geology is unsuitable for burying such dangerous, long-lived material. They also argue that shipping nuclear waste thousands of miles across the country through hundreds of communities poses serious threats to national security. Proponents of the repository at Yucca Mountain argue that a centralized repository will be more economical and provide more security then leaving waste scattered across the country at nuclear power reactors.

For an excellent technical justification for storing nuclear wastes on-site until a more appropriate long term solution is found, see the May 1999 "Plan for Management of Highly Radioactive Waste" by Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (on-line at http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_7/7-3/)
Congress has 90 days to override Nevada's veto.

More:
State of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Project Office

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management- DOE

Update: Seattle Tackles Greenhouse Gases

Note: This article was originally published in the April 2002 issue of Democratic Energy.

In April 2002 the city of Seattle completed a greenhouse gas inventory, the first step towards meeting their goals for greenhouse gas reductions. The news was good for the city owned properties - carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions were down 48 percent from 1990 to 2000 and projections put the city at 84 percent below 1990 by the year 2010. The reason for the big drop is primarily due to Seattle City Light cutting its ties to a coal-fired power plant in favor of electricity from wind and hydro power.

The news wasn't so good for the Seattle area as a whole. When households and businesses are included in the equation, citywide emissions were essentially the same in 2000 as they were in 1990, around 7 million metric tons (tonnes) C02 equivalent. But by 2010, citywide emissions are expected to grow nearly 20 percent to 8.2 million tonnes. City wide, cars are the number one source of greenhouse gases, followed by natural gas for residential heating and industry uses, airplanes and diesel powered engines.

In mid 2001, Seattle adopted two resolutions that committed the city to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The first required an inventory and projection of emissions in 2010 to be followed up with a plan to reduce emissions from within its borders by 7-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. The city council, acting as the Board of Directors of the city-owned utility, Seattle City Light committed the utility to a policy of no net greenhouse gas emissions by 2003 and is expected to sign its first contract for carbon offsets in the next month or so.

The City's plan and strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not scheduled to be completed until mid-2002. In the meantime the city continues a number of programs that it expects will contribute to further reductions until a more formal plan is adopted. One such program is the Seattle City Light's Neighborhood Power Project, a strategy to deliver conservation and resource management services to targeted neighborhoods in the City of Seattle.

More:

New Rules Project's Environment Sector

Minnesota Says Size Matters When It Comes to Wind Energy Taxation

Note: The article below was first published in Democratic Energy in October 2002.

As part of the 2002 Omnibus Tax Bill, the Minnesota legislature established a new tax system for wind energy equipment. The production-based fee varies by the size of the projects. A large-scale wind energy conversion system (capacity of more than 12 megawatts) would pay 0.12 cents per kilowatt-hour. A medium-scale wind system (capacity between two and 12 megawatts) would pay 0.036 cents per kilowatt-hour. A small-scale wind system (capacity of two megawatts or less) would pay 0.012 cents per kilowatt-hour. Wind energy systems with a capacity of 250 kilowatts or less and small-scale systems owned by a political subdivision would be exempt from the production tax.

This new production-based tax structure for wind energy in Minnesota replaces previous laws that subjected wind energy equipment to a complicated method of valuation and property taxation. The new tax scheme should be better for both wind energy developers and the local tax districts in the path of wind power development (counties, cities, and school districts). The new system is more transparent and will allow tax districts and wind developers to better predict what the revenue stream from the wind projects will be.

Minnesota is home to over 400 MW of wind energy development. A typical 1 MW wind energy turbine will pay about $3,100 in production fees each year.

More:

New Rules Project's section on Minnesota's Wind Energy Tax