In the Bay Area: A Push for Renewables and a Push Back from PG&E

Two news articles that caught our eye this past week highlight the Bay Area’s increasing demand for renewable energy, making us proud as ever to call this place home, while reminding us to keep flexing our power when it comes to demanding clean power.

Bay Area consumers, it is reported, are some of the greenest-leaning in the world, and it’s true.  But beyond the hybrid-happy, compost-crazy cliché lies “a vibrant and influential market, one filled with consumers who are leading changes in the way Americans think about, and consume, energy” (Dana Hull, SJ Mercury), and their demand for clean green products and services is changing the way companies do business.

Hull cites technology forecaster Paul Saffo, who says, “In the same way that the Bay Area ’60s counterculture shaped the Internet, decades of environmental activism is shaping the market for alternative energy…  The place that’s ground zero for environmental consciousness is a great place to start a business.”  Bay Area consumers are at the heart of the green (business and technology) movement out here, and we think they deserve serious respect for driving green and clean tech innovation from the bottom up, particularly as the top-down approach stagnates in other arenas.

It is this same spirit of innovation and support thereof that has driven some California municipalities to seek independent power sources, outside the public utilities, sources that generally meet more of the power demand with renewable energy than the utility is willing to offer.  In another article, Dana Hull explores the challenge to this kind of energy independence presented now by PG&E.

Currently, for a city to choose to form a municipal utility (instead of using PG&E, in the case of most N. Californian cities) or a community-wide clean electricity district called a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) , it requires at least 50% approval from local voters.  If PG&E’s multimillion dollar support of CA Proposition 16 pays off, however, that percentage would go up to two-thirds, making it that much harder for cities to choose an alternate energy provider.

Proposition 16 will appear on the June 8, 2010 ballot; its primary financial sponsor is, you guessed it, PG&E, and their argument in favor of the proposition, according to spokesman Andrew Souvall,  is, ”Taxpayers should have a voice in determining if their cities should take [the] risk [associated with being an energy provider].”  It is, it seems, an essentially nonsensical statement, as taxpayers currently do have a voice, a voice they risk weakening dramatically if Proposition 16 passes.

Opponents of the bill, who include the many communities that have formed local utilities and many state legislators, say that its real goal is to protect PG&E’s market share by making it much more difficult for communities to choose to pursue alternative energy sources.  Indeed, PG&E has admitted to this motivation, albeit in slyly pandering terms: “We value our customers very much and we are going to stand up and resist efforts to take over our customers,” said Chairman Peter Darbee in an October earnings call with analysts.

According to Paul Fenn, CEO of Local Power, which helps communities set up clean energy infrastructures, “PG&E thinks they can still play energy cowboy and bully everyone into doing what they want… But communities have figured out that they can buy twice the amount of green power for the same price.”  It’s a sentiment shared by State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steingberg, who said in a letter to PG&E, “It is unacceptable for a company that is falling behind in meeting state-adopted goals for clean energy to impede the efforts of others who would attain those goals through innovative means.”

Even PG&E’s fellow investor-owned utilities disagree with them on this one, as neither Southern California Edison nor San Diego Gas & Electric has added anything to the $6.5 million PG&E has already spent in support of Proposition 16.  Said Mark Toney, executive director of the consumer advocacy group TURN (The Utility Reform Network), “PG&E is out on a limb even among their utility peers.”

Northern Californian communities have earned a deserved reputation for demanding and driving green innovation and clean tech; now it’s up to California voters to assert their right to choose where their energy comes from.  We’ve flexed our power before, now it’s time to do it again.

Click here for more information on Proposition 16.
And here and here for the San Jose Mercury News articles cited above.
Left photo: Flickr user petter palander / Center photo: Flickr user tibchris

RPS’s Solar Apprenticeship Program: Green (Man)Power Under Fire

Believing, as we do here at Renewable Power Solutions, that the solar industry has an incredibly important role in carving out and caring for our future and that we have a responsibility to provide quality work and foster a qualified workforce, we feel that it’s time to start talking about our solar apprenticeship program and the forces that are trying to undermine it before it begins.

The Program’s History:

Back in 2007, after nearly ten years in the business, RPS decided to develop a systematic training program for solar installers.  In meetings with the CA Dep’t of Industrial Relations’ Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS), we determined that there was no existing solar apprenticeship program.  After more research, the DAS also confirmed that it was not necessary to be a signatory company in order to originate an apprenticeship program, that non-union programs exist in other fields throughout California.

Subsequently, in December of 2008, RPS’s program was approved and the State of California awarded us the first exclusively solar apprenticeship program.  The approval of this program, which would pair Renewable Power Solutions with the San Jose Metropolitan Education District’s Central County Occupation Center (CCOC) to turn out highly qualified graduates in a growing and greening field, denoted governmental recognition of the increasing demand for renewable energy experts.

The Challenge:

Ever since approval was granted, though, the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a union labor organization) has been trying to have the solar apprenticeship program disqualified.  Their appeal against RPS’s program rests on the argument that there is no need for a solar-only apprenticeship program, that the skills required are covered under the electrical apprenticeship program, an opinion with which we disagree strongly based even on the sheer number of inquiries about solar-specific training we get daily.

Though the IBEW claims its objection to RPS’s program is its purported redundancy, some say that the IBEW intends, if they can get RPS’s program disqualified, to develop a solar apprenticeship program of their own, thereby creating a monopoly on public work.  In order to perform public works, you see, contractors are required to use apprentices.  Therefore, if the IBEW were to succeed in squeezing out RPS’s apprenticeship program in favor of their own, any merit shop doing public work would, essentially, have to put its employees out of work and replace them with union apprentices.  This move, if taken by the IBEW, would not only be egregiously hypocritical; it would go against free enterprise and the free market.

Our objection to the IBEW’s position goes far beyond our own company borders; we do not merely intend to pit our program against theirs.  We are worried that, if the IBEW succeeds in blocking our apprenticeship program and instating their own, they will challenge every other company’s ability to run an apprenticeship program of their own, an approach they’ve already demonstrated in their dealings with RPS.

Renewable Power Solutions, on the other hand, has never intended to create a monopoly on solar apprenticeship, which we’ve demonstrated already by offering our carefully-created solar curriculum to other solar companies, so that they can run their own programs.  We went through the hard work of originating a systematic solar training program and we are willing to share, to make it easier for other companies to follow in our footsteps, because our primary concern is ensuring that the solar workforce is qualified as we move into an age where renewable energy and energy responsibility will only become more important.  Ours is an industry-wide vision, whereas the IBEW’s move would exclude the more than 84% of the construction workforce that doesn’t belong to a union.

Why RPS:

Despite this already year-long delay, Renewable Power Solutions is as fired up as ever about getting our apprenticeship program under way.  We persevere in our belief that there is a need for a solar-specific apprenticeship program, for solar education, and that we have the expertise to provide it.  Indeed, for RPS, education has always been bound up in our business.

This is because the kinds of improvements we make on homes and businesses, the kinds of  choices our customers make, have a larger resonance than most building decisions.  Yes, deciding to add solar is very often a financially driven (and financially sound!) choice, but it also represents a kind of ideological move toward energy responsibility, and a recognition and affirmation of our power to change the way we use power.

Choosing a renewable energy solution should, we believe, be an empowering choice; and with the solar apprenticeship program, we hope to empower a new crop of renewable energy specialists - people with exceptional technical training and in-depth education on environmental responsibility, people who will be able to perform high quality work in an increasingly important and sought-after field.

References:
Associated Builders and Contractors | abc.org
Renewable Power Solutions’ Apprenticeship Program Press Release | rps-solar.com

Photo: Flickr user nathanrussell, right

DIY Solar Costs and Consequences: Is Solar Do-It-Yourself-able?

With the recent introduction of multiple off-the-shelf solar panel options in hardware stores all over California, we thought it would be helpful to address the viability of these products and the feasibility of attempting to install your own home solar system.

Home improvement store Lowe’s recently started carrying Los Gatos-based solar installer Akeena Solar’s panels with integrated Enphase micro-inverters at their California stores.  While the micro-inverter panel is good integrated technology, avoiding much of the complicated wiring necessary in transforming the energy produced by solar panels into energy deliverable to the grid, it is important not to let the off-the-shelf panel’s simplicity fool you.

The difficulty or ease of installing a solar system depends on many more factors than the complication of the panel alone.  You may be able to buy the panels at your local home improvement store, but you can’t become an electrical expert quite so easily.  As this article on DIY solar puts it, “To mount these on a roof, and to wire a whole system, and to troubleshoot, and to make sure you’re staying within safety limits takes considerable electrical expertise. You may be able to get away with a bit of handyman’s electrical knowledge and the ever-helpful internet; but you may not be getting away with it efficiently or safely.”

While physical installation may seem within reach without the help of professional installers, it is also important to remember that solar installation companies generally do more than just affix solar panels to your roof.  To achieve cost-effective, energy efficient, long-lived solar systems, solar installation companies have expertise in angling the panels on the roof for maximum energy production, mounting them without damaging the roof, getting permits, satisfying inspectors, and maintaining eligibility for the bevy of subsidies and rebates that make the system as affordable as it can be.

Without experience in all these areas, you can easily disqualify yourself for government funding and/or find yourself in trouble with your utility.  Installing solar, as that oft-cited article on DIY solar reminds us, “[Solar] is not easy. It is not simple. And it is not safe. Even a relatively self-contained module like Akeena’s new product is still a big piece of equipment that generates electricity, and  mismanaged electricity can kill you or set your house on fire… Solar panels with integrated micro-inverters are an industry-changing achievement… [just] don’t let off the shelf solar convince you that solar arrays are safe to play around with as a hobby, or that you can now install a system as well as an experienced solar installer can.”

This may sound somewhat self-serving, coming from a solar installation company, so we want to be sure to say that we’re very excited about the developments in solar tech that are making solar installation easier and easier to do yourself.  Part of what is so exciting about being in the solar industry is being part of the movement toward distributed power, toward universal access to (renewable) energy, particularly in places where grid-dependency is not an option, as in much of the developing world.

That kind of solar development, however, is not what we’re talking about here.  While the development of truly simple, self-contained solar technology is a worthy pursuit, it is not the kind of tech that will provide the longest-lasting and most efficient solar system for the customers that these Akeena panels are being marketed to.  We have options here that aren’t available everywhere, and a solar installation company can provide you with the best system, tailored to your needs, without the limitations imposed by the DIY solution.

Sources:
Is Off the Shelf Solar Worth It?
Off-The-Shelf Solar

Photos: Flickr users Aaron Escobar • (the spaniard) & OregonDOT

Local Issues: PG&E Electricity Rate Hikes and Heating Relief

In this new year, customers of Pacific Gas and Electric will see some fluctuations in their monthly bills.  At the end of December, Dana Hulls of the San Jose Mercury News reported that tiered electricity rate hikes had been approved by the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission), with an average rate increase of 3%; the new rates went into effect on January 1, 2010.

The tiered electrical rate hike will increase as electricity usage increases.  This means that customers who use a minimum level of electricity (a ‘baseline’ determined using regional and seasonal averages) will see a rate increase of around 3% (Tier 1), and customers who use above-baseline amounts of electricity will see larger increases up to around 7% in the highest tier (Tier 5).  It used to be the case that rates for Tiers 1 and 2 were frozen, but in the fall of ‘09, the Legislature passed a law that allows utilities to raise rates for all customers.  However, low-income households enrolled in the CARE (California Alternate Rates for Energy) program will not be affected by rate increases.

Less than a week after the announcement of the electrical rate hikes, Hulls also reported that PG&E customers can expect lower heating bills this January, compared to the same month last year, due in part to warmer weather, as well as to the declining cost of natural gas.  While electricity rates go up, heating costs are expected to go down around 9%.  The decline in natural gas prices comes, in part, courtesy of PG&E’s high storage levels.  Said PG&E spokesperson David Eisenhauer, “We have storage fields, and during the summer when gas prices are low we fill them up with natural gas… Nationwide, the gas market itself is declining because of a combination of high storage and diversity of supply.”

If, then, an average PG&E customer household uses an estimated 550 kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity per month, putting their 2009 electrical bill at around $74/month, and customarily pays around $97 for heating in the month of January, the average combined PG&E bill for January 2009 would be around $171.  With the rate increases and decreases this January (a new average of $76/month electrical and $88/month heating), the total combined PG&E bill should actually drop, to around $164.

And to continue to soften the blow of the electrical rate hikes (as well as to incentivize conservation), PG&E will credit customers who reduce their cumulative gas usage in January and February; in the spring, customers who reduce usage by 2% will receive a 2% bill credit.

Sources:
SJ Mercury 30 Dec. 2009
SJ Mercury 5 Jan. 2010

Photos: Flickr users Hey Paul & Kevin

Solyndra Going Public? Really?

On December 18, 2009, Bay Area-based solar company Solyndra Inc. filed a registration statement for an initial public offering (IPO), in hopes of raising $300 million to expand its production capacity.

Solyndra is a well-financed solar module manufacturer with an inventive, if limited, product.  They produce cylindrical thin film solar modules, which do not need to be mounted at an angle like conventional solar panels, and which can be packed closer together than conventional solar (though they are thin film, and therefore less efficient than silicon crystalline solar).  On the strength of their product’s potential, Solyndra has gathered more than $600 million between venture capital financing and a $535 million loan guarantee from the DOE (Dep’t of Energy).

Yet their product and their production system have some serious limitations.  The Solyndra modules are, essentially, only viable for large, flat, white commercial rooftops; only a small percentage of commercial rooftops worldwide fit the criteria for Solyndra installation.  And at the current rate of production, the cost of the modules is still too high for their customer base to expand significantly.  Indeed, since they emerged from stealth mode a little over a year ago, they’ve racked up losses in the area of $505 million.  Even though Solyndra’s sales were up last year (an increase of almost 10x), they continue to lose money.

Thus, the IPO: in order to lower the selling price of the modules, Solyndra says that it must ramp up production significantly, and the money made in the IPO will provide for the construction of a new production facility.  Even so, as their registration statements says, the company expects “to continue to incur significant operating and net losses and negative cash flow from operations for the foreseeable future.”

Solyndra admits, too, to having a very limited operating history, a limited applicability, and an uncertain future, prompting us to ask the question: Solyndra’s going public?  Really?

While we think Solyndra’s approach to solar is exciting and inventive, and we certainly don’t take lightly the possibility that “a successful IPO by Solyndra could provide strong tailwinds for other cleantech startups” (according to investor Fahri Diner, who is quoted in the Silicon Valley Business Journal), we remain concerned for their potential investors, who stand to lose a great deal if Solyndra’s lifelong losing streak doesn’t turn around.

Said Renewable Power Solutions CEO José Radzinsky: “I am excited for Solyndra in their push to start the IPO process, but I am still worried for their investors.  Is this going to be another Akeena Solar – going public, opening at $65.00 and then dropping to $1.05?”

What do you think?  Should a company go public without ever showing a profit?

Sources:
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal
Green Inc. Blog, New York Times
Solyndra’s Registration Statement

Subnational Climate Action: Guv, Gav, and Grassroots Greening

In the wake of the international climate negotiations now winding down in Copenhagen, and the agreement on what some have called a vague, non-binding accord, some (local!) subnational leaders are making it clear that global climate change must also be treated as a local issue.

Present at the talks in Copenhagen was our own California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had a different view of the event, and something to say about how change begins.  In the face of claims that COP15 has been a failure, the Governor said, “It depends on what your definition of a deal is…  The important thing is to move the agenda forward.”

Governor Schwarzenegger’s position on the definition of success in Copenhagen was shared by other critics as well.  TIME Magazine, for example, writes: “The very struggle to reach agreement at Copenhagen (…) demonstrates that climate policy has finally come of age. The negotiations at Copenhagen were so contentious because of the very real impact the proposals will have, not only for the environment, but also on national economies. (…)  The onset of a kind of climate realpolitik, which eschews hot air for real action, is a sign that global climate talks have moved beyond symbolic rhetoric.”

Yet, even as the talks in Copenhagen have ignited the hopes of many, Schwarzenegger has been quick, too, to point out that international accords certainly leave slack to be picked up.  And that California is doing just that, with the highest mandated cuts in GHG emission in the United States.  He said: “The important issue that I’m here to address is to not go and just rely solely on the federal government and national governments.  All great movements start from grassroots level.”

In this vein, during the Copenhagen talks another (even more) local leader, San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom held a launch event here at home for the new San Francisco Sustainable Financing program.  At the launch, Newsom called success in Copenhagen “important as a measure of our collective commitment to tackling the causes and impacts of global climate change,” but, he added, “rather than wait for the deliberations in Copenhagen, it’s even more important that individual cities, states and nations show leadership in the fight against climate change through concrete actions and initiatives.”

Mayor Newsom continued: “Acting – not waiting or debating – is exactly what we’re doing in San Francisco this week with the introduction of an innovative new initiative aimed at fueling the next wave of green job creation in San Francisco. The San Francisco Sustainable Financing program will offer residential and commercial building owners access to affordable, city-sponsored financing for energy efficiency, solar and renewable energy projects, and water conservation improvements.”

Newsom positioned this new initiative as a follow-up to the GoSolarSF initiative, launched in 2008, and as a movement ahead without/beyond the COP15 agreement (seen as a kind of abstract victory), encouraging local governments and communities just to keep doing better, concretely, themselves.

As Julian Hunt (visiting professor at Delft University, former director general of the UK meteorological office) and Charles Kennel (distinguished professor of atmospheric science, emeritus, senior advisor to the sustainability solutions institute, UCSD) put it in a blog post about the increasingly important role of subnational environmental solutions: “In the absence of a new global deal, it is now crucial that the centre of gravity of decision-making on how we respond to climate change moves towards the sub-national level.  This may also have the effect of re-energising future global climate change talks as environment diplomacy could certainly be furthered by policies decided at the local and regional level.”

With local action being lauded, and with that lauded environmental action always including increasing solar installations, are you feeling like flexing your (solar) power?  Get involved!

Sources:
http://blogs.reuters.com/mario-disimine/2009/12/15/change-must-start-from-grassroots-schwarzenegger-tells-cop15/
http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/12/15/san-francisco-launches-sustainable-financing/
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=3089
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/12/22/beyond-copenhagen-sub-national-solutions-are-now-key/

Images: Flickr users bkusier & jim.greenhill

NewsFlash: Impacts of This Week’s EPA Announcement

From the New York Times: GREENHOUSE GASES IMPERIL HEALTH, E.P.A. ANNOUNCES

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a final ruling that greenhouse gases posed a danger to human health and the environment, paving the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories, refineries and other major sources.

The announcement was timed to coincide with the opening of the United Nations conference onclimate change in Copenhagen, strengthening President Obama’s hand as more than 190 nations struggle to reach a global accord.

The E.P.A.’s administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said that a 2007 decision by the Supreme Courtrequired the agency to weigh whether carbon dioxide and five other climate-altering gases threatened human health and welfare and, if so, to take steps to regulate them.

She said Monday that the finding was driven by the weight of scientific evidence that the planet was warming and that human activity was largely responsible.

“There have and continue to be debates about how and how quickly climate change will happen if we fail to act,” Ms. Jackson said at a news conference at the E.P.A.’s headquarters. “But the overwhelming amounts of scientific study show that the threat is real.”

Industry groups quickly criticized the decision, saying that the regulation of carbon dioxide, a near-ubiquitous substance, would be legally and technically complex and would impose huge costs across the economy.

In her prepared remarks and in response to questions, Ms. Jackson waded into the current dispute over leaked e-mail messages from a British climate research group that have stirred doubts among a number of people about the integrity of some climate science.

Several Republicans in Congress had asked the E.P.A. to delay the so-called endangerment finding because of questions about the underlying science. Ms. Jackson rejected their plea.

“We know that skeptics have and will continue to try to sow doubts about the science,” she said. “It’s no wonder that many people are confused. But raising doubts — even in the face of overwhelming evidence — is a tactic that has been used by defenders of the status quo for years.”

She said that the agency had reviewed the arguments of some of those skeptics during months of public comment but that none of them had raised significant new issues.

The Obama administration had signaled its intent to issue an endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) since taking office in January. Ms. Jackson announced a proposed finding in April and has since taken steps to draft the rules needed to back it up.

The administration has used the finding as a prod to Congress, saying that if lawmakers do not act to control greenhouse gas pollution it will use its rule-making power to do so. At the same time, the president and his top environmental aides have said that they prefer such a major step be taken through the legislative process.

The administration struck a deal with automakers last spring to set stricter tailpipe emissions and higher fuel economy standards as part of the greenhouse gas regulation efforts. The E.P.A. has also announced rules requiring all major emitters to report an annual inventory of emissions.

In late September, the agency announced a proposed “tailoring rule” that limits regulation of climate-altering gases to large stationary sources like coal-burning power plants and cement kilns that produce 25,000 tons or more a year of carbon emissions.

Industry groups said that the finding and the proposed regulations would damage the economy and drive jobs overseas. Some groups are likely to file lawsuits challenging the new regulations, which could delay their effective date for some years.

“E.P.A. is moving forward with an agenda that will put additional burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up the price of energy,” said Keith McCoy, vice president of energy policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

“Unemployment is hovering at 10 percent, and many manufacturers are struggling to stay in business,” he said. “It is doubtful that the endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.”

Jeff Holmstead, head of air policy at the E.P.A. under the administration of George W. Bush and now an industry lobbyist, said the finding was mainly symbolic.

“It does not have any immediate effect and does not impose any regulations or requirements on anyone,” he said. “Today’s announcement comes as no surprise and is clearly designed to set the stage for the Copenhagen conference.”

Environmental advocates who have pushed for the finding for years exulted.

“The stage is now set for E.P.A. to hold the biggest global-warming polluters accountable,” said Emily Figdor, federal global-warming program director for Environment America, an activist group.

-John M. Broder, Washington
Original story on NYtimes.com

Photos: Flickr users woodleywonderworks & Kıvanç Nis

Technology Tidbit: The Long and Short of Thin Film

So, we’re going to downshift from our recent focus on large-scale climate policy for a moment and write a bit about solar technology, about the kinds of panels that are available, what we do and do not use, and why.  ”Thin film” having become something of a catch-phrase in the energy world, we thought we’d explore its use and usefulness in context…

A thin film photovoltaic module is a module constructed with sequential layers of thin film semiconductor material, usually made out of copper indium diselenide or gallium arsenide, and around 10 microns thick when layered.  Thin film PV products can be flexible, use less material than crystalline PV, and weigh less.

Thin film photovoltaic technology has oft been lauded as a savior of solar tech and design, because it’s sleek, light, and has a production cost lower than that of conventional silicon/crystalline PV.

While many solar startups are focusing on thin film for these reasons, some, like 1366 Technologies, an MIT spinoff, think that crystalline silicon will continue to predominate the solar field for years to come.  ”One of the main reasons,” writes Jennifer Kho of Earth2Tech, “is that silicon –- which is also used for electronics -– can be produced anywhere in the world, with supply chains already in place. Meanwhile an oversupply of silicon is driving down its price.”

And thin film, though more compact and, at the production and initial purchase stages, more affordable than crystalline PV technology, is also considerably less efficient in energy conversion than silicon technology.  iSuppli reports: “A thin-film installation can take 15 percent to 40 percent more space to achieve the same total wattage output as crystalline.”

For this reason, even this article from CleanTechnica celebrating the growth of thin film reports, ”…when space is limited (not uncommon, especially for residential applications), crystalline panels may be the preferred choice.”

They’re right: space is almost always a primary concern for residential solar customers, and often for commercial customers in densely populated areas like ours here in the Bay.  Here at RPS, we pride ourselves on efficiency, in both the use of energy and the use of space; therefore, we don’t use thin film PV in our residential solar systems.

To see some of our installations, check out this Facebook photo gallery.

(Photo: Flickr, jeremy levine design)

Carbon Cap-and-Trade: Climate Policy Changes and Chances

With the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen fast approaching (where it was once expected that the member nations would reach a legally enforceable international accord, and where it is now hoped that we may at least reach a politically binding agreement to reduce carbon emissions worldwide), and the U.S.’s role in the talks up in the air due to the stalling of national climate change legislation, we thought it’d be beneficial to write a bit about the current environmental policy developments here in the U.S., and why they matter on the local, national, and global stages.

Currently, there is a bill making its way through Senate committees, reviews, and markups called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, or the Kerry-Boxer Bill, introduced by (you guessed it) Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California.  This bill is essentially the Senate’s incarnation of a House bill that passed this summer called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or the Waxman-Markey Bill.

These bills share their fundamental approach to the problem of climate changing carbon emissions, both opting for a carbon cap-and-trade system (as opposed to a straight carbon tax or a direct agency regulatory approach), a market-based environmental solution.  In a cap-and-trade system, a cap on the level of harmful carbon emissions allowed would be set (a limit that Energy Secretary Steven Chu calls the most important element of the bill, because the cap has the greatest effect on long-term, large-scale investment direction), a finite number of permits would be introduced for these emissions, and a price would be set for those permits (also called ‘emission allowances’).  Some of these permits would be given out at the start of the program, some auctioned off; after that, they may be traded, bought and sold, allowing companies that reduce their carbon emissions to make money off of their excess allowances, and forcing companies that continue or increase polluting to pay for it, adding a powerful economic incentive to emit less.

Critics of the Kerry-Boxer Bill call out the increase in the cost of living for citizens that the bill would cause, as the cost of doing business goes up when you require companies to account (and pay) for their carbon emissions and those businesses pass along the increase to their consumers.

Proponents of the bill, including President Obama and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, however, point out that the profits made in the sale of carbon credits would be passed on as consumer rebates, and the bill makes provisions for the use of the revenue created in the sale of emission allowances, provisions like the funding of a direct-to-consumer rebate program, as well a reduction of the deficit and support for clean-energy research.

Solar World has already posted on the connection between the development of green technology/renewable energy generation (with which this bill is also concerned) and the recovery of the American economy, so now we’ll focus on the larger ramifications of passing this bill, and of delay in doing so.

In a joint New York Times op. ed. entitled “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation),” Senators Kerry and Graham present a bipartisan refusal not to lead on climate change legislation, and address the consequences of nonaction by Congress.  The senators discuss instituting a ‘border tax’ on items produced in countries that avoid environmental standards in order to incentivize environmental protection worldwide and to strengthen the  U.S.’s economic position.  They frame climate change mitigation tactics as national security measures.  Perhaps most importantly, the senators point out another cost of failure to act on climate change: the threat of EPA-imposed regulation in the absence of congressional action, which would be much more costly and include no job protections or investment incentives.

Time is of the essence in the fight to pass U.S. climate change legislation; the repurcussions of U.S. action (or nonaction) are, according to experts, of a global nature.  While the Kerry-Boxer Bill certainly won’t pass before the climate talks in Copenhagen are set to begin, in just one week, U.S. leadership remains critical, according to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, if any binding agreement is to be reached.  This because, as John Broder of the New York Times puts it in this article, “… the fact that Congress has not yet acted on climate change has limited the administration’s ability to negotiate with other nations.”

U.S. legislation, it is widely acknowledged, is in a kind of feedback loop with international regulation.  As such, President Obama recently announced that he will appear at the talks in Copenhagen and present provisional U.S. emission reduction targets (targets based on those suggested in the as-yet-unpassed U.S. legislation).  The targets Obama cited in his announcement are roughly based on the targets set in the Waxman-Markey Bill, which passed in the House of Representatives this summer.  Yet Obama’s proposed 17% cut from 2005 levels is still dramatically less intensive than the cuts from 1990 levels that most other countries are proposing.

Senator Kerry lauds Obama’s announcement that he will attend the Copenhagen summit as a palpable step toward international agreement and domestic action, in response to Senate opponents of federal legislation like Senator James Inhofe, whose argument against the Kerry-Boxer Bill rests on the claim that unilateral U.S. action on climate change is unacceptable and would be ineffective.

Kerry’s response to these charges draws out the connection between U.S. legislation and international action, reminding us that U.S. action now is far from unilateral: “By announcing a provisional target, contingent on the support of Congress, the president has defined a path to an international agreement that challenges the developed and developing nations to fulfill their obligations.  It lays the groundwork for a broad political consensus at Copenhagen that will strip climate obstructionists here at home of their most persistent charge, that the United States shouldn’t act if other countries won’t join with us.”

It becomes a chicken-and-egg question, a vicious circle in which some claim that international action must be taken before national action can be effective, and others claim that national action is essential in order to begin to take international action; and people use these endless reversals as excuses, ultimately, for inaction.  Fundamentally though, it is clear to us, action must be taken.  And we are prepared to challenge anyone who says that climate policy shifts at any level other than global are necessarily ineffective.

Indeed, a recent study by the NREL clearly demonstrates a link between policy changes at a state level and the implementation of sustainable programs and practices.  The study shows that many environmental policies work in tandem (for example, there was more renewable energy development in states where utilities were required to disclose their fuel mix and were forced to offer their customers the option to purchase electricity from renewable sources), as well as demonstrating a direct connection between policy and energy generation and use (for example, states that put net-metering policies into effect in 2005 had significantly more renewable energy generation by 2007 than states without net-metering).

Climate change policy on a large scale has a chance to make a large-scale difference in the way we make and use energy.  U.S. leadership on climate change is necessary, and currently lacking.  With the Kerry-Boxer Bill stuck in the Senate, a federal program not ready to go into effect for years yet, and a legally binding international agreement postponed until repeat talks next year (delayed, no doubt, partly due to a lack of leadership from large emitters like the U.S. and China), perhaps now is a time to consider your personal power as an agent of climate change aversion.

While we must demand that Senate pass climate change legislation and that the nations assembling at Copenhagen forge a binding agreement on climate change mitigation, questions remain about whether cap-and-trade is the way, and whether the largest emitters will take action.  In the face of regulatory failure, can we not also do something ourselves?  Can you check out your renewable energy options?

Announcement: Career Opportunity at Renewable Power Solutions

At Renewable Power Solutions Inc. we have no job openings, we only have career opportunities.

Renewable Power Solutions Inc. offers excellent working environment, an opportunity to grow with the company, medical and dental, 401K, paid vacation and sick days.  So, here’s a new opportunity…

COMMERCIAL SOLAR BUSINESS DEVELOPER FOR THE FOLLOWING TERRITORIES:

Texas (San Antonio-Houston and Austin)
Arizona (Phoenix-Tuscon and Flagstaff)
Nevada (Reno and Lake Tahoe)

Description:

This position will spearhead our commercial/business development strategy in the territories mentioned above. Our commercial department covers business and government customers interested in purchasing and installing solar equipment. We offer an excellent commission and bonus structure.

Responsibilities:

•Research, create, and implement (with approval) compelling offers for the commercial market to achieve a profitable and sustainable market size for Renewable Power Solutions’ commercial solar business.
•Implement a highly innovative solar project financing program.
•Oversee and manage sales prospects, processes and resources to generate an active sales pipeline that exceeds our current operating plan.
•Understand and develop the value of our solar solutions to extract the greatest return in a high-demand field.

Requirements:

Education:
•Minimum BA or BS degree. MBA preferred.

Work Experience:
•Minimum 5 years of C level sales, marketing, and business development with P&L management within the renewable energy industry or similar new energy market experience.

Skill Requirements:
•Strong understanding of renewable energy, utility and energy markets and policies. Ability to take initiative and leadership to deliver rapid results within a complex and immature business environment.
•Excellent verbal and written communication skills for successful relationship building with both external and internal senior executives.
•Ability to build powerful, external partnerships.
•Strong capabilities required in project financing and structural financing.

Compensation:

Commission and Bonus.
No Pay Relocation.

Apply through our website @ http://rps-solar.com/careers.shtml.
Please send résumé with cover letter and location for which you are applying.