February 26, 2010

Maryland Homeowners — Get Ready for the Clean Energy Loan Program

One reason more people don’t install solar or other renewable-energy projects on their homes is that they might move before realizing all the energy savings.  If you borrowed money (even from yourself) for the installation, that loan moves with you and the solar cells stay behind.  It just doesn’t pay.

One way to fix this problem is to fund the home renewable projects with loans secured by the property.  The loan is paid back through a surcharge on property taxes.  If you move, the project stays behind and so does the loan.  It’s called Property Assessed Clean Energy and is taking off around the nation.

Maryland localities have expressed interest; Montgomery County has enacted legislation establishing a loan program.  Governor O’Malley signed legislation on May 19, 2009, authorizing localities to issue bonds to support Clean Energy Loan Programs.

New legislation is pending in Annapolis — SB 720/HB 1014 — that would clarify state guidelines and encourage other localities to get on board.  MEA and MCEC would provide training and other support statewide.  Delegate Sue Hecht of Frederick City is leading the charge.

The impact of the Clean Energy Loan Program would be multiplied if another proposed bill also wins passage: SB 50/HB 801.  It expands net metering by requiring the electric utility to pay money when a customer generates more power than they use (currently, homeowners only get a credit against the amount of power they use).  Small businesses and local governments could also benefit.  Here is an analysis of the proposal.

Home solar seems poised for lift-off in Maryland!

February 25, 2010

Maryland Joins the Race for LED Lighting

The Maryland Energy Administration has awarded $600,000 to a company developing energy-efficient, solid-state lighting.

“This award will not only benefit TDI and Maryland, but also better position the USA to compete in the global solid-state lighting market,” believes TDI’s president Bernard Scanlan. “Governor O’Malley and his team are working to create jobs by putting Maryland on the road to benefit from emerging technologies that will create jobs, cut taxpayers’ electricity bills, and reduce US dependence on foreign oil,” he adds.

Later this year, homeowners should be able to purchase DOE-certified LED (light-emitting diode) replacements for the 60-watt bulb.

In the meantime, commercial applications continue to grow.  The Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress Resort in Orlando, Florida, recently completed a multi-miilion-dollar renovation that included installation of LED lighting in hallways and lobby that are lit 24/7.  Each 10-watt LED fixture replaced two 50-watt halogen bulbs, for a 90 percent energy savings.  The hotel expects to recover the cost of the lamps in nine months and realize savings of half a million dollars in four years.

An added attraction for business is the long lifetime of LEDs which reduces maintenance costs.  The expense of paying someone to replace burned out bulbs exceeds the cost of electricity for conventional lighting.  Because homeowners change their own bulbs, they lack this incentive.  This fact increases the importance of the DOE “L-Prize” which will give homeowners more confidence as they contemplate the switch to LED lighting.

February 24, 2010

Maryland Protections on Toxic Coal Ash Coming Soon?

Maryland gets about 60 percent of its in-state electricity from generation plants burning toxic coal.  According to the Maryland Department of the Environment:

A total of approximately 2 million tons of coal ash (fly and bottom ash) is generated annually from Maryland plants. Approximately 1.6 million tons of coal ash (fly and bottom ash) is generated in Maryland annually from the plants owned and operated by Constellation and Mirant.

The combustion residues are heavily laced with a variety of deadly contaminants, including heavy metals.  To date, the industry has gotten away with treating this toxic waste like ordinary waste.  ”Clean coal” is a fine dream but that’s all it is.

A new report from Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice describes conditions at 31 of the nation’s toxic coal ash disposal sites: Out of Control: Mounting Damages From Coal Ash Waste Sites.

Featured in the report is Maryland’s own Brandywine Coal Ash Landfill owned and operated by Mirant. What tasty goodies have been found in surface and ground waters according to the Maryland Department of the Environment?

Cadmium, selenium, lead, manganese, iron, aluminum, sulfates, total dissolved solids, and chlorides (see page 25)

What’s the latest on Brandywine?

Citizen groups sent a notice of intent to sue to Mirant MD Ash Management, LLC and Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC for violations of the Clean Water Act on November 19, 2009, and MDE sent a separate notice of intent to sue for similar violations on January 15, 2010.  The citizen groups and MDE claim that Mirant is discharging pollutants into groundwater without a permit.  They also allege that Mirant is discharging antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, nitrate, nitrogen, phenols, radium, and silver from outfalls without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.  In addition, the citizen groups and MDE claim that Mirant is discharging cadmium from outfalls at levels that exceed state water quality standards.

Here’s more on the citizens’ complaint.

The Obama administration is dithering deliberating carefully over whether this nastiness should be re-classified as hazardous waste, triggering a higher level of handling in order to protect human health.  The EPA’s regulatory agenda says they plan to issue a rule in April 2010.  Friends of toxic coal, of course, want to continue the free ride.

MDE is moving ahead with its own regulations:

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has completed drafting regulations for the beneficial use and transportation of coal combustion byproducts (CCBs) as required by Maryland law.  House Bill 1305 of the 2009 Legislative Session required that draft regulations be submitted to the Administrative, Executive, Legislative Review (AELR) Committee by December 31, 2009.  Due to the technical complexity of the regulations, MDE announced on December 30, 2009, that it will be submitting the draft regulations to AELR Committee no later than January 14, 2010.  The Department submitted the draft proposals on both regulations to the AELR Committee as previously announced. The Department anticipates that these regulations may be proposed in the February 26, 2010 edition of the Maryland Register. [Emphasis added.]

February 18, 2010

Maryland Clean Energy — Will Feds Help or Hinder?

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson addressed the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ Winter Meeting.

See a video of her remarks here.

UPDATE

Senator Rockefeller and several other Senators from toxic-coal-producing states sent a letter to Administrator Jackson regarding pending EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.  Ms. Jackson responded promptly.  Regulation of large, stationary sources will begin in 2011.

February 18, 2010

Maryland – Get Ready for the L-Prize!

The L-Prize will be awarded to LED lamps that replace the standard 60W lightbulb — if they can pass the U.S. Department of Energy’s rigorous tests.

What’s at stake?

The solid-state lighting LED bulb will use only 10 watts.  If all 971 million 60W bulbs currently use were replaced, the DOE estimates that:

the country would save approximately 34.0 Terawatt-hours of electricity in one year, and avoid 5.6 million metric tons of carbon emissions.  That’s enough electricity to power the lights of 17.4 million U.S. households, or nearly twice the annual electricity consumption of the city of Las Vegas.

What’s happening now?

The DOE received one entry from Philips last year — it’s being tested now.  More entrants are expected.

When can I get one?

DOE hopes to announce at least one winner by the end of this year.

Why is DOE doing this?

The idea is to avoid the mass confusion of consumers that happened with compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).  Sure CFLs save energy but light quality and longevity have been mixed (and what about that mercury?)  The L-Prize winner will meet tough standards for light quality, durability and energy usage so that consumers can pay the premium price with confidence.  This should result in faster take up and bigger energy savings.

How can I learn more?

The DOE has a website devoted to the L Prize.  DOE has a host of programs related to solid-state lighting which has many applications beyond the standard light bulb: outdoor lighting, for example.  DOE has launched the Municipal Solid-State Street Lighting Consortium to help localities find the right products to meet their needs.  One challenge is finding financing mechanisms that will use the lower power and maintenance costs to offset the higher initial cost.

By developing standards and sharing information, the DOE hopes to reduce risk for businesses, governments and households in order to speed up deployment of this important new energy-saving technology.

February 15, 2010

A Maryland Strategy for Summer Peak Demand?

Peak summer demand drives the electricity system in important ways.  It determines the minimum amount of generating and transmission capacity that must be on hand.  It drives costs as generation capacity must be kept on standby for peak periods.  Peak demand activates more costly, less efficient and even more polluting generation capacity.  Projected increases in peak demand may tempt system planners into wasteful and controversial transmission expansion plans.  And Maryland clearly needs more leverage in regional power markets.

There must be a better way.  There is — take targeted measures to lower peak demand.

The steady growth of peak demand arises largely from the design of our power market that shelters users from the actual costs of generating power during the hot summer months.  If those astronomical costs were passed through, hour by hour, then users would have a strong incentive to cut back.  Until political leaders are willing to inflict those costs on voters (instead of spreading them over twelve months of electric bills), we need other tools.

The problem centers mainly on air conditioning usage by residential and commercial customers during periods of hot and humid weather.  Thanks the climate change, this will only be more of a challenge in coming decades.

By moderating electricity consumption during hot summer months, we can better control the financial and environmental costs of our power system.

Here are some steps we can take:

1. Cool Roofs.  Roofs that reflect the heat of the sun can lower cooling costs significantly.  While buildings and conditions vary widely, an EPA report found an average savings of 20 percent.

2. Solar PV. The installation of photovoltaic systems on homes, farms and businesses could be greatly accelerated through a program modeled on Germany’s highly successful “Feed-in Tariff.”  After all, there is plenty of sun on hot summer days.  It’s a dependable source of peak power.  SB 355, introduced by Maryland Senator Pinsky and six others is a positive step in this direction.

3. Ice Storage. New systems that retrofit onto existing commercial AC units use cheap power at night to make ice.  During the day, AC refrigerant is cooled by the ice instead of the AC’s compressor, cutting power use dramatically.  The Southern California Public Power Authority has announced a utility-scale project with Ice Energy.

4. Demand-side management. This term includes programs that allow utilities to control residential air conditioners from a central location, through radio or internet controlled switches mounted on AC units.  Customers get a lower bill in exchange for allowing the utility to cycle off their AC for a few minutes every hour.  A local example is the Pepco’s Energy Wise Rewards program.  (This is a revival of Pepco’s similar Kilowatchers plan that was strangled in 2004 by the perverse incentives of Maryland’s deregulation legislation; 162,000 customers took part according to the utility.)

5. Weatherization. We often associate improved insulation with warmth in winer but it also pays off during the hot months.

6. Energy-efficient air conditioning.  Incentives are available to help homeowners replace their old AC units with more efficient ones.  However, without the other elements of a comprehensive strategy for managing peak demand, this step by itself may not be the most cost-effective one for homeowners or society as a whole.

Bits and pieces of this approach are available in Maryland already.  To really make a difference, these components need to be highlighted and accelerated.  The hot days of summer are only a few months away!

February 10, 2010

Getting Real About Maryland’s Offshore Wind

A new report from the Abell Foundation details the potential of Maryland’s offshore wind resource to meet our state’s electricity needs:

… Maryland’s feasible wind resource off of its Atlantic coast (including both state and federal waters) is large enough to significantly contribute to the electric demand in the state.  Using existing, proven technology (monopile; 5 MW turbines) and accounting for various social, environmental, and nautical exclusion zones and conflict areas, Maryland’s available offshore wind resource could provide 67% of the state’s electric load.

While the study accounts for many of the conflicting uses and other barriers, the greatest obstacle to realizing our state’s vast offshore wind potential may be economic.  After all, bringing this new power into Maryland’s electricity market would make life difficult for incumbent generators.  They want to hold onto their revenue and market share even if their antiquated plants are dirty and inefficient.

Consider:

1. “Maryland’s” offshore wind resource is mostly located in federal waters.  Whether in state or federal waters, agreement from a host of influential federal agencies will be required.

2. The new offshore transmission network will be under federal jurisdiction.  Will it be controlled by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, another existing federal agency or even a new one — perhaps modeled on the Bonneville Power Administration (which operates outside of FERC control)?

3. The offshore netowrk must be connected to the on-shore transmission system controlled by PJM, the private grid manaer regulated by FERC.

In short, Maryland’s offshore wind potential won’t be developed anytime soon without the active cooperation of FERC and PJM. Both are heavily influenced by incumbent industry players who stand to lose money and influence to offshore wind.

Like any public agency, FERC is vulnerable to “regulatory capture,” a widely recognized mechanism whereby the regulated private interests come to dominate “their” regulators.  Just to cite one instance, FERC and PJM are heavily committed to building new “coal-by-wire” transmission lines like PATH that benefit major players including American Electric Power.  Rapid development of offshore wind would threaten the viability of this FERC “pet project.”  Will FERC fight to defend AEP’s PATH project?

Under the best of circumstances, realizing the potential for clean energy and local jobs described in the report would be highly challenging.  In the face of industry opposition bolstered by allies in powerful federal agencies, it may be nigh impossible without determined public support.

February 4, 2010

UK Dereg Rethink?

Thatcher-era Britain provided the inspiration for the global effort to deregulate electricity markets, including Maryland’s 1999 reforms. Now the Brits are having a rethink.

When transmission, generation and distribution were broken up and privatized, a regulator called “Ofgem” was put in charge:

Energy experts said that the regulator’s proposals represented an “extraordinary volte-face”. Ofgem has been one of the biggest advocates of a liberalised energy market, arguing that companies could be left to build enough new power stations and low-carbon forms of generation to guarantee energy supplies and reduce carbon emissions.

But only a fraction of the estimated £200bn investment needed by 2020 has been made, because volatile energy prices, and the short-term supply contracts that have characterised liberalisation, have made spending such huge sums too risky.

Now Ofgem is recommending that energy companies receive guaranteed rates of return on the new plants they build.

Ogem’s consultation paper identifies a number of challenges that liberalization may not be able to meet such as needed new investment in generation and controlling carbon emissions.  The report acknowledges a key defect in the deregulation model:
Short term price signals at times of system stress do not fully reflect the value that customers place on supply security which may mean that the incentives to make additional peak energy supplies available and to invest in peaking capacity are not strong enough. (Page 2)
Perhaps Maryland could learn a lesson — or two — here.

February 3, 2010

O’Malley Advances Offshore Wind

The massive offshore wind resource on the East Coast holds great potential for tackling Maryland’s energy challenges.

Governor O’Malley is leading a steady march towards realizing this opportunity.  Last year, he joined other governors in a letter urging Congressional leaders to speed up offshore wind development, instead of promoting on-shore transmission only.

In November, O’Malley signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the governors of Virginia and Delware to promote offshore wind.  The Maryland Energy Administration has taken aggressive steps to clear the way, including mapping the offshore resource.  Maryland will purchase power from NRG Bluewater’s offshore wind project.

In November, Governor O’Malley joined with the governors of Virginia, New Jersey and Delaware to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to order private transmission operator PJM Interconnection to consider transmission solutions that would facilitate the development of offshore wind resources.  (See FERC Docket No. AD09-8-00).

It’s great news that the Governor’s legislative agenda includes additional steps to move wind forward.  SB 282 “Off-Shore Wind Generation – Qualified Submerged Renewable Energy Line” will facilitate the construction of transmission connectors needed to bring offshore power to the onshore grid.

Meanwhile, Europe’s offshore wind industry powers ahead.

December 4, 2009

Our Neighbor to the West

It’s time for West Virginians to have a frank discussion about the future of their economy.  Mining and burning toxic coal hasn’t been all that great for the poverty-stricken state and the future doesn’t look much better.

Senator Byrd has called the question:

Change has been a constant throughout the history of our coal industry. West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it.  One thing is clear.  The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.

In his remarkable statement, Senator Byrd acknowledges that the practice of mountaintop removal cannot be defended:

It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states.  Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens.

He rightly questions the suicidal notion of blocking health care reform to protect mountaintop removal:

I believe that the notion of holding the health care of over 300 million Americans hostage in exchange for a handful of coal permits is beyond foolish; it is morally indefensible.  It is a non-starter, and puts the entire state of West Virginia and the coal industry in a terrible light.

Senator Byrd wants his state to be part of the solution:

To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say “deal me out.” West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table.

Toxic coal represents the past, not the future.

In 1979, there were 62,500 coal miners in the Mountain State. Today there are about 22,000. In recent years, West Virginia has seen record high coal production and record low coal employment.

These words of West Virginia’s senior senator mark a turning point in the debate over how to get our country onto the low-carbon path.

The contrast with the mindless blather of his fellow senators like Inhofe (who pretends to believe that human-caused climate change is not happening) could not be greater.