Sunday, November 30, 2008

chronsundaybanner.gif

S.F. supervisors kill mayor's power plant plan

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

The future of San Francisco's energy production was thrown into doubt Tuesday when the Board of Supervisors adamantly refused to give Mayor Gavin Newsom the authority to negotiate and execute a plan to retrofit a polluting power plant on Potrero Hill.

IMAGES



Newsom hopes to retrofit the 40-year-old Mirant Potrero Power Plant from a diesel-fueled polluter into a cleaner plant powered by natural gas, but several supervisors insist that the plant be closed, torn down and replaced by a new, cleaner, city-owned facility.

On Tuesday, the board made its point clear by bringing back the measure, which it had tabled several weeks ago, to kill it more resolutely. The supervisors could have left it tabled to die.

Now it's not clear where city officials will go from here: The existing plant must remain open until an alternative of some sort is built, because the city is required to be able to produce enough energy to handle emergencies or shutdowns of plants elsewhere.

Meanwhile, neighbors of the plant - owned by Mirant Corp. - have worked for years to shutter the facility, which is blamed for numerous health problems in the area.

Several supervisors argued Tuesday that there was no reason to bring the measure back to the floor, but Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, whose district includes the plant, said she wanted to send a strong statement and preserve the board's role in any future decisions.

"The issue is that this resolution takes away the board's ability to comment any further on the retrofit," she said. "The board's input is extremely important, especially to my constituents - people expect me not to sign that away."

Until recently, the mayor and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the plant, supported the plan to replace the Mirant plant with a newer facility. But they changed their minds this summer, saying it didn't make sense to build a new fossil-fuel burning facility when renewable energy sources are gaining ground.

Maxwell and other supervisors balked at the change, pointing out that they have been working with city officials and the community for years on a plan to close the plant. They also question whether the retrofit will actually lead to acceptable emission reductions.

Meanwhile, several supervisors who are generally allies of the mayor questioned why the board brought the measure back at all. Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Michela Alioto-Pier said they would have rather left it tabled. They voted against the resolution, however.

Newsom's office struck a conciliatory tone after the vote Tuesday.

Spokesman Nathan Ballard said the mayor remains opposed to replacing the existing plant with other, polluting plants.

"However, he does want to work closely with Supervisor Sophie Maxwell and the Board of Supervisors to find the best solution to this problem," he said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/BAPM14C7CE.DTL

Christian Science Monitor

Green homes: solar vs. energy efficiency

Solar gets more subsidies, but home energy efficiency may be more cost-effective.

By Ben Arnoldy| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ November 26, 2008 edition

Ben Arnoldy / The Christian Science Monitor

Sustainable Spaces also uses a ‘smoke candle’ to test for drafts and leaks.


Reporter Ben Arnoldy talks about the benefits of a home energy audit.


SAN FRANCISCO

When Ted and Astrid Olsson set out to cut their home electricity bill, they had three strong incentives to buy solar panels: federal, state, and city subsidies. But they shelved the idea in favor of insulating the attic of their San Francisco Victorian.

While it’s not as sexy as a rooftop rack of silicon, improving a home’s energy efficiency tends to be the more cost-effective way to trim carbon emissions. So why are politicians showering subsidies on residential solar instead?

That’s the question posed by Matt Golden, president of Sustainable Spaces, a company specializing in optimizing the energy performance of homes. He convinced the Olssons to think first about energy efficiency, but with every new solar subsidy, it gets harder for him to get homeowners’ attention and contracts.

Policymakers say energy efficiency doesn’t have out-of-the-box solutions that are easy to mandate or incentivize. Mr. Golden’s message: Try harder, or forget about meeting greenhouse-gas goals.

“Everybody strategically understands that energy efficiency is the most cost-effective place for us to spend our capital,” says Golden. “We can’t afford just to take all these [super-inefficient] houses and put really big solar systems on them that require massive rebates and incentives from the government.”

Among the states, California is furthest along in understanding its emission sources and setting specific cuts. Homes account for roughly one-third of the electricity and natural-gas consumption in California – most of it in older homes. By 2020, the state wants to cut existing home energy consumption by 40 percent.

To get there, California has incentives for both energy efficiency and rooftop solar. But it’s the solar initiative that’s gotten the buzz, helped in part by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger packaging it as the “Million Solar Roofs” plan. The program discounts piggyback on a federal tax credit of up to 30 percent of a system’s cost. San Francisco residents can get another $3,000 to $6,000 written off.
Stoking demand for solar can be good for energy efficiency, too, notes Molly Sterkel of the California Solar Initiative, the state’s solar incentive program.

“[I]t’s a two-way street. Solar gets some people excited about energy consumption and drives them to do energy efficiency. And I think a lot of people get energy efficiency and they still want to do more, and so they go do solar,” says Ms. Sterkel.

Ted and Astrid Olsson talked with half a dozen solar installers before a colleague advised getting a home energy audit first.

On a recent weekend, Golden and a two-man team walked with the Olssons around their four-story home. Golden’s team are like plumbers for air. Using smoke candles, they watch how air circulates through ducts and drains out of vents, and look for bottlenecks and leaks. Using a fan device known as a blower door, they  measure how airtight the building is.

The average home is leaky – lots of energy goes out of windows, doors, or walls. Two percent of all the energy used in California is lost from bad ducts alone.

The Olssons’ audit revealed, among other things, that their attic hemorrhages heat. The audit prioritized retrofits based on return on investment, helping the couple decide to insulate the attic and hold off on other fixes.

“Even with all the incentives offered [for solar], it pays me more to solve my problem by retrofitting the house,” says Mr. Olsson.

Energy officials say they want homeowners to make such rational assessments, but audits cost several hundred dollars and fixes can be time-consuming. That makes it tricky to agree on when and how homeowners should be pushed into the process.

One obvious moment: when a house goes up for sale. The California Assembly passed legislation requiring audit and repairs at a home’s time of sale, but it died in a Senate committee.

“It frankly would create a lot of green jobs as you have people moving into that sector, but the realtors … don’t like it because they think it gets in the way of the transaction,” says Bill Pennington, manager of buildings and appliances at the California Energy Commission.

Getting real estate agents to add an energy-efficiency rating in the database of homes for sale would dramatically boost awareness of energy audits. The ratings would act like an auto fuel-efficiency sticker for homes, says Golden.

Proposals to pair home energy audits and retrofits with solar installations have raised concerns with the solar industry. It would mean consumers have to get separate contractors, says Sue Kateley, head of the California Solar Energy Industries Association. “It’s really good for the consumer to do [energy efficiency] first, but the timing is really difficult to overcome.”
Golden, who emphasizes he isn’t anti-solar, says efficiency upgrades and solar should be paired. “We play in the same sandbox. When [policymakers] pull the lever, they are not only helping solar, they are hurting energy efficiency.”

He says retrofits don’t have to hold up a solar sale: Require the audit upfront, install the solar system, and give consumers a year to make efficiency upgrades.

Sterkel of the solar initiative worries the proposal would increase installers’ paperwork and delay collection of state rebates. Ultimately, she says, her priority is to drive up demand for solar so as to bring down its price.

The utilities commission is asking for public input about whether to scale back its solar subsidies after Congress extended federal solar tax credits recently.

“If we are ever going to meet our carbon goals … existing buildings have to be tackled somehow. And so integration of energy efficiency and [rooftop solar] has to happen,” says Andrew McAllister, director of the California Center for Sustainable Energy.

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/11/26/green-homes-solar-vs-energy-efficiency/

www.boston.com.gif

Higher power

What if some nuns in Wrentham decided to put up a wind turbine? And then high school officials in Worcester? And a Canton bank chairman? And pretty soon, the question wasn't where do wind farms belong, but how many windmills can we squeeze in to every last available space? That day is coming.


By Keith O'Brien

November 30, 2008

Down a gravel road, past a weathered, one-armed statue of St. Joseph somewhere near the Franklin-Wrentham town line, there is a field, a nun, and a dream. The nun, 52-year-old Sister Mariann Garrity, moves gingerly through the waist-high grass in a black veil and bright white New Balance sneakers. This way, she beckons, and keeps going.

She and the other 49 nuns who stay at Mount St. Mary's Abbey in Wrentham practice silence and simplicity. They awake every morning to pray at 3:20 and pray together another six times throughout the day. They wear traditional black and white nun's habits and, for the most part, forsake modern-day gadgets like cellphones and iPods. The last time the nuns even allowed themselves to watch television was seven years ago: September 11, 2001.

But don't confuse simplicity with technological ignorance. The nuns live in the same century as the rest of us. They know all about carbon footprints and fossil-fuel costs. And here in this grass-choked field, on this hill where Sister Garrity stands, the nuns have plans, big 21st-century plans. "There are our sheep," she says, gesturing to the livestock in the pasture. "And right down here at the end of the fence is where we're going to put our turbine."

By turbine, Sister Garrity means wind turbine. And by "our," she means the nuns are going to own it. As they see it, the turbine will be a long-term investment, defraying roughly 75 percent of the abbey's electricity costs. Those are big savings that pretty much anyone can appreciate. And the nuns aren't the only ones chasing the wind.

While rich people with summer homes have spent the better part of the last decade fighting Cape Wind, a large offshore wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound, single turbine projects, like the one going up at the abbey, are becoming increasingly common. In the last three years, the state has awarded $23 million to people looking to build one or two wind turbines on their property. There are now roughly 100 projects either scheduled to be built or being studied, according to the state. And with electricity costs in Massachusetts nearly three times higher than in 2000 -- and expected to keep rising -- it's no longer just green-minded liberals championing the cause of wind, but rather "radical freethinkers" like small-town officials, school superintendents, and businesspeople looking to save money while also doing a little something to help the earth.

Officials from Medford to Plymouth, Quincy to Sandwich have received state funding to study the feasibility of wind projects in their communities. High schools want them, and so do ski resorts. The idea, says James Christo, is becoming increasingly popular.

"It's still in the very early stage. They're very expensive, these projects," says Christo, the program director of green buildings and infrastructure at the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust, the state program that distributes grant funding to wind and other renewable energy projects. The turbines can cost more than a million dollars each. And they're often towering structures -- not to be confused with the small wind turbines that some Massachusetts residents have placed in their yards to help power their homes.

Still, Christo says, the demand is there. His telephone rings at least a couple of times every day with calls from people looking to build a turbine. Small wind development start-up companies, including one founded by a Tufts University junior, are springing up everywhere, and a new state law, signed by Governor Deval Patrick in July, makes community-sized wind projects more profitable than ever.

Under the new statute, owners of large turbines -- up to 2 megawatts (2,000 kilowatts), enough to power roughly 440 homes for an entire year -- can now sell excess power back to their electricity provider, like NStar or National Grid, something they could not do under old regulations. Or they can earn credits to cover other electricity costs -- say, at another nearby facility -- essentially spreading out their excess power as they see fit. So a turbine erected at a public high school on a hill could, in effect, help conserve power at town hall, too. Money saved in electricity costs over time could help save teachers' jobs or keep libraries open later. A wind turbine -- that dreaded eyesore to so many people on the Cape -- can give a strapped community options. As a result, a growing number of people are asking: Why not wind?

"The time for talking about this issue is over. We need action. We need hands-on learning," says Medford's mayor, Michael J. McGlynn, who hopes that a 100-kilowatt wind turbine scheduled to be erected at one of the city's public schools next month will help teach children the importance of conservation. "But, obviously, the money is significant, too. Any time you're saving $25,000 or $30,000 a year, you're saving somebody's job."

Such interest has created a land rush of sorts. The fact is, there are only so many places in the state where there's enough wind to make a turbine feasible. Many landlocked communities don't have enough wind on a daily basis to fly a kite, much less power a turbine, wind maps reveal. In Stow, about 30 miles west of Boston, officials studied wind power recently, only to realize that, sadly, they don't have much wind at all.

But experts like Nick D'Arbeloff, executive director of the New England Clean Energy Council, say there's no doubt where the market is headed. Forget about Cape Wind for a moment. Shelve the debate about that 130-turbine wind farm somewhere in Nantucket Sound. The future of wind power may be a lot smaller than you think, and the nearest windmill may be right around the corner. The landscape, many believe, is going to be dotted with them.

Before electricity and gasoline, nuclear power or coal, the peoples of Egypt, Phoenicia, and Persia set their minds on harnessing the wind. Powered by sails made of animal skins or woven reeds, and later flax and cotton, explorers traveled the world. And before the dawn of the second century, people realized that using sails on land -- in the form of a windmill -- could help move water or grind grain. The windmill became indispensable. From Crete to China to Europe and finally to the New World, farmers came to rely on these rudimentary turbines. They proliferated -- in particular across the American West, where the land was flat and the winds strong -- until, in 1888, a mustachioed Ohio inventor named Charles Brush set out to build a large windmill capable of generating electricity.

The machine, made in part of cedar, was hailed as a success, charging battery cells in Brush's basement, which in turn powered the newly invented light bulbs in his expansive Cleveland home. Over the course of the next century, countless engineers improved upon Brush's design, eventually replacing his 50-foot cedar slats with fiberglass blades often well over 100 feet long. California, in particular, became home to thousands of wind turbines, including, in 1981, the largest wind farm in the world: Altamont Pass. Developers, looking to reap the benefits before state and federal tax credits expired, rushed to build some 5,000 turbines in Altamont, an hour's drive east of San Francisco. The project was considered a noble effort to stave off future energy crises. There was just one problem: the birds.

"The big fatal flaw was nobody did an avian study before the project went into the ground," says Lisa Daniels, a Pittsfield native and Bentley College graduate who's now executive director of Windustry, a national nonprofit wind advocacy group based in Minneapolis. "Turns out, it's a raptor breeding area."

Birds, including golden eagles and red-tailed hawks, began dying off in droves every year, cut down by the whirling blades. Once a symbol for progress, Altamont quickly became the wind industry's albatross, a reason not to build turbines. Anyone opposed to a wind project, including those opposed to Cape Wind, could reference Altamont. And they did.

But much has changed since Altamont's folly. Bird studies are now standard operating procedure. Wind developers who cannot show what effect their turbines will have on the local wildlife population might as well fold up their blades and move on. And the technology itself has changed. Today's wind turbines -- which have a life span of about 20 years -- spin far more slowly than they did in the past, thus decreasing the risk of midair wildlife collisions. Still, the protests on the Cape, and elsewhere, continue as opponents complain about everything from a wind project's potential impact on wildlife, to noise, to the simple fact that one might have to look at the turbines in question. The problem can often be summed up in four simple words: Not in my backyard. "NIMBY," explains Ian Bowles, secretary of the state Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs. "That's the challenge. That's it."

But to wind developers like 30-year-old Kevin Schulte, the NIMBY argument simply isn't good enough anymore. Americans, Schulte says, have spent decades living in a world of "invisible energy." "We don't know," he says, "nor do we care, where we get our energy from, as long as the lights turn on when we flip the switch." But with increasing concerns about protecting the environment and meeting the energy needs of a fast-growing world, that has to change, Schulte believes. The brief, luxurious era of invisible energy may be coming to an end.

"Wind power is part of that," Schulte says. "It seems to be peppered all over society right now: green, green, green. Well, this is green. This is clean energy. This is 20 years of energy with no emissions. Twenty years of energy with no pollution you have to bury in the ground. I think that's all right."

S

chulte is baby-faced, bespectacled, and a bit wide in the waist. He's prone to wearing khaki pants and work boots, and he's not big on formalities. His uniform most days is a green T-shirt, untucked, emblazoned with his company's logo. The employees at Sustainable Energy Developments Inc. -- a wind development company that Schulte cofounded in 2002 -- call him Kev. And SED's Massachusetts office is not some stuffy, cubicle-walled fortress. It is a one-bedroom apartment, located above a chiropractor's office in Sterling, about 20 miles north of Worcester, where employees sometimes jockey for a place to sleep. "The couch is arguably most comfortable," says senior project manager Dave Strong, 29, sitting in the apartment one recent morning with an iced coffee in hand. "Real nice."

SED, based in upstate New York, opened the Sterling office -- couch and all -- about a year ago out of necessity. The wind business in Massachusetts was simply becoming too busy not to have a local office. The trips back and forth to New York every day were taking a toll on Schulte and the company's 16 other employees. They needed a place to crash, if nothing else. And the apartment, with its burnt-red walls, would do just fine. SED, like many wind-power start-ups, has humble roots.

It began in a different apartment outside of Albany six years ago, the brainchild of four classmates from James Madison University in Virginia and another friend. The idea, Schulte says, was to take what they learned working on wind farms and go smaller. Instead of building 100 turbines, build one. And instead of owning a wind farm -- as many developers do, selling the power for a profit -- SED's goal was managing the construction of a single turbine for a business or town, allowing the client to own the turbine and reap the benefits of the power it produced.

"It really is the model that is successful in Massachusetts right now," Schulte says. "I'm a believer in large wind. My background is large wind. But in Massachusetts, in the Northeast, where the population is dense, like Europe, you have to look to smaller projects. That's what's going to be successful."

This pitch is working for SED and other wind-power developers because, with electricity prices soaring, people are finally ready to hear it. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority -- the Commonwealth's largest user of electricity -- hired Schulte's crew this year with the hopes of building at least a couple of wind turbines. With the help of money from the state's Renewable Energy Trust, the T would like to build the first, a 100-kilowatt machine, at the end of the Old Colony commuter rail line in Kingston next spring.

T officials believe it could cover 75 percent of the station's power needs, and townspeople in Hanover, just a dozen miles from Kingston, have similar dreams. They voted in May to build a 100-kilowatt wind turbine to help power the town's water treatment plant, and if this turbine is successful, there are hopes of building two more in town.

There's also Jim Egan, the chairman of the Bank of Canton. He isn't exactly the portrait of the go-green movement. He's a 64-year-old lifelong banker who drives a Cadillac that gets 22 miles to the gallon. But with the help of state funding, Egan is also leading an effort to build a wind turbine -- this one at the company's headquarters on Route 138 in Canton. The reason, Egan says, is simple. The wind blows -- often hard -- at the bank's headquarters. And Egan, being a math guy, has run the numbers. With a wind turbine in place, the bank could save as much as $8,000 a month in energy costs. "We have this huge parking lot," he says. "It's just sitting there. And we could put this thing up. It wouldn't hurt a soul."

In fact, Egan points out, it would help people -- maybe even help business. A bank manages money for its customers, he says, and wouldn't customers want to know that the people in charge were thinking broadly? Actually doing something right from both a financial and environmental standpoint? In this way, wind turbines are actually becoming a sort of 21st-century marketing tool, even an attraction.

Take Forbes Park, for example. The 68-unit Chelsea project opening early next year is touted as a "sustainable condo development," complete with a small fleet of electric cars to be used by its residents and a 243-foot-tall wind turbine capable of powering almost 150 homes. In another neighborhood, such a structure might not be welcome. But developer Blair Galinsky is actually turning the NIMBY argument on its head. On this patch of land, overlooking the Mystic River, people actually want a wind turbine in their backyard, Galinsky says. And he is prepared to make the most of it. He is building a platform so that people can visit the turbine, and he plans to light it up at night for everyone to see.

"I can't honestly tell you how many people I've seen standing there, waiting there, looking at the windmill," Galinsky says. "They want to know more about it."

Here's how they work: The turbines tie right into the electrical grid and also into the structure to be powered. With a steady breeze blowing -- ideally, it averages about 13 miles per hour over the course of a year -- the large white fiberglass blades begin to rotate, which in turn spin a shaft inside the turbine. The spinning shaft powers a generator, and -- bingo -- you've got electricity.

But since the turbine is also connected to the grid, there's a little give and take. On calm, windless days, your school or water plant or bank simply draws electricity from the utility grid, as usual. And on windy days, you don't just feel good about saving money -- and the environment -- you're effectively getting paid. All excess electricity gets sucked up by the utility and -- thanks to the new legislation signed by Patrick -- you could be making 15 cents or more per kilowatt-hour generated. As the folks at Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in the Berkshires can attest, those kilowatt-hours can add up.

Their turbine -- a 38-story, 1.5-megawatt windmill that's visible both in Massachusetts and across the state line in New York -- went up in August 2007 for about $4 million. Not cheap, even when you consider that the state kicked in $600,000 of that. But with the wind turbine capable of generating about 4 million kilowatt-hours annually -- enough to power more than 530 homes for an entire year -- the resort has options. It's saving about $400,000 a year in electricity costs. And under the new state statute, officials there expect to make another $250,000 selling energy back to the grid. Translation: The turbine will be paid off in about seven years.

"It's a fun machine," says 61-year-old Paul Maloney, the resort's vice president of operations, standing one recent afternoon beneath the towering, spinning turbine. He then stops and holds a finger in the air. And that's when you hear it.

Whoosh.

Whoosh.

Whoosh.

The sound is steady, rhythmic. And it's true: You can hear it at a distance, too, some days all the way down at the base of the mountain. Some days, farther. It depends on how the wind is blowing, locals say. But there have been few complaints. That's the thing about these single-turbine projects, says Warren Leon, former director of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, which administers the state's Renewable Energy Trust. There is a lot less opposition to them. And that, Leon says, is just one more reason why he expects to see wind turbines decorating the Massachusetts sky in the years ahead.

"I think we need to move aggressively and fast, but carefully and cautiously. That sounds contradictory," Leon says. "But I take the long view. We need to develop a lot more wind projects here in Massachusetts. But it won't be good in the long run if the first projects that get built don't perform well, engender a lot of opposition, and end up being perceived by the public as a bad idea. What I want to make sure is that 10 or 15 years from now, we have a large number of wind turbines spinning in Massachusetts and the public is happy about that."

Massachusetts-based wind developers are betting big that it will happen. Out of the success of the Jiminy Peak project, the resort's owners became so sure that wind is the way of the future that they founded Eos, a renewable-energy company of their own. "I'm convinced of it," says Tyler Fairbank, the son of Jiminy Peak co-owner Brian Fairbank and the CEO of Eos. "I'm obviously betting my career on it." So are Bob Shatten and Tom Michelman, the founders of Acton-based Boreal Renewable Energy Development. They not only oversaw the construction of the wind turbine at Galinsky's lofts in Chelsea, but they also have about a dozen Massachusetts projects in the pipeline. And then there's Greg Hering, the founder of Emergent Energy Group, another wind development company. He's just 21 years old, but not lacking at all for confidence. When asked how much money he -- a Tufts college kid -- can raise for the half-dozen utility-scale wind turbines he's looking to build across the state, Hering, who grew up in Natick, has his answer ready. "As much as I need," he says.

In fact, wind-power experts say, there are only a few factors holding back development. One is the resource itself. A quick look at the Massachusetts wind maps -- yes, there are wind maps -- reveals that many parts of the state just aren't that windy. And then there is the problem of getting equipment. Some developers say it can take a year, or longer, to get a turbine in hand. Still, though, they are building.

"These are the blades," Schulte of SED says, standing next to three 75-foot, soon-to-be-spinning rotors one late summer afternoon at Holy Name Central Catholic Junior-Senior High School in Worcester. "We've had a night watchman here at night," he adds, nodding to the rotors laid flat on bales of hay. "We can't have any vandals."

The 675-student school is cobbling together more than $1.5 million for its wind turbine, which Mary Riordan, the school's white-haired 70-year-old president, hopes to have paid off well within a decade. It's a lot of money, she confesses, and it's a hard time to be asking for donations. But she's doing it anyway -- and calling in some favors with the Catholic Church. In August, before Holy Name's turbine went up, Riordan had a local bishop come out and bless the turbine. And she's not the only one praying for a nice stiff breeze.

Remember the nuns? Their turbine -- another SED project -- is scheduled to be built this winter. And Sister Mariann Garrity, for one, can't wait for the moment she sees those pearly white blades spinning. "The wind is just something that we've let caress our faces," she says. "It was not something, up until now, that we had learned how to harness. And when we see that turbine go up, we'll know that we are using a gift of creation in a much more effective way."

It's just like the nuns pray on Sundays. Gathered together, all 50 of them, they thank the Lord for the rain and the dew, for the heat of summer and the cold of winter. They give thanks for the seas and the rivers and the beasts, wild and tame. And they give thanks, of course, for the wind blowing outside the abbey, just waiting for a turbine to spin. "All you winds," they say together, quoting from the book of Daniel, "bless the Lord."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/11/30/higher_power/?page=full

newenergyfocus.com.gif

"Merton Rule" becomes law with Royal Assent for Fallon Bill


The Queen has added her signature to the Planning and Energy Bill - giving councils legal powers to require renewable energy systems for new buildings.

More than 100 local authorities around the country have already adopted the so-called "Merton Rule" - where construction firms advised that they want planning permission, they ought to include facilities for new buildings to generate their own energy.

The new legislation, which became a full Act of Parliament yesterday as its Royal Assent was confirmed, requires councils to set local targets for decentralised energy.

In order to meet those local energy targets, the Bill allows those councils to require developers to include within their plans technologies ranging from wind turbines and solar panels to heat pumps or biomass systems.

Local authorities will be free to require whatever level of renewable energy generation, though it is expected that a 10-15% level could be common.

There is no threshold within the Bill to allow smaller building projects to be exempt - although councils could decide to set such a threshold. Similarly, projects that propose renewable energy components of more than a local energy target level would not be prevented from doing so under the legislation.

Fallon

Sevenoaks MP Michael Fallon put the Bill forward as a Private Members Bill, and told New Energy Focus today that he was pleased it had finally achieved Royal Assent yesterday.

He said: "It's taken a year, including two debates in the House and five meetings with the Department. It's been a lot of hard work, but we managed to get a consensus behind the Bill along with the Liberal Democrats. Ministers changed throughout its progression, but the Bill survived."

It's not necessarily just on-site energy systems, it could also be near-site.
Michael Fallon MP

Mr Fallon said the Bill had only needed "minor" changes to get the government's ultimate approval, considering the consensus backing the project.

He said it was now up to individual councils to decide on what levels of decentralised energy to require new building projects to include. He said: "If you are going for 10% or 15%, it is up to them. It's not necessarily just on-site energy systems, it could also be near-site."

Government

The government's Department for Communities and Local Government said the Planning and Energy Act is tied very closely to its own planning guidance published last year.

A spokesman for the Department told New Energy Focus today: "The Michael Fallon Bill enshrines the Merton principle in law, and the government supported this Bill so we're very pleased it got through.

"We have a Planning Policy Statement on Climate Change that we published last December which contained detailed guidance to local authorities on setting local energy targets. This Bill was complementary to that, making it a legal requirement for councils to set local targets."

Merton

The measures within the Planning and Energy Act have become known as the "Merton Rule" because of the first local authority to adopt planning guidance suggesting developers ought to inclure renewable energy systems in their plans.

The London Borough of Merton set its "Rule" based on the government's 2004 planning guidance, Planning Policy Statement 22, requiring a 10% level of on-site energy generation for local development projects. 

The first project to comply with Merton's target was an industrial development at Willow Lane, Mitcham, which used small wind turbines and solar photopholtaic panels. Neighbouring Croydon became the next council to adopt the 10% target level, with others like North Devon setting slightly higher level of 15%.

Some councils like Richmond are already asking developers to push for even higher levels of renewable energy, of 20% or more, with Kirklees looking to set a 30% target for 2011.

Ultimately, the "Merton Rule" is seen as providing a middle step towards tough new requirements under the building regulations, which will require "zero carbon" domestic buildings from 2016, and commercial buildings from 2019.

http://newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=1939&section=

www.independent.co.uk.png

Green-basher Boris relaunches himself as an eco-warrior

Mayor of London says he wants to make the city the most environmentally friendly in the world

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 23 November 2008

Mr Johnson wants to make legacy a priority for the Games. His 2012 adviser, David Ross, has recently warned that the £9.3bn budget may not be enough

REUTERS

Boris Johnson is backing a cycle-hire scheme for the capital

Change font size: A A A

Cripes! Boris Johnson, one of Britain's least environmentally friendly politicians, will this week relaunch himself as a green champion.

In his maiden green speech, which aides are billing as "extremely substantial" and "a milestone event", London's Mayor – who used to denounce "eco-moralists" for spouting "mumbo-jumbo"– is to announce his intention to make the city the eco-capital of the world.

The man who compared fear of global warming to a "Stone Age religion", and poured scorn on renewable energy, has decided that he wants to make the capital "the world's leading city in delivering carbon reductions and capturing the benefits of the new energy economy".

The speech – to be delivered on Tuesday to the annual conference of the official Environment Agency – will stress that the financial crisis provides a crucial opportunity for developing environmentally friendly businesses, one of the main arguments of those pressing governments to launch a "green new deal" to revive growth.

Industries will have the chance to develop "new technologies", the Mayor will add, and householders will be able to save money by conserving energy and reducing their carbon footprints.

Mr Johnson will also promise "substantially increased investment" in small-scale exploitation of solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy in homes and communities, and "minimum-hassle, minimum-cost energy efficiency programmes" to insulate homes, offices and other buildings.

The speech will mark one of the most remarkable political Damascene conversions in years, for the Mayor was one of the few prominent Britons to welcome George W Bush's determination to kill off international attempts to combat climate change. He said that the President's "decision to scrumple up the Kyoto Protocol" was "right not just for America but for the world".

Mr Johnson then proclaimed that sharply reducing emissions would "exacerbate" climate change. He insisted that windfarms, "even when they are in motion, would barely pull the skin off a rice pudding" and denounced energy saving as a waste of effort. He became a hero to climate-change deniers worldwide.

He changed his tune during his election campaign earlier this year, describing global warming as "the biggest challenge of our generation", but his proposed policies were unconvincing and lagged far behind measures that his rival, Ken Livingstone, was already taking, which made London a world leader in combating global warming.

Jonathon Porritt, the Government's top environmental adviser, said that a Johnson victory would be "a massive setback" – and, once in office, the new Mayor seemed to justify the warning. He cancelled Mr Livingstone's plans to charge gas-guzzlers more to enter central London, put all his far-reaching climate-change measures under review, and sacked Allan Jones, the highly regarded head of the capital's Climate Change Agency. He also scrapped an order for 60 vehicles running on hydrogen – thought to be the world's biggest initiative of its kind.

However, the Mayor's office retorts: "Boris Johnson was elected on a firm commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2025 and to make London's environment cleaner and greener. Since being elected he has announced a range of measures to set London on the road to achieve this."

It points out that, among other promises, he has pledged to retain Mr Livingstone's Low-Emission Zone and has announced plans for a cycle-hire scheme and 10 low-carbon zones.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenbasher-boris-relaunches-himself-as-an-ecowarrior-1031233.html

www.guardian.co.uk.gif

Boris Johnson sets out plans for green London

Mayor seeks to throw off image as climate change sceptic with major speech on environment

Boris Johnson today sought to burnish his green credentials by vowing to make London "greener, cheaper and cleaner at the same time".

The mayor of London announced plans to give all residents in the capital free up-front access to efficiency measures such as loft insulation to help drive down bills by an average of £300 a year, regardless of income.

Johnson also told the Environment Agency's annual conference that the economic downturn presented a "huge opportunity" for the capital by creating new green jobs, offering opportunities to reduce emissions as well as households and companies' energy bills.

"There is a huge opportunity for us to go greener and cleaner and cheaper at the same time," he said.

Simple changes to buildings to make them more energy efficient could save small- and medium-sized businesses £725m a year, declared the mayor.

"That is a considerably more powerful stimulus than a 2.5% cut in VAT," he quipped, referring to the government's pre-budget report statement yesterday.

The Tory mayor, famed for scorning the global warming agenda in the past, sought to throw off his image as the man who used to write caustic articles about "the religion of climate change" by saying that his mind had been changed by the incontrovertible science. "If the climate can change, I don't see why my mind can't," he said.

In an 18-minute speech, which was light on detail, Johnson said that his new environment adviser, Isobel Dedring, was looking at a scheme in Kirklees seeking to convert all households into energy efficient homes.

The council-led project will visit every home to offer free cavity-wall and loft insulation and low-energy light bulbs to everyone, and improvements to heating systems for those in fuel poverty or on benefits.

If implemented, a replication of the scheme across London would cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

Johnson is also considering low carbon zones in 10 areas within Greater London, and is keen to make better use of waste technology.

He said it was "completely crazy" that London spent roughly £12bn on energy while councils were filling landfill sites with waste that could be turned into domestic electricity with the use of the right technology.

Johnson also vowed not to replace his Toyota people carrier until he found an electric or hybrid car to replace it.

"I want to use our influence as powerfully as possible to drive forward an electrification of the motor car," he said.

"The GLA has 8,000 vehicles running around London … I want to use our bulk buying power to electrify or hybridise as much of the fleet as possible."

Johnson, who turned up by bicycle to make a speech from notes for the second of a two-day conference held in Westminster, used his address to espouse the virtues of cycling and express despair at the fact that just 1% of Londoners use two wheels to get around the capital.

This compared with 20% of people living in Copenhagen, and 30% of those in Norwich, he lamented.

Highlighting his plans for a bike hire scheme, which would see between 6,000 and 10,000 bikes available by 2010 to Londoners interested in occasional cycle use, Johnson admitted he faced the headache of dealing with 32 London boroughs who could push against his proposals.

Citing the Parisian Vélib' bike hire scheme, run by a mayor who has complete control over his city's pavements, Johnson said enviously that his own powers were limited in turns of placing cycle stations at regular intervals along London streets.

"We need to work with London boroughs, who are jealous of their parking receipts, who do not want to give valuable space up," said Johnson, adding that he was seeking to foster close collaboration with councils on all fronts.

The mayor looked floored when a member of the audience pointed out to him that he had "cut him up" on his bike by going through a red light.

Johnson seemed obviously relieved when told the incident had taken place before he was elected mayor.

"I now punctiliously obey every red light," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/25/boris-green-politics