Scituate turbine talks off to slow start

By Jessica Bartlett, Town Correspondent

December 5, 2012

Boston Globe

After more than two months of discussions, neiighbors and the owners of Scituate’s industrial wind turbine have made little progress in settling their differences.

Neighbors have been meeting with Board of Health officials since late September, rallying against the turbine after the structure allegedly started causing health problems to many nearby residents.

Although the Board of Health has formed a Steering Committee consisting of neighbors, turbine owners, and town officials, and despite meetings in October, November, and December, the turbine has kept spinning and discussions within the Steering Committee have been slow going.

“Not withstanding that two members of the Board of Health acknowledged that there is evidence to suggest there is an issue, there has been nothing [done] besides a Steering Committee commissioned,” said Tom Thompson, a spokesperson for the community group. “In the meantime, families like the McKeevers are experiencing health issues….I don’t see how anyone in the community can be pleased with that level of progress.”

The McKeever family, which lives on the Driftway, have even published YouTube videos showing the shadow flicker – a strobe-like effect caused by the blades spinning in sunlight – in their home.

Elsewhere in Scituate, residents have submitted dozens of complaints to the Board of Health, saying that the turbine is causing sleeplessness, dizziness, and headaches.

To get to the bottom of the issue, Board of Health officials plan to commission a study to look at the noise and shadow flicker effects on the neighborhood, to be paid for by the turbine owners.

The scope of that study, and the parameters of the engineering company, will be determined by the recently formed Steering Committee.

However, the Steering Committee has yet to meet, and residents remain frustrated that nothing concrete has been accomplished.

“I don’t think there has been any progress made thus far,” Thompson said.

Issues surrounding the Open Meeting Law had to first be figured out before the group could meet. Additionally scheduling issues with the Director of Health, Jennifer Sullivan, has caused some delays, Thompson said.

“As the head of the staff, she has a significant role, and it makes sense that her inability to attend these meetings or make herself available would have a negative impact on pace,” Thompson said.

Yet according to Gordon Dean, owner of the turbine, the delays in meeting are mostly the fault of the community.

"We’ve tried to be responsive," Dean said. "[At the Monday meeting], Mr. Thompson took responsibility for the fact that there hadn’t been a meeting and nothing presented at this point in time. He said it is on their shoulders. He said he would check at the end of this week how their consultant is doing. …we are waiting. We can't control it if they don’t want to sit down until they have heard from their consultant."

Furthermore, Dean said the Board of Health had been cautious up to this point, which he supported.

Despite delays, the community group hopes to meet before Christmas.

In preparation for that meeting, the community group is forming their scope of work for a potential study, a document that should be ready next week. Dean said that his side has presented possible scopes from consulting firms he had approached to get an initial cost estimate.

The Department of Environmental Protections has also provided the town with a scope of study that is currently taking place in Fairhaven.

"DEP suggested that if town is thinking of using [the study] for enforcement that the final scope should be reviewd by the DEP," Dean said.

At this point, the hope is to finalize a scope of work within the month to put a request for proposal out to bid at the start of the year.

“We would like to have a formal meeting of the Steering Committee to hopefully agree on a scope to be presented to the Board of Health,” Thompson said. “We know the [Board of Health’s] next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 7 and hopefully at that time they will agree on a scope and it will be issued to engineering firms…and we will determine t that time what the next steps are.”

Though there may soon be decisions about what a study will focus on, funding for the study has yet to be determined.

Dean agreed to fund a study looking at the noise of the turbine, but has had yet to publicly say whether Scituate Wind LLC would fund a study including shadow flicker.

Despite this hang-up, Thompson said he isn’t concerned.

“Clearly the issues in play relate to noise and shadow flicker, any engineering study commissioned by the town needs to reflect both of those nuances, or it's not an all encompassing study,” he said.

Yet Dean said a study of shadow flicker had already taken place, and it isn't clear how flicker may play a role in the latest study.

"We’ve already paid for a shadow flicker study, and we don’t understand what people are asking for," Dean said. "It’s an easy mathematical thing based on the sun and the turbine…we just don’t understand what people are suggesting we do differently, so we’re waiting to get a neighborhood proposal on flicker."

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/scituate/2012/12/scituate_turbine_talks_off_to.html

Building energy use still takes big part

By Du Juan ( chinadaily.com.cn )

Updated: 2012-12-03

The building construction sector still plays a big role in China's energy consumption mixture as the country continues to make efforts to achieve its urbanization target, said a government official on Monday.

"The energy issues are hard to solve during the country's urbanization process," said Han Aixin, deputy director-general of the buildings department for science and technology and energy saving at the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development during the 2012 China Planning Network Annual Conference.

According to figures from the ministry, at present, building energy consumption accounts for about one-third of the total social energy consumption in the country. The other two big consumers are industry and transportation.

He said the ubiquitos energy network - a network combining energy supply, information communication and electricity trading - will be the way to solve urban energy problems.

ENN Group, a private Hong Kong-listed Chinese energy company, has established an eco-community in Qingdao, Shandong province, applying the ubiquitous energy network.

"The network helps community residents adjust their energy consuming behavior to save energy day by day," said Gan Yongqing, vice-chairman of ENN. "The network can also be applied in the industrial sectors."

However, Han said more should be done to calculate experiences with the network.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/qingdao/2012-12/03/content_15980403.htm

The missing element of the Renewable Energy study

12.03.12

Tim Redmond

San Francisco Bay Guardian

Since San Francisco's Local Agency Formation Commission is meeting Dec. 7 to talk about renewable energy, I went and read the 100-page report of the Mayor's Task Force on Renewable Energy, which offers 39 different suggestions for meeting the goal of 100 renewable electricity in the city by 2020.

That's a pretty ambitious goal. The guy who set it, Gavin Newsom, loved lofty, ambitious projects, particularly when he was never going to be the one to carry them out. So too here: Newsom announced the city's goal in 2010, shortly before he left for the Lieutenant Governor's Office. Ed Le convened the task force earlier this year, and the members, most of whom have legitimate qualifications for the job, got right to work.

The most important conclusion of the report: Yes, it's financially and technologically feasible to generate all of San Francisco's electricity from reneweable sources, and we can get their in a short eight years. One key element: More distributed generation -- that is, the city needs to create financial and regulatory incentives for people to put solar panels on their roofs. In San Francisco, with sun much of the year (and small houses), a rooftop solar installation can pretty much power the average single-family home and can pick up a fair share of the load of the typical four-unit building.

But while the report gives a shout-out to CleanPowerSF, which will soon be offering 100 percent renewable energy service (for a slightly higher price), and talks about the need for the city to build its own renewable generation facilities, which have to be a part of the plan. But it has a glaring omission -- it doesn't once mention public power.

Why is that an omission? Because San Francisco is never getting to 100 percent renewables while Pacific Gas & Electric Co. still controls the grid.

Right now, with today's technology, you can't get close to 100 percent without a significant amount of distributed generation. Lots and lots of people have to generate their own power -- at which point, they no longer need PG&E (except that, by law, the grid is the default storage battery, but that's going to change soon, too). In simple terms, distributed generation puts private utilities out of business. So they won't ever go for it, and will -- quietly, behind the scenes -- so everything possible to keep if from happening.

Likewise demand management, something the Renewable Energy Task Force discusses at length. San Francisco already gets about 40 percent of its electricity from the Hetch Hethcy hydro project; If the city could reduce its energy use by 20 percent, that's 20 percent we don't have to generate. And reducing use is way cheaper than building new generation facilities.

But why would PG&E want to sell less electricity? There are all sorts of state laws mandating efficiency, but no PG&E CEO is going to make that a big push; it costs the company money. A PG&E that sells 20 percent less electricity is a smaller PG&E, with smaller staff, smaller revenue, and smaller profits. 

That's why the only way the key components of distributed generation and demand management are ever going to work is if San Francisco gets rid of PG&E and sets up a municipal system. Around the country, the munis are leading the way in renewables, because they have no stockholders to satisfy.

At least that ought to be part of the report, no?

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/12/03/missing-element-renewable-energy-study

New-energy park slated for former World Expo site

2012-11-17

English EastDay.com

A NEW-energy theme park displaying vintage cars and offering the chance to test drive electric vehicles will open next month at the former World Expo site.

The 2062 New-Energy Theme Park covers 50,000 square meters in the Pudong New Area and will open to the public on December 22, organizers said.

The park will be divided into five sections and feature solar and wind power generation technologies. There will also be biodiesel technologies on display along with exhibits contributed by leading domestic companies in the new energy field.

Admission will be free until the trial opening period ends on December 31.

Beginning on January 1, admission will be 30 yuan (US$4.81), said Gu Yue, a senior organizer of the park.

"Vintage cars consume a lot of energy. We hope to present the evolution of energy development with the display of vintage cars and we expect this to be a highlight of the exhibition," Gu said.

The name of the park, 2062, has a special meaning, organizers said.

"The Mayan Prophecy predicted the end of Earth in 2012, which is not possible. But will human beings change their lifestyles, explore new energies and find better modes of transportation 50 years after the 'doomsday?'" said Zhang Huchao, market manager of Shanghai Foremost Multimedia Co Ltd, which is in charge of the exhibition.

The park's opening is part of a post-Expo development blueprint, which aims to turn the site into a landmark area that incorporates business, exhibition and leisure functions, authorities said yesterday at the China International Travel Mart.

http://english.eastday.com/e/121117/u1a7000862.html

Sewage for heat, trend within a trend

October 4, 2012

Column | Korky Koroluk

Daily Commercial News

We’re hearing more and more about mining sewage systems to recover heat. They’re far from common so far, but they are cropping up here and there around the world.

There’s one in a condominium building in Vancouver, several in China, a few in Paris, one in Philadelphia —the list goes on.

It’s clearly a trend, but it’s a trend within a trend.

Tapping sewers to obtain heat is just like geothermal energy, but instead of using the ground or a lake as a source, you use the sewers, which is why it’s become known simply as sewage geothermal.

Most of us never think about the sewage being carried in pipes right beneath our feet. It’s usually pretty warm, and we can capture that heat through heat exchangers, just as ground-source geothermal system uses exchangers to bring heat into our homes.

In Philadelphia, a firm called NovaThermal Energy LLC is doing something similar. It has built a plant at a sewage treatment plant for easy access to wastewater. The company also plans to market a Chinese system that’s somewhat like the one in Vancouver. They plan to sell it to any large buildings located near a major trunk sewer that carries a steady flow of wastewater still warm from its previous uses.A Vancouver firm, International Wastewater Heat Exchange Systems Inc., has a system that filters suspended solids, and then sends the filtered wastewater to a heat exchanger. There, heat is either extracted from the wastewater (for heating) or transferred to the wastewater (for cooling). Then the wastewater is discharged back to the sewage main pipe.

Many industrial processes use hot water, which is one reason wastewater is usually pretty warm. International Wastewater says it can reach an average temperature of just over 25°C where it leaves buildings. In septic drains, the average is about 15°C.

What we’re seeing is part of a larger trend: district heating and cooling. And we’re going to see more and more of it as construction costs climb, as energy costs soar, and more ways are sought to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

District heating and cooling is hardly new. In Northern European countries district energy systems are an important part of heat production. Well over half of Denmark’s buildings are on district energy systems. In its capital, Copenhagen, 98 per cent of buildings are supplied by district energy. Even in North America, it’s not uncommon to see entire industrial or academic campuses heated from a central plant. In Ottawa, a central plant heats the government buildings on and around Parliament Hill.

At one time it could be even be found in small towns.

Growing up in small-town Alberta, I was familiar with the gas-powered steam plant that provided heat to the small central business district. But it was shut down in the name of progress, and individual buildings had to install their own small gas boilers.

In recent years, we’ve seen the growth of Enwave Energy Corp., which now provides district heating and cooling to something like 140 buildings in Toronto’s downtown core. And just north of Toronto, Markham District Energy now has three combined heat and power plants in service, with a fourth under construction.

District energy is growing, so it makes sense for the systems to tap in to any energy source that’s handy, and that often means a sewage plant or a large sewer main.

All this will mean that an increasing share of our heating and cooling needs will met by small facilities serving a relatively small area—a subdivision, an industrial park, a neighbourhood, a town.

It will mean more work for electrical and mechanical engineers and contractors as a changing climate forces us to seek out new ideas to replace those that have become too shop-worn to keep.

http://dcnonl.com/article/id52194/--sewage-for-heat-trend-within-a-trend

Sustainable Urban Energy for Dhaka City

by Md. Zahidur Rahman and Saeed Ahmed Siddiquee
October 5, 2012

Blitz

Our entire way of life and all of our economic projections relies on more energy. Howbeit, the world is now facing most serious challenge in energy supply which could be a more devastating crisis than world wars. Global energy depletion has already begun, although few countries have realized it. The peak energy affects the future of the entire global economy. Presently the energy producing resources like fossil fuel, gas, coal, and uranium has placed in peak position. It is predicted that those non-renewable energy is going to be declined position in every place of the earth.

Dominant consumption of non-renewable energy for electricity is leading to Green House Gasses (GHG) emission into the atmosphere. According to the International Energy Agency (2011), approximately 901 grammes of CO2 or equivalent are released per kilowatt hour of electricity that generated from coal. Presumably, global urban populations are principle responsible for GHG emissions due to the consumption of bulk amount of energy for the aristocratic lifestyle. While on the contrary, Renewable World stated that still 1.3 billion people in the world still live without access to electricity and 2.7 billion people have no access to clean cooking facilities. Admittedly, energy crisis will happen in future and then urban inhabitants will be more sufferer compare to rural people. In this situation, global economic wheel may be plummeted and thus leading to global inevitable poverty. Indeed, a concerning era has already arise in front of the global leaders to make them busy thinking alternatively about how to overcome this energy crisis?

At present, what is the overview of Bangladesh's energy situation? Currently, around 43% population belongs to electricity facilities with per capita consumption of 140 kilowatt hour. The electricity consumption rate has increased gradually due to the demand of overwhelmed growing population. Reported by the country power system Master Plan 2010, the forecasted demand would be 19,000 megawatt by the year 2021 and 34,000 megawatt by 2030. Till now majority of our energy come from non-renewable sources which are facing challenges in order to growing energy demand for mostly electricity generation. Presently, Bangladesh has 20.5 TFC recoverable natural gas reserve and 420 million tones of coal reserve. Noticeable gas fields are already facing multifaceted crisis for gas supply for electricity generation. For example, Sangu gas field has reduced the supply of gas from a well. In addition, day by day oil prices have increased in the global market schemes which lead to raise prices per unit cost of electricity.

Surprisingly, the capital city of Dhaka itself consumes almost 41.22% of the total generated electricity while the demand of electricity is approximately 12000 megawatt and only 5493 megawatt is on pipeline. Stated by DESA, the demand for power in Dhaka city has increased by around 10% a year. As the supply is not adequate to meet the demand in the city, so either we have to adopt it or think alternative path way to solve the power crisis. If we consider Thailand, we can see that almost 28% electricity comes from the renewable sources. Bangladesh also has plenty of renewable energy sources to innovate and mainstreaming it to the main grid.

In Dhaka city we have not enough wind speed for windmill, neither enough River current for hydroelectric power plant nor even any suitable peri-urban places for nuclear power station installation. Nuclear power plant might be a suitable option for bulk amount of power generation and also it has no carbon emission but it is supposed to be risky in terms of earthquake frequency. Surprisingly, Dhaka is situated in the solar radiation receiving zone on the earth with almost 335 sunny days a year. Hence, solar photovoltaic energy generation is the best option for Dhaka city to face the present energy crisis.

According to CDMP's Urban Risk Reduction Specialists, there are 3,26,000 (appx.) buildings in Dhaka City. If we consider introducing a 5m² solar panel for each building, it might produce about 222 megawatt (5*136W*326000) electricity. Another expert from the same domain said that, we have almost 20000 shopping malls in Dhaka city and where we could introduce renewable energy for electricity generation. Furthermore, the growing real estate companies could also use environment favorable architectural design like Council Building-2 (Solar energy capturing building) in Melbourne where produce a substantial amount of electricity locally for every building. Apart from this, solar technology also reduce GHG emission rate by absorbing around 20% solar radiations that might balance the inner city heat. Cutting down of existing load shading, long term health and financial benefits are also might be ensured and even people could get installation cost back within three years.

From renewable energy sources, Bangladesh government has set a target to meet 5% by the year 2015 and 10% by 2020 of total power demand (RENDEV). However, our government has already been taken some effective initiative for enhancing efficiency of electricity through energy saving distribution within urban communities. Bangladesh has an extensive renewable energy policy. Few governmental offices, institutions and common places are now being implemented solar power installation for the purpose of alternative power generation.

Energy is one o f the most important ingredients required to alleviate poverty, realize socio-economic and human development. Energy returned on energy invested, banning of profligate users, increase people awareness, policy implementation, generation of individual or household level options, community or private sector initiative along with investment, zero interest bank loans for renewable energy and enforcement of law and order situation are required to overcome the present condition. Furthermore, we need feasibility study of those technologies aiming to adopt suitable technology for electricity production from renewable resources. For an instance close your eyes and think, what will be the situation without or insufficient electricity supply of Dhaka? Completely become dead city!

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/2626/sustainable-urban-energy-for-dhaka-city

Mayor warns solar tariffs 'may hurt' American jobs

US tariffs on imports of Chinese-made solar cells for electricity could put American jobs at risk and discourage investment by China, the mayor of a small Arizona city told federal regulators on Wednesday in support of a Phoenix business group's complaint.

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council, or GPEC, which represents about 160 companies, filed a letter of protest with the US Commerce Department and the US International Trade Commission in July over the duties on Chinese-made photovoltaic cells and modules.

More than 9,000 jobs in Arizona are related to renewable-energy companies and utility-scale power projects.

The state was ranked third in the US for installed solar capacity by the Department of Energy.

On Wednesday, Mayor Georgia Lord of Goodyear, Arizona, who is a member of the GPEC board, was the elected public office-holder at the hearing.

"Many of Goodyear's economic development efforts center on solar or foreign direct investment," she testified. "As a small city located in a foreign-trade zone, we want more Suntechs — not less."

China-based Suntech Power Holdings Co, the world's biggest maker of solar panels by output, has a manufacturing plant in Goodyear, a city of fewer than 70,000 people. The plant employs more than 100 engineers and technicians.

According to GPEC, Suntech each month produces 15,000 solar panels, which are used in providing electricity to about 10,000 American homes per year.

The ITC has been investigating whether the US solar-cell industry has been harmed by alleged dumping and unfair subsidies of Chinese-made panels.

The commission has said it will announce it's final decision in November.

In May, the Commerce Department announced preliminary tariffs of up to 250 percent on imports of Chinese solar cells.

The US government also slapped subsidy-fighting duties on Chinese solar producers in March, following allegations from SolarWorld AG of Germany that Chinese producers were able to sell their goods cheaply because of government subsidies.

A study by consulting firm the Brattle Group found that the duties will affect US demand for solar energy, resulting in substantial job losses. The report estimates that a 100 percent tariff would result in nearly 50,000 job losses in the US by 2014.

The GPEC fears that the tariffs could create the perception in China that the US doesn't welcome its investment. According to the group, about 12 Chinese companies have identified the Phoenix area as a possible location for their solar projects with an investment of $400 million.

Tom Gutierrez, CEO of GT Advanced Technologies Inc, a New Hampshire-based company that supplies China with equipment used in manufacturing solar panels and their polysilicon components, said the tariffs artificially raise prices and do not help the long-term goal of reducing costs."

It damages the long-term future of the solar industry," said Gutierrez.

About 90 percent of GT's business is in Asia, mostly China. Its customers include leading Chinese solar companies such as Yingli Green Energy Holding Co and LDK Solar Co.

In late 2011, a group of US companies formed the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy, or CASE, to oppose the tariffs. CASE mainly consists of companies that install Chinese-made solar panels.

http://www.china.org.cn/business/2012-10/05/content_26706262.htm

Will crowdfunding solar projects work?

Sylvie Barak

10/3/2012 6:41 PM EDT

It’s an Indian summer here in San Francisco, so what better time for some good news about solar energy?

Mosaic, an online marketplace connecting investors to solar projects, announced it has come up with funding for its 6th large solar project in rather unusual fashion… by crowdsourcing it, Kickstarter style.

Mosaic’s latest project, a 47 kW solar installation on the roof of the Youth Employment Partnership (YEP) in Oakland was funded in less than a week by members of the general public donating micro amounts through the click of a mouse button.

The concept may sound novel, but it is not new.

Crowdfunding site Kickstarter launched in April, 2009,  revolutionizing investment, turning the internet into an online hub for raising money in small increments from the general public in support of a cause, product or project. Suddenly, backing startups wasn’t just for VCs, it was for everyman (and woman).

Kickstarter’s business grew rapidly from inception. In 2010 the website had 3,910 successful projects, $27,638,318 pledged, and a project success rate of 43 percent. In 2011, the corresponding figures were 11,836, $99,344,381 and 46 percent. The success spawned a string of copycats, the latest of which is Mosaic with its mass funded solar projects.

The success of opening the investment up to the online masses surprised even Mosaic itself.

“The speed at which we were able raise the $40k to fully fund the YEP project gives us hope that our new model will grow into a significant source of solar financing while offering great returns for investors,” said Mosaic’s President Billy Parish.

During Mosaic's first phase, hundreds of people invested more than $350,000 at zero-interest to finance five rooftop solar power plants in California and Arizona.

All of the first five projects went online and Mosaic said some investors had already received back the full amount they put in.



The beneficiaries of these early projects included People’s Grocery, a food justice organization in Oakland, CA and 18,000 homes without electricity on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona.

The solar installations are predicted to save community organizations over $600,000 on utility bills, which is nothing to sniff at.



To make its effort more long term, Mosaic has also submitted an application to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to offer Solar Power Notes to the public, with those proceeds going to fund other solar projects.

The firm said thousands of people have signed up to be notified when that initiative launches.

Currently, around 25 percent of the price of solar installations comes down to financing and customer acquisition costs, or soft costs. By crowdfunding a project, Mosaic says it can reduce these soft costs while enabling millions of Americans to own a piece of the clean energy economy.

“Our mission is to create shared prosperity through clean energy” said Mosaic’s CEO Dan Rosen. “We see a huge opportunity in transitioning our world to clean energy, and we want to make it possible for people and communities to prosper and be a part of this massive transformation.”

Combined, Mosaic’s first five projects are said to have created 73kW of solar energy and produced over 2,700 job hours for local laborers.

The firm was also recently awarded $2M from the U.S. Department of Energy and raised another $3.4M from venture capitalists to bring its clean energy marketplace to scale.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/other/4397804/Will-crowdfunding-solar-projects-work--

California Launches Biggest Commercial Clean Energy Financing Effort in US

SustainableBusiness.com

The long-term fate of residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs is still uncertain, but commercial programs are still emerging and California leads the way.

In late September, a group of 14 counties and 126 cities announced the nation's largest initiative to leverage the financing model for commercial properties.

This is the first multi-jurisdictional initiative of its kind.

Participating counties under the CaliforniaFIRST include Sacramento, Yola, Solano, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, Fresno, San Luis Obispo, Kern, Ventura and San Diego.

The CaliforniaFIRST program being run by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) lets commercial property owners use municipal bonds to pay for energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy upgrades – which the owners repay over time through a special assessment on their annual property tax bill.

The PACE structure, authorized in 27 states, allows the high initial cost of investments to be spread out to match the payback period, so the annual cost savings exceed the tax assessments that come with property improvements like these. California's new CaliforniaFIRST program will look to private investment for the upfront funding, so as not to burden local budgets, says CSCDA.

If all US businesses conducted the sorts of upgrades made possible through PACE, it would reduce their collective energy usage by 25% - saving $100 billion, says CSCDA.

"Commercial PACE gives businesses a great option for pursuing energy efficiency projects that may have previously been out of reach," says San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob.  "The County's partnership with CaliforniaFIRST provides a mechanism for participants to start spending less money on energy bills and more back into the business."

The PACE financing model was pioneered in Berkeley, California, for residential properties. But it ran into headwinds in July 2010, when the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a statement calling the loans risky and inadvisable.

The issue for the federal government was that PACE loans might be paid back before banks or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac if a property went into foreclosure.

While residential programs have languished, commercial PACE programs exist in San Francisco and Los Angeles – as well as in the Washington DC.

"CaliforniaFIRST's approach has potential to promote energy efficiency retrofits of commercial properties and maintain lien security for mortgage lenders," says Wayne Seaton, managing director Wells Fargo's Sustainable Public Infrastructure group.

Besides receiving support from traditional banks like Wells Fargo, other financial institutions behind the program include Clean Fund, which has financed PACE retrofits in California and Minnesota.

"PACE financing has the potential not only to save energy and money, but to create nearly 25,000 jobs in California," says Clean Fund CEO John Kinney. 

The CaliforniaFIRST program is administered by Renewable Funding in Oakland, which was behind the first PACE program in Berkeley in 2008. The company is an advisor to the US Department of Energy on commercial PACE financing and it runs programs both in the US and in countries including Australia.

CSCDA was created in 1988 to provide California's local governments with a way of funding community-based public benefit projects.

The fate of the PACE program for residential properties remains uncertain, although in August, a federal district court judge in California ruled the FHFA violated federal law when it abruptly decided not to underwrite mortgages on homes that used PACE loans. That's because the FHFA did so without allowing any sort of public comment period.

A 2011 survey showed strong interest in residential PACE programs, so future rulings on the matter will be scrutinized closely.

For more about CaliforniaFIRST:

Website: https://californiafirst.org/overview

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24131

How Real Estate Financing Models Can Boost Solar

By Andrew Burger | October 2nd, 2012 

Triple Pundit

Financial innovation—particularly at the retail level—is critical to fostering ongoing growth and development of solar and renewable energy projects. To see the triple bottom line potential to be realized, one need only look at the popularity and rapid growth of residential and community solar energy providers using third-party ownership business models by making home solar photovoltaic (PV) energy systems affordable for a much wider range of Americans.

Adapting a well-known and tremendously successful investment vehicle—the Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)—to finance solar power projects, San Francisco’s Renewable Energy Trust (RET) sees an opportunity to significantly broaden solar energy investment opportunities for individual, as well as professional, investors while at the same time substantially reducing the cost of capital for project developers.

Significantly for solar power project developers, San Francisco-based RET says applying the REIT structure to the solar power industry can lower the cost of capital for solar power development by as much as 20 percent.

Democratizing solar PV project investment

A similar tax-advantaged renewable energy investment vehicle initiative is under way in Washington, D.C. Senators Christopher Coons (D-Delaware) and Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) on June 7 introduced legislation that would extend master limited partnerships (MLPs)—special purpose investment vehicles that oil and gas companies have used to great effect—to renewable energy projects.

Applying the REIT structure to finance solar power projects, “would be the ultimate democratization of funding and support for the solar industry,” stated RET president, Karen Morgan, in a press release. “Individuals can actively invest, knowing their dollars will put up more panels—while buying them a piece of the action in the fast expanding clean energy sector.”

Asset financing for U.S. PV projects—has grown explosively, by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 58 percent since 2004, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which projects that some $6.9 billion in additional capital per year will be invested in developing solar PV projects through 2020. McKinsey & Co. forecasts that another 80-gigawatts (GW) to 130-GW of new solar PV generating capacity will be commissioned in North America by 2020, RET noted.

Opening up tax-advantaged solar projects to individual investors

Required to distribute 90 percent or more of their taxable income, REITs offer investors substantial tax advantages as well as relatively high yields and steday income streams. As they can be listed and traded on the major stock exchanges, they are also liquid.

“RET is extending a mature and fully-developed financing mechanism to a new asset class, in the same way REITs have done over and over. Innovation is a normal part of the REIT industry,” RET’s chief financial officer (CFO) Christian Fong elaborated.

“REITs became the dominant investment vehicle for commercial real estate, and then evolved to include real estate-dependent sectors from cell phone towers to data centers to energy transmission. And through RET, we believe they can soon be a key investment vehicle for accelerating the growth of solar power.”

Supporting RET’s initiative is California Clean Energy Fund (CalCEF), “an independent, non-profit corporation working to advance clean energy using tools from finance, public policy and technological innovation.” CalCEF itself employs an innovative “evergreen” fund-of-funds investment strategy in which profits are reinvested to further realize its objectives, working with partners at the local, state, national and international levels.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/10/sf-looks-solar-reits-boost-pv-project-investment-lower-cost-capital/

Board to decide fate of city’s long-debated clean-energy program

Joshua Sabatini | 09/12/12 
SF Examiner 

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/09/board-decide-fate-city-s-long-debated-clean-energy-program#ixzz26M6BMn7B

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday is expected to decide the fate of San Francisco’s long-debated public-power program, but whether the program can overcome the mayor’s concerns and PG&E’s opposition is far from clear.

For the past eight years, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has worked on a program to compete with PG&E by offering customers 100 percent renewable energy for an extra fee.

Under a 2002 state law, municipalities can form such programs to purchase electricity. Only Marin County has done so, and now San Francisco wants to follow suit. So supervisors are set to vote on the $19.5 million CleanPowerSF program, which includes $13 million that would be placed in reserve.

It is the latest political battle at City Hall in which progressives are backing a program opposed or questioned by moderates. It would take six votes to approve and eight votes to override a veto from Mayor Ed Lee.

 “The mayor continues to have concerns about the risks, costs and benefits of entering into a contract with Shell, and he hopes the discussions at the board address his concerns,” Lee spokeswoman Christine Falvey said Wednesday.

But SFPUC head Ed Harrington, who has postponed his retirement to see the vote through the board, framed the proposal in a positive light during Wednesday’s meeting of the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee.

“This is the single biggest program that is even on the horizon within the city and county of San Francisco to make any difference toward any of the goals that you have set as board members in terms of having a change in greenhouse gas emissions and climate change,” Harrington said. “This program can make a dramatic change.”

The committee voted 2-1 to send the proposal to the full board with a recommendation for its approval.

Supervisors John Avalos and Jane Kim backed it, while Supervisor Carmen Chu opposed it.  Chu said she opposed it because it automatically enrolls city residents as participants unless they opt out and because it does not put the onus on ratepayers to pay back the program’s reserve funds.

Under state law, such programs automatically sign up customers who then must opt out to stay with their current utility provider.

The City would enter into a five-year contract with Shell Energy, which would provide the program’s
energy. The hope is to use the program’s revenue stream to ultimately fund the construction of renewable energy projects such as wind or solar.

The initial phase is expected to roll out to 90,000 customers. For the average energy user expected to remain with the program, their bills are expected to increase by about $9 a month.

 http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/09/board-decide-fate-city-s-long-debated-clean-energy-program#ixzz26M60lSh2

SF clean-energy program may profit Shell

Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross

San Francisco Chronicle 

September 11, 2012

In an ironic twist, San Francisco's effort to go green with its own clean-energy program could wind up adding tens of millions of dollars to the coffers of one of the biggest oil companies in the world - Shell.

Under the terms of the CleanPowerSF program now before the Board of Supervisors, the city would contract with Shell Energy North America - a subsidiary of Shell Oil - to provide households and businesses with 100 percent renewable electricity.

The original idea was simple enough: Buy five years of clean energy on the open market and resell it to locals who want to go green.

The politics were equally attractive: Break the stranglehold that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has long had on consumers, while encouraging the growth of local green alternatives like wind and solar power.

But the final product isn't what everyone expected.

For starters, Shell Energy - whose parent company just started drilling for Arctic oil off the coast of Alaska - wound up winning the contract.

"Unfortunately, as much as we've tried, Shell was the only company that was responsive to the city's bid process," said Supervisor David Campos, who has taken up the green energy cause at the board.

Having Shell as the city's green alternative is just one of the potential troubles the five-year, $19.5 million deal is encountering.

The initial sales pitch also included the idea that the program could beat PG&E prices. Instead, both the city controller and budget analyst have concluded that it could actually cost the average household nearly 23 percent extra.

What's more, PG&E has just filed papers with the state Public Utilities Commission announcing its intention to start offering its own 100 percent green energy program in competition with Shell, and probably at a cheaper rate.

If San Francisco's program can't compete or goes sideways, the city would be on the hook for Shell's losses, which could total $15 million or more, says the budget analyst.

According to city fiscal experts, about 90,000 ratepayers - or about a quarter of the city's residential customers - will need to sign up for the green program to break even.

Mayor Ed Lee has begun to express concerns over the risks and costs, including a provision that would automatically enroll San Francisco ratepayers - meaning that anyone who didn't want to participate would have to request to opt out within 60 days.

"He looks forward to a robust discussion at the board on this," said Christine Falvey, the mayor's press secretary.

Proponents counter that it is worth the gamble. They say going green may not be easy out of the gate, but that in the long run it will pay off.

"The hope is once we bring in enough revenue through the program, we can build it out to generate our own wind and solar energy and we don't have to do business" with companies such as Shell, Campos said.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/SF-clean-energy-program-may-profit-Shell-3857981.php#ixzz26GRqkBpc

PG&E union mounts attack on Clean Power SF

09.11.12 - 9:25 pm | Tim Redmond

San Francisco Bay Guardian

The union that represents PG&E workers -- and has opposed every single public-power initiative in modern San Francisco history -- just launched an attack on Clean Power SF. And the union's business representative is having a hard time explaining exactly why he's working with PG&E to try to undermine this modest step toward public power.

Hunter Stern, with IBEW Local 1245, sent a press release out Sept. 11 announcing the start of a campaign to convince the supervisors not to approve the Clean Power SF plan. The line of attack: Shell Energy, which got the contract to supply sustainable energy to customers in the city, in competition with PG&E. The pitch:

San Francisco city government is considering a proposal to partner with Shell Energy of North America to inaugurate SF’s so-called “clean power” program. If the Board of Supervisors approves the proposal, San Francisco would pay millions to Shell, one of the most notorious environmental violators in businesstoday.

Shell's a pretty bad company. So is PG&E. So is just about everyone in the energy business. Not justifying Shell's behavior, just noting: If you want a contractor to deliver electricty to San Francisco, you aren't going to get a cool independent small business. You aren't even going to get Google. These folks are evil, all of them.

Oh, and by the way: Shell Energy also sells power to PG&E (pdf). Stern's boss has a contract similar to what the city is going to get. So the PG&E power we all pay for today is in part Shell power. And as Sup. David Campos points out, it wasn't as if the city chose Shell over some better competitors: There was no other company out there anywhere in the world that responded to the city's bid process and offered to work with Clean Power SF.

The key point here is that Clean Power SF is going to use Shell as a bridge -- the private outfit will deliver power generated at renewable facililities to the city's power operation, which will resell it to customers ... for a while. The goal is to use the revenue stream from the sales of power to back bonds that will allow the city to build its own renewable energy system. Five, maybe ten years down the road, San Francisco will have solar generators on city property (including large swaths of Public Utilities Commission property in the East Bay), wind generators, maybe at some point tidal generators, and will be able to sell cheap, clean, local power to customers. Shell will be gone.

Let's face it: this is a step on the path to creating a city-owned and city-run power system -- that is, a step to eliminating PG&E as a player in San Francisco's energy future. Public power will be cheaper and cleaner -- and it's going to take a while to get there. Which is why we need to start now.

PG&E knows this, too, and is fighting to block Clean Power SF, which comes before the board's Budget and Finance Committee Sept. 12. Now IBEW is allied, as usual, with the giant company.

The Stern press release talks about how Clean Power SF will be expensive:

The average home can expect to see a rate increase of 77% over their current PG&E electricity generation rates. That comes out to an increase of over $200 per year.  The higher cost of power would eat up more and more of the City budget, forcing service reductions and costing San Francisco vitally needed jobs. Our local economy would take a multi-million dollar hit.

Actually, not true: The only people who will pay for Clean Power SF are the ones who want it. The idea is that a significant number of San Franciscans will be willing to pay a little more -- maybe $10 a month -- to help save the planet. The ones who want to stick with PG&E wil have every opportunity to do so. The city budget isn't taking a hit -- municipal services already use the city's Hetch Hetchy hydropower. This doesn't cost the city money or jobs.

It will, of course, hurt PG&E.

I called Hunter Stern to talk about all of this, and we had a long conversation. He was polite and answered all of my questions. Sort of.

He insisted that IBEW isn't against community choice aggregation, that he's only worried about the city budget and the impacts on ratepayers. And Shell. So we started going around in circles, like this:

Me: So you don't oppose Clean Power SF?

Stern: We are not opposed to community choice aggregation. Just to this contract with Shell.

Me: I'm told Shell is the only contractor willing to fulfill this role.

Stern: That's what I'm told, too.

Me: So if you support CCA, what should the city do?

Stern: Find somebody else.

Me: The city has made it clear there IS nobody else.

Stern: We should put this on hold and wait around until there is.

Me: Why is IBEW unhappy with Shell?

Stern: This is contracting out.

Me: Is Shell Energy a nonunion company?

Stern: They don't generate power, they just buy and sell, so they don't really have any employees who could be in IBEW.

Me: So what if they city can use this revenue to build its own renewables, with union labor?

Stern: We aren't opposed to the city building its own renewables.

Me: But the idea here is to use the revenue stream from Clean Power SF to raise money for local renewables.

Stern: You don't need revenue to build local renewables. Just creativity.

Me: But the city has a huge budget problem now. There's no money to build local generation unless you have a revenue stream to bond against.

Stern: There are creative ways to do it.

Me: So you support CCA. You support building local renewables.Clean Power SF is a CCA program to build local renewables. Shell is the only company that answered the city's call for bids for this project. You don't have any labor issues with Shell. I don't understand where you're coming from.

Stern: I don't disagree with your checklist.

Me: So why are you against this project?

Stern: We don't think this is good for the city or for the ratepayers.

Me: But the ratepayers don't have to be a part of it if they don't want to.

Stern: I think the way the city is approaching that is a good strategy.

Round and round and round. It was making my head hurt. I wish I'd put it on tape so you could all listen.

I passed the press release along to Tyrone Jue at the SFPUC. He had a pretty clear response:

This attack is not surprising. IBEW is one of the largest unions at PG&E. They historically side with PG&E on all their issues. The fact is CleanPowerSF will not cost IBEW workers jobs. Ironically, the local renewable build out phase will be creating even more green union jobs. This happens while we weaning ourselves off dirty fossil fuel sources.San Franciscans want the choice to embrace a clean energy future. While PG&E shareholders stand to lose with CleanPowerSF, the consumer and environment stand to win.

He added:

Our ‘little creativity’ involves reinvesting revenue into aggressive energy efficiency and local renewable generation projects.  We’re simply not motivated to maximize profit at the expense of our customers or the environment.   Our common sense goal is to reinvest revenue into real projects that will reduce San Francisco’s carbon footprint, create local jobs, and build a sustainable energy future that is better for the environment and our customers.

Ugh. This is going to be a battle royal. I hope there are six votes on the board for Clean Power SF, which is imperfect but important. And then Mayor Lee will have to decide whether to side with his highly respected SFPUC general manager, Ed Harrington, who wants to make this happen, and PG&E, which doesn't.

Oh, by the way: PG&E pays Willie Brown about $250,000 a year as a "legal retainer." And I hear the mayor takes his phone calls.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/09/11/pge-union-mounts-attack-clean-power-sf