from USA Today, June 8, 2014

The $100 billion solar power industry is gaining a lot of attention both globally and domestically, attracting high-profile investment from Wall Street giants such as Apple, Google and Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.

The United States is the world’s third-largest solar market, right behind China and Japan, and it’s growing rapidly not just because of private investment, but also because of the Obama Administration’s efforts to make progress against global climate change.

One of the most desirable locations for building domestic solar facilities is in the Mojave Desert—25,000 square miles of sun-baked terrain spanning southeastern California, plus portions of Nevada, Arizona and Utah. It’s no surprise that some of the world’s most sophisticated solar plants are popping up there, showcasing the latest developments in the industry.

One notable, completed project is called Ivanpah, a partnership between NRG and BrightSource, which broke ground about three years ago. The $2.2 billion project was able to get up and running thanks in part to $1.6 billion in government loans, plus Google’s 20% investment.

Ivanpah showcases what the industry calls “solar thermal” technology. Simply put, it uses mirrors to heat water and create power through three towers, each 450 feet tall, or about 150 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty. The plant sits on 3,600 acres—roughly four times the size of New York’s Central Park — and it uses 347,000 mirrors to generate enough power to operate about 140,000 homes. By itself, it currently generates a little less than 30% of California’s commercial solar energy.

While Ivanpah is renowned for power generation, it also is touted for its environmental accomplishments.

“From an environmental perspective, this is just a really great story,” said Tom Doyle, president of NRG Renewables. “We’re taking 400,000 tons of carbon out of the atmosphere by using this solar thermal technology in lieu of a conventional fossil fuel technology. So to put that in perspective, that’s like taking 72,000 cars off the road.”

Ivanpah and solar facilities like it also create a significant number of jobs.

“During construction, we had over 2,600 employees here…going forward we’re going to have 65 people in management and operations,” Doyle said. “Over the life of the project, we’re going to generate almost $650 million in salary and wages.”

But how long will it take before projects such as Ivanpah are generating power on a mass scale?

“I think for projects utilizing this technology to really hit the market in a large way, it will take a couple of years. Ivanpah just started commercial operation…but there are a lot of really interesting markets that are opening up in Saudi Arabia, India and Africa where this type of concentrated solar thermal is going to make a lot of sense,” Doyle said.

Companies like NRG that are focusing on solar are not putting their eggs in one basket, he said. Diversification is key.

“NRG is the largest solar company in the U.S., but we don’t just focus on one technology. We also have the two largest photovoltaic projects in the state of California, and we’re really starting to get into a high-growth distributed solar market,” Doyle said. “We’re currently building eight projects for the NFL — you see some really interesting customers when you get into that distributed solar space.”

Another set of photovoltaic facilities making headlines are the Solar Star Projects developed by SunPower and acquired by MidAmerican Solar for roughly $2 billion. Berkshire Hathaway’s energy unit owns MidAmerican Solar’s parent, MidAmerican Renewables, which is working on a basket of different solar projects.

Photovoltaic technology has become more popular recently as the cost of solar panels has decreased; total industry costs have declined 50% in the last five years. PV technology is very simple.

“We have solar cells that automatically convert sunlight directly into electricity… that electricity is then taken over to distribution lines, then is pumped into a substation onto high voltage transmission and then used in the broader community,” said Howard Wenger, president of Regions for SunPower.

The Solar Star projects are similar in size to Ivanpah — 3,200 acres — but they are a work in progress, to be completed toward the latter end of 2015. Last week, Solar Star installed its one millionth panel. The EPA recently estimated that Solar Star could reduce carbon emissions to the equivalent of taking 2 million cars off the roads over 20 years.

“Solar Star is the world’s largest solar photovoltaic power plant being constructed. We’ve installed about 170 megawatts of a total 579 megawatts and that’s enough to power a city the size of El Paso or Rochester, NY,” Wenger said.

Although Solar Star is a privately funded project, Wenger says the EPA’s release of draft rules to cut carbon emissions in the U.S. by 30% by 2030 increases the relevance of renewable energy sources like solar technology.

Challenges ahead

However, there are some challenges within the industry, infrastructure is one. “The great concern is that the generation that is being built can’t get to the markets where it is needed or demanded by the renewable portfolio standards, so there is a problem getting the transmission built associated with solar to get it to those marketplaces,” said Jason Hutt, Partner at Bracewell Giuliani.

Hutt also points out that it will take a significant amount of time before the use of solar power is common enough to make a pervasive impact.

“I’m not aware of an estimate of when solar takes over as an industry, but I think it’s fair to say we’re a long way away,” Hutt said. “If Congress and the Administration want to see the type of build they’ve seen in solar so far, they’re going to have to continue to subsidize that because the technology just isn’t yet in a place where it can compete without it.”

 

from http://afarmerinohio.blogspot.com

Deregulated electricity generators make most of their profits on hot summer afternoons, when air conditioners and offices force grid operators to call up their most expensive electricity: natural gas “peaker” plants. Cheap to build but expensive to operate, these plants are essentially jet engines, producing power on demand for a few hours at a time. However, the entire industry benefits when peaker plants kick in, because every other generator, including the cheapest hydropower operator, receives the same top dollar during those peak hours.

Solar panels — whether utility scale or residential rooftop — generate maximum power on exactly those hot afternoons when demand peaks. What’s more, they do so at no marginal cost; the sun is free. This reduces reliance on peakers, causing prices to fall across the board, including for customers without solar power.

This is what terrifies power companies. In California, the afternoon peak has effectively collapsed. CAISO, the state’s grid manager, projects that the peak will become an afternoon chasm, so low that even power plants designed to operate 24 hours a day as “baseload power” (nuclear energy is a good example) may face difficult decisions about when to operate.

The first victims among utilities will be generators that sell electricity from peakers and other plants in the open market. Soon, their plants will be needed only for the few hours around dusk when the sun is weak but demand is still relatively high.

The monopoly utilities will be hit next. Edison Electric Institute warns of “irreparable damages to revenues and growth prospects” due to the spread of distributed power generation from renewable energy sources.

Why is solar growing so fast? Because in the past three years, the cost of panels has been halved.

The move from a highly controlled and generally predictable grid to a more decentralized and less predictable system will be a huge challenge, but a challenge worth dealing with.

5/28/2014 by Jeff McMahon

American Electric Power Company was the largest emitter of carbon pollution from power plants in the U.S. in 2012, according to a report released this morning by Ceres, Bank of America, several utilities and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

AEPs fleet of coal, natural gas, and oil-fired power plants emitted 141,226,882 tons of carbon in 2012, according to the Benchmarking Air Emissions report. The next runner up, Duke Energy, emitted 134,277,330 tons.

AEP is the fifth largest producer of electricity, while Duke is the largest.

AEP spokesperson Tammy Ridout noted, “The important point in this report is the reduction in emissions, including CO2, from our plants.” She went on to say, “AEP’s CO2 emissions have been cut 21 percent since 2005, and they will continue to go down as we retire another 6,600 megawatts of coal-fueled generation in the next few years. AEP is one of the largest generators of electricity in the United States, and about 60 percent of our generating capacity uses coal, so it is not surprising that we produce the highest CO2 emissions by volume. But, the CO2 emissions rate from our coal plants is ranked much lower in the report – at No. 61 on the list – which means we produce the power we make very efficiently.”

In the report, larger carbon emissions generally correlate to use of coal.

AEP relied on coal to produce 73 percent of the electricity it generated in 2012, according to the report, delivering electricity in Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

The Benchmarking Air Emissions report analyzes NOx (Nitric Oxide), SO2 (sulfur dioxide), CO2 (carbon dioxide) and mercury emissions of the nation’s 100 largest electric power producers, which collectively operate 2,700 power plants and generate 86 percent of the country’s electricity. It comes about a week before the EPA is expected to release new rules regulating carbon emissions from power plants.

After AEP and Duke, the largest carbon emitters included Southern Company, NRG, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Although AEP produced the most gross carbon, it did not produce carbon at the highest rate. That distinction goes to the Kentucky-based Big Rivers Electric Corporation, which relies on coal for 84 percent of the electricity it generates.

Big Rivers emitted 2,267 pounds of carbon per MWh hour of electricity produced, compared to 1,729 for AEP.

Kentucky topped the 50 states with the greatest carbon emission rate—2,099 pounds of carbon per MWh—while Texas emitted the most carbon overall, by far—261.2 million tons of carbon compared to 117.7 for Florida, the next runner-up.

The lowest carbon emitting state, for both gross emissions and emissions rate, was Vermont.

The report’s sponsors emphasized good news, including these four key findings:

• NOx and SO2 emissions in 2012 were 74 percent and 79 percent lower, respectively, than they were in 1990 when Congress passed major amendments to the Clean Air Act.
• Mercury emissions decreased 51 percent since 2000. ”What these reductions show us, once again, is that the power sector can successfully meet air pollution standards while keeping our lights on and making sure our economy continues to grow,” said Ceres President Mindy Lubber. “There is no reason to think they can’t do the same with carbon dioxide.”
• CO2 emissions have declined 13 percent between 2008 and 2012. Energy efficiency improvements, displacement of coal generation by natural gas and renewable energy sources, and slower economic growth all contributed to the decline.
• U.S. reliance on coal declined by 5 percent from 2011 to 2012. Coal accounted for 39 percent of the power produced by the 100 largest companies in 2012, down from 44 percent in 2011. Also, average utilization of coal plants (how often the plants are run) has dropped from 73 percent in 2008 to 60 percent in 2013.
• Across the entire electric sector, renewable energy electricity generation increased 31 percent since 2010 (by more than 50,000 gigawatt hours) even as total electricity generation declined modestly.
• “The data shows that the power sector has already begun to decarbonize, to increase investment in natural gas, renewables, and energy efficiency,” Lubber said. “We see the trend nationally, and we see it among individual power providers in all regions of the country.

A new report details the extreme measure that the fossil-fuel industry has taken to attack clean energy.

Fossil fuel-funded front groups repeatedly spread disinformation on renewable energy standard and net metering policies in an effort to overturn pro-clean energy laws in 2013 and 2014.

A new report details the efforts of these front groups to eliminate clean energy policies across the country. The fossil fuel lobby aggressively uses lobbying and propaganda to achieve their goals. Self-identified “free market think tanks” are among the most effective advocates for the fossil fuel industry to lobby for policy changes. Dozens of these so-called free market organizations, a majority of which are members of the State Policy Network (SPN), worked to influence state level energy policies and attack the clean energy industry.

These organizations are usually described in neutral, nondescript terms, such as “think tank,” “institute,” or “policy group,” but publicized internal documents from the American Tradition Institute, Heartland Institute, and the Beacon Hill Institute suggest that these types of organizations embrace transactional relationships with the corporate lobbying interests that fund their operations.

The Beacon Hill Institute, a “think tank” based out of Suffolk University (and a Koch-funded member of SPN) submitted a controversial grant request to the Searle Freedom Trust, a prominent conservative foundation, in they expressly stated: “Success will take the form of media recognition, dissemination to stakeholders, and legislative activity that will pare back or repeal [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (or RGGI)].” In other words, the Beacon Hill Institute proposed to pursue biased economic research to support the express goal to “pare back or repeal” a regional climate change accord — all before the institute performed any research determining the economic effect of the law.

Another example of the pay-to-play nature of these so-called “think tanks” comes from Heartland Institute’s Internal fundraising documents which stated: “Contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate [change] policies.”

Despite positioning themselves as ideologically-focused on smaller government, dozens of these organizations aggressively denounce policy investments in clean energy as market-distorting and unnecessary, while remaining silent on the far-larger, decades-old stream of taxpayer dollars and policies supporting oil, gas, and coal interests.

Over the years, government support for fossil fuels has come from a variety of sources: tax deductions, tax credits, direct subsidies, cheap access to public property, pollution remediation, research and development, and entire government agencies devoted to helping promote and assist fossil fuel industry growth. By all credible measurements, fossil fuel subsidies are massive and extremely unpopular, and are flowing to some of the most highly profitable industries on earth. Yet, fossil fuel subsidies go largely unmentioned by these “free market” groups, such as the Heartland Institute, despite their avowed opposition to wasteful government spending.

Fossil fuel-funded front groups operate in multiple areas to influence the policy-making process in their attempts to eliminate clean energy policies. First, groups like the Beacon Hill Institute provide flawed reports or analysis claiming clean energy policies have negative impacts. Next, allied front groups or “think tanks” use the flawed data in testimony, opinion columns, and in the media. Then, front groups, like Americans for Prosperity, spread disinformation through their grassroots networks, in postcards mailed to the public, and in television ads attacking the clean energy policy. Finally, lobbyists from front groups, utilities, and other fossil fuel companies use their influence from campaign contributions and meetings with decision makers to push for anti-clean energy efforts.

Instead of advocating for a fair and free market for electricity, over the past year and a half, fossil fuel front groups have advocated to repeal, freeze, and eliminate pro-clean energy policies across the country on behalf of allies and funders in the fossil fuel industry.

This is an excerpt from a new report, issued today by the Energy and Policy Institute entitled “Attacks on Renewable Energy Standards and Net Metering Policies by Fossil Fuel Interests and Front Groups 2013-2014.” You can download the 35-page report at this link.

In their Ohio Utility Rate Survey issued May 15, 2014, the Public Utilities Commission Ohio (PUCO) cited the rising cost of energy in Columbus as among the state’s highest. Many people — homeowners, farmers, business owners — are concerned about rising energy costs. That’s why interest in solar is exploding now. Solar is an effective hedge against rising electric rates, and allows you to lock in stable energy costs for the next 30 years.

Ask yourself: If you had locked in 30 years of buying gas back when it was $1.28/gallon, wouldn’t you feel pretty good right now?

Solar can give you 30 years or more of energy cost predictability, along with a nice internal rate of return on the solar investment. That could make you and your family feel really good — knowing you are also taking positive steps for the climate, the planet, and your future generations.

 

 

Once a system is installed, one of our solar technicians completes an extensive inspection/system commission before the system can be energized. A commissioning form is filled out and kept on record for every installation.

Once the system has been commissioned and all solar components are operating within their design parameters, the system may be energized.

In addition to the Third Sun Solar commissioning process, the State of Ohio and the Electric Utility must inspect the system to ensure that it complies with all applicable building and electrical codes before the solar electric system is permitted to remain in operation.

Ohio poised to slide into the dark on its energy policy

By Terry Smith, Athens News, May 7 2014

The state of Ohio is poised this week to continue its gleeful slide into backward, reactionary energy policy, with a state Senate Committee expected to approve an amended Senate Bill 310.

This bizarre back-pedaling is happening as most of the rest of the nation and world have accepted both the intrinsic good of ratcheting back on dirty fossil-fuel-driven energy, and the economic opportunities that come with promoting energy efficiency and a shift toward green alternatives such as solar and wind.

Before an amendment proposed Wednesday, S.B. 310 would have frozen at their current modest levels energy efficiency and renewable energy standards and benchmarks passed nearly unanimously by the Ohio Legislature in 2008. It would have canceled the 2008 legislation’s progressive stair-step of benchmarks ending in 2025. Sub. S.B. 310, unveiled Wednesday after negotiations with Gov. John Kasich’s offer, doesn’t appear much better.

It’s the predictable result of the intersection of flat-earth-society climate-change denial – now a firm plank in Republican ideology – and electric utilities and major manufacturers (or deep-pockets outside groups that support them) who are eager to contribute to state legislators who will promote and advance the doomed cause of fossil fuels. In fish-bowl Ohio, they’re all swimming heartily against the historic and scientific tide, as well as a growing business segment in advanced and alternative energy.

YOU SEE THE SAME SORT of willful resistance to reality and good government in the Ohio General Assembly’s refusal to consider raising oil and gas severance taxes to levels even approaching what they are in other frack-heavy states such as Texas and West Virginia.

The latest version of a severance tax bill in the Ohio House of Reprentatives has a top rate of 2.5 percent, which represents a compromise between Gov. Kasich’s proposal for 2.75 percent and the House’s recent proposal for 2.25 percent. It’s similar to a compromise between Bud Light and Miller Lite, basically no compromise at all.

The House Republicans had resisted Gov. Kasich’s proposal, which was still less than half of what drillers face in Pennsylvania. In West Virginia, the effective rate is 11.3 percent.

As an April 27 editorial in the Columbus Dispatch pointed out, “Kasich’s proposed severance tax could double in size and still be under those of Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Michigan, Arkansas, Texas and West Virginia – in the case of the latter four, well below.” (It should be noted that the Dispatch‘s editorial board is arguably the most conservative of Ohio’s major dailies.)

While comparing the severance taxes from state to state is difficult (the taxes are structured in different ways), no matter how you drill it, the 2.50 percent compromise proposal for Ohio is much lower than the tax in other states that Ohio is supposedly competing against to lure oil and gas drillers, entrepreneurs and investors.

Yet, there’s no public clamor to open up the state’s oil and gas sector to all comers, nor is there any groundswell for doing away with incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. Meanwhile, there’s growing public recognition of the environmental hazards of industry run rampant, especially with regard to fracking and its resulting waste disposal.

SENATE BILL 310, AS EXPLAINED in an April 4 op-ed by Jereme Kent in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, have frozen freeze in place the renewable portfolio standards and energy-efficiency standards set in Ohio’s 2008 energy policy bill. “This would be the first time in any state, anywhere in the entire United States, that a renewable portfolio standard would be reduced, frozen or repealed.” (Kent is general manager of One Energy LLC, a Findlay company that helps industrial energy users explore the use of wind energy.)

The amendment to S.B. 310, released Wednesday, would replace the permanent freeze with one lasting two years. As Senate President Keith Faber, R-Celina, explained in the Columbus Dispatch, a special committee, with six House members and six senators, would determine whether to make other changes to the energy rules during the two-year freeze, and recommend resulting changes, if any, to the General Assembly. If lawmakers do not set a new energy course during that time, annual increases in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources – as set in the 2008 energy bill – would re-start in 2017 and continue until 2027.

In the widely supported 2008 bill, the General Assembly required utilities to take three steps to slow the growth in spiraling electric rates: 1) achieve savings of 22 percent by lowering electric consumption through energy efficiency by 2025; 2) achieve a 12.5 percent integration of renewable energy into the state’s electrical supply by 2025; and 3) achieve a 12.5 percent integration of advanced energy (cleaner and higher-efficiency forms of conventional technologies). These goals would be achieved through regular benchmarks up until 2025.

Sen. Troy Balderson, R-Zanesville, introduced S.B. 310, and reportedly was responsible for the amendment proposed on Wednesday. It should be noted that the top two campaign contributors to Balderson in 2012, after the Republican Senate Campaign Committee and Ohio Republican Party, were FirstEnergy Group, one of the main advocates of S.B. 310, and American Electric Power, donating $12,500 apiece. Balderson’s 20^th District includes the very northern part of Athens County.

In an article in the March 28 Plain Dealer, Ted Ford, CEO of the Ohio Advanced Energy Economy, predicted, “If enacted, Senate Bill 310 will systematically dismantle Ohio’s clean energy law, which was reaffirmed and improved in a comprehensive energy policy bill (SB 315) enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor just two years ago. This radical departure will devastate the advanced energy industry in Ohio, which includes more than 400 advanced energy businesses, employing over 25,000 Ohioans.”

Ford followed up Tuesday evening with an equally negative response to amended S.B. 310. “It is a very bad bill that is, in some ways, worse than S.B. 58 and S.B. 310. None of the proponents of the current (from 2008) standards were involved in shaping this ‘compromise.'” Ford urged other advanced-energy companies, the public and stakeholders to heavily lobby their senators and the governor against the substitute bill. “It is another attempt to take Ohio backward. It will destroy jobs, raise electricity costs, and put Ohio in a poor competitive position.”

In an email Tuesday before the Senate released its compromise to S.B. 310, Geoff Greenfield, president of Athens-based Third Sun Solar, predicted that retreating from the state’s current energy policy will cripple the growing solar energy industry in Ohio.

“If SB 310 went forward as written, it would make the economic payback for solar longer and harder to finance… Passing this law as is would probably cut in half the number of residential customers that go solar… Many would still do it even though the payback is slower,” he said. “For business customers and large projects, it would be devastating and probably shut down 90 percent of the projects, as these are much more financially driven. If this law passed as is, we (Third Sun) would stop hiring and growing in Ohio and focus on other states.” He didn’t appear to be any more impressed by the substitute bill released on Wednesday.

DEFENDERS OF S.B. 310 SAY the measure would protect Ohio electric energy consumers from the high costs of complying with standards in the 2008 energy legislation. In an April 12 op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch, Sen. Balderson claims that the 2008 energy standards were “fabricated to conform with a catchy gimmick or slogan…” Later in the opinion piece, he asserts that his legislation will allow Ohio’s energy policy to be “based on what evidence and science tell us, not the exaggerated rhetoric, slogans or how the political winds blow at a particular time.”

Anyone familiar with the rhetoric of climate-change deniers will see some of their rhetorical flourishes in Balderson’s vague references to gimmicks and slogans gussied up with a gratuitous fealty to science. That’s their perverse way of casting doubt on the overwhelming global scientific consensus that climate change is happening now, is getting worse, and is mainly caused by human-kind’s burning of fossil fuels.

Plus, as critics of S.B. 310 have pointed out and the utilities themselves have admitted, money spent on energy-efficiency standards will recoup twice as much in savings.

If Ohio wants to continue sliding backward into the darkness, while its elected representatives happily collect rent from the fossil-fuel and electric utility industries, and their allies in the dark world of Koch, it makes perfect sense to double down on coal- and gas-fired electric power and flea-market-level severance taxes for oil and gas.

One might hopes, however, that Ohio citizens would have a different idea and show it at the ballot box.

Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 01, 2014 by Robert F. Shields, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard (retired)

The Ohio Senate plans to freeze in place the progress Ohio has made in energy consumption and utilization of renewable energy sources. In addition to the economic arguments against it, passage of Ohio Senate Bill 310 runs counter to the national security needs of the United States.

In the Department of Defense’s recently published Quadrennial Defense Review, climate change is identified as a national security threat as it will lead to increased economic and political instability throughout the world, changes that will affect the United States. The Armed Forces are already implementing improvements in energy consumption and use of renewables from Afghanistan to Ohio. The military is leading the way.

SB 310 is intended to keep coal as the primary energy source for electricity in Ohio, much to the benefit of First Energy. A 19th century energy source, coal is a major factor in this security threat to the United States in the 21st century. Our Senators can either place the wants of First Energy and the 19th century over our 21st century needs, or they can guide the Senate to stand as one with the young men and women who serve our country. SB 310 is bad for Ohio and bad for our national security.

 

The Koch Attack on Solar Energy

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

At long last, the Koch brothers and their conservative allies in state government have found a new tax they can support. Naturally it’s a tax on something the country needs: solar energy panels.

For the last few months, the Kochs and other big polluters have been spending heavily to fight incentives for renewable energy, which have been adopted by most states. They particularly dislike state laws that allow homeowners with solar panels to sell power they don’t need back to electric utilities. So they’ve been pushing legislatures to impose a surtax on this increasingly popular practice, hoping to make installing solar panels on houses less attractive.

Oklahoma lawmakers recently approved such a surcharge at the behest of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the conservative group that often dictates bills to Republican statehouses and receives financing from the utility industry and fossil-fuel producers, including the Kochs. As The Los Angeles Times reported recently, the Kochs and ALEC have made similar efforts in other states, though they were beaten back by solar advocates in Kansas and the surtax was reduced to $5 a month in Arizona.

But the Big Carbon advocates aren’t giving up. The same group is trying to repeal or freeze Ohio’s requirement that 12.5 percent of the state’s electric power come from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2025. [The bill trying to repeal clean energy requirements is SB-310.] Twenty-nine states have established similar standards that call for 10 percent or more in renewable power. These states can now anticipate well-financed campaigns to eliminate these targets or scale them back.

The coal producers’ motivation is clear: They see solar and wind energy as a long-term threat to their businesses. That might seem distant at the moment, when nearly 40 percent of the nation’s electricity is still generated by coal, and when less than 1 percent of power customers have solar arrays. (It is slightly higher in California and Hawaii.) But given new regulations on power-plant emissions of mercury and other pollutants, and the urgent need to reduce global warming emissions, the future clearly lies with renewable energy. In 2013, 29 percent of newly installed generation capacity came from solar, compared with 10 percent in 2012.

Renewables are good for economic as well as environmental reasons, as most states know. (More than 143,000 now work in the solar industry.) Currently, 43 states require utilities to buy excess power generated by consumers with solar arrays. This practice, known as net metering, essentially runs electric meters backward when power flows from rooftop solar panels into the grid, giving consumers a credit for the power they generate but don’t use.

The utilities hate this requirement, for obvious reasons. A report by the Edison Electric Institute, the lobbying arm of the power industry, says this kind of law will put “a squeeze on profitability,” and warns that if state incentives are not rolled back, “it may be too late to repair the utility business model.”

Since that’s an unsympathetic argument, the utilities have devised another: Solar expansion, they claim, will actually hurt consumers. The Arizona Public Service Company, the state’s largest utility, funneled large sums through a Koch operative to a nonprofit group that ran an ad claiming net metering would hurt older people on fixed incomes by raising electric rates. The ad tried to link the requirement to President Obama. Another Koch ad likens the renewable-energy requirement to health care reform, the ultimate insult in that world. “Like Obamacare, it’s another government mandate we can’t afford,” the narrator says.

That line might appeal to Tea Partiers, but it’s deliberately misleading. This campaign is really about the profits of Koch Carbon and the utilities, which to its organizers is much more important than clean air and the consequences of climate change.

Ohio voters favor green energy, efficiency and political candidates who do the same, poll finds

By John Funk, The Cleveland Plain Dealer

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohioans overwhelmingly favor replacing coal-fired power plants with wind farms and solar arrays, and requiring utilities to help customers use less electricity, a poll released Wednesday has found.

The random telephone survey of 600 Ohio voters found:

• That 72 percent favor renewable energy over traditional power plants, with 52 percent strongly in favor.

• That 86 percent of Ohio voters support mandated utility energy efficiency programs, with 49 percent strongly supporting the rules.

• That two-thirds of voters say they would more likely support legislative candidates this fall who promote renewable energy over those who think the state’s utilities should continue to emphasize traditional coal-fired and nuclear power plants.

“The findings present a very clear picture of where Ohioans stand when it comes to energy policy and some of the debates going on in the state legislature,” said David Metz, a principal in the polling firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates. Known as FM3, the firm is based in California.

“And relative to other polling we have done in Ohio and around the country, these results are consistent in the strong support that Ohio voters offer for more use of clean energy and greater use of energy efficiency,” said Metz during a news conference.

Ohio Advanced Energy Economy, an advocacy group for efficiency and renewables, commissioned the poll. Ohio Advanced Energy has been battling against a proposal supported by the Republican leadership in the Ohio Senate — Senate Bill 310 — to amend state rules requiring power companies to help customers switch to more efficient equipment and lighting.

The law, which received bipartisan support by all but one lawmaker in 2008, requires utilities to help customers reduce power consumption through energy efficiency by 22 percent by 2025, compared with 2009 levels. And by the same year, the law requires that 12.5 percent of the power sold in the state to have been generated with renewable technologies. The percentages began at less than 1 percent in 2009 and are increasing annually.

But Republican lawmakers, in response to complaints from some large industrial companies and pressure from the utilities, led by FirstEnergy Corp. of Akron, want to freeze things at this year’s levels and then study the issue for three years.

FirstEnergy has been clear that it believes the efficiency rules have cut into normal market growth. Some large industries say it is costing too much in extra charges to fund the mandated programs. Proponents dismiss that complaint, saying the current law allows utilities to halt efficiency programs if they cost more than what they save customers.

Ford and other advocates for keeping the law argue that the bill pending in the Ohio Senate will effectively kill the efficiency and renewable industries that have sprung up since 2009.

“Ohio is home to some 400 advanced energy companies employing 25,000 Ohioans,” said Ted Ford, president and CEO of Ohio AEE. “Ohio’s clean energy law is working. It’s saving money for consumers, creating jobs, and making Ohio competitive. And now, we can demonstrate that the voting public strongly supports it, too.”

But the poll, Ohio Statewide Survey, also found that despite the efforts of energy efficiency advocates like Ford, almost half of the electorate haven’t heard anything at all about what lawmakers are considering. About 20 percent said they were aware of the debate.

Still, almost three-quarters of those polled said they support the current state law that requires utilities to switch to an increasing percentage of renewable energy.

And when asked what percentage of Ohio’s energy should come from wind and solar, on average, Ohioans said they would like to see a majority of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources, as much as 56 percent, said Metz.

“We saw a similar pattern when we asked about energy efficiency, he said. “Most Ohio voters see this (the current law) as something that could benefit them personally.”

“When we ask whether they would be interested in taking advantages of incentives to weatherize their homes, become more energy efficient and not waste energy, 90 percent of voters said that they personally would be interested.

This past week, we received notification that our B-Corp certification has been renewed. This is an annual process whereby we are reviewed, as a company, for adherence to the B-Corp “triple bottom line” principles — that we are dedicated to practices that benefit People, Planet, and Profit. You can read our B-Corp profile here.

We went through a thorough review process for our original B-Corp certification, and we’re proud to be upholding the principles of this national “ethical business” certification, and to be wearing the B-Corp logo with honor.

I have a 36 panel ground mount 9 KW solar system. I wanted American made products so I had to pay slightly more. I went with Sharp solar panels and Enphase Microconverters. The solar panels are connected in series and so far my output slightly exceeds the prediction by Third Sun Solar, so I am very pleased. It was installed by Third Sun Solar in cooperation with my electric provider, Butler Rural Electric. It is a ground mount in a field with no shade and serves my home in Butler County, Ohio. The solar panels are located around 450 ft from my house. They ran three large underground cable wires that connect to my meter at the house.

I contacted three solar companies before making a decision. I was surprised by the differences in layout that each of the three companies proposed. One company for example insisted I would lose a lot of energy by having such a long distance between the panels and my house and insisted the panels needed to be connected in parallel. The other two companies agreed that connecting them in series was better, but <company name deleted> insisted they could only run a cable that far if they used my barn as a substation.

As mentioned earlier in my review of <company name deleted>, I was seriously misled by the salesperson who has since left the company and that would have charged several thousand dollars more than my quote from Third Sun Solar, for a smaller system (32 solar panels), vs 36 panels and a true 9 K system.

I chose Third Sun Solar and I can’t say enough positive comments about this company. They were very professional in all my dealings with them and I could not be happier with the result. It took them a full week to install the solar system (36 panels). I elected not to have the panels put on my roof as that has a disadvantage in terms of needing to take them down and reinstalling when the shingles on the roof need to be replaced, and heat build-up from the roof can also reduce efficiency. I did not want to replace my shingles which should be good for another 15 years or so, while the life span of the solar panels which should be maintenance free for 30 years or more. Don’t trust a salesman when he says their company will take the panels off and reinstall for no cost when your shingles do need replacing.

Anyway, for the month of March which is still not quite done, I am exceeding the predicted output. So far my panels have produced 1,061 kWh so I will receive a check for 1 SREC for March and most likely a total of 12 SREC credits per year. My system is reducing my electric use from Butler Rural Electric by 75% and some months I will not use any net electric from my electric company. After choosing to go with Third Sun Solar, I noticed that my electric company has a small 2.3 K solar system installed at their facility in Hamilton, Ohio and that was installed by Third Sun Solar as well.

Bottom line, all solar companies are not the same. I have full trust in Third Sun Solar which is located in Athens, Ohio.

This post is part of a series in which LinkedIn Influencers analyze the state and future of their industry. By Jigar Shah, founder SunEdison.

In 2003, I was beating my hand against doors to convince businesses to install solar, and my head against the wall trying to get investors to put their money into no-money-down solar contracts.

Eleven years later, I am watching people who are now switching to solar. However, the solar switch is not based only on their values – these energy consumers are also simply anxious to save money on energy. When and where solar makes economic sense, it is being deployed. And the places to deploy it are increasing – 300 utilities in 30 states are now cost-effective for solar power.

The result is that the state of the solar industry has never been better. The facts and figures below reflect that solar has hit the tipping point.

29 Percent

Solar accounted for 29 percent of all new electricity generation capacity added in 2013, up from 10 percent in 2012. Solar was the second largest source of new electricity generating capacity behind natural gas. In ten states, including Illinois and Missouri, solar power represented virtually 100 percent of new electrical capacity added in 2013.

2.2 Million Homes

There is now enough solar capacity to power more than 2.2 million average American homes. Cumulative solar electric capacity operating in the U.S. reached more than 13,000 MW.

Solar is Cheaper

Year-over-year, the national average solar PV (photovoltaic) installed system price declined by 15% to $2.59/W in Q4. The average price of a solar panel has declined by 60 percent since the beginning of 2011.

2014, Another Record Year

Close to 6,000 MW of solar PV is forecasted to come online throughout 2014, which represents 26% growth over 2013’s record installation totals.

2014 will be a record year for CSP (concentrating solar power) as 840 MW are expected to be commissioned by year’s end.

Together, new solar electric capacity projected to be added in 2014 will generate enough clean energy to power over 1.13 million average American homes.

143,000 Solar Workers in the U.S.

According to The Solar Foundation’s Solar Job Census 2013, there are nearly 143,000 solar workers in the U.S., a nearly 20 percent increase over employment totals in 2012. These workers are employed at 6,100 businesses operating at over 7,800 locations in all 50 US states and territories. The solar industry is expecting to hire for over 2,000 new jobs per month in 2014. The increasing value of solar installations has injected life into the U.S. economy as well. In 2013, solar electric installations were valued at $13.7 billion, compared to $11.5 billion in 2012 and $8.6 billion in 2011.

The Top Ten States:

According to SEIA’s U.S. Solar Market Insight 2013 Year in Review, the Top 10 Solar States based on solar capacity installed in 2013 are as follows:

• California
• Arizona
• North Carolina
• Massachusetts
• New Jersey
• Hawaii
• Georgia
• Texas
• New York
• Colorado

Solar Tipping Point

Being able to report these numbers is a thrill. For me, solar started an uphill battle to convince top companies to install it. Today, companies like Walmart, Kohl’s, and Staples are the largest users of solar power in the United States. With rapidly rising electricity rates, solar is turning out to be the right technology at the right time. It is making solar a no-brainer for many businesses and residents – even if you are only installing solar to save money.

Yes, solar has reached its tipping point moment as defined by Malcolm Gladwell.

We’ve just received a copy of a new study by SolarCity and CleanEdge. It’s a broad survey of American attitudes about solar, renewable energy, and clean energy. We felt these results were important enough to share. Some excerpts from the report appear below, and the full report can be found here.

The most surprising and important finding involves perception. Only 45% of American homeowners believe that solar power is more affordable today than it was three years ago—even though during the past several years prices for solar panels dropped by more than half. Perhaps the solar industry has been slow to communicate effectively just how far solar prices have dropped. Here is one example:

• Recently, we quoted a homeowner $25,990 for a 9.12kW rooftop solar electric system
• 3 years ago, we quoted that same homeowners $49,263 for a 7.2kW system on the same rooftop
• This example system represents an almost 50% price drop!

Other key highlights from the 2014 U.S. Homeowners on Clean Energy Survey include:

Homeowners Want Energy Options

• Majority of homeowners (69%) want more choices when it comes to their energy and electricity supply.
• Three out of four respondents believe that utilities should not be able to block individual residential customers from installing distributed solar power, energy storage, and other onsite systems. Such sentiments were strongest among respondents that identified themselves as Republicans, Conservatives, the middle-aged (55-69), and elderly (70+), at 80%, 83%, 89%, and 94%, respectively.
• 73% of homeowners would welcome an inexpensive and reliable form of energy provided by someone other than their current utility.
• 62% of homeowners want solar power for their homes.
• 50% of homeowners are interested in backup power for their homes.

Support for Renewable Energy is Strong and Widespread

• 88% of homeowners believe that renewable energy is important to America’s future.
• Support is high among all major political affiliations,with respondents that identified themselves as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents coming in at 87%, 93%, and 83%, respectively.

Homeowners Weigh Environmental Impact, but Economics Rule

• Homeowners say they care about the environmental impact of their car, home, and other major purchases. 70% consider or investigate the environmental impact/sustainability of big-ticket items when making purchasing decisions.
• Such environmental considerations are increasing. Nationwide, more than half of homeowners said they were more likely to make such considerations today than three years ago.
• While homeowners say they care about the environment, economics drive most purchasing decisions. Respondents cite zero up-front costs and ongoing cost savings as the top two reasons for considering a solar power installation.

Clean-Energy Purchases are Becoming Mainstream, but Perceived Price Barriers Persist

• Perceived price barriers have kept some homeowners from adopting clean-energy products. Less than half of all homeowners nationally (45%) believe that solar power is more affordable today than it was three years ago—even though during the past several years prices for solar panels dropped by more than half.
• As noted above, homeowners state that low up-front costs, and savings over time, would drive increased adoption of solar power and other clean-energy purchases.

This report brought to you by SolarCity and Clean Edge in collaboration with NASDAQ

Today’s life expectancy in America is eight years longer than it was in 1970. That’s eight more years to enjoy retirement; and eight more years of savings to put away. In a challenging economy, there are various factors that can threaten a comfortable retirement, such as declining property values and interest rates, higher living and health care expenses, and a lower percentage of employer contributions. A well-planned retirement strategy is crucial.

Stuart Ritter, vice president of T. Rowe Price Investment Services, says it can be difficult to stay on budget while trying to make a lump sum last 30 years, especially in the first years of retirement. “That’s why we encourage people to think of it more in terms of income [stream], and not as a balance,” he tells USA Today.

One source that can be used to generate steady revenue — a source we can rely on for millions of years—is sunshine. More people are discovering that by purchasing their own solar panels and harnessing the sun’s energy to produce their own power, it’s possible to collect a paycheck without lifting a finger.

On the Rooftop

Orange County, Calif. residents Wendy Moonier and her husband Fidel Garza were brainstorming how to manage their money for retirement. After the mortgage was paid off, the electricity bill would remain — and increase as the years progressed. With a roof that needed replacing and the attractive California solar rebates, it was the ideal time to go solar. Moonier and Garza purchased a 30-panel solar photovoltaic (PV) rooftop system from Southern California Edison. They’re saving several thousand dollars each year on electricity and expect their system to pay for itself in 15 years. “It’s the best investment we’ve ever made on our home,” Moonier reveals. “When I saw how well this works, I thought everybody should have this … It’s the only thing we’ve done on our home where we’ve seen an immediate return.”

Newt and Inez Stevens, a couple in their 80s, utilize the sun in multiple capacities. Living in a retirement community in Phoenix, Ariz., the Stevens use solar PV and solar thermal panels to charge their electric vehicle, heat 90 percent of their hot water and power half of their duplex. “For us, solar was a practical solution,” Newt tells The Daily Green. “Our primary motivation was economic … And if we produce more than we use, the power company will pay us the difference. We’re seeing a better return on our investment than anything I can get at the banks or stock market.”

Community-Owned Solar

Installing solar on your home or business may not be practical. Community-owned solar allows anyone with a utility bill to own solar panels, offset their electric bill, and collect income for the clean energy they produce. “It seems the cost of electricity has only and is only going up, as well as how much electricity we need,” said Jim McDaniels of Colorado Springs, Colo. “I wanted to reduce my electricity cost and help the environment at the same time. I wanted to plan for my future.”

McDaniels began researching online, reading newspaper articles and posting questions on solar energy forums when he discovered community solar developer Clean Energy Collective. He purchased 25 solar electric panels in the Colorado Springs Community Solar Array with a 10-year loan, offsetting 120 percent of his electricity use (the maximum percentage that Colorado Springs allows). “I decided it was a great deal so I went with the maximum and surplus months,” McDaniels said. After his projected 13-year payback period, he’ll receive free electricity, earning an estimated $160,000. “The savings should give me a better chance at an affordable retirement,” McDaniels said.

Do-It-Yourself

For the hands-on, ambitious type like Rich Herr, a retired electrical engineer, constructing a solar system from scratch was the most appealing option. “For the money I put in it, the return on [the solar system] is better than the return I get on my 401(k),” Herr said. “I’m not getting money in my hand, that’s just money I don’t have to pay.”

(Re-posted from Renewable Energy World, Emily Hois, February 17, 2014)

We have found farmers to be long-term thinkers and planners (moreso than many other kinds of business people) so, in general, people in agriculture are more attuned to the long-term financial benefits of solar. With lots of barn roof space and open ground space, many farmers have a very good solar potential. We have built many successful agricultural solar systems, at a cost that beats our competitors. Increasingly, the most successful farmers and agricultural thought leaders are going solar!

What solar power can do for your farm:

• Insulate your operation against rising energy costs
• Work side by side with utility power to lower and stabilize energy costs
• Pay for itself and then some (20+ years of free electricity)
• Generate profits from your home, barn, and outbuilding rooftops
• Increase the value of your farm property
• Turn this year’s farm revenue into a long-term asset with strong tax benefits
• Gain energy independence with power that pays you…

What can we do to help you capture these benefits?

• We’ll help you determine whether solar can lower your long-term energy costs.
• If so, we’ll design/install the best clean solar energy system for your operation.

What about the costs of solar for my farm?

Here is a “base case” example of current solar costs. This is only an example. Every system we build is customized to the site and energy needs of each customer, so here is one example you can use to get a general sense of solar costs and payback.

• 20.16 kilowatt solar electric system on a barn roof, total installed cost, with 250-foot trenching:
• $57,750—after tax credit $40,425—with accelerated depreciation $23,244
  • Add 20kW generator backup $9,000
  • Add 820kWh battery backup $15,600
  • for 30 years of secure power & protection against rising energy rates!
• Annual utility savings $2,600—30 year lifetime utility savings $129,000
• Lifetime operations & maintenance cost $15,400
• Lifetime cost of fuel $0—it comes up every morning!

A 20.16kW solar electric system produces about 23,600 kWh of clean electricity in the first year year. Because it is grid-connected, solar does not change the way you use electricity—you can power everything you do now:

• Milking pumps
• Grain dryers
• Grinders
• Barn fans
• Barn lighting

Anything you now run on grid power runs exactly the same on solar power. The only difference is—you’ll see long-term savings in your electricity costs!

With over 400 successful installations and many repeat customers, we are licensed, insured, and bonded—with designers and installers who are NABCEP-certified to the highest standard in our industry. So call us today at 877-OWN-SOLAR (877-696-7652) extension 59.

 

Interested homeowners often begin looking into solar by going on the web. There are many good resources on the web for investigating solar, for gathering basic information, and for beginning the process of considering whether a PV solar electric system is a good choice for you. You’ll find some good links below for continuing your research.

Here are some basic qualifiers for solar — if you answer “yes” to one or more of these questions, then solar is worth investigating further:

• Do you own your home?
• Do you pay high electric bills? More than $100 in the average month?
• Are your electric bills higher in the summer than in the winter?
• Is your house unshaded or only lightly shaded (by trees or other nearby structures)?
• Does your house have a large roof surface facing south, southeast, or southwest?
• Does your property have open, unshaded ground near the house (within 100 feet)?

If the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes,” then you may be a good candidate for solar.

Here are a few questions that answering “yes” means you are a prime candidate for solar:

• Does your house have a large, open, unshaded roof facing directly south?
• Does your house (or garage) have a standing-seam metal roof?
• Do you think your electric rates are likely to rise in the next 5-20 years?
• Do you plan to be in your home for the next 10+ years?
• Are you green-leaning? Do you want to take steps to live a greener lifestyle?
• Are you concerned about power outages? Would you like to have power during grid blackouts?

If you can answer “yes” to any of these questions, you should definitely take a good, hard look at solar. You can begin by getting in touch with us through our web form:

• Talk to Third Sun Solar

Our website has some good information for you:

• Why solar?
• System Costs
• Power during a blackout
• Frequently-asked Questions

Interested homeowners often begin looking into solar by going on the web. There are many good resources on the web for investigating solar, for gathering basic information, and for beginning the process of considering whether a PV solar electric system is a good choice for you. You’ll find some good links below for continuing your research.

Here are some basic qualifiers for solar — if you answer “yes” to one or more of these questions, then solar is worth investigating further:

• Do you own your home?
• Do you pay high electric bills? More than $100 in the average month?
• Are your electric bills higher in the summer than in the winter?
• Is your house unshaded or only lightly shaded (by trees or other nearby structures)?
• Does your house have a large roof surface facing south, southeast, or southwest?
• Does your property have open, unshaded ground near the house (within 100 feet)?

If the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes,” then you may be a good candidate for solar.

Here are a few questions that answering “yes” means you are a prime candidate for solar:

• Does your house have a large, open, unshaded roof facing directly south?
• Does your house (or garage) have a standing-seam metal roof?
• Do you think your electric rates are likely to rise in the next 5-20 years?
• Do you plan to be in your home for the next 10+ years?
• Are you green-leaning? Do you want to take steps to live a greener lifestyle?
• Are you concerned about power outages? Would you like to have power during grid blackouts?

If you can answer “yes” to any of these questions, you should definitely take a good, hard look at solar. You can begin by getting in touch with us through our web form:

• Talk to Third Sun Solar

Our website has some good information for you:

• Why solar?
• System Costs
• Power during a blackout
• Frequently-asked Questions

And here are some other websites that can help you decide whether solar is a good for for you:

• National Geographic
• Wikipedia
• U.S. Department of Energy
• Good starting point for kids
• More good info for kids