Author Archives Laura Arnold

Alternative Power and Energy (APE) Grant Program
See http://www.in.gov/oed/2588.htm

The Indiana Office of Energy Development (OED) is pleased to offer $879,000 through the Alternative Power and Energy Grant Program (APE). The APE grant program will provide cost share grants to Indiana’s public, non-profit, and business sectors for the purchase and installation of alternative energy systems that will help offset fossil fuel usage and create jobs.

Alternative energy systems make use of non-fossil fuel resources to produce clean, home-grown electricity and thermal energy. In a time of rising energy costs and increased energy supply volatility, it is vital to our economic future to diversify the portfolio of resources we use to produce energy.

The purpose of the grant program is to increase awareness and utilization of alternative energy resources as well as to create vocational opportunities for Hoosiers interested in renewable energy.

Alternative energy systems that utilize the following technologies/resources to produce electricity and/or thermal energy are eligible for grant funding:

1.Solar Water Hating (SWH)
a. Domestic hot water
b. Radiant heating
c. NOT swimming pools
2.Solar Electricity
3.Wind Power
4.Micro-hydro electricity
5.Biomass electricity and heating

Please read Program Guidelines for full instructions.

■APE Grant Program Guidelines
■APE Grant Program Application

Note the following dates from the Program Guidelines.
August 24, 2009 -APE Grant Program announced and posted to OED website.
September 25, 2009 -Applications must be received by OED.
September 28, 2009 -E-mail confirmation will be sent to each applicant verifying that the application has been received.

Company says lack of clear wind energy policies causing customers to worry

Bowdeya Tweh - bowdeya.tweh@nwi.com, (219) 933-3316 | Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:00 am

The owner of a Northwest Indiana firm selling residential wind energy systems says he is having problems with Lake and Porter County officials because there's confusion on policies determining what residents must do before activating them.

George Kontol Jr. of DeMotte-based Northwest Geothermal Inc. said times have been difficult for his company that sells and installs geothermal and wind generation systems, including its 30-foot high, 1,100-pound Windspire product.

Nicholas Serena, who lives a few miles northeast of Lowell, isn't able to use the Windspire installed at his farm in April because Lake County officials have told him that he doesn't have the appropriate permits or variances out to use it. Serena, a sales representative for the business through his firm Pleasant Grove Windworks, said when he called the county Plan Commission four months ago to ask what was required before installing the tower, he was told nothing was required.

Now, Serena said he and his lawyer plan to work with the county to see what is required. Serena said he's losing money on the $14,000 purchase because it's off and would like to get the system running within a couple of months.

Kontol said he wants to abide by county standards in his business and he's had easier times taking out permits in Lafayette and Indianapolis. He said a Porter County resident purchased the system as well, but a county official advised him to wait before using it until a wind energy policy could be developed.

"They're all being punished for wanting to be sustainable," Kontol said. "The utility companies want to charge you outrageous rates. The counties don't want to give you permits. There's no reason why we should be punished as consumers."

In Lake County

Lake County Plan Commission Director Ned Kovachevich said in a June 1 letter to Serena that he violated county ordinances by not requesting a permit for a "wind-powered cylindrical structure" and for the businesses not having a contractor's license in unincorporated Lake County to make or install electrical connections for wind-generating structures.

Kovachevich said permits and variances give the county an opportunity to make sure structures are safe and meet code requirements.

At a Wednesday meeting, Kovachevich said the Plan Commission decided to have staff gather and report information in September or October to determine if there is further regulation needed for wind-generating structures.

Issues will be handled as individuals approach the county for now, Kovachevich said. Wind-generating structures may require people to apply for a variance for a structure's height, bulk or area and another variance allowing the structure to be placed in an area where current zoning may not allow it.

In Porter County

Porter County Planning Commission Executive Director Robert Thompson said he hopes the county will have an ordinance in place dealing with small or single-site wind energy developments, but said a committee is still reviewing the impact they may have on communities.

The issue is expected to be on the commission's September meeting agenda.

Thompson said discussion on a wind energy ordinance was tabled in a meeting earlier this month to have more research done. Some issues raised include where the distribution system for a large wind energy development would be located and how would the energy be added to the current electrical grid, Thompson said.

For the time being, Thompson said the county has directed people to apply for a variance through the county's Board of Zoning Appeals and the process could take one or two months.

Windspires everywhere?

Kontol says he can't understand why the counties aren't more supportive of wind generation systems when the federal government supports it. A 30 percent federal tax credit is available for residents after having residential wind energy systems installed on their property, according to the U.S. Energy Star program Web site. The maximum generator output must be less than 100 kilowatts to qualify and the Windspire product meets this standard. The credit is on the cost of the system and must be placed in service by 2016.

Serena said the Windspire will pay for itself in six years, but people need to be relieved of the worries that they could pay for a device they can't use.

"It has definitely made people hesitant," Serena said. "We're educating people who don't know this technology and what it could bring for the future. I could see ... windspires all over the place, but we have to get it out there and get the knowledge out there to people work(ing) with it."

http://www.nilesstar.com/2009/08/21/michigan-businesses-study-potential-of-clean-energy-jobs-plan/

From the Niles Star; August 21, 2009

SOUTH BEND, Ind. – Joined by State Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend), Michiana business leaders today urged Congress to pass a clean energy jobs plan that would boost Indiana’s economy and grow new jobs in the area.

The business leaders cited both personal experiences and recent studies that underscore how comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation can renew the economy with new clean energy jobs. Also highlighted was a new poll that shows strong public support for Congressional action.

“It’s time to get America running on clean energy,” said TJ Kanczuzewski, executive vice president of Inovateus Solar in South Bend, where the local businesses gathered today.

“Clean energy jobs are already keeping thousands of Hoosiers working. I know first hand that if Congress passes a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan we could put thousands more back to work in our state alone.”

Kanczuzewski’s father, Leonard of Cassopolis, owns the former business incubator in Cassopolis, called Inovateus Business Center. Along with SCORE, which has an office in the center, potential and existing businesses can get needed assistance in forming and executing their business plans.

A study from the Pew Charitable Trusts, entitled “Clean Energy Economy,” examined the number of clean energy jobs that already exist in each state. It found that 17,300 Hoosiers are already employed in the clean energy economy.

“Clean energy jobs are real and they’re here today,” said Tom Topash, president of Turtle Island Wind and Solar in Berrien Center. “Now we just need Congress to act so our businesses can create more jobs, slash pollution, and make America more secure.”

A second study from the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst found that the clean energy jobs plan passed by the House of Representatives – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – would create 1.7 million net new jobs. That includes 38,000 new clean energy jobs for Indiana.

“We need bold action to renew our economy,” said Ron Williams, president of Take Action Solar and Wind in Elkhart, Ind. “By passing clean energy and climate legislation now, Congress can make sure that the clean energy jobs of tomorrow are right here in Michiana.”

In addition to providing new jobs and a boost to the overall economy, a clean energy jobs plan would be of particular benefit to low-income Americans. A report from Green for All and the Natural Resources Defense Council, entitled “Green Prosperity,” highlights the potential for a clean energy jobs plan to fight poverty and raise living standards in communities across the U.S.

“Low-income Americans stand to gain tremendously – with new jobs, higher wages, and lower living expenses,” said Heidi McHugh, marketing manager for Middlebury’s Home and Mobile Energy. “Building the clean energy economy will benefit all Americans, but there is evidence that it will help some of those hit hardest by the economic collapse the most.”

Finally, a new poll conducted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation by Zogby International shows strong public support for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. A supermajority of respondents, 71 percent, support the plan passed by the House in June. The poll also underscored strong support for Senate action, with more than half of respondents agreeing that the Senate should act quickly to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan.

“The public strongly supports the clean energy jobs plan passed by the House and it’s also clear they want the Senate to act quickly,” said Linda Yoder, vice president of Government Affairs for one of Indiana’s newest clean energy companies, Electric Motors Corp. in Wakarusa/Nappanee.”When Congress comes back from recess, it’s time for the Senate to get working to put America back to work in the clean energy economy.”

“Renewable energy stands to create tens of thousands of jobs in Indiana,” summed up State Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend), chair of the House Environmental Affairs Committee. “It is absolutely essential to the future of our state and a key component to pulling out of the ongoing recession.”

Inovateus and Home & Mobile Energy are both members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Act Now on the Right FIT for California - Renewable Energy World

Shared via AddThis

August 19, 2009

Act Now on the Right FIT for California

by Tam Hunt, Community Renewable Solutions, LLC
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

California is on the precipice of passing into law a game-changing Feed-In Tariff (FIT) policy that will unleash the tremendous potential of renewable energy and provide a massive economic boost in California. A lot rides on getting the support of California State Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego), so get ready to encourage her to do the right thing.

Before getting into the details, however, let’s review the current state of affairs: Renewable energy and energy efficiency are on a roll. Wind power installations in the first half of 2009 totaled 4,000 megawatts, exceeding installations in the first half of 2008. This happened in the worst recession since the Great Depression, so this is quite an achievement.

Solar power installations in the US and globally have remained level with 2008, due primarily to the ailing economy. But staying level is better than declining.

Energy efficiency and conservation have also improved. For example, petroleum consumption in the U.S. is down about 7% compared to 2007, a remarkable reduction considering that the trend in recent years has been to increase 2-3% each year. This change is, however, due primarily to high prices and declining economic activity.

As many commentators have noted, and as I’ve mentioned in my columns, President Obama understands the need for a dramatic improvement in renewable energy production, energy efficiency and conservation. He has already committed many billions of dollars for tax credits and other incentives on these items and they are starting to have an impact. Although, as I wrote in my last column, I am not happy about the proposed climate change bill because I don’t think it will have much impact as written.

Adding to the urgency for aggressive action is a recent change of position at the International Energy Agency regarding the timing of peak oil. The IEA, in its 2008 World Energy Outlook, projected a peak in global conventional oil production sometime before 2030. This projection has now been moved up.

In a recent interview with the UK-based Guardian newspaper, Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, warned of a potentially “catastrophic” supply shortfall due to lack of sufficient investment in new supplies and rapidly declining conventional oil supplies at about twice the rate of previous projections. He also advanced the IEA’s projection of the conventional oil peak to 2020. This date is practically around the corner and is yet another wakeup call to a world slumbering in the dream of infinite fossil fuel resources.

We need urgent action to create a renewably-powered sustainable world, with widespread use of electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars to replace our petroleum consumption.

This is where an aggressive Feed-In Tariff (FIT) comes in. AB 1106 (Fuentes) is pending in Sacramento and will, if passed, be a game changer for renewables in California. The state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), effective since 2003, has achieved very little in terms of bringing new renewables online. Last year saw an increase, but it was almost entirely from out-of-state facilities.

We need to develop in-state supplies to localize our grid and keep the economic benefits local. The RPS has in fact been so ineffective that the total percentage of renewable energy online in California, even with the out-of-state boost to our renewable energy portfolio last year, has declined in every year since the RPS has been in effect. The most recent report was just released by the California Energy Commission, finding that the total amount of renewable energy was 10.6% in 2008, a decline from 11.8% in 2007. This is unfortunate and unacceptable.

AB 1106 promises to change this equation substantially because it would require utilities to accept up to 2% of their total demand each year from new renewable energy facilities 10 megawatts and below. It will also ensure that ratepayers would never experience an increase in rates above 1%.

A key additional feature is the certainty of the FIT price: this is not negotiated and would be set by the California Public Utilities Commission. For projects 5 megawatts and below, AB 1106 would create a “cost-based” FIT, a policy which has brought huge volumes of cost-effective renewable energy online around the world. The pricing mechanism for projects between 5 and 10 megawatts is still being debated. But in any case, it will be superior to the “market price” mechanism that is used in the RPS program today.

With this transparency and consequent certainty for the marketplace (which includes my new company, for the sake of full disclosure), we can expect many thousands of megawatts of renewable energy to come online quickly in the form of “community-scale” projects that don’t require new transmission lines and don’t require massive amounts of land. (I am fully supportive of wisely placed large renewable energy projects but believe, for a variety of reasons, that the community-scale market segment can do as much or more than the large-scale market segment).

AB 1106 is better than a competing FIT bill, SB 32 (Negrete-McLeod), because SB 32 would only allow projects up to 3 megawatts (doubling the current limit of 1.5 megawatts), and would only require the CPUC to consider “locational benefits” of community-scale projects when setting a FIT price. This is an improvement, but we can do better.

Worst of all, SB 32 contains a “poison pill” clause that was included to appease the utilities that would prevent the CPUC from implementing any additional FIT provisions in the future. The limited improvement offered by SB 32 does not warrant this poison pill. AB 1106, on the other hand, will introduce a tremendous FIT program that has been proven around the world. Accordingly, it is opposed by the utilities, who prefer the large-scale, utility-controlled generation model.

I am urging any California stakeholder to contact Senator Kehoe, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and urge her to strongly support AB 1106 for passage this year. Senator Kehoe’s support is required in order to get AB 1106 through her Appropriations Committee and this needs to happen within the week of August 24th in order to have AB 1106 signed into law this year by Governor Schwarzenegger.

Again, if passed, AB 1106 will be a game changer for bringing renewable energy online and boosting the economy in California. And as California goes, so goes the nation. We need aggressive action. Now. Help make it happen!

Tam Hunt is president of Community Renewable Solutions, LLC, and a Lecturer in climate change law and policy at the UC Santa Barbara Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.

Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:33am EDT
By Paul Gipe

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), the nation's sixth largest publicly owned utility, announced with much fanfare that its board of directors had approved the introduction of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy in 2010.

The announcement created a buzz within the renewable energy industry as evidence that another utility voluntarily moved toward feed-in tariffs to boost renewable energy development. Utilities in Indiana and Michigan have proposed their own feed-in tariffs and the municipal utility in Gainesville, Florida began offering a feed-in tariff this past spring.

Feed-in tariffs are becoming increasingly popular. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal noted this week, "feed-in tariffs are gaining traction" as a policy mechanism.

SMUD made the decision for all the right reasons. "For SMUD and our customers, the FIT [feed-in tariff] will be mutually advantageous," said the board's briefing documents. "By standardizing our purchase offer, the FIT will streamline the time and effort currently required to contract with power generators. For customers, the FIT will provide a new opportunity to sell power at a fair market price from small-scale generation units. In particular, the FIT for Renewable Generation will assist SMUD in meeting the goals not only for our Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), but also for greenhouse gas reduction."

On the surface, SMUD's proposal appears bold By California standards. The program would apply to projects up to 5 MW and the overall program is capped at a relatively high 100 MW. And in a likely a first for North America, SMUD's plan will also include fossil-fuel fired Combined Heat & Power (CHP) projects. (SMUD will join Britain in offering specific feed-in tariffs for CHP plants in 2010.)

SMUD's plan also includes all renewables unlike the program in Gainesville where the municipal utility earlier this year launched a highly successful feed-in tariff program for solar PV only.

Nevertheless, the specific tariffs proposed by SMUD have raised questions among analysts whether the proposal accomplished its stated objective of developing a "fair" price for renewable energy. Or whether the program will even be effective at developing renewable energy at the pace desired.

Like the tariffs determined by the California Pubic Utility Commission (PUC) for its feed-in tariff program, SMUD's tariffs are based on the "value" of the generation to SMUD. As in the PUC's program, the tariffs vary by time of day and season of the year.

In a recent analysis of the California PUC's feed-in tariff, Toby Couture of E3 Analytics found that only 14 MW have been installed in the 500 MW program. There are 36 million people in California. In contrast, Gainesville, with a population of 90,000, is expected to install 4 MW in its first year.

SMUD makes no differentiation between technologies, size, application, or resource intensity, unlike successful programs in Europe and the proposed feed-in tariff program in Ontario, Canada.

Payment under SMUD's program will require a sophisticated analysis of hour-by-hour generation and the probability of occurrence. For example, the tariffs for a 20-year contract beginning in 2009 vary from $0.082 USD/kWh during the shoulder season to $0.29 USD/kWh during superpeak.

SMUD, one of California's more respected utilities, tried to hedge its tariffs by offering a bonus for the generation's green value. The proposed tariffs include the wholesale cost of power avoided plus estimated greenhouse gas mitigation costs and the cost due to natural gas price volatility. For a 20-year contract, the greenhouse adder is $0.0111 USD/kWh and the gas-price hedge is $0.0115 USD/kWh for a total premium in 2009 of $0.0227 USD/kWh.

Here's a summary of the program.

* Program Cap: 100 MW
* Project Cap: 5 MW
* Contract Terms: 10, 15, 20 years
* Time Differentiated Tariffs
* No Technology Differentiation
* Tariffs based on avoided cost, value-based tariffs
* Effective January, 2010
* Applications available November, 2009
* Includes tariffs for Combined Heat & Power

Industry analysts were quick to applaud SMUD's effort while noting the program's deficiencies.

It's clear that SMUD is trying to move the policy needle in California suggests Craig Lewis, a founding member of the [California] FIT Coalition. "The fact that SMUD raised the project size limit to 5MW is indicative that they believe distributed generation projects can be seamlessly integrated into the distribution grid in California," says Lewis in reference to the lower limit of 1.5 MW in the PUC's program.

Lewis goes on to note that possibly SMUD's most significant contribution to the renewables debate in California is the program's target of 100 MW. SMUD serves 1.4 million customers in and around the state capitol. According to Lewis, SMUD's program "scales to a statewide equivalent of roughly 3,000 MW. This provides an informative example for both the California legislature and the PUC."

The PUC's current program is limited to slightly less than 500 MW. The California Solar Initiative (CSI) is limited to 3,000 MW of solar PV. SMUD's program alone is equivalent to the statewide CSI. "These are the minimum FIT program sizes that California policymakers need to be considering if they want to make the RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard] real," Lewis argues.

But it's SMUD tariffs that give analysts the most concern.

"SMUD's feed-in tariff price structure is a maze of 216 different payment rates for different seasons, times of day, contract lengths, and starting year," says Robert Freehling, a renewable energy consultant. "Even after a developer picks a technology, a starting date and a contract length, individual projects will be subject to nine different rates that depend on time of day and season of the year for the duration of their contract."

Freehling, who notes that SMUD has otherwise been a leader in energy efficiency and renewables in California, "is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole" by using such "market rate" formulas. "While the goal of getting good value for ratepayers is valid, this particular pricing design has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective for feed-in tariffs. California's "market rate" feed-in tariffs are a great example of how this does not work."

He's not alone.

"While SMUD has been at the forefront of innovative utility policy in the U.S. since the 1990s," says Toby Couture, Canada's leading feed-in tariff analyst, "it's missing one of the basic lessons from countries around the world: the tariffs have to be cost-based to drive substantial amounts of investment. Investors expect a return," Couture says, "and if they can't guarantee that, they're likely to look elsewhere."

"The countries that have had success with feed-in tariffs base their prices on the actual costs of renewable energy generation. If the FIT prices aren't cost based, they're not likely to attract capital, for the simple reason that investors need to know they're going to make money," Couture explains. "This doesn't need to be returns of 15-20 percent. Markets in Germany and Spain have shown that reliable returns of 5-8 percent are typically adequate to attract large amounts of investment to the renewable energy sector. This is even more likely to hold true in today's financial markets."

Lewis, of the FIT Coalition, fears the worst. "It appears that SMUD's FIT is going to be insufficient." He estimates that the average payment under the SMUD program for solar PV "will be in the $0.17 USD/kWh range, and this is simply insufficient to attract solar project development. Nobody is going to invest in projects that are guaranteed to lose money!"

Gainesville Regional Utilities pays $0.32 USD/kWh for a 20-year contract to a solar PV generator and Vermont will begin paying a tariff of $0.30 USD/kWh for solar PV this fall. Both programs based their tariffs on the cost of solar PV generation, not its theoretical value to the system.

Time will tell whether the analysts or SMUD's engineers are correct. If SMUD is wrong, it will have stumbled badly; further eroding already shaky confidence in California utilities. Worse, the once-innovative utility will have lost valuable time in the race to bring on more renewable energy as quickly as possible.

Etopia New Interview with SMUD's Jon Bertolino

Draft SMUD Feed-in Tariff Policy: Note that the posted tariffs will be adjusted in November of 2009 to reflect SMUD's revision of its wholesale costs of generation.