Aaron Deslatte’s column, “Legislature 2010: Can Lawmakers Create Jobs?” on OrlandoSentinel.com recently, provided a good overview of the efforts that the state Legislature is considering to lower Florida’s high unemployment rate.

In Deslatte’s column, House Speaker Larry Cretul says, “We’ve all heard ‘government doesn’t create jobs,’ but government has the ability to create the environment for jobs to flourish.”

Cretul is right. The enormous potential for job creation in the renewable-energy sector — solar, biomass, geothermal energy and other cutting-edge innovations — should be high on lawmakers’ lists for the 2010 session. The renewable-energy industry grew three times as fast as the U.S. economy in 2007, and this is business that Florida ought to jump on now. Florida is already losing renewable-energy jobs to other states and countries. China, in particular, is charging ahead with renewable-energy manufacturing and innovation.

Florida could — and should — be on the leading edge of this industry. More than 75 percent of renewable-energy jobs are in the manufacturing and construction industries — the exact skill sets for many of Florida’s unemployed construction-trade workers.

Florida has one of the largest economies in the United States — bigger than a lot of countries — yet 80 percent of the dollars spent on energy here now flow out of state. We need to keep those dollars in-state by growing clean energy business here.

A robust renewable-energy market would produce demand for billions of dollars of components needed for renewable-energy plants and technology. A 2009 study by the Blue Green Alliance examined the benefits of a strong renewable-energy market in Florida and found that renewable-energy growth would create business for up to 1,617 firms and as many as 18,704 green jobs in the solar, wind, geothermal and biomass industries.

Other states have put market incentives in place to grow the renewable-energy sector. The states establish targets for the amount of renewable energy that’s part of their overall energy mix. Gov. Charlie Crist proposed a target of 20 percent renewable energy by the year 2020. The Legislature failed to pass it last year, but should move ahead this year.

If Florida fails to create that market certainty, other states — not Florida — will get in on the ground floor. Other states will attract the small businesses that create innovative energy solutions, improve solar collection and install geothermal heating and cooling systems, to name a few. Other states will land the large firms that build manufacturing plants and employ workers to produce the components needed for renewable-energy sources like biomass and solar.

Besides creating jobs, committing to a viable renewable-energy market in Florida will also insulate residents from volatile energy prices. A state’s energy mix is like a stock portfolio, and renewable resources are sensible low-risk investments. If we don’t change course, Florida will get almost half (46.7 percent) of its total electric supply from natural gas by 2017. Natural gas prices are volatile and dependent on unstable world events.

To move into the future, Florida should boost its investment in low-risk renewable resources, which account for only 4.4 percent of our energy mix today. Solar energy has no fuel costs and biomass uses a stable, homegrown fuel source that keeps dollars spent on fuel in Florida.

While conventional power capital costs are skyrocketing, rates for electricity from solar photovoltaic sources dropped from $27 per peak watt in 1982 to about $4 today. Electricity rates from dirty-fuel sources keep going up; Progress Energy announced a customer bill increase of 31 percent in August 2008. By contrast, states that diversified their economy with renewable energy have seen minimal or no rate impacts from renewable resources.

Floridians should urge their lawmakers to pass common-sense targets for renewable energy during this legislative session. It would be a shame for Florida to lose out on the jobs that are coming with the worldwide renewable-energy wave.

Copyright © 2010, Orlando Sentinel

Vice President Biden visits efficient LED light manufacturer Cree

“Energy efficiency can create 38,000 new jobs for North Carolinians while saving consumers $3.6 billion in energy bills, and meet one quarter of NC’s energy needs,” according to a new report released today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).  More jobs, lower energy bills … and hundreds of million dollars in stronger economic growth.

If energy and money don’t interest you, how about water? These policies will help utilities avoid withdrawing about 3 billion gallons of water a day by 2025 - that could make a big difference in the next drought and give our over-used watersheds a break!

The jobs point was coincidentally underscored by Vice President Biden’s visit to Cree, a manufacturer of LED lighting products based in Durham, NC. According to the News & Observer, “The company has hired 375 workers in the past year.”

It was a timely release, rebutting the claims by North Carolina utilities that there is only so little they can do in the long term to help North Carolina electricity customers save energy. In contrast to the 3.1% energy savings forecast by North Carolina utilities in their 15-year resource plans, ACEEE suggests that they could achieve 15 or even more than 20% with aggressive energy efficiency programs. Add in several additional government policy and program recommendations, and the electricity savings add up to 22-31% over the next 15 years!

Annual Energy Savings in 2025 from ACEEE Recommended Policies

NC Lt. Gov. Dalton Helps Release ACEEE release Efficiency Report

North Carolina is a rapidly growing state and we are poised to advance economically and aggressively harness energy efficiency.  North Carolina is currently 26th in the nation compared to other states on energy efficiency, so we have a lot of room to grow.

The Governor’s Energy Policy Council and the NC Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change are well-positioned to seize these opportunities, as they are each actively developing energy recommendations for the Governor and the General Assembly this spring. ACEEE emphasized the importance of splitting apart North Carolina’s existing Renewable and Efficiency Portfolio Standard to establish a stand-alone Energy Efficiency Resource Standard to ensure that utilities aggressively pursue the benefits of energy efficiency on behalf of their customers.

After reviewing the final results from ACEEE, I realize my testimony yesterday wasn’t quite as bold as I thought. I suggested that North Carolina utilities could achieve 15% energy savings by 2024 - but ACEEE suggests they could go quite a bit further. Well, we’re pleased to have these new data further supporting our claims and hopes for NC to be bold in harnessing the cleanest of all power sources - the energy that is never used or created in the first place.

John D. Wilson co-wrote this blog.

What’s the future for energy in the Tarheel state? This week, the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) considered the energy plans of Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Dominion Power. Each year, North Carolina utilities are required to update their 15-year plan. An Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) explains how each utility will serve its customer’s electricity needs with the lowest cost mix of resources, which can include existing and new power plants, renewable energy facilities, and energy efficiency.

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy intervened in the IRP proceeding with legal representation from Southern Environmental Law Center and in partnership with Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club.  The evidence we put forward was focused in two areas: energy efficiency and coal-fired power plants.

Energy Efficiency

Are North Carolina utilities really committed to energy efficiency, or just doing enough to skate by?  That’s the question our Research Director, John D. Wilson, addressed in his testimony on Wednesday.  He explained that North Carolina utilities are not considering the full potential of energy efficiency over the 15-year planning period, and that their methods for comparing energy efficiency to power plants put energy efficiency at a disadvantage. From a planning perspective, energy efficiency continues to be left in a “second-class status.”

Utility Energy Efficiency Resource Forecast System Impacts

We understand that utilities invest in capacity, but customers pay for energy.  That helps to explain why utilities are interested in pushing energy efficiency when it reduces what they have to invest (MW) but not so much when it reduces what customers pay (GWh).  This basic logic is one way to understand why North Carolina utilities are more enthusiastic about saving MW than GWh.

Focusing on the energy savings benefits to customers, Wilson’s testimony emphasized the distinction between the utilities’ near-term efforts to implement new energy efficiency programs, and their long-term commitment to choose energy efficiency rather than new generation to meet customer needs.  Both Duke Energy and Progress Energy have new energy efficiency programs that appear to be a sincere effort to offer customers some opportunities.  However, Duke Energy’s effort appears to be more vigorous and has sought broader input into its design.

Looking beyond 2015, however, it is apparent from the utility resource plans that they are not currently relying on energy efficiency to provide the substantial level of benefits that it could offer, or that other utilities around the country offer.  Based on the studies of energy efficiency potential, utility accomplishments in other parts of the country, and utility goals in other parts of the country, Wilson advised the Commission that up to 15% of North Carolina energy demand could be met through efficiency - about five times more than the state’s utilities currently forecast.

While Wilson didn’t testify regarding Dominion or the smaller public utilities, it is worth briefly explaining what the numbers mean for those utilities.  Dominion Power serves only a small part of North Carolina, and its energy efficiency programs are being introduced in Virginia before being transferred to North Carolina.  Due to its slow start in North Carolina, it is unlikely that it will actually achieve stronger results than Duke or Progress in North Carolina by 2015, but its strong 2015 goal is a plausible target for its entire service territory.

SACE hasn’t conducted an in-depth review of the smaller utility efficiency programs either, but the 2015 forecasts submitted by these utilities indicate that almost every North Carolina utility customer could have access to meaningful energy efficiency programs in the near future.

These energy efficiency investments would be good news for energy customers and the North Carolina economy.  With North Carolina ranking 26th in the nation on energy efficiency according to ACEEE, our state agencies and utilities must be doing better.  Energy efficiency is far and away the least cost energy alternative - we must set aggressive targets to increase the amount of energy we are meeting through simple conservation.  Energy efficiency reduces customer bills, produces no air emissions, and protects both customers and utilities from fuel price spikes.  Energy efficiency also creates jobs - ACEEE found that nearly 2 million jobs are supported by efficiency-related investments nationwide.

Coal-Fired Power Plants

David Schlissel, President of Schlissel Technical Consulting, Inc. and expert on electric utility engineering and economics, testified on Tuesday. Schlissel’s testimony highlighted grave concerns about the utility’s lack of planning around future federal carbon dioxide, coal ash, and ozone and particle pollution regulations, which are all imminent.  Neither Duke nor Progress adequately factored into their IRP studies the risk to customers of operating coal-fired power plants in the face of new or more stringent regulations.

Even though Duke Energy aspires to cut its “carbon emissions in half by 2030,” its resource plan shows that Duke plans for its annual carbon dioxide emissions to actually increase between 13 percent and 42 percent (depending on the scenario) between 2009 and 2029, despite a number of planned coal retirements.  David Schlissel’s expert testimony explains that the reason for this growth in emissions is because of the enormous contribution the new Cliffside Unit 6 will add to their CO2 emissions portfolio (even though Duke cites this as one of its carbon-cutting strategies):

The new Cliffside Unit 6, on its own, can be expected to emit approximately six million tons of CO2 each year, or more than two million tons more CO2 than was emitted in 2008 by all of the cycling coal units that Duke discusses retiring.

Progress Energy has not set a target for cutting its global warming pollution, and David Schlissel’s testimony demonstrated that it has not even projected future CO2 emissions as part of its IRP analysis. Nevertheless, Progress has made some substantial coal plant retirement announcements recently.

In order for both utilities to reduce their CO2 emissions, Duke and Progress will need to retire additional coal units beyond those already proposed for retirement. The alternatives for displacing additional coal units include substantial investments in natural gas-fired combined cycle facilities, renewable resources and energy efficiency.

Schlissel’s testimony concludes:

The Commission should require Duke and Progress, as well as other utilities, to submit as part of their IRP in this docket a detailed and accurate discussion of the expected new pollution control standards and a demonstration of how the utility is factoring the financial risk of these standards into its IRP.

Utilities Show the Nuke Card

While neither Wilson nor Schlissel testified directly about the utilities’ interest in nuclear power plants, cross-examination by attorneys for Progress Energy and Duke Energy indicated that this resource plan was very much about building the case for constructing new nuclear power plants.

SACE has reviewed numerous new nuclear power proposals in the region. We have found that they face serious regulatory hurdles and that they are too costly, putting customers at unreasonable risk of cost overruns and delays.  Just as David Schlissel demonstrated that the utilities are failing to consider the full environmental impacts of coal plants, we have also seen that utilities tend to underplay or ignore the environmental impacts of nuclear power plants.

Furthermore, as John D. Wilson demonstrated in his testimony, the long-term benefits of energy efficiency have not been fully considered in utility resource plans.  SACE also remains unconvinced that the region’s renewable energy resources are or will soon be appropriately utilized.  Based on these factors, SACE would be opposed to new nuclear capacity unless a specific proposal satisfactorily addressed all of these concerns.

John D. Wilson’s testimony can be downloaded here.

David Schlissel’s testimony can be downloaded here.

State House Rep. Joe Gibbons - Photo: Tallahassee Democrat

Rep. Joe Gibbons has kindly allowed us to reprint his published essay.  He addresses the critical need that low-income utility customers have for expanded energy efficiency programs.  As demonstrated in a recent study by Florida Power & Light , low-income residents participate in energy efficiency programs at the same rate as other income groups.  It is simply a myth that energy savings are only for the well off.

Over the last several years, Floridians have seen double-digit percentage increases in utility bills.  Spiking fossil fuel costs are straining the financial resources of many families.  A dialogue with far-reaching impact is under way about goals for energy efficiency and renewable energy.  The Florida Public Service Commission – which regulates the state’s big power companies – plays a role in both.  Energy efficiency breaks this trend of rising rates.

A failure to achieve greater energy efficiency hurts all of Florida’s electricity customers, particularly low- and fixed-income customers, because it deprives them of the help they need to reduce their electricity bills.

Making efficiency programs available to low-income residents is especially valuable because those groups pay a greater share of their income on energy bills compared with more affluent residents. Efficiency saves twice - cutting utility bills and helping the homeowner or renter cut energy waste.

A well-managed energy efficiency program is the lowest cost resource available to Florida’s electric utilities, costing about two to four cents per kilowatt hour. By contrast, the average cost of generating more electricity is at least four times higher, at 12 cents per kilowatt hour.

It’s a simple choice. Would you rather pay 12 cents or 4 cents for energy?

Much can be done to help utility customers reduce their energy use and save money. Over the next decade in at least 16 states, energy use is expected to be reduced by 10 percent to 20 percent.

To its credit, the Public Service Commission took a step in the right direction recently by ordering the state’s power companies to offer more efficiency opportunities to their customers. Florida’s utilities should offer many of the most basic cost-effective measures to customers, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs, low-flow showerheads and water heater blankets. This would help the customers who don’t have information about such measures and sometimes cannot afford to install them without utility incentives.

In response to the Florida Legislature’s interest in renewable energy, the PSC added a new solar energy program for homeowners.. The state’s utilities are expected to present their ideas for how to advance clean and efficient solar energy in Florida, including solar water heaters and rooftop panels.

The total cost for the solar program is estimated to be 7 cents to 18 cents a month for the average customer, so these incentives will have only a tiny impact on bills. We need to design these incentive programs so that individual homeowners share in the cost of solar and the entire body of utility customers benefits without footing the whole bill.

I have introduced HB 77 that addresses this entire issue. The bill asks the Florida Energy and Climate Commission to prepare a report that identifies methods of increasing energy-efficiency among low-income households. The commission will, at a minimum, identify energy efficiency programs currently offered to low-income households by community action agencies, community-based organizations and utility companies in this state as well as similar programs offered to low-income households in other states.

What’s more, implementing energy efficiency creates jobs - especially critical in a state approaching 12-percent unemployment. Improving efficiency requires a work force of electricians, air conditioning installers, carpenters, roofers and more to deliver the services and products that reduce customer bills. Efficiency can add nearly 20,000 Florida jobs by achieving 15-percent energy savings by 2020, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Any way you look at it, efficiency should play a larger role in the lives of Floridians. The savings are especially critical to lower-income customers. While the PSC has taken a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to make efficiency opportunities even more widely available to customers.

Joseph A. “Joe” Gibbons, distinguished member of the Florida House of Representatives since 2006 (on its Energy & Utilities Policy Committee as Democratic Ranking Member) and businessman from Hallandale Beach, expressed support for energy efficiency in this message’s original posting in the Tallahassee Democrat, 4-Mar-10.  Original story link

The first is the reinstatement of the $1.00 gallon tax credit for blended biodiesel.  This had been held up in the partisan divide in the Senate, but passed last week as part of a tax extenders package. Many plants remain idle waiting for final word on the tax credit renewal as the Senate bill must now be reconciled with the House bill from late last year.  The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) has been tracking this process closely and provides regular updates. They are also leading efforts to get the blender’s credit extended for more than just one year.

The second key in growing the biodiesel industry is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2). This is not limited to just biodiesel and includes corn ethanol and advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol.  EPA was directed by Congress through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to revise and develop regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS program will step up the required volumes of renewable fuel to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

We all know that not all biofuels are created equal. Some have negative environmental benefits. Others can be very significant in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and help move us off fossil fuels and away from foreign oil.  It took EPA over 2 years to develop the rules that were released in early February 2010. Much of the debate and delay centered around how to include the thorny but important concept of “indirect land use.”

How the use of land in one place impacts the land use in others shows a growing sophistication in our understanding of how human activities ripple across the globe. It also represents a serious effort to minimize “unintended consequences.”  Needless to say, it set off a firestorm of controversy with many agriculture and business interests being identified as triggering these ripple effects. NBB weighed in aggressively in the debate.  One of the best forums to track the national and international efforts to define what constitutes “sustainable” is through the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. The Roundtable maintains a detailed page on the bioenergy wiki that tracks much of the debate around indirect land use and energy lifecycle for many of the biofuels.

The final RFS2 rule, while not perfect, did maintain the basic structure of the indirect land use concept in greenhouse gas lifecycle analysis. The rule also broke up the different biofuels into four major categories based on the fuel’s relative greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction ability.

While there is plenty to criticize in the rule, it does represent a significant step toward reducing our dependence on fossil fuel for transportation. In the grand scheme, it is a small step, as EPA projects that the 36 billion gallons that will be produced annually by 2022 to meet the rule will only represent approximately 7-11% of the total fuel use in the U.S. that year.

Two Conferences Show Different Sides of Industry
I recently attended the NBB annual conference, held this Feburary in Grapevine, Texas. For the last several years, NBB conferences have been preceded by another conference, the Sustainable Biodiesel Summit (SBS).  Myself and several SACE/CleanEnergy Biofuels (CEB) staff attended the SBS before the much larger NBB.  The smaller sustainable summits have been going on since 2003, when some community-based biodiesel leaders felt that the NBB was too heavily dominated by large scale intensive agriculture interest, particularly soybean growers.

NBB was indeed started in 1992 by state soybean commodity groups who were funding biodiesel research and development programs. NBB has attempted to evolve into a more feedstock-neutral trade organization, but still retains a strong soybean perspective in the organization’s leadership.

Both conferences provide a wealth of information and insight into the rapidly evolving world on biodiesel and the larger biofuels debates. While the SBS is an independent event, there is a Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance and most of the SBS participants are also members of the Alliance.  The SBS has a very different feel than NBB. It’s much smaller, for one.  Around 70-80 people attended the SBS conference as compared to more than 400 people at the NBB. Also, the NBB has more glitzy stagecraft and multimedia, including a large vendor’s exhibit hall.  The SBS is a lower budget, small scale interactive event. While both events where in held in Grapevine, TX, SBS was held at a small winery, as opposed to NBB, which was held at the Gaylord Texan.

Of course, NBB serves its purpose as many feel the “big stage” brings the “big players”.  For example, several of the big three automakers were on hand to announce higher percentage of allowed biodiesel in their new trucks. It’s important to note that the national conference is not all show; it also has smaller focused break-out sessions that provide good information on a number of topics.

This will be a critical year for biodiesel, as the RFS2 is implemented.  SACE is committed to advocating for low carbon, environmentally responsible fuel production. Biodiesel can meet these criteria if produced with these goals in mind.

A new report by the University of Florida was recently released on the economic and supply implications of utilizing woody biomass in Florida.  The report provides a useful look at how a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in Florida can be done (despite using ridiculously low numbers for solar and wind energy potential).  Amazingly, in estimating Florida’s biomass potential the study is ambitious (much more than we were).  What’s most interesting, though, is that the report is being used to cast doubt on a state RPS.

I found the study refreshing in its emphasis on the need to improve management of forestlands in order to grow more wood.

“With increased reforestation, afforestation and planting of high-yielding short rotation woody crops … a 12% and higher RPS could be achieved without depletion of the forest resources of the state, or significant impacts to the existing forest industries.” (Page 2.)

The report also makes it clear to policymakers that Florida’s forests aren’t going to magically become more productive overnight.  Policies are needed to stimulate the new growth:

“Any clean portfolio standard or RPS mandate should also incentivize tree planting including short rotation energy crops…”  (Page 2.)

The basic problem with opposition to a state RPS is that it is economically self-defeating.  Due to market trends, much of the biomass will be consumed one way or another.  In fact, much of it is already being exported to Europe as result of their greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy goals.   Since May of 2008, Florida has exported nearly a million tons of wood pellets to be turned into electricity in Europe.  I’ve heard some authorities project growth in pellet production as high as 4 to 5 million tons per year from Florida alone!  With a strong RPS, these pellets could help Florida reduce imports of fossil energy.

Left: Barge loaded with wood pellets. Right: Barge loaded with coal.

Am I the only one who sees the folly of a state importing more than $1.6 billion in coal each year, while exporting biomass pellets? This means Florida is shipping our clean energy resources abroad, while importing toxic, dangerous, mercury-poisoning coal.

For those who say “we can’t do a RPS in Florida because we don’t have enough biomass,” I urge you to take a look at this crazy import-export equation.

An RPS in Florida will begin to turn that crazy equation around. Investing in homegrown renewable energy (like biomass, solar, and wind) will decrease the need for coal and natural gas expenditures, create in-state jobs, generate local economic benefits and keep more of that money re-circulating among Floridians and Florida businesses. Let’s get to work rebuilding our economy!  Pass that RPS, Tallahassee!

March 2nd and 3rd, 2010 marked a significant step forward for North Carolina on dealing with the challenges and opportunities posed by climate change. For the first time in North Carolina’s history both state and federal agencies came together to discuss how to craft and adopt policies that would prepare the state for both immediate and future impacts of global warming.

The workshop titled “Planning for North Carolina’s Future: Ask the Climate Question” drew roughly 300+ federal, state and local decision-makers, academics, planners and environmental advocates.  Invited speakers from as far away as Utah covered nearly every topic under the umbrella of climate adaptation, providing the participants with an idea of how other states and agencies use climate science to prepare for the future.

The primary host for this workshop was the N.C. Interagency Leadership Team; further demonstrating that the Tarheel State is taking global warming very seriously.  This Team is made up of six state agencies, five federal agencies and other partners.  Their mission is “to successfully balance mobility, natural and cultural resource protection, community values, and economic vitality at the confluence of our missions”.  It was very clear by the end of this workshop that incorporating climate science into each agency’s decision-making process is now a top priority and will possibly be included in any future revisions of their mission statement.

What follow are a few of the questions that this workshop challenged the audience to consider:

*  How will North Carolina begin to adapt and plan to protect its natural resources, local communities and economies in the face of a changing climate?

*  How will climate change impact public health and well-being of society as a whole?

*  How will the state adapt or diversify its energy portfolio, infrastructure and usage in a warmer world?

*  How will developers, city planners and transportation experts incorporate climate science into their decision-making process?

*  How can this information be more effectively communicated to the public?

To begin answering these questions,  panels of expert speakers discussed projected climate change impacts to key sectors.  While their topics were different, they all emphasized the need for comprehensive integrated planning that take climate science into account.  Other invited speakers discussed real-life examples of how to begin developing climate change adaptation strategies.

One of the most impressive presentations was given by Zoe Johnson with the Office for a Sustainable Future at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.  She discussed the process of preparing phase one of Maryland’s comprehensive strategy to reduce vulnerability to climate change.  Zoe shared a prime example of what it would take to develop an adaptation and response strategy for all states facing significant impacts of global warming.  Maryland is on the forefront of sea level rise (as is our entire Southeast region) and have led on these issues for over a decade.  In fact, the State produced a “Sea Level Response Strategy” in 2000.  Our region can learn a great deal from our northerly neighbor, Maryland.

There were many interesting and informative presentations that would be useful for any and all local and state governments who are beginning to “Ask the Climate Question”.  You can view them all here.

Governor Perdue Values Climate Adaptation Efforts

Although Governor Bev Perdue did not attend the conference, she did send along her sentiments through a letter to participants thanking them for being bold enough not to just ask the climate question, but to find solutions to protect North Carolina and its people.

“In this difficult time, we have to be strategic, creative and flexible to effectively leverage our limited resources. We know that we must work together to make North Carolina strong and resilient in the face of climate change, and this conference offers us an excellent model of cooperation and collaboration.”

A Model for the Southeast

In addition to the Governor’s statement I’d offer that this workshop really provides an excellent model for the rest of our region.  The Southeast, with its 2,000 miles of low-lying and subsiding shoreline, is one of the most vulnerable places in the world to the impacts of climate change.  We simply cannot afford to keep our heads in the sand any longer on climate mitigation and adaptation.  I urge all who read this blog to ask your elected officials to “Ask the Climate Question”.  Send them information about the strides that North Carolina is taking to ensure that the state is prepared for the changes to come.  These conversations must happen in a meaningful and public way all throughout the Southeast, and soon.

Each year, St. Patrick’s Day brings out the Irish in all of us - that unexplainable urge to wear green, to enjoy soda bread with a Guinness and to listen to fiddle music.  These days, Ireland offers an entirely new way to ‘go green’ as the Emerald Isle boldly charges into the 21st century powered, increasingly, by clean, renewable wind energy.

Although stone ruins on green hills typically leap to mind when one thinks about Ireland, a recent visit enabled me to see first-hand how the past is blending with the present to support this tiny nation’s fast-growing wind industry.  In less than 20 years, Ireland has built an impressive portfolio of wind-energy projects from a single wind farm at Bellacorrick, County Mayo in 1992 to more than 120 operating wind farms in 23 counties today.

At the end of 2009,  Ireland had installed just over 1200 megawatts (MW) of wind capacity, ranking it 15th in the world in terms of megawatts installed. If that number seems modest, consider that higher-ranked nations, such as the United States, Germany or China, dwarf Ireland in both land and population size. For example, Ireland’s land area (only 32,000 square miles) and population (just 6 million people) mean it is approximately the size and density of South Carolina which, by comparison, had approximately 0 MW of wind capacity installed at the end of 2009.

Ireland’s wind-energy growth has been explosive in recent years, doubling in just 5 years, with a greater than 50% growth rate in 2008 alone.   According to the New York Times’ Green Inc. blog, on July 31, 2009, the output from Ireland’s turbines peaked at 999 megawatts, meaning that for some of that day up to 39 percent of Ireland’s demand for electricity was met by wind.  While some may discount that milestone and say it was the result of unusually high winds, while I was in Ireland at Christmas the blustery storms typical of winter weather prompted several Aircity television commercials informing residents that ‘thousands of households would have wind-powered Christmas dinners’ that year.

Intrigued by these ads, I was compelled to trek to a nearby wind farm to see this clean, green energy in action.  Despite the blustery weather,  I managed to convince my husband to leave the warmth and comfort of his parent’s house to drive me two hours on icy roads down the coast to view the Arklow Bank Wind Park.  Arklow Bank, located 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) off the coast a bit south of Dublin in the Irish Sea, is Ireland’s first and as yet only off-shore wind farm.  It was co-developed by Aircity and GE Energy and consists of 7 GE Energy 3.6 MW turbines that generate a total of 25 MW of clean electricity.  [GE turbines like those produced at Greenville, SC's GE turbine production facility.] Although opponents of offshore wind here in the United States talk about turbines ‘ruining’ a viewshed, this short video gives you an idea how ‘far’ away 6 miles is, and it was a clear, sunny day with almost perfect visibility.

Dozens of other wind farms are visible all over Ireland and private turbines were installed on many farmhouses we saw while out and about.  Ireland’s enthusiastic embrace of wind as an energy source can be traced in large part to the proactive policies and market signals, such as a feed-in tariff, that the government has put in place.  These policies, sorely needed in the United States, ensure stability for project developers and provide incentives and financing to support a large wind-energy network from production to installation to servicing and maintenance.

Even the quintessential Irish drink is now being produced using wind-energy.  Guinness Brewery recently negotiated a “green electricity” contract with the Irish electricity board (Bord Gáis) so that all electricity purchased for its breweries will be sourced from wind - starting with a few small ones mounted on Guinness Warehouses along the River Liffey.  Small steps, to be sure, but steps along the path to a clean and very Irish green energy economy!

Over the past 5 months, TVA has announced multiple contracts with Invenergy Wind, CPV Renewable Energy Co., Iberdrola Renewables, and most recently Horizon Wind, adding up to 1,380 MW of contracted wind energy purchases by the end of 2012.  These contracts are in direct response to the December 2008 Request for Proposals released by TVA for up to 2,000 MW of renewable energy, a strategy the TVA says is important to reach their goal of producing 50% of their electricity from zero or near-zero carbon emissions by 2020. It is encouraging to see TVA once again growing its wind portfolio.  It has been half a decade since the utility last purchased wind energy through the expansion of Buffalo Mountain.

The integration of wind resources outside of the Valley should not come as a surprise.  Wind energy is an extremely cost effective resource.  According to the 2008 Wind Technologies Market Report released by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, wind energy projects placed in service between 2006-2008 sold electricity at an average price of $45/MWh in the Heartland, while electricity was sold for an average of $65/MWh in the East .  

This price difference is accredited to the challenges of locating wind energy projects on more challenging terrains.  In 2008, TVA noted in its renewable energy assessment that wind energy in the Valley could be expected to cost between $70-$110/MWh.

Furthermore, until a guaranteed market for wind energy is located in the Valley, there is a strong likelihood that wind developers will look to sell into, rather than develop in, the Valley.  SACE noted that TVA would not likely receive proposals for in Valley resources, due to the lack of an established market and short response time.  Wind resource assessment can take between 1-3 years, and therefore the wind industry will not invest into a market unless they are confident a market will exist after they understand the wind resource at a specific site.

There are pros and cons to building both outside and inside the Valley.  While it may be the case that wind energy projects from right outside of the Valley are more cost-effective, the job and economic development benefits associated with wind development are shared outside of the TVA region.  In fact, a recent study funded by the Department of Energy entitled “The Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study,” analyzed the impact of wind energy projects along the the Eastern Interconnect of the United States, which includes large utilities such as MISO, SPP, TVA, PJM, NYISO, and other large balancing areas in the region.

The study looked at various scenarios of wind energy growth required in order to reach the Department of Energy’s 20% Wind Energy by 2030 vision.  One of the key questions that seems to be of particular interest to TVA is, “How do local wind resources compare with higher capacity-factor wind power that requires more transmission?”

This study found that in all cases, there is approximately 1247 MW of wind energy located inside of the TVA service area that will be more cost effective to build locally instead of purchasing from outside of the Valley.

These sites were located largely along the Cumberland Plateau, with other sites located on privately owned lands in eastern Tennessee, southwest Virginia and eastern Kentucky mountains.  This study provides a blueprint for TVA to begin to understand the potential role that wind energy markets, both within the Valley and outside of the Valley, can contribute to the future growth of the electric portfolio.

Gazing into the crystal ball looking at the potential future role of wind energy in the TVA generation supply, one could draw many similarities with another federally owned utility, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).  Located in the pacific Northwest, BPA also operates a significant amount of hydro generation, and beginning in 2004, BPA has rapidly grown their wind energy supply, expanding up to 1,000 MW in 2007 and over 2,500 MW in 2009 with a goal of over 6,000 MW in 2013.  Bonneville is accomplishing large scale wind integration through strategic use of its hydro plants in combination with a system-wide wind forecasting tool to smooth out the variability that wind energy sometimes provides. Its this type of innovative planning, that if adopted by TVA, could help TVA lead the way for cost-effective, reliable, large scale renewable energy production in the Southeast.

Family

Risk