As one of the world’s largest energy consumers, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has good reason to turn to reliable and affordable renewable energy sources to power its military operations. As DOD budgets decline in the wake of the federal sequester, solar installations can help rein in the military’s vast energy bill.  Estimates are that DOD spends $20 billion annually on energy, so investments in solar that have ‘fixed’ energy costs given the free source of fuel will yield savings over the life of the panels. In recent years, the DOD has committed to meeting 25% of its energy needs with renewable energy by 2025; the Navy, Army and Air Force are implementing aggressive plans to achieve these goals.

From solar-powered water purification systems (pictured above) to solar-powered security systems and from solar-powered tent camps in Afghanistan to solar-powered homes on bases throughout this country, there are abundant examples of increased solar investment by the military in recent years. This encourages technology innovation, helps lower electricity costs, reduces carbon pollution, and enhances energy security.But do you know another – perhaps more compelling – reason that the U.S. military is increasingly investing in solar for military operations?  Renewable energy is, quite literally, saving lives: “Our generators typically use more than 20 gallons of fuel a day. [With solar] we are down to 2.5 gallons a day,” according to Sgt. David Doty, stationed in Afghanistan. “The system works amazing. By saving fuel for generators, it has cut back on the number of convoys, meaning fewer opportunities for one of our vehicles to hit an IED (improvised explosive device).”

Here in the United States, as of early 2013, there are more than 130 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) energy systems powering Navy, Army and Air Force bases in at least 31 states and the District of Columbia – including installations in all Southeastern states. Combined, these installations provide enough clean energy to power 22,000 American homes. Currently, the world’s largest low-concentration solar power array (4.1 MW) is located on a military base: the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

The best news of all when it comes to military investments in solar? The benefits don’t just stop on the bases or in field camps. Continued solar investment and deployment by our military will drive continued market evolution in solar technology making more affordable, reliable and clean energy available to us all.  However you decide to celebrate this holiday weekend, know that the military’s future – and thus our collective future – is looking a bit sunnier!

What do the Georgia Tea Party, low-income advocates, faith leaders, and green business have in common?

They were all at the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) this week calling for more clean energy in Georgia Power’s long term energy plan – some for more solar, some for expanded efficiency programs, some for retirement of coal plants, and some for all three.

On May 21-22, 2013, the PSC held the second of three hearings to review Georgia Power’s energy plan, known as the Integrated Resource Plan or IRP (learn more on our Take Action page). The PSC reviews the plan every three years to “balance Georgia citizens’ need for reliable services and reasonable rates with the need for utilities to earn a reasonable return on investment.” As part of the review, any citizen may comment on the proposed plan as a “public witness”. The hearings don’t always attract a crowd, but this week, it was a star-studded line-up with some common threads from a surprising variety of perspectives.

Rev. Dr. Gerald Durley, a well-respected Atlanta civil rights leader (pictured above), kicked off the comments by calling on the PSC to approve Georgia Power’s proposed fossil fuel plant retirements, expand energy efficiency programs, and add solar into the long-term plan. He pointed to climate change and other health impacts of coal power.

“People ask me why I’m working on these environmental issues when there’s so much to be done for civil and human rights. I ask them, how can I do my work if I’m dead?”

Bobby Green addresses the Commission

From the low-income advocate perspective, Teresa Pearsall and Gloria Lee of the Fulton Atlanta Community Action Authority and Bobby Green of CHEC Pro all addressed the need to increase access to efficiency programs. Mr. Green said according to his informal door-to-door survey, the average utility bill in his neighborhood is about $250 a month for a 900-square-foot home, while the average income is about $19,000. “Something’s wrong with that,” he said. Ms. Lee pointed out that low-income residents often can’t afford a new appliance in order to take advantage of the rebate Georgia Power currently offers. She reminded the commission of the Bible’s call to care for “the least of these.”

Republican State Representative Rusty Kidd and Georgia Tea Party Patriots State Coordinator Debbie Dooley both felt the proposed plan needed more solar energy. While Georgia Power instituted a commendable “Advanced Solar Initiative” earlier this year, its proposed long-range plan lacks any additional solar investment over the next 30 years. While he accepts that his district stands to lose a coal-fired plant if retirements are approved, Rep. Kidd wants to see better solar policy to attract other industry to the state. Ms. Dooley spoke about the importance of diverse fuel sources to protect the consumer. Both emphasized the falling price of solar energy.

Howard Katzman says contractors are ready for more energy efficiency programs.

Twelve local energy efficiency contractors and suppliers sent the PSC a sign-on letter asking that the Company’s energy efficiency programs be expanded to multiply the overall energy savings goal by three (from .3% to 1%). Six of them were present to comment at the hearing. Howard Katzman of GreenChoice Consulting, which audits and improves home energy performance under Georgia Power’s EarthCents program, stated: “We’ve got the workforce, we’ve done the training, and we’re ready for these programs to expand.” The contractors also praised Georgia Power staff implementing the current programs and asked that a working group be created for contractors to share their experience and advise future program development.

Other public witnesses included:

• Garry Harris of the Center for Sustainable Communities, a nuclear engineer and green development advocate who’s proud he got his electric bill down to $28 last month;
• Tyler Faby, a student activist working to shut down the coal boiler at the University of Georgia;
• Rev. Alexis Chase, Executive Director of Georgia Interfaith Power and Light, who said “If we can help congregations save $1 million on energy with $350,000 in assistance, imagine what Georgia Power could do;”
• June Deen, on behalf of the American Lung Association and Mothers and Others for Clean Air, who supported coal plant retirements in the proposed plan because they’ll reduce the impact on vulnerable people such as those with asthma;
• Kelli Persons with the League of Women Voters of Georgia, who urged a diverse fuel mix with an increased demand reduction (energy efficiency) goal of 1%.

The Commission was very engaged and asked questions or made comments on the majority of public witness statements. Many of the public witness statements aligned with SACE’s own testimony, and we’re glad so many citizens came out to speak! The final 2013 IRP hearing will be held on June 18-19, 2013.

Hands Across the Sand has taken place annually since its 2010 inception and SACE is proud to have been an original sponsor.  Over the past four years, thousands of events have taken place in all 50 states and in 42 countries worldwide.  Initially, the event was focused solely on offshore drilling, but the past two years have incorporated opposition to coal, fracking, and tar sands as well.

The events themselves are simple yet powerful: at 12:00 noon in each local time zone, participants form a line and join hands, physically and figuratively drawing a line in the sand.  Equally powerful is the message: these treasured places are worth more than the short-term profits that industries might be able to extract from them.

37 Hands Across the Sand events were held around the Southeast last weekend.

This year, we had 37 events right here in the Southeast, from North Carolina down to Florida and over to Louisiana.  Residents of these 37 communities stood up for clean water and clean air, for healthy beaches, for ocean wildlife, and for the awesome quality of life we enjoy here in the Southeast.

Offshore drilling is risky and dangerous.  We saw its terrible impacts in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (and the tragedy is still unfolding to this day); in the Santa Barbara blowout in the 1960s and in untold and usually unreported catastrophes that occur around the world on an annual basis.

Chart, courtesy Oceana

In the Southeast, our economy relies on clean, healthy beaches and a thriving coast.  Hundreds of thousands of Southeasterners work in the coastal tourism and fishing industries, which generate billions of dollars per year.  Jeopardizing these critical, established industries for high-risk offshore drilling would be a grave mistake and a disservice to our communities.

The good news is that we can create energy jobs right here without the threat to our mainstay industries.  Solar power, offshore wind, biopower, and energy efficiency can provide for much of our energy needs while creating little to no pollution and supporting a vibrant economy.  Alternative transportation fuels, such as biofuels, and electric vehicles reduce our need for more oil, and alternative transportation such as bicycling or public transit not only reduce oil consumption, but also alleviate traffic, and help us stay healthier.

The message we sent on May 18 is that tapping clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency will ensure a thriving, vibrant coastal economy now and in the future.

As a doctor, I regularly witness how harmful pollution created by burning coal and other fossil fuels affects public health. As a pediatrician, I have spent decades caring for children whose health is most compromised when these dangerous pollutants are released into our air and water.

While air quality has improved in the 40 years since Congress passed the Clean Air Act, the American Lung Association tells us that 40 percent of Americans still live in communities with unsafe levels of pollution. So I find it hard to understand why elected officials in Raleigh and Washington can knowingly threaten decades of gains to secure cleaner air by playing politics with public health.

Human-produced particulates shouldn’t be in our air – those tiny, pollution-generated particles that find their way deep into the spaces of our lungs and cause great harm and much distress. The kind of particles that trigger asthma attacks and are responsible for 9 million visits to health care professionals each year. Particles just like those belched out of coal-fired power plants, spewed from gas-fueled vehicles and released into the atmosphere by industrial productions of all kinds. Carried by the winds, spread everywhere and sometimes invisible, these microscopic specks of pollution are like a modern plague, spreading misery, killing the vulnerable and stealing from all of us the life-giving fresh air we expect to enjoy. We must understand what is in the air we breathe, where it comes from and what we need do to restore that most basic of rights: taking a breath of fresh air.

With that context in mind, I wonder whether leaders at our General Assembly who want to roll back our state’s renewable energy standard don’t fully appreciate that alternative energy sources like wind and solar power can offer some relief from the onslaught of fossil-fuel-generated particulates we breathe. Do these elected officials understand that inhaling smog – formed by emissions from power plants, automobile exhaust and factories – is like giving your lungs a bad sunburn and that society bears the economic costs of such health effects?

It saddens me to know that state officials are not the only ones playing politics with public health. I read with dismay this month that federal legislators boycotted a scheduled committee meeting to confirm the new Environmental Protection Agency administrator. A difference of political opinion is no excuse for obstructionism or endangering our nation’s health.

Despite such political theater, I am heartened that the nominee, Gina McCarthy, has built her career on improving public health by crafting carbon pollution standards for new power plants; prescribing carbon limits for vehicles and updating standards to limit deadly soot, mercury and other toxic pollutants.

These recent political actions remind me that we cannot remain idle and take for granted that fresh, clean air will always surround us, or that the most irritating particulates in our air are just pollen. We deserve to know more about what is in our air, and we can demand stronger regulations in order to relieve the human misery caused by air pollution.

We can and must tell those who make our laws that this nation’s health and vitality starts with the very air we breathe. Clean air is not a partisan issue, nor strictly an environmental one. It is an issue for each and every one of us simply because our lives depend on it.

– Dr. Olson Huff practiced pediatric medicine in North Carolina for more than 40 years. He lives in Black Mountain.

As a regional organization, SACE staffers have the unique opportunity of working with a huge number of outstanding organizations and individuals across several states. There are so many hard working and dedicated groups fighting tirelessly to promote clean energy across the Southeast, and we are lucky to be counted among them.

Working in one of the least energy-progressive regions in the U.S., we are constantly faced with new challenges and fighting to reach new milestones. The energy field is continuously changing, and new developments and successes run in and out of the news cycle so quickly that it can be hard for the public to keep up. In the last few weeks, however, a few groups took the opportunity to assess the events of the past year and to award certain individuals who have truly made a difference in bringing clean energy to their community. We’re pleased to announce that two SACE staffers were among those honored for their unique roles and tireless dedication to promoting responsible energy choices here in our region.

Protecting Her Community: Sara Barczak Champions Environmental Justice
On April 28, SACE’s High Risk Energy Director, Sara Barczak, was honored by Georgia Women’s Action for New Directions (Georgia WAND) at their annual Mother’s Day for Peace event for her “tireless dedication to environmental justice.” Sara shares this award with fellow honorees Mindy Goldstein (the Director of Emory University School of Law’s Turner Environmental Law Clinic) and Diane Curran (a nationally recognized expert and attorney in the field of nuclear safety and security).

In announcing this year’s award recipients, Georgia WAND’s outgoing Executive Director, Bobbie Paul, noted that “this year we’re celebrating the work of some of the toughest legal minds and most accomplished environmental activists I know. Each one of these women embodies a unique strength that is helping us build a powerful movement for clean and sustainable energy and healthy communities.”

Winning with Wind in the Southeast
Just one week later, on May 9, SACE’s Renewable Energy Manager, Simon Mahan, was presented with the 2013 Novus Ventus (New Wind) Award at Wind Powering America’s All States Summit held in Chicago. One of just 10 Outstanding Partner Awards recognized throughout the country, this award celebrates the accomplishments as well as the potential of young leaders (those under 30) working to promote wind energy across the U.S. Simon was chosen for this award because of his “dedication to wind energy research efforts” and his efforts to “help to ignite interest in land-based and offshore wind development in the Southeast.” Simon’s efforts and leadership were certainly a factor in SACE being recognized as the “Outstanding Wind Powering America Partner” for 2012 at last year’s conference in Atlanta.

SACE is thrilled to have these remarkable clean energy champions on our staff, and we are pleased to see them recognized for their achievements. We look forward to their future accomplishments, and we are excited to continue working with them to achieve even greater things in the months to come.

Roosevelt and Norris at Muscle Shoals

It all started with bombs. During the First World War, the federal government built two nitrate plants at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, for making explosives. Wilson Dam was built to supply electricity to these plants. After the war ended, there was disagreement over what to do with the site. Industrialists like Henry Ford envisioned the rise of a new Detroit in the South, centered on the hydroelectric power provided by Wilson Dam. Utility holding companies, controlling over 90% of generation in the area, fought against the competition. Conservationists wanted to keep this and other natural areas in the public domain.

When Franklin Roosevelt became president in March of 1933, he had a grander vision. He saw “a corporation clothed with the power of Government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise.” Along with George Norris, a progressive Republican Senator from the state of Nebraska who had been promoting a similar idea for years, Roosevelt was able to form a coalition to support this bold new plan. TVA was born in an expression of bipartisanship from a bygone era. President Roosevelt signed the TVA Act into law on May 18, 1933. TVA is 80 years old tomorrow.

FDR Signs the TVA Act, May 18, 1933

TVA was founded with a broad vision of social benefit. The preamble to the TVA act says the purpose of the TVA is “To improve the navigability and to provide for the flood control of the Tennessee River; to provide for reforestation and the proper use of marginal lands in the Tennessee Valley; to provide for the agricultural and industrial development of said valley; to provide for the national defense by the creation of a corporation for the operation of Government properties at and near Muscle Shoals in the State of Alabama, and for other purposes.” In his campaign for president, Roosevelt had said, “It [TVA] should be charged with the broadest duty of planning for the proper use, conservation and development of the natural resources of the Tennessee River drainage basin, and its adjoining territory for the general social and economic welfare of the Nation. This authority should also be clothed with the necessary power to carry these plans into effect. Its duty should be the rehabilitation of the Muscle Shoals development and the coordination of it with a wider plan. Many hard lessons have taught us the human waste that results from lack of planning. Here and there a few wise cities and counties have looked ahead and planned. But our Nation has “just grown.” It is time to extend planning to a wider field, in this instance comprehending in one great project many States directly concerned with the basis of one of our greatest rivers.” In its early years, TVA faced many of the same issues it’s facing today. At that time, the private sector controlled most of the electrical generation capacity in the region. Many thought that these private companies, at the time essentially unregulated, were charging too much, using unfair practices, and serving the interests of their corporate owners at the expense of their customers. Roosevelt felt that private utilities had “selfish purposes” and said, “Never shall the federal government part with its sovereignty or with its control of its power resources while I’m president of the United States.” As the current administration ponders the effects of privatizing TVA, history might provide a lesson.

David Lilienthal

From the beginning, although it was a government entity, TVA was structured as a corporation. It was to be run by a board of three members. FDR appointed Arthur E. Morgan as TVA’s first chairman and asked him to suggest the other two board members. Morgan proposed Harcourt A. Morgan (no relation), president of the University of Tennessee, and David E. Lilienthal, a young firebrand from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Lilienthal would later chair the TVA board and become known as the prime architect of the modern TVA. After leaving TVA Lilienthal became the first chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

In the 80 years since its inception, the Tennessee Valley Authority has become the nation’s largest public power provider. TVA’s service territory includes most of Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia, covering 80,000 square miles and serving more than 9 million people. TVA sells electricity to 155 power distributors and 56 directly served industries and federal facilities. Federal appropriations for TVA have been phased out. All of TVA’s operations, including power generation, flood control, recreation and environmental stewardship, are now fully funded through electricity sales and power system revenue. As TVA enters its ninth decade, it faces a number of new challenges. Lower demand, economic malaise, cost overruns, an impending debt ceiling and the threat of privatization all loom.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy has been a part of TVA’s history for almost 30 years now, in various incarnations. Although many may feel that we have been overly critical of TVA during that time, SACE supports the grand vision of TVA from its early days. As a “living laboratory”, TVA must continue to lead the way into a new and modern era by embracing and promoting the development of clean, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency while encouraging economic development and overseeing the conservation of our natural resources.

Congratulations to the Tennessee Valley Authority on the occasion of this historic milestone.

The legislation has been a long time coming.  Article VII, Section 4  of the Florida constitution requires county property appraisers to assess all property at market value. An exemption for residential renewable energy devices was approved by 61 percent of Florida voters by ballot referendum in 2008. This bill simply implements that constitutional amendment. Similar legislation implementing the 2008 constitutional amendment passed the Florida House of Representatives in the three years following the amendment, but none of those bills passed the Florida Senate. The fourth time was a charm. It was the only renewable energy-related bill to pass this legislative session.

There is currently no similar exemption for renewable energy devices on commercial property. Placing a referendum on the 2014 ballot creating an exemption for commercial property should be on Florida lawmakers’ radar as they head into next year’s legislative session.

Unfortunately, the Sunshine State continues to lag embarrassingly behind other states in customer-sited solar energy systems. In Florida, for instance, there are over 9 million residential, commercial and industrial electric utility customers. Yet there are only 3,994 customer-sited renewable generation systems. That number primarily represents residential and commercial customers with solar PV systems that have entered into an interconnection and net metering agreement with a Florida utility. The total generating capacity of the Florida customer-sited systems is 29.3 megawatts (MW).

By contrast, there are currently 148, 989 customer-sited solar energy systems accounting for over 1,500 MW of installed capacity in California, as reported by the California Solar Initiative (CSI). Now, that may not be a fair comparison since California has nearly twice the population of Florida, and the renewable energy policy differences in the states are greater than the geographic distance that separates them. Let’s instead make the comparison to say, New Jersey, which has less than half the population of Florida and a much weaker solar resource than the Sunshine State. In this case, New Jersey has over 21,000 customer-sited installed PV projects; more than five times that of Florida.

So what gives? Why does Florida, the third largest state – by population – in the country and with some of the best solar resource potential east of the Mississippi River, come up short on the number and capacity of customer-sited PV systems?

In large part this is because Florida has no comprehensive renewable energy policy that promotes solar development.

There is, however, a simple policy measure that Florida lawmakers should also consider – that’s the third party ownership model. Third-party ownership financing is a rapidly growing solar market trend, where commercial companies own and operate customer-sited PV systems and lease PV equipment or sell PV electricity to the building occupant. Third-party financing can reduce or eliminate up-front adoption costs, reduce technology risk and complexity by monitoring system performance, and can repackage the solar value proposition by showing cost savings in the first month of ownership rather than payback times on the order of a decade. Third-party financing of PV has become the predominant business model in some of the largest residential markets in the U.S.; comprising greater than 50 percent of new residential PV capacity in California, Arizona and Colorado in 2012 alone, and gaining increasing market share in nearly all states with significant PV capacity, such as New Jersey. It’s estimated that this type of solar ownership structure contributed more than $938 million to the California economy in 2012. The state of Florida could benefit from those levels of private investment.

Yet, this model is severely discouraged by Florida law in its definition of a utility. Florida is one of 4 states that explicitly prohibit the retail sale of electricity by any entity, other than a utility. Although Florida technically allows third party “leases” of energy equipment, as opposed to the actual sales of third party generated energy, explicit language in Florida laws and rules  against third party sales creates risks and contract complexities that have prevented most third party providers from entering the Florida market. Removing this regulatory burden on third party ownership is one tool in the policy toolbox that could significantly jump start investment into the state and dramatically breathe new life and jobs into the Florida residential and commercial property solar market.

However, the passage of House bill 277 is a promising first step to a sunnier future for Florida’s residential solar industry. But, significant barriers remain to meaningful solar development in Florida.

This Saturday, you have the opportunity to join with thousands of other beach, marsh, and general coast lovers at your local Hands Across the Sand event. Hands Across the Sand is an international day of action on which communities come together to celebrate their treasured places and send a clear message that they want these places to be protected from the adverse impacts of risky energy choices, such as offshore drilling.  More than 90 communities in 18 U.S. states and 8 countries will gather at their treasured place to send the message “NO!” to offshore drilling and risky fossil fuels, and “YES!” to clean energy.

The good news is that you can participate to help make the message ring even louder.  Click here to find your local event or create an event of your own.  The event is simple and fun: participants join hands along their beach (or place of their choosing), thus forming a line.  This line in the sand is physical, yet it is also metaphorical; it is a way to say that you are standing up for the place you love.

The impacts of offshore drilling and other risky fossil fuels are evident and profound: human health impacts, polluted air and water, harm to wildlife, and economic detriment.  You can read more about the impacts of offshore drilling and why it is a bad idea for our region in our recent blog, “Why We Should Not Drill Offshore the South Atlantic” and in our blog detailing the ongoing impacts of the BP oil spill tragedy here.

I’m pleased to say the media is tracking this issue and I was recently interviewed on U Need 2 Know, a talk radio show here in South Carolina to talk about offshore drilling and Hands Across the Sand and you can listen to the broadcast to learn more here.

On behalf of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the other 2013 sponsoring partners of these events, I sincerely hope that you will consider attending a local Hands Across the Sand event this Saturday!

UPDATE:  On Thursday, May 15, the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee voted along party lines to approve Gina McCarthy’s nomination (every Republican, including all four Republican Senators from the Southeast opposed McCarthy’s nomination).  Up next, McCarthy’s nomination will go before the full Senate for a vote.  McCarthy will likely face a tough vote in the Senate.  If a Senator decides to filibuster, McCarthy will need to garner 60 votes in order to be appointed.  Please visit our action alert page and call or write your Senators and urge them to support McCarthy’s appointment as EPA Administrator.

Last Thursday, moments before a scheduled vote on the confirmation of Gina McCarthy to become Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staged a boycott.  The alleged reason behind the boycott?  McCarthy had not sufficiently responded five important “transparency requests.”  McCarthy had, however, answered 1,079 oral and written questions in earlier confirmation hearings.  Apparently, not sufficiently answering .005% of questions during a confirmation hearing is reason enough for Senate Republicans to stage a boycott.  Despite both McCarthy’s exceptional background as Assistant EPA Administrator from 2009-present and as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection from 2004-2009, Republicans have decided to use any means necessary to try to roadblock McCarthy’s appointment.  Luckily, for those of us concerned about public health and the health of our environment, it seems unlikely that Republicans will do more than delay McCarthy’s appointment as EPA Administrator.

Senate Democrats were outraged at the boycott last Thursday and spoke out in frustration towards their Republican counterparts.  Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, had this to say:  “It shows how obstructionist they are…. It shows how their pledge to do better with women voters is false. How could you have a more qualified woman than Gina McCarthy? This is outrageous.”  McCarthy has a history of crafting clean air regulations that not only protect the public health but also include significant industry input – ensuring that emissions standards are low enough to protect health but reasonable enough so that industry is able to comply.

Senator Boxer has promised to schedule a second vote on McCarthy’s nomination later this week, and she has considered changing committee rules if it is the only way to push McCarthy’s nomination through.  Changing committee rules, however, could give the GOP a reason to filibuster McCarthy’s nomination on the Senate floor.

Along with Ms. McCarthy’s confirmation vote, Republicans also stalled the Senate vote of another would-be Obama appointee, Energy Secretary nominee Ernest Moniz.  South Carolina Senator, Lindsey Graham, stalled a full Senate vote on Moniz over Graham’s concerns about a federal program in his state which turns weapons-grade plutonium into fuel.  The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, however, approved the nomination of Dr. Moniz on April 18.  The only senator voting against Dr. Moniz’s in committee was another Republican South Carolina Senator, Tim Scott, who pressed Dr. Moniz during an earlier hearing about the department’s decision to re-evaluate the nuclear fuel processing program in South Carolina. Graham has since lifted his procedural block on the Senate vote.  A full Senate vote on Moniz’s nomination is set to take place later this week.

We support those working in the Senate to help speed up the appointment of Gina McCarthy as EPA Administrator.  We look forward to the day that McCarthy begins her term as Administrator and hope that she continues to serve as a strong advocate for cleaner air and a healthier America.

For more information on Obama’s nominees, check out an earlier SACE blog on the mixed reactions from the environmental community to President Obama’s nominations for EPA Administrator; Secretary of Energy; and Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell.

Last month the Tennessee Valley Authority proudly announced what they considered to be good news: That their 2013 Green Power Provider (GPP) program had already met its 2013 solar application target as of April 24th. Even though there is still a strong demand for new solar systems, in less than four months the program is now completely “full” and no longer accepting solar applications for the rest of the  year. Imagine how pleased they must be with the popularity of their program; then again, it’s not exactly difficult for them to meet such a small application target.

Good news? Really? Try telling that to the Tennessee Valley solar companies, who are technically “done” signing contracts for the year. The implications of this announcement are incredibly serious for the local solar industry, which will now have to withstand seven months of no new sales. How many businesses do you know that can go seven months without selling any of their product?

Programmatic Whiplash
TVA solar programs evolved from the Green Generation Partners Pilot Program that was originally launched in 2003. The programs had a slow start, but really began to grow in 2009. There are currently nearly 140 solar companies  at work throughout the solar value chain in the Valley. In the summer of 2010, however, as growth in the program accelerated, TVA began a series of changes that caused serious disruptions to the program. There were abrupt stops in accepting applications, and then a 80% reduction in allowable systems size that was followed shortly by another 75% size reduction. These reductions shrunk the allowable system size from 1000 kilowatts to 50 kilowatts.

Since then, name and rule changes with additional constraints have kept the solar industry off balance. Deployments of larger (above 50 KW) solar systems have dramatically dropped off.  The only thing consistent about TVA’s solar program modifications since 2010? TVA’s efforts to constrain the solar market.

In October of 2012, TVA changed the name of the program to Green Power Providers and, for the first time, established a total program cap of 2.5 megawatts (MW) for new applications submitted in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2012.  Of course, the program was filled with applications almost immediately. This past January, the premium incentive was reduced by 25% to $.09, and the program was set to allow a total of only 7.5 MW of new project applications for the remainder of calendar year 2013. This allotment has already been filled only four months into the program and is now closed again to future applications.

TVA has tried to link their solar programs to their small voluntary green power pricing program, Green Power Switch, which is largely run for public relations purposes. Green Power Switch has never generated a strong following because a majority of people believe the benefits of clean renewable energy should be supported by all customers and not just a few who are willing to pay extra on their bills. Even after more than ten years, most TVA customers don’t even know about or fully understand the voluntary program.

In a web based FAQ, the company states that: “TVA wants to promote sustainable growth in small-scale renewable generation while continuing to support local industry and provide a smooth path to grid parity.”

They’re promoting sustainable growth? Not currently. Rather, TVA’s program is creating an unsustainable environment which threatens the local businesses and livelihoods of the very industry it claims to support.

What is needed is sustained orderly development of this emerging technology. TVA’s management of the solar program has taken this developing industry through programmatic whiplash.

People Want More Solar
Why should TVA support solar development in our region? Because people in the Tennessee Valley want it!

- Solar is the fastest growing energy source in the U.S. and receives a higher rank than any other generation source when it comes to public “favorability.”

- It is truly clean energy, generating much needed electrons in the heat of the day – close to TVA’s peak usage times when power production is most expensive and dirtiest.

- Solar can also provide value through transmission and distribution energy and capacity benefits, as well as fuel price mitigation.

These benefits have been clearly  documented. The most amazing thing about solar is that people are willing to invest their own money to build solar generation for TVA’s power grid, resulting in no major capital cost to TVA unlike other generation which pushes TVA against its debt ceiling. On top of this, solar power provides local economic development with local jobs, instead of sending regional money to coal mines out west or gas fields in Texas.

Misleading the Public
Though solar costs have been declining at record rates, it’s true that solar does need some subsidy support in the near term to develop economies of scale production and experience, both of which will drive costs lower in the long run. Unfortunately, TVA spokesmen have taken to using inflammatory language to mislead the public and decision makers by implying that the solar industry is seeking  ”unlimited subsidies,” as stated by TVA’s spokesman, Mike Bradley.

The truth is that when TVA dropped its premium incentive rate from $.12/kWh in 2012 to $.09/kWh in 2013, the industry was not up in arms over the reduction in the subsidy; they understood that as the installed price comes down, so too must the incentive value. Instead TVA should be voicing strong support for solar power consistent with the Administration’s agenda, not misrepresenting the industry’s positions.

Show me the numbers
When Senior Executive Kim Greene went before the TVA Board of Directors asking for their support of the “new and improved” Green Power Provider program at TVA, it was clearly indicated that TVA staff would work with solar stakeholders to design future changes in the program. But that’s not what happened. What has happened is that TVA staff has never publicly shown the calculations behind how they came up with the 2.5 MW or 7.5 MW caps. These appear to be arbitrarily chosen values. Clearly they misread the market, given that the program has been over subscribed twice already and is now shut down only 4 months into the new year. TVA never shared the specific market research that led to the 25% reduction in incentive price going from $.12 to $.09, and TVA currently plans additional nonspecified reductions in future.

One requirement of the program that all parties agree is important is a clear time limit to get projects built.  Applicants that were accepted into GPP before it reached capacity would need to complete their projects within 6 months (180 days) of approval. However, it’s well known in the solar industry that some companies act as “speculators” and merely submit applications without full assurance that their projects will actually be completed. TVA currently has no safeguard against these types of applicants.

Interestingly, TVA created a web based “Dashboard” to show developers how the program was proceeding toward its new cap. Dashboard initially showed both approved applications and completed or “operating”projects. On April 24, the Dashboard showed less than 20% of the 2012 cap projects being completed as their 180 day deadline approached. However, this transparency was abruptly removed following inquiries by the solar industry as to exactly how much had been completed and whether or not allocated capacity that had not been built would be re-opened for applications. These numbers have not been shared publicly, and the “Dashboard” continues to not display “operating”projects, so no one knows how many projects were completed on time.

There is reason to believe this specific issue may be resolved in the 2013 round of GPP, based on a statement by TVA’s Director of Renewable Programs, Patty West: “If a project doesn’t move forward or can’t be installed in a timely manner, we can allow someone else the opportunity to build a system.” However, this language – “can allow” – is not definitive and creates uncertainty for at least another six months, a timing gamble that many local solar companies cannot afford.

There appears to be no publicly available analytical support for TVA’s selection of capacity targets and associated incentive rates, nor any acknowledgment of the potential value distributed solar energy provides to the grid.

So what now?
SACE’s suspicion is that the 2013 GPP capacity cap of 7.5MW is based not on an evaluation of what’s needed to sustain the local industry or to meet the public demand for solar, but rather on an arbitrary number chosen to meet a non-transparent budget target which reflects a low priority for solar power at TVA.

Assuming all the capacity dedicated under GPP is built and operating by the end of September 2013, the annual cost for TVA for the following Fiscal Year (i.e., Oct 1, 2013 – Sept. 31, 2014), would be about $2 million. Note that this doesn’t account for administrative costs, but it also doesn’t account for potential offsetting revenue through the sale of renewable energy credits (RECs), or through the funds collected under the Green Power Switch program, or the potential grid value benefits. $2 million is about .02% of TVA’s projected 2012 revenue of $12 billion, and about .08% of the $2.6 billion TVA planned to invest in capital projects for their power system.

If TVA leadership is sincere about using clean solar energy and being responsive to strong public support and clear market demand, this program must be taken seriously, managed well and carefully developed. If program caps are needed, they should be chosen in a clear and transparent manner. As solar costs continue to decline, reductions in the incentives should be carefully chosen in a clear and transparent process, with supporting market research and close collaboration with solar stakeholders. TVA should welcome and support people who want to build solar systems for the regional grid and the small businesses who make it possible. Every effort should be geared toward sustained orderly development, not clumsily repeated disruptions.

*The projected generation is based on the default values in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s PVWatts calculator for Nashville, TN, an area that represents a reasonable average solar resource for the state. Lastly, it includes the premium rates paid for in the two programs ($.12/kWh for 2012 allocation and $.09 for 2013 allocation) and the difference between an average retail rate ($.10/kWh) and a solar avoided cost of $.041/kWh. This solar avoided cost was calculated based on the rates solar generation would be correlated with when considering the season and time-of-use rates provided by TVA in their Renewable Standard Offer pricing guidelines.