US Army Leading Trash To Gas Efforts

From The New York Times -

August 17, 2013

Trash Into Gas, Efficiently? An Army Test May Tell

By PAUL TULLIS

THERE is an indisputable elegance to the idea of transforming garbage into fuel, of turning icky, smelly detritus into something valuable.

But big drawbacks have prevented the wholesale adoption of trash-to-gas technology in the United States: incineration is polluting, and the capital costs of new plants are enormous. Gasification systems can expend a tremendous amount of energy to produce a tiny amount of electricity. Up to this point, it hasn’t seemed worth the trouble.

Mike Hart thinks that he has solved those problems. In a former Air Force hangar outside Sacramento, his company, Sierra Energy, has spent the last several years testing a waste-to-energy system called the FastOx Pathfinder. The centerpiece, a waste gasifier that’s about the size of a shower stall, is essentially a modified blast furnace. A chemical reaction inside the gasifier heats any kind of trash — whether banana peels, used syringes, old iPods, even raw sewage — to extreme temperatures without combustion. The output includes hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which together are known as syngas, for synthetic gas, and  can be burned to generate electricity or made into ethanol or diesel fuel. The FastOx is now being prepared for delivery to Sierra Energy’s first customer: the United States Army.

Ethanol has long been promoted as an alternative fuel that increases energy independence, and federal law requires the use of greater amounts of it. But most ethanol in this country is produced from corn, and many people worry that the mandate is pushing up food prices. Ethanol produced from trash — or agricultural waste, as others are trying — would allay such concerns.

Ineos Bio, a Florida company, announced last month that it had produced ethanol from gasified wood waste, using a method that it expects to be commercially viable, and KiOR Inc. will make one million to two million gallons of diesel and gasoline this year from wood waste at its plant in Columbus, Miss., according to Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association. Mr. Hart said Sierra Energy’s technology should be complementary with the Florida company’s; the FastOx turns all municipal waste, not just wood scraps, into a gas that Ineos Bio could then transform into ethanol.

The FastOx gasifier is the brainchild of two former engineers at Kaiser Steel, patented by the grandson of one of them and commercialized by Mr. Hart. “It’s a modular system that can be dropped into any area,” Mr. Hart said, “using waste where it’s produced to make electricity where it’s used.” Once it’s off the ground, he said, “garbage will be a commodity.”  

From concept to construction, the story of the FastOx is of one fortuitous accident after another. And while Sierra Energy has not yet proved to be a successful company — it will be a long while before your garbage is shoveled into a FastOx — its system has become the first waste-to-energy technology acquired by the Defense Department, which paid $3 million for it through an environmental technology program. (The California Energy Commission, which supports renewable energy development in the state, also gave Sierra $5 million, to cover the portion of Sierra’s costs that the Pentagon couldn’t.)

The military is looking for ways to reduce its oil consumption, and to make it easier to supply the front lines with the fuel it uses in all its vehicles and generators. “These days, the supply lines are in the battlefield,” said Sharon E. Burke, the assistant secretary of defense for operational efficiency plans and programs. “And we consume a lot of fuel, which makes us a big target.”

MIKE HART got into the energy business by way of a train. In 1993, he bought the Sierra Railroad, a small freight and tourism line in Northern California. During the California blackouts of 2001, he had an idea: “As the lights were going out, I realized every one of my locomotives creates 2.1 megawatts of electricity,” he said — enough to power many hundred homes. “It’s a rolling generator, and inexpensive.”

The train-as-power-generator idea never really left the station, but it got Mr. Hart thinking about alternative energy. Then, as part of a settlement after a fuel spill from one of his trains, he promised to convert his trains to nonpolluting biodiesel.

Biodiesel, however, proved hard to find, and Mr. Hart started looking for new ways to source it. In 2002, he was asked to judge an annual business plan competition called the Big Bang, at the University of California, Davis. That’s where he met Chris Kasten.

Mr. Kasten came to the competition with an idea to use a modified blast furnace to turn waste into fuel. His grandfather, Bruce Claflin, a retired chief industrial engineer at Kaiser Steel in Fontana, Calif., had given him the idea.

Kaiser used blast furnaces to make steel, and Mr. Claflin and a colleague, John Jasbinsek, were tasked with finding “a way to make the blast furnace more efficient and less polluting,” said Mr. Jasbinsek, who is now 86.

Like all blast furnaces, Kaiser’s emitted a flue gas out of the top. It occurred to Mr. Clafin and Mr. Jasbinsek that this gas might have value. The two came up with the idea of injecting oxygen, instead of the atmospheric air that steel makers had always used, to create the chemical reaction that heats the inside of the furnace. This would cut pollution while raising the energy content of the flue gas — in essence, giving the steel maker a second product. But pure oxygen made the system too hot, so they added steam. This gave the furnace a third product: hydrogen, which can be used to produce electricity in fuel cells.

After Kaiser decided to close the Fontana plant in 1983, workers were told to toss all demolition debris into the blast furnace. It was then that Mr. Jasbinsek and Mr. Claflin realized that the furnace could take garbage, too. “No matter what they put in, the furnace melted and gasified it,” Mr. Kasten said. This meant a potential fourth revenue stream — from taking municipal waste that would otherwise go to landfills.

When Kaiser wasn’t interested, Mr. Jasbinsek recalled, “we took the idea to other steel companies, too.” But “nobody gave a damn!” he said. “Now there are hardly any steel companies left in the U.S.”

Kaiser Steel went bankrupt in 1987, so the idea belonged to Mr. Jasbinsek and Mr. Claflin. They were nearing retirement, though, so Mr. Claflin told his grandson about it. (Mr. Claflin died before the idea could be commercialized.)

Mr. Kasten’s first fruitful step in developing his grandfather’s idea was meeting with Chris Soderquist, founder of Venture Lab. “When you run a technology incubator, you see a lot of crazy and half-baked ideas,” Mr. Soderquist said. But Mr. Kasten’s was different; Mr. Soderquist could see right away the value of multiple revenue streams.

Gasification is more efficient than incineration and eliminates toxic byproducts that come from burning trash. But it was especially appealing from a business point of view because it relied on a proven technology and used materials in wide abundance: blast furnaces being abandoned as the American steel industry was collapsing.

“What was compelling from the start,” Mr. Soderquist said, “was repurposing existing infrastructure into a generator of clean energy, with a second revenue stream from people paying you to take their waste.”

Mr. Soderquist helped Mr. Kasten prepare for the Big Bang competition. “For a grad school business plan competition, it was quite a plan he presented,” Mr. Soderquist said, and the judges agreed: Mr. Kasten, now 43, won a $2,000 prize.

Mr. Hart, 51, as a competition judge and a serial entrepreneur, was intrigued. He had started his first business at 12, operating a string of candy machines in high schools throughout what would become known as Silicon Valley. Next, while still living at home, he opened a sort of temp agency for teenagers doing odd jobs. There were a lot of other businesses from the late 1970s to 1993, and stints as a developer for Steve Jobs’s company Next, and for Apple. Mr. Hart also did some consulting until he realized that he would make more money buying whatever devalued company he had been hired to help, and turning it around himself. That was when he bought the Sierra Railroad.

Mr. Hart checked out Mr. Kasten’s gasifier and decided to buy the patents. Then he applied to a Pentagon program established to shepherd proven concepts to the production stage. Results at the Defense Department’s testing facility near Sacramento have been promising; after about four hours, one ton of waste creates enough gas to produce 1,580 kilowatt-hours of electricity, which would power an average home in the United States for about a month and a half — at one-third the emissions of coal — and 42 gallons of renewably sourced fuel. And that’s with a 12-ton-a-day gasifier; existing blast furnaces can handle as much as 2,000 tons a day.

Now that the Pentagon is convinced that the FastOx will work as advertised, the system should be providing electricity later this year at Fort Hunter Liggett, a  training base in Monterey County, Calif., and fuel for vehicles and generators in early 2014.

“California produces 30 million tons of garbage a year,” Mr. Hart said. “If it decided to turn its waste into clean fuels, at that rate it could meet all its oil consumption needs and still export more fuel than some OPEC members.” That is, if the FastOx can do what no other waste-to-energy gasification technology has done before: take any kind of trash, in any succession, without additional separation or preparation.

Sierra plans to license its technology and to sell systems to make electricity or ethanol from the syngas produced by the FastOx. The first will be small and cost about $3 million. But Mr. Hart said he expects to sell larger systems to municipalities and biofuel makers that will go for much more.

Any waste-to-energy plan, however, must overcome a major hurdle: the wild inconsistency of the waste stream. “Until you’ve demonstrated that you can handle it all, nobody’s interested,” Mr. Hart said. “I can understand it; they’ve heard similar promises before. We’ve got 150 cities, communities and businesses lined up to be Serial No. 2. Nobody wants to be No. 1.”

NOBODY, that is, except the Pentagon. The Defense Department is the country’s largest single consumer of energy, spending $15 billion a year just on fuel.

“The mission drives this,” said Ms. Burke, the assistant defense secretary, “and the mission is inherently energy-intensive.”

The FastOx could reduce the military’s reliance on oil overseas and the grid at home. “I have a $24 million-a-year electric bill at Camp Pendleton” in Southern California, said that Marine base’s commander, Brig. Gen. Vincent A. Coglianese. “If I can reduce that cost, that’s more money I can put into training Marines and sailors.”

Ms. Burke added, “Something for military operations has to be really rugged, deployable, simple to use — all of those things.”

Consultants and municipal sanitation officials who’ve looked at the FastOx say it meets those criteria. John Conger, the acting deputy under secretary of defense for installations and the environment, who oversees management of military bases in the United States, says Sierra Energy’s technology should provide energy security for the military in the event of a blackout and provide budget savings as well.

The military’s cost of petroleum, when the costs of transporting and guarding it are factored in, can run as high as $50 a gallon. Moreover, about half of United States casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2007 were of servicemen and servicewomen moving and protecting fuel convoys, according to an Army report.

The appeal of Mr. Hart’s Pathfinder system is that it would produce fuel on site, eliminating the need to truck in fuel to dangerous military outposts. It would also reduce the need for trash-burning on bases, which creates pollution and noxious odors that have contributed to locals’ distaste for the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.  As a result, United States forces in Afghanistan are working to close burn pits.

“Waste is a problem,” Ms. Burke said. “So if we could dispose of waste and create energy at the same time, that would be a silver bullet.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: August 25, 2013
An article last Sunday about a Sierra Energy gasifier system that the Army will use to turn trash into energy referred incorrectly to a product of the system. It is hydrogen and carbon monoxide, together known as “syngas,” for synthetic gas; the system does not produce “synthetic natural gas.” The article also referred imprecisely to Fort Hunter Liggett, a training base in Monterey County, Calif. At more than 165,000 acres, it is not a “small” base.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 1, 2013



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/business/trash-into-gas-efficiently-an-army-test-may-tell.html

Encouraging Electric Vehicles In The US

From The Washington Post - encouraging electric vehicles - notye the serious increase in sales already - very small numbers but jumbo percentages.

Eight-state coalition plans incentives for zero emission vehicles

By Lenny Bernstein, Published: October 24

A coalition of eight states announced plans Thursday to boost the use of electric cars and other zero emission vehicles, promising incentives and an improved network of fueling stations to encourage consumers to buy the vehicles and prompt manufacturers to produce more of them.
The eight governors who signed the agreement, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), hope to put at least 3.3 million zero emission vehicles on their roads by 2025. To accomplish that, they pledged to install more electric charging stations, introduce or continue tax breaks for consumers and add such vehicles to government fleets. Some other states have similar incentives, though they did not join the group.
Collectively, the eight states — California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont — represent about 23 percent of the U.S. auto market, according to information the group released Thursday.
“We think it’s doable,” said Mary Nichols, chairman of the Air Resources Board in California, the biggest market in the group. “The market is moving fast. It started from zero and it accelerated very quickly.”
Nichols and others said the greatest obstacle to overcome is consumer resistance to new technology. Buyers must be convinced that the vehicles will work for them, she said, a process that usually requires seeing them on the road or in a neighbor’s driveway — not just in an advertisement.
“Once we are able to get the word out to consumers that there is an infrastructure out there, and [it is] all over the state … we’ll be able to encourage a greater desire to get an electric vehicle in Maryland,” said Samantha Kappalman, a spokeswoman for O’Malley.
U.S. motorists bought about 52,000 electric cars in 2012, up from about 17,000 in 2011, according to the group. More than 40,000 plug-in cars were sold in the first half of 2013. In addition to all-electric cars, the group wans to encourage production and purchase of fuel cell vehicles, which run on hydrogen, and plug-in hybrids , which have both electric and gasoline engines.
Fossil fuels burned to power cars, trucks, ships, trains and planes were responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Maryland wants to put 60,000 zero emission vehicles on its roads by 2020, Kappalman said, and will add another 110 to 160 public charging stations to the 430 that exist. In addition to the $7,500 federal tax credit available to buyers of such vehicles, the state offers a $1,000 excise tax credit, a $400 tax credit for any equipment purchased and access to HOV lanes, she said.
In 2012, 1,764 electric vehicles were sold in Maryland, up from 227 in 2011. This year’s sales will surpass last year’s, she said.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/eight-state-coalition-plans-incentives-for-zero-emission-vehicles/2013/10/24/f79b36f8-3ca3-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html

Fighting For Roof Tops

From the front lines in Colorado and Arizona of the battle over how roof top solar interacts with the grid.

Solar advocates and Xcel spar over the future of rooftop solar power

By Mark Jaffe
The Denver Post

Posted:   10/29/2013 04:14:48 PM MDT

sUpdated:   10/30/2013 02:13:41 AM MDT

 

Read more: Solar advocates and Xcel spar over the future of rooftop solar power - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24412625/solar-advocates-and-xcel-spar-over-future-rooftop#ixzz2jEJlJA4w
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

An attempt to find common ground on state policies for rooftop solar started Tuesday with a sharp exchange between Xcel Energy and solar-energy advocates.
The session ended with Xcel's refusal to withdraw its proposal — which is pending at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission — to cut rooftop-solar incentives.
In turn, the representatives from Vote Solar, a solar-energy advocacy group, said they were not sure of the value of continuing the talks.
The session, hosted by the Colorado Energy Office, brought together representatives of utilities, state government and the solar-energy industry.
The goal was to try to balance the interests of utilities and the solar industry "before it degenerates into contention," said Jeff Ackermann, director of the energy office.
The contention, however, was evident in opening statements.
Xcel's concern is that the credit given to homes and businesses with solar panels that add kilowatt-hours to the grid is too high and burdens other customers, said Frank Prager, an Xcel vice president.
In a PUC filing, Xcel is calling for a cut in the credit, the so-called net-meter charge.
The credit is equal to the price a residential customers pays: 10.5 cents a kilowatt-hour.
If the credit isn't cut, Xcel wants to reduce new solar installations in its Solar Rewards program by 83 percent to 6 megawatts.
"Utilities are working to stop and slow down these innovative technologies," said Rick Gilliam, Vote Solar's director of research.
In turn, Prager objected to the proposal that how a utility conducts its business and its planning to accommodate new technology should be part of the discussion.
"This was a missed opportunity," said Edward Stern, executive director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group.
"(Gov. John Hickenlooper) got all the relevant parties to the table, and that was a great step," Stern said. "But Xcel forcing net-metering into its renewable-energy-compliance plan makes it hard to have a discussion."
Challenges to Xcel's plan must be filed with the PUC in two weeks.
"There just isn't enough time to do everything," Stern said.
The energy office is, however, planning another session.
"We are optimistic because we see that people are willing to put forward their points of view," Ackerman said in an e-mail. "The prospects for consensus should not be judged by one meeting."
Mark Jaffe: 303-954-1912, mjaffe@denverpost.com or twitter.com/bymarkjaffe

Read more: Solar advocates and Xcel spar over the future of rooftop solar power - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24412625/solar-advocates-and-xcel-spar-over-future-rooftop#ixzz2jEJfUdoC
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24412625/solar-advocates-and-xcel-spar-over-future-rooftop

Ariz. utility, solar industry fight over solar credits

Ryan Randazzo, The Arizona Republic 4:19 p.m. EDT October 29, 2013

 

States look to Arizona to see how they resolve the net-metering issue.

 

PHOENIX -- Arizona finds itself as the national hot spot when it comes to solar subsidies, with utility executives and industry officials squaring off in a showdown that could shape the future of residential solar use across the country.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising have been spent to influence a looming regulatory decision that in essence is quite basic.
It's about affordability.
Arizona Public Service Co. says credits to solar users are so high that current solar-panel customers, many of them living in more-affluent areas, don't pay their share for upkeep of the power grid. That, executives say, pushes that cost to non-solar households, making their bills less affordable.
But if solar customers' bills are increased, as the utility suggests, can people who get panels installed on their houses still save money with solar? And if not, can the solar-installation companies survive?
An estimated 9,800 people work in the solar industry in Arizona, and the majority of them install rooftop panels.
The Arizona Corporation Commission will address the matter Nov. 13 as a variety of alternatives have been offered.
A decision could set a precedent for other utilities in Arizona and elsewhere.
Forty-three states have net-metering policies. Several, including California, New Mexico, Idaho and Louisiana, have looked at altering their policies, and several others have requested studies on the net costs and benefits of rooftop solar. Net metering gives customers with solar panels on their homes credit for the excess power they send to the grid when their houses are not using all the power from their roof.
The debate in Arizona has drawn national media attention and interest from the Washington, D.C.-based Solar Energy Industries Association. It prompted a letter-writing campaign by President Barack Obama's non-profit advocacy group Organizing for Action, which has flooded the regulators with letters, many from out of state.
Observers say Arizona's reputation as the country's solar capital is at stake. About 200 Arizona Public Service customers a month are adding solar to their houses now, and the commission decision could determine whether tens of thousands of customers anticipated to use solar in the future continue with those plans.
The company is well-known in the industry for its solar investments, and CEO Don Brandt was named the Solar Electric Power Association's Utility CEO of the Year in 2009. He was honored for the company's deal to buy power from the Solana Generating Station near Gila Bend, Ariz., for its investments in its own solar plants and for a program to put solar panels on Flagstaff, Ariz., houses.
But the new net-metering proposal has made the utility the bane of rooftop-solar installation companies such as SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc., as well as solar advocates.
David Wilson of Goodyear, Ariz., said he doesn't like the company's proposal, even if officials say it would not affect existing customers like him.
"I don't trust them," he said. "We make this huge investment, and they go and change the rules. We would lose the benefits, and they would continue to get the energy we are providing."
STORY: N.Y. man erects solar panels as testament to waste
The Corporation Commission staff, which advises the five-member elected commission, has rejected Arizona Public Service's proposals and developed its own suggestions on solar credits. Commissioners recognize the importance of the matter.
"The eyes of the country and the energy world at least are on Arizona to see what we can come up with," said Commission Chairman Bob Stump. "It is a privilege to set a policy that potentially can be a model for other states."
Stump said he hopes to settle the matter this month, but debate could continue for two more years. The company's next rate hearing will be in 2015.
Arizona Public Service: Change needed
The battle started last year, when Arizona Public Service signaled it wanted to change its net-metering program.
Brandt, who is also president and CEO of the parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp., said that if the net-metering issue was not fixed, it could lead to a much bigger problem down the road as more people use solar and non-solar customers see bigger bill increases.
"Today, costs are being shifted unfairly from solar to non-solar customers in a way that cannot be sustained," he said.
The utility invited industry representatives to discuss the issue at meetings earlier this year, then filed an official proposal with the Arizona Corporation Commission in July that would increase the monthly bill for solar customers by $50 to $100.
The proposal has many moving parts. Utility executives said one element of the proposal is to increase the up-front incentives they pay customers who purchase solar.
Utility executives said they want to reach a settlement on net metering that allows the industry to continue to grow.
"Our proposal before the Arizona Corporation Commission includes support for up-front incentives that will ensure that rooftop solar remains an important part of our energy mix in Arizona," Brandt said.
When the proposal was submitted, it came under criticism from the rooftop-solar companies.
"It is a fight we did not seek and would prefer to avoid. But we must set the record straight," Brandt said. "We have an obligation to our customers, our employees and our shareholders."
Industry backlash
SolarCity and Sunrun of California, two of the biggest national solar-panel installation companies operating in Arizona, formed a high-profile alliance this year, presenting advertising critical of Arizona Public Service through a non-profit called TUSK, Tell Utilities Solar Won't Be Killed.
The solar companies contend that rather than freeload on the power grid, customers with solar panels save utilities and their customers money by deferring the cost of new power lines and plants. The financial analyses used by the utility and the solar industry differ widely on this point.
Solar-industry executives, including SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive, say that the utility is less interested in protecting the non-solar customers than it is in losing revenue.
"If you look at the rate of adoption of customers, over next 20 years, that would roughly equal $2 billion in lost profits," Rive said. "That is why they are so passionate about this. They just don't want somebody else to service their customer."
Ed Fenster, co-CEO of Sunrun, said fees paid by utility customers helped incentivize the solar industry and allowed Sunrun and other companies to grow. He said the utility fears the strength of the solar industry now that those subsidies are not needed.
"Ratepayers made an investment that with greater scale, solar would come at a lower cost," he said. "That investment paid off. It is that exact fact that is causing APS to halt the industry."
Fenster said the utility is putting up a big fight on the issue because solar is a legitimate threat to its business model.
"They've tried to slowly boil the frog that is their ratepayer for years, and now (solar) will place a cap on their prices," Fenster said. "They will be held to a competitive standard for the first time in their history."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/29/solar-panel-subsidy-battle/3297365/

The Battle To Control Solar Power

     A number of years ago when I told friends with solar power interests that I wanted my system to have batteries, some would question my sanity - you live in the city, connecting to the grid is easy, they would say. I tried to tell them that they were missing something - even though I live in the urban core, being capable of being powered completely from off the grid is a worthy goal with numerous advantages. The most basic is that allows one to be a true producer - relying on the grid at night should be seen as a back-up, not a first line strategy.
    In this article from Bloomberg, we are shown California electric utilities that are rejecting battery supported solar electric systems from grid inter-connections on technical reasons when more likely their objection is rooted in a non-ability to envision a different business model that includes micro users/producers. That smart meter is not so smart.

Battery-Stored Solar Power Sparks Backlash From Utilities

By Ehren Goossens and Mark Chediak - Oct 8, 2013

California’s three biggest utilities are sparring with their own customers about systems that store energy from the sun, opening another front in the battle that’s redefining the mission of electricity generators.
Edison International (EIX), PG&E Corp. and Sempra Energy (SRE) said they’re putting up hurdles to some battery backups wired to solar panels because they can’t be certain the power flowing back to the grid from the units is actually clean energy.
The dispute threatens the state’s $2 billion rooftop solar industry and indicates the depth of utilities’ concerns about consumers producing their own power. People with rooftop panels are already buying less electricity, and adding batteries takes them closer to the day they won’t need to buy from the local grid at all, said Ben Peters, a government affairs analyst at Mainstream Energy Corp., which installs solar systems.
“The utilities clearly see rooftop solar as the next threat,” Peters said from his office in Sunnyvale, California. “They’re trying to limit the growth.”
California is the largest of the 43 states encouraging renewables by requiring utilities to buy electricity from consumer solar installations, typically at the same price that customers pay for power from the grid. The policy, known as net metering, offers a way for households to reduce their bills. It underpinned a 78 percent surge in the state’s residential installations in the second quarter from a year earlier, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Battery Costs

Solar systems with batteries attached have gained a foothold in the market as costs fall, allowing customers more flexibility for using their own power at night or when local supplies fail. The systems average about $12,000 to $16,000, adding about 25 percent to the cost of rooftop power plants, according to Outback Power Inc., an Arlington, Washington-based provider of battery-backed solar systems.
Matthew Sperling, a Santa Barbara, California, resident, installed eight panels and eight batteries at his home in April.
“We wanted to have an alternative in case of a blackout to keep the refrigerator running,” he said in an interview. Southern California Edison rejected his application to link the system to the grid even though city inspectors said “it was one of the nicest they’d ever seen,” he said.
“We’ve installed a $30,000 system and we can’t use it,” Sperling said.
Utilities say the storage systems open the possibility of fraud. The issue is whether all the electricity being sold through the net metering program is generated only by renewable sources, as required. Consumers in theory can fill the batteries with power from the grid and then send it back designated as renewable energy. With the solar-battery systems, there’s no way to determine the source of the energy. Solar suppliers say that’s not happening.

Storage Rules

Power-market regulations and the industry’s ability to monitor flows from solar systems haven’t kept pace with the technology, said Gary Stern, director of regulatory policy at Southern California Edison, a unit of Edison International.
“Our rules are not really caught up to effectively include issues with energy storage,” Stern said in a phone interview from Rosemead, California.
The company doesn’t want to “discourage solar” and is working with regulators to come up with “reasonable policies” for battery-storage systems, said Vanessa McGrady, a Southern California Edison spokeswoman.
State regulators are aware of the problem and are working on guidance to offer both solar installers and utilities, according to Terrie Prosper, a spokeswoman for the California Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco.

‘Some Complaints’

“There have been some complaints from developers in Southern California Edison’s territory that Edison has inconsistently applied the benefits of net energy metering to energy-storage projects,” Prosper said in an e-mail. The commission is working with all three utilities “to provide formal direction on these issues in the coming months.”
The utilities said they would approve systems that have panels and batteries if they had two meters to verify that only solar energy is sold to the grid. Such a configuration would boost installation costs by at least $1,300, according to Neal Reardon, the state utility regulator’s interim supervisor of customer generation.
The dispute is expanding as California promotes wider use of batteries. Regulators in June proposed that the top three utilities procure 1.3 gigawatts of storage capacity by 2020. The state has set a goal of obtaining 33 percent of its power from renewables by 2020, the nation’s strongest requirement. With more electricity coming from intermittent sources such as wind and sunlight, storage systems will be an important tool to manage the grid.

Falling Prices

Demand for the systems may grow as prices decline. Battery costs are forecast to fall 57 percent to $807 a kilowatt-hour in 2020 from $1,893 for a kilowatt-hour of storage capacity now, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The global market for solar systems combined with energy storage will rise to $2.8 billion in 2018 from less than $200 million this year, according to Boston-based Lux Research Inc.
About 391 megawatts of solar panels were fitted at customer sites across the state last year, according the California Solar Initiative. The price to install residential projects has declined 15 percent to $3.71 a watt in the second quarter from $4.35 a year earlier according to the Washington-based trade group SEIA.
Battery systems are the latest innovation that’s unraveling the traditional monopoly utilities have enjoyed in supplying consumers with electricity. Two decades ago, federal regulators opened the system to independent power producers, eating away at the utility’s control of generation. The battery systems will put more customers out of reach.

Rejected Applications

“What we are seeing now as a fairly rare event may be more common by the end of the decade,” said Southern California Edison’s Stern.
Mainstream began hearing in May that Southern California Edison was rejecting some of its clients from the net metering program. As many as 60 projects with panels and batteries have been turned down by California utilities, the company estimated.
PG&E Corp. (PCG), the owner of California’s biggest utility, has also rejected standard net metering applications from customers with both panels and batteries, and referred them to another program that requires an interconnection fee.
“The key is that the full retail net energy metering credits and subsidies are only available to renewable facilities,” Lynsey Paulo, a PG&E spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.
San Diego Gas & Electric, a unit of Sempra Energy, said it hasn’t received any such applications, and it would deny them if it did. Sempra slipped less than 0.1 percent to $85.43 at the close in New York. PG&E climbed 1.5 percent and Edison gained 1.1 percent.

‘State of Flux’

“Technically, a customer who now has a combined system that includes both rooftop solar panels and battery storage, the battery storage may not qualify for net energy metering under current rules,” said Stephanie Donovan, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric. “The rules are in a state of flux.”
Mainstream’s Peters said Southern California Edison is now rejecting systems that are identical to ones it had approved in the past. The developer had been installing two to three solar-storage projects a week in Southern California at the start of this year. That’s dropped to zero in recent weeks, and some orders have been canceled.
“Net metering is the lifeblood of solar in America,” Peters said. “That’s why this seemingly inconsequential issue is getting so much attention.”
Solar panel owners aren’t trying to “game the system,” said Adam Browning, executive director of the San Francisco-based lobbying group Vote Solar Initiative. “The next step is that people with solar and batteries will find a way to make it work without utilities.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Ehren Goossens in New York at egoossens1@bloomberg.net; Mark Chediak in San Francisco at mchediak@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-07/battery-stored-solar-power-sparks-backlash-from-utilities.html

Solar Stock Update

April 6, 2013

Why Solar Power Stocks Are Still Earthbound

By NORM ALSTER

LONG-SUFFERING investors in solar energy stocks had reason to enjoy the first six weeks of 2013. After several years of poor performance while the overall market advanced, solar and other “green” energy technologies were market leaders early this year.

But by the end of the quarter, most of these stocks had fallen again. Was the strong performance of early this year simply a dead-cat bounce? What are the prospects for an emerging, relatively expensive technology that seeks to displace dirty — but cheap — hydrocarbons?

At the core of solar’s sorry market performance lies an enigma: solar sells, but it’s tough to turn a profit.

Global demand for clean, renewable energy is not the issue. “Demand has exceeded by far the projections of even two years ago,” Ben Schuman, an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities, said.

At the end of last year, installed global solar capacity stood at 96.4 gigawatts, up 43 percent from 2011 and roughly the equivalent capacity of 115 typical nuclear plants, according to Shayle Kann, vice president for research at GTM Research. Mr. Kann predicted further growth of 35 percent this year, to 129.7 gigawatts.

Nevertheless, company profits in the sector have been erratic — and shareholder profits scarce. The Guggenheim Solar exchange-traded fund, which mirrors a portfolio of solar stocks, fell nearly 30 percent in the 12 months through March.

So what is the most commonly invoked explanation for an industry where sizzling demand translates into sinking share prices? “Chinese industrial policy,” replied Kevin Landis, manager of the Firsthand Alternative Energy fund.

Chinese national and local governments have encouraged solar production with a grab bag of inducements, including loans, loan guarantees, tax breaks and even free land.

But the solar market, unlike other industries prone to cyclical overcapacity and subsequent busts, hasn’t self-corrected. Chinese vendors, Mr. Schuman said, haven’t been “as responsive to typical indicators” of excess production. “They haven’t closed capacity,” he said. “In China, shareholder profit can be a lower priority than employment, or the competitive dynamics between provinces and cities.”

So the prices of solar panels have been in free fall. In 2005, panels typically cost $3.50 per watt of power. By last year, prices had tumbled to 75 cents a watt. This year, Mr. Kann estimates, they will fall to 49 cents.

But Ken Abrams, a manager of the Vanguard Explorer fund for the last 18 years, says he thinks a looming shakeout of suppliers will ease overcapacity. Chinese producers are among the prime victims of their own overproduction, he said. And it is unclear how long the Chinese will support failing ventures. Eight Chinese banks pushed the main subsidiary of one major panel producer, Suntech Power Holdings, into bankruptcy last month.

“We see increasing hesitance on the part of Chinese government agencies to finance continuing deficits,” Mr. Abrams said. If Chinese authorities withhold support, more producers will fail, easing the overcapacity that has shredded prices.

Who would gain in such a shakeout? Mr. Abrams says it is a good time to consider industry leaders. The Vanguard fund holds large positions in First Solar, a solar systems developer based in Tempe, Ariz., and in Solar City, a leader in leasing solar systems; it is based in San Mateo, Calif.

But globally, low-cost producers should prevail, Mr. Schuman said. These would “probably be Asia-based,” he added.

Some fund managers are looking to a creative business model that can flourish with rock-bottom panel pricing.

Why lock into selling solar panels that keep getting cheaper? Better to buy the panels, install them free and then charge for the electricity they generate, gaining a predictable revenue stream. That’s the logic behind Solar City — which mainly serves residential and commercial customers in the United States — and several private solar leasing companies

“When the price of panels goes down, their business gets better,” Mr. Landis said. “The sweet spot is buying the panels and owning the output.”

Leasing is intended to overcome customer resistance to the high upfront cost of solar installation. Since a December initial public offering, Solar City shares have more than doubled.

Still, the leasing model requires upfront investment that can obliterate earnings until the customer base expands enough to produce offsetting lease income. Such is not yet the case with Solar City. which reported a larger-than-expected loss in the fourth quarter of last year.

Solar City is not the only company that employs leasing. SunPower, a major panel producer based in San Jose, Calif.,, has built a leasing business. And with several smaller private leasing firms, further I.P.O.’s are “a good possibility,” Mr. Abrams said.

“Leasing is going to be 90 percent of the solar business,” he said.

Colm O’Connor, co-manager of the Calvert Global Alternative Energy fund, says he expects the United States, Japan and China to lead this year in solar installation growth. Mr. O’Connor has a position in Kyocera, the ceramics maker and panel manufacturer, which could benefit from adoption of solar power in Japan.

In most areas, solar power is more expensive than coal and natural gas options for electricity generation. But the gap has narrowed, and in places like Hawaii, Italy and Japan, he says, solar is now roughly even in cost. He has trimmed his overall investment in solar, however, preferring other areas of alternative energy. His largest holding is Novozymes, the Denmark-based enzyme maker that stands to gain from the emergence of cellulosic ethanol, made from sources other than corn. Novozymes will capture “a large part” of the cellulosic market, he predicted. “We are favorable on the long-term outlook for cellulosic ethanol.”

Mr. O’Connor also favors companies that help manage delivery of energy from solar and wind sources. The Prysmian Group, based in Milan, Italy, has contracts to connect a North Sea wind park with the mainland grid in Germany. The PSI Group, based in Berlin, markets software that helps to manage the fluctuations in renewable energy production.

Frederick Reynolds, who manages the Reynolds Blue Chip Growth fund, has stakes in Solar City and First Solar. But, he says: “I don’t have much conviction in solar stocks in general at this time. I’m running the risk that I’m early.”

Mr. Reynolds tries to balance long-term optimism with near-term anxiety. “I think they can do well long term,” he said, “but until then there’s lots of volatility.”

ONE factor that may eventually help solar stocks is that institutional investors have relatively small holdings.

For example, they own slightly less than 22 percent of SunPower shares, according to Nasdaq. By contrast, institutions, which include pension funds, insurance companies and mutual funds, own more than 92 percent of Google’s outstanding shares.

Asked if low institutional ownership could turn into a positive, because so much buying power is untapped, Mr. Reynolds said: “I see it as a positive. A lot of institutions may be buying after me.”

Until then, holders of solar stocks can only nurse their wounds. Those who take the lead are often rewarded with arrows in their back. And right now, a lot of solar investors have “backs full of arrows,” Mr. Landis lamented.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/mutfund/solar-companies-stocks-face-an-uncertain-future.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Solar Church In DC

Congregation is first black church in D.C. to be powered by solar energy

By Darryl Fears, Published: May 3

A historic black church that has sat on the same corner in LeDroit Park for 99 years has become the first African American church in the District to rely on renewable solar energy for electrical power.

Florida Avenue Baptist’s installation of 44 solar panels was hailed at a ribbon-cutting Tuesday by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson and other government officials as a breakthrough in the black community, where the clean-energy divide mirrors its well-known high-tech digital divide with the white community.

“This is an important first,” said Jackson, whose agency recently started a faith-based initiative to increase clean-energy awareness among religious groups. “They’re saying: We’re going to take the lead in helping African American homes to become energy efficient.”

The church’s pastor, the Rev. Earl D. Trent Jr., said the panels’ installation, by a North Carolina-based company in March, was important not only because the church will save money on its $3,000 monthly electric bill from Pepco but also because it will reduce “dirty” coal-fired energy and enable him to establish a “green ministry” that could awaken churchgoers who know little to nothing about clean energy and its benefits.

African Americans tend to live in older, less energy-efficient homes equipped with older appliances and, therefore, have higher energy bills.

According to “Energy Democracy,” a 2010 report by the Center for Social Inclusion, African Americans spent an average of $1,439 on electric bills in 2008, more than what Latino and Asian Americans spent, and significantly higher than what white Americans paid.

“We want to be a model for green energy,” Trent said in an earlier interview. “I’ve gotten calls from pastors who want to find out how they can do this,” he added, raising his hope that the renewable-energy divide can be bridged.

African American churches have historically led social change in black communities, raising awareness of civil rights in the past and now, possibly, environmental justice, Trent said. Helping to lower coal-energy production, even marginally, at power plants is a symbolic step in a nation where, he said, many black people live near such plants and their smokestacks.

“African Americans have more sources of pollution in their neighborhoods than others,” Jackson said, standing on the roof of the church near Howard University Hospital as the sun beat down. “We have mercury, neurotoxins building up in our bodies . . . mothers pass it to children. We have . . . developmental disorders. All that comes back to this,” she said, pointing to the row of solar panels.

“I think it’s an extraordinary thing,” said Vernice Miller-Travis, vice chair of the Maryland Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities. “For me, this is a big story, even if it’s just one church. You know how black churches are. If one pastor does it, the others have to do it because they don’t want to be outdone.”

When ministers inquire about getting panels, they’ll learn that they’ll have to spend green to go green.

At Florida Avenue Baptist, which has 500 members, the cost was $60,000. With prayer, and 12 members of the flock who were willing to invest money in exchange for Solar Renewable Energy Certificates, the cost was overcome.

The certificates are a kind of energy credit that companies such as power plants buy to sidestep government regulations and penalties for producing too much pollution.

The idea to go solar came to Trent through Gilbert Campbell III, a co-owner of Volt Energy, a North Carolina clean-energy company with an office in Washington. Campbell, a Howard University graduate who met Trent years earlier through his father, a pastor, had a proposition.

“I want to share with you the benefits of the church looking at solar,” Campbell recalled saying in December. “You have an opportunity to educate younger students in the church,” he said. “There’s a value associated with that.”

Volt Energy helped Florida Avenue Baptist set up a business, allowing it to make the investment and receive the certificates. The investors recouped $18,000 within 60 days from a federal tax credit that for-profit entities receive for making investments in renewable technology.

Volt Energy also customized a curriculum for the church, teaching energy efficiency, recycling, and the how-tos of using energy-efficient light bulbs and reading energy bills to children.

Last week, Pepco turned on the power generated by the panels.

The church is expected to save 15 percent, about $450, on its monthly bill, Campbell said. More money will probably be saved after an energy audit of the church and the installation of energy-efficient doors, windows and light fixtures, he said.

The church plans to eventually install a monitor outside the sanctuary so that its members can see the amount of energy being produced and the money being saved, Trent said.

“They’re excited,” he said. “They can’t wait to see.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/african-american-church-in-dc-is-first-to-be-powered-by-solar-energy/2011/05/02/AFt4vdiF_story.html

11 Kw Home System

President Solar hopes to find its place in the sun

By Thomas Heath
Monday, April 26, 2010; 2

I caught up with Roy Dunbar on the telephone as he was fending off hungry herons trying to poach at his koi pond outside his McLean home.

The former chief executive at Herndon-based Network Solutions has launched a new business called President Solar, which will distribute rooftop photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to solar companies that install the panels for residential and small commercial customers.

Dunbar has invested $500,000 already, and probably will invest another $500,000 in the near future. And he wants to make money.

"I have actually been involved and interested in solar for quite some time," said Dunbar, 49, who left Network Solutions last fall. "On the roof of my house is an 11-kilowatt system."

Although the systems can cost thousands to install, Dunbar said federal, state and even local tax breaks and rebates could induce residents and businesses to take the plunge. Solar customers also can sell solar renewable energy certificates to utilities and others on a secondary market.

He has an office and warehouse in Fairfax County and three employees. He is buying the panels in volume from a supplier in Eugene, Ore., called Grape Solar.

"What we are doing is distribution," he said. "But with this market getting so hot . . . I am toying with the idea of setting up an assembly plant," which would manufacture the panels.

The market wasn't hot enough for BP Solar, a unit of the British oil giant that last month announced plans to stop assembly at its Frederick plant because of a big drop in prices for solar systems.

"I know it flies in the face with what just happened to BP Solar, but you might be able to put [a factory] together that makes 60 or 70 jobs on a local scale," Dunbar said.

PVs contain a solar photovoltaic material that converts solar radiation directly into electric current. Dunbar said the solar panels on his roof had stored enough electricity in batteries to keep his home's critical systems running for more than four days during February's "Snowmaggedon."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042303966.html

Home Wind Power

New, interesting wind turbines - from SF Chronicle:

Taking tiny steps toward capturing the power of wind

San Francisco startup offers small turbines as one way to offset the cost of electricity

Kelly Zito, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, June 24, 2007

On many afternoons, the wind saws so strongly through Chris Beaudoin's neighborhood above the Castro district that he can lean directly into it and not fall over. So, after 20 years of watching the trees whip and bundling up in thick sweaters to walk the dogs, he's buying a residential wind energy system he hopes will cut his power bill by 30 percent.

The heart of this system will be two graceful turbines that look like oversize Ikea lamps. They are the brainchild of Todd Pelman, a marine and energy engineer by training and a resident of another of San Francisco's notoriously windy neighborhoods. His new Bernal Heights business, Blue Green Pacific, seeks to capitalize not only on San Francisco's wind, but on its other plentiful natural resources -- open-minded residents like Beaudoin and the desire to be one of the greenest cities around.

Whether Pelman's "micro-wind" project is successful may also depend on something else San Francisco has in abundance -- red tape and high costs.

"When you're doing something like this, you continually doubt," Pelman said. "But I know a lot of successes in our marketplace have been just that -- disruptive technology or trying to create demand for something that doesn't quite exist."

Pelman, a 34-year-old with thick, black sideburns who looks more like a lead guitarist than an engineer, spends a lot of time in the garage. Not ripping power chords, but monitoring the performance of the first and only working Blue Green Pacific wind turbine. Installed on his roof, the prototype's name is Maggie, after the youngest child from "The Simpsons." The production model, which Pelman is working on now, will be Lisa, the next-oldest Simpson.

The road to the turbine-topped yellow house on Roscoe Street began in Germany, where Pelman worked as an engineer on consumer products. Knowing he and his wife would be moving to the blustery neighborhood above the Interstate 280 gulch, he started shopping for a wind turbine in a part of the world known for its use of renewable resources. But, after finding few options, he decided to build his own.

Rather than the typical, horizontal-axis, windmill-style turbines most people think of -- the Altamont Pass wind farm is a prime example -- Pelman's steel, aluminum and plastic machine has a vertical axis and no sharp blades.

It looks as though someone has sliced a hollow cylinder from top to bottom and twisted the two pieces around a pole, reminiscent of the double-helix of a DNA strand.

The 7-foot-tall turbine and generator on the roof capture the power and send it to an inverter that converts direct current to alternating current. From there, it feeds into the electrical panel, where it helps offset power supplied by PG&E.

If Pelman can reach his efficiency targets, a one-turbine system could contribute about 10 percent of a typical home's annual energy needs, or about 300 to 600 kilowatt hours per year. Adding more turbines -- Beaudoin is scheduled to have two -- increases the energy output.

It also increases the price, particularly for startup technology that requires expensive manufacturing in a high-cost place of business. Pelman estimates he will have sunk $200,000 of his own money into the project by the time he starts production, he hopes within the next year. The target price for a one-turbine system is $5,000 (not including state and federal rebates that could knock about $1,500 off the price).

Beaudoin will pay about $18,000 for his system. However, he will receive technological updates down the line, and his unit will provide Pelman and San Francisco with valuable data about the viability and scale of the system. Armed with that information, Pelman anticipates that he can raise money from Silicon Valley, where alternative-energy technology is the latest thing.

"A solar unit to take care of all my electrical needs would be about $75,000," said Beaudoin, a flight attendant whose work brings him to countries where wind and solar energy sources are the norm. "I figured why not experiment with wind and see where it goes? I think there's more flexibility there, and although it doesn't generate as much, you don't know where it will go."

"We have to start stepping up to the plate on this micro-scale," he added. "This resource that we use is finite."

For the average household, a $5,000 system would pay for itself in eight to 11 years, depending on the price of conventional energy, Pelman said.

San Francisco officials are publicizing their push to harness as much wind and sun -- and even tidal -- power as possible in a bid to reduce carbon emissions and become known as the most eco-friendly city in the United States.

Last week, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced the third city-supported study of tidal power in two years and the Board of Supervisors approved measures requiring that 51 percent of San Francisco's power come from renewable sources by 2017. Next year, the city's Public Utilities Commission plans to break ground on a 12-story headquarters using wind and solar power to satisfy nearly all of its energy needs.

But while solar has been used in urban and suburban environments for decades, wind power is less proven.

Renewable energy designer Reinhold Ziegler, who is working on the PUC building and who helped develop the Altamont Pass project, argues that in cities, wind power may be better suited for commercial buildings, which reach higher into dependable wind streams and have more surface area for turbines.

"There's so much turbulence and obstruction in San Francisco, it's unclear how these (residential turbines) will work," Ziegler said.

Clearly, wind turbines won't work in every neighborhood. In fact, Pelman received a call from a would-be customer in the Mission District, but there wasn't enough wind to make it feasible.

"There's not going to be hundreds of megawatts of small wind coming out of San Francisco," said Johanna Partin, renewable energy program manager for San Francisco's Department of Environment. "But if it does become affordable for building owners and allow them to offset their entire electricity usage, it's a good thing."

San Francisco's topography, which helps create the gusts and microclimates Pelman and others so covet, also creates its well-known views. That means clearing planning and building hurdles and overcoming any neighborhood opposition.

Pelman worked closely for more than a year with his neighbors, his city supervisor and planning officials to win approval for his turbine in Bernal Heights, which has among the strictest rules on height requirements.

Although Pelman points to the "visual noise" of satellite dishes, chimneys, vents and antennas, it is clear that until specific codes governing turbines are written, wind turbines and their impacts will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Pelman and the Audubon Society are also monitoring his turbine to see whether it kills any birds (there have been none so far). Pelman said the vertical axis and opaque appearance of his turbine are safer for birds than traditional turbines.

Building a business, building a market, building community support are just some of the challenges Pelman faces.

He acknowledges the rise and fall of the renewable- energy revolution after the 1970s oil crisis. But his sense as a businessman, a power engineer and a consumer tell him that this time, it's different.

"There's certainly the possibility that it's a trendy thing, especially if energy prices stay low and go dormant," he said.

"But the reality is it's undeniable that the way we conventionally make and use electricity and our relationship with energy are not sustainable. In the end we have no choice," he said.

"I know our efforts have an impact in opening this market up. The extent of that impact will have to be determined, but we have to try."

E-mail Kelly Zito at kzito@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/24/BUG3OQK6MJ1.DTL

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Todd Pelman shows how the turbine on his roof works. His startup, Blue Green Pacific, makes the units for individual homes. Chronicle photo by Kurt Rogers

Photo: KURT ROGERS / THE CHRONICLE

Generating energy from your rooftop. Chronicle graphic

Green Development In The 'Burbs

Remaking St. Charles in a shade of green
Developer to test suburban Md. market for energy efficiency

By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 30, 2009

First came the "green" jobs, green buildings and green energy.

Now Southern Maryland will get a green city, where residents will live in energy-saving homes, shop in energy-saving stores and walk under energy-saving streetlights as a new plant next door generates carbon-friendly solar power.

This is the vision to revitalize St. Charles, a planned community of 12,000 homes and 5 million square feet of offices, stores and industrial parks in Waldorf now showing its age.

American Community Properties Trust, a developer, will announce plans Monday to double the community's size while reducing its carbon footprint through green design and, officials hope, technology that could create thousands of green jobs.

"What we're trying to do is reinvent the balance of the community," said Steve Griessel, the company's chief executive. "When the green thing first started, people said, 'We're going to put green icing on the cake.' We want to build the thing from the ground up as a green cake."

The first homes in St. Charles rose 40 years ago. It was to be the next Columbia, a planned community offering neighborhood schools, playgrounds, walking paths, lakes and a shopping center. Griessel said he hopes the new niche will revive a development that, despite Charles County's rapid growth, has become stagnant.

American Community Properties, Southern Maryland's biggest developer, has struggled with flat housing prices and losses that led to a corporate restructuring last year, and Griessel said he expects home prices in St. Charles -- now from $235,000 to $400,000 -- to remain depressed. By going green on such a large scale, "we want to put ourselves on the map," he said.

The question is whether a smaller carbon footprint will sell in a middle-class bedroom suburb 22 miles from Washington.

"This is not a handful of people in Takoma Park," said Malcolm D. Woolf, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's top energy adviser, referring to the Montgomery County neighborhood known for its progressive views. "It's a market test of the economic power of sustainability in a conservative part of Maryland, a mainstream community."

The state is offering no financial support to the developer, although O'Malley (D), who has made conservation a centerpiece of his energy policy, is scheduled to speak at the announcement Monday.

The green city would dovetail with another developer's plans to build a 10-megawatt solar facility in St. Charles. The $35 million plant on 75 acres would be built by Competitive Power Ventures, a Silver Spring company that also has proposed a natural gas plant on a neighboring site in St. Charles's industrial area. The company is trying to secure financing for both projects.

If all three projects come to fruition, the future for those living in St. Charles would look like this: low-flush, low-flow toilets and showers; better-than-normal insulation; recycled carpets; and government-certified, Energy Star-rated appliances. Energy-saving windows would also be in every home, alongside "smart" thermostats that allow the utility company to lower the air conditioning by a few degrees when energy demand is peaking and prices are highest, Griessel said.

And the homes, starting with a neighborhood scheduled to break ground in January, will bear the country's most recognized seal of approval for green buildings, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, stamp. Barrels will collect rainwater to irrigate yards and flush toilets. Over 10 years, the technology will result in lower heat and electricity bills in the 9,100-acre community, which has approval for 11,000 more homes, townhouses and apartments and 5 million square feet on 4,000 remaining acres, Griessel said.

Griessel said home prices will not rise to compensate for the cost of new technology; the developer is cutting costs on the front end. American Community Properties will harvest the soil and trees it removes from building lots before they are graded, selling them to recycling companies that will use them for erosion control and roadbeds in St. Charles and elsewhere.

New office and retail space will get the same treatment. And public spaces will enjoy their own sustainable features, with farmers markets, community gardens and streets lit by light-emitting diodes, a technology that's becoming the standard for green lighting.

The developer, working with the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, also plans to market energy-saving thermostats to owners of existing homes. It's a chance for the utility to target St. Charles for a series of conservation measures the state is requiring of all utilities, including audits and rebates on energy-saving appliances.

"We'll do a recruitment campaign in St. Charles, and the developer is helping to facilitate it," SMECO President Austin J. Slater Jr. said. If the Public Service Commission approves, the utility will test smart meters, which tell customers exactly when their rates are highest, in 1,000 new homes in St. Charles.

American Community Properties officials said they hope to create 20,000 green jobs for those building the new city. Workers could be trained through a program for the energy industry launched this year by the College of Southern Maryland.

"There's a lot of potential there," said the college's president, Bradley M. Gottfried.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112902439.html

A Guide To Energy Efficiency Tax Credits

The Washington Post has a nice graphic titled Guide To Energy Efficiency Tax Credits, some good for 2009-2010, some good through 2016.. It does not cut and paste so here is the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/home/graphics/energy-efficient.html?hpid=artslot

How to qualify

Thursday, October 29, 2009

How to qualify

-- Products installed and in use: You must "place into service" eligible home improvement products between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2010. (See story on previous page for credits available through 2016.)

-- Existing residence: The items must be for an existing principal residence, though some purchases for second homes are eligible, including geothermal heat pumps, solar water heaters, solar panels and small wind energy systems. On new homes, tax credits are applicable only to geothermal heat pumps, photovoltaics, solar water heaters, small wind energy systems and fuel cells.

-- Receipts and other documents: You'll need copies of purchase and installation receipts, as well as the manufacturer certification statement, which is a signed document from the manufacturer certifying that the product or component you have installed qualifies for the tax credit. If your installer doesn't provide a copy of the statement, it often can be found on the manufacturer's Web site. Taxpayers should keep a copy of the statement in their records, even though they are not required to submit it with their tax returns.

-- Tax form: File the appropriate form with the Internal Revenue Service. For items placed into service in 2009, use IRS Tax Form 5695 (2009 version), which will be available in late 2009 or early 2010.

Why is a tax credit better than a tax deduction?

A tax credit reduces your tax liability by the exact amount of the credit, says David Affeldt, a tax preparer and lawyer in Potomac. A tax deduction, on the other hand, lowers your taxes by the amount of the deduction multiplied by your income tax bracket. For example, if you're in the 25 percent tax bracket -- meaning you have a taxable income in 2009 of $67,900 to $137,000 -- and have a $1,500 tax deduction, your tax liability is reduced by only $375.

Who won't benefit from this?

This tax credit is not refundable. If you owe the federal government less in taxes than the amount of the energy efficiency tax credit you earn, you will not receive a payment for the difference. This means if you have a tax liability of $300, for instance, and qualify for a $500 tax credit, you will not receive the $200 difference as a refund. "It will not reduce your taxes below zero," Affeldt says. It might make sense to spread your purchases over two years to get the full benefit of the credit.

Keep in mind

In 2009 and 2010, you can spend up to $5,000 on qualifying materials and some installation fees and receive a maximum tax credit of $1,500. But if you claim the entire $1,500 credit in 2009, you will not receive any additional benefit in 2010. The only way to get another tax credit is if you are buying any of the products eligible through 2016.

If you own your home jointly with someone to whom you are not married, you are each entitled to a tax credit based on the amount you spend individually to make home improvements. For instance, one person could claim windows, another could claim doors. The tax credit does not double (from $1,500 to $3,000) for married couples filing jointly. But married people filing separately could claim separate expenses and each receive a $1,500 tax credit. Consult your tax preparer about your individual situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102704360.html