Have you heard the great news about renewable energy funding in Rhode Island? Gov. Lincoln Chafee and the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation (RIEDC) have approved $1.5M in 2013 Renewable Energy Funds for residential projects!

Under the recently approved rules, the grant funds can cover 25% of system cost for homeowners – up to $10,000 or 10KW – in addition to the 30% Federal income tax credit. In order for a project to be eligible for the funds, a home energy audit must have been conducted prior to the application being submitted.

According to the RIEDC, residential grant applications must be submitted in groups of at least three solar projects. To help Rhode Island homeowners access the funding, local community groups and local solar installers are expected to pool projects and submit group applications.

There will be 3 application rounds for the small-scale solar program:

• February 15, 2013
• April 30, 2013
• July 26, 2013

The first application deadline is less than a month away, and grant awards are based on funding availability so it is imperative that interested homeowners act fast!

As a long time renewable energy advocate and practitioner, I have seen a good many changes in this conference, and in NESEA as an organization. Once upon a time, the BuildingEnergy conference was known as “Renew”, and until the spring of 2012, NESEA’s magazine was called the Northeast Sun (now called the BuildingEnergy Magazine). Despite these changes, assuming there’s no room for energy folks like you and I would be a mistake – NESEA has its roots as a solar energy organization, and in this community, energy absolutely matters (after all, it is 50% of the conference title).

Those original conferences were heavy on solar domestic hot water (SDHW) and some early passive solar homes that came into prominence as the government support for SDHW disappeared in the early 1980′s. Then, photovoltaics were mostly the realm of the few real pioneers like our own Steven Strong who made the cover story of the September
1981 Popular Science. We learned from him and many others and then, as now, the NESEA conferences were the place to go to learn all the latest and greatest before it went mainstream.

So what’s in store for energy folks at BuildingEnergy? Plenty. Track six, on Renewable Energy, promises to uphold that tradition of providing cutting edge information. But even before that track gets underway, the associated workshops on
Tuesday also explore such topics as Building Passive House Homes,  WUFI Passive Modeling  and Commercial Passive House Design Principles.

Skills for Building Resilient Communities, in which I am a speaker, dovetails with the overall theme of “resiliency” will have a heavy dose of how renewable energy sources can provide value by maintaining livability under the most extreme conditions. I am particularly pleased to team with noted solar architect Don Watson, sustainability metrics guru Maureen Hart and Alex Wilson, former NESEA Executive Director and founder of Environmental Building News. We will offer participants the information and resources needed to understand resiliency to aid them to broaden their professional practices.

The Renewables Track, itself, is under the able guidance of Bill Stillinger who began in the field as a utility R&D manager and went on to become General Manager of a PV installers coop, PV Squared. The sessions he has brought forward will feature an array of interests some of which also reflect the resilience theme and include Maintaining a Secure and Resilient Grid and Stand-Alone vs. Grid-Connected PV Systems, which build on a 1997 conference that looked at some of these same issues from an insurance industry perspective.

The former session will examine the need for a more robust electric grid due to the many natural and man-made threats and stresses on the current system. It will look in detail at microgrids from the perspectives of developers, utilities and owners who’s stars do not always align but may have enough common goals to provide a workable business model that is profitable to all.

Many prospective PV owners, and even building professionals, are not fully aware that the vast majority of the PV systems in place at this time will not provide power for their owners during an electric grid outage. The Stand-Alone vs. Grid-Connected PV Systems session will provide information on the differences in the types of systems that can provide power and those that can’t under those conditions and some real life experiences of owners. The session will also explore the current state of battery technology and future advances in electric storage that will make operation possible under all conditions.

Other sessions in this track will explore the state of renewable energy markets in the region and beyond, the latest developments coming up in wind and solar energy and renewable energy credits markets and net metering. Understanding these will become increasingly important to architects, builders, developers and others wishing to produce zero net energy buildings.

In all, Track 6 is going to be a great part of an excellent conference. Sign up early and often.

Siemens has just approached us to explore whether we are interested in working with them to present Solar Exchange, a one-day conference intended primarily to educate practitioners about the latest happenings in the solar industry. Participants will include photovoltaic researchers, utility representatives, manufacturers, developers, OEMs, integrators and others. Siemens will take responsibility for identifying and paying for the venue, and underwriting the cost of attendance for all attendees so that it can be offered as a free event. They have asked NESEA to help with the planning and promotion of Solar Exchange – i.e., providing our content for the event. They are planning to host the event in May at Rutgers University.

Siemens has recently hosted other Solar Exchange events in Arizona (approximately 80 attendees), Los Angeles, and most recently in Raleigh, NC, where they partnered with another ASES affiliate, the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, which attracted 300 attendees. All were very well received, and I have learned from my counterparts in NC that Siemens was great to work with.

From my perspective, this opportunity is a no-brainer. Last year, the NESEA Board approved a strategic direction that contemplates offering more programming in the southern part of the NESEA territory — NY, NJ, PA and DE. We are hoping, over time, to develop some sort of “BE South” offering. This event could be a great first step. It could allow us to develop a stronger toe-hold in NJ, and to obtain up to 300 qualified leads for new members in the area with whom we might be able to engage, year round. The only cost to NESEA will be the staff time associated with helping to find content for the event and helping to promote it. And we intend to work closely with BuildingEnergy Renewables track chair Bill Stillinger to do so – borrowing heavily from the content and the presenters we are using in the Renewables track at BE12. Siemens has indicated they are open to using different learning formats – more interactive modes of learning than just a traditional panel of 3 with PowerPoints. They are interested in making the event a quality learning and networking event, not just a sales pitch for their own products.

I’ll be glad to keep you all updated on this collaboration as it progresses. Thanks!

Jennifer

NESEA is hoping to change that with a new international collaboration.

We’re proud to announce an exciting new development with the German Consulate. This year, our BuildingEnergy Conference will feature a session on Sustainable Urbanism with representatives from the City of Hamburg, Germany as part of the Transatlantic Climate Bridge.  The German delegation will include Senator Jutta Blankau who will present at the conference Closing Forum on March 8th, and Mr. Uli Hellweg, who will speak at the Thursday session titled “How Hamburg Will Generate 100% of Heat and Electricity from Local Renewable Resources.”

The Transatlantic Climate Bridge is “a joint commitment to invest in newer, cleaner sources of energy can create new jobs and world-class industries, clean up the environment and protect the climate, improve standards of living and enhance global security.” The German Consulate considers their involvement with NESEA to be “one of our major projects“, and given the similarities between Boston and Hamburg and the popularity of BuildingEnergy, it’s easy to see why. Both cities share a similar climate, and as port cities, Boston is ideally suited to channel materials and ideas from Hamburg into the Northeast. BuildingEnergy is the next step, the distribution hub from which the ideas brought over from Germany can be acquired and disseminated throughout the Northeast. And the sustainability industry is ready for them.
Says Mr. Galen Nelson, Director of Intergovernmental Partnerships at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (and BuildingEnergy Session Chair) “The City of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts share a strong interest in strengthening our clean energy industry and helping the private sector adapt to a low carbon economy.  The German experience in Hafen City, coupled with Boston’s vibrant clean energy eco-system and the state’s cutting edge renewable energy policies and programs create a perfect opportunity to explore district heating systems in the Commonwealth.”

BuildingEnergy is the place to be for new ideas, new friends, and new business prospects. we’re very excited by this new partnership with the German Consulate, and look forward to expanding our international connections.

So, will we see you at BuildingEnergy? I do hope your answer is “Ja!”

Hurricane Irene, the first major storm to really hit Connecticut in 26 years, was an eye opener for many who have not had experience with events such as the 1938 hurricane, ‘55 flood or ‘73 ice storm. Perhaps the most significant figure is the peak number of in-state electrical outages that, at 830,130, is an all-time record in spite of our paying the highest rates in the nation and having spent billions on new infrastructure in recent years.

Is there a better way? I think so.

Edison’s first electric plant might today be called “distributed generation”, meaning it was small in scale and close to where the energy was used. Distributed generation did not need the large transmission lines we have today and could well be the best method to provide electricity in a reliable and secure way.in the future.

Meanwhile, however, in order to expand their market and take advantage of economies of scale, which increase efficiency and lower costs, utilities have built fewer but larger and more remote plants to serve more customers. This gave us centralized power production where large generators are knit together via transmission lines in a tightly synchronized system.

Technology advanced and, in 1998, deregulation legislation prohibited utilities, such as Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating, from owning electric generation plants, which are now owned by private companies. This leaves distribution (small lines) and increasingly transmission (large lines) as the primary means by which utilities can boost profits.

The dark side of this is it perpetuates a heavily centralized grid, making the system less resilient. It can still be compromised by natural disasters, terrorism and cyberattacks such as the Stuxnet worm that incapacitated Iran’s nuclear program. Similar cyberthreats can infiltrate and damage generators and other grid components. This means that extreme caution must be taken before fully deploying new Smart Grid technology, which could open innumerable electric systems to cyberpenetration.

Any holes in grid security have the capacity to make life not only uncomfortable or life-threatening, but to negatively impact the economic output of states. Those that are less-prepared are unattractive to businesses that require high degrees of reliability in an increasingly digital economy.

Critics of decentralization, with its many smaller, redundant, dispersed and diverse sources of power, maintain that the current system performs quite well, noting that some distributed technologies, particularly solar and wind, are expensive and intermittent at best.

They conveniently ignore that some distributed generation is not only becoming more efficient and cost-effective but decentralization can result in reduced line losses, lower greenhouse-gas emissions, create employment, reduce insurance losses and enhance public safety. Besides, not all distributed generation is renewable. Distributed generation includes smaller, conventional power plants such as small combined-cycle gas turbines, microturbines and fuel cells that can all use natural gas and enjoy “economies of scope” through mass production in factories to reduce costs.

Will this transition take place over night? Not likely, as we have invested billions in the current infrastructure that needs to be repaid.

First, we may want to take humble steps to equip high-value/mission-critical applications such as cellphone towers, first responder facilities, gas stations, sewage treatment plants and drug stores with distributed generation. Then we might consider an initiative similar to one in Denmark, which after 35 years realizes 55 percent of its electric generation from combined heat and power, a form of distributed generation. This makes use of two-thirds of energy that normally goes up the stack as waste heat, but with combined heat and power reaches as high as 85 percent efficiency. The Danes have even used power plants, such as one in Kalundborg, as centers of economic development in ecological industrial parks where large portions of the waste heat are used in manufacturing operations ­ or even to grow hothouse produce.

With proper planning Connecticut could even make use of many native energy products but the key to successful implementation will be to compensate utilities with equal or better rates of return so they cooperate in installation of these systems. We have taken similar steps for their involvement in energy efficiency programs since 1988. Only by making the utilities monetarily whole can a secure, reliable distributed generation plan become a reality.

Joel N. Gordes, a West Hartford based consultant, is president of Environmental Energy Solutions and writes about energy and environmental security issues.

The title says it all. Leonard suggests ending all direct subsidies, tax advantages, hidden subsidies in special regulatory treatments and other “externalized” subsidies for all energy industries.

Some choice quotes:

“Government statistics show that about 70 percent of all federal energy subsidies goes toward oil, natural gas, and coal. Fifteen percent goes to ethanol, the only renewable source of energy that consistently gets bipartisan support in Congress (think farm lobby and Iowa). Large hydro-power companies—TVA, Bonneville Power, and others—soak up another 10 percent. That leaves the greenest renewables—wind, solar, and geothermal—to subsist on the crumbs that are left.

None of these estimates account for continuing support to the nuclear industry, estimated to be about $1 to $2 billion, much of it to promote research and development efforts on new nuclear technologies and waste disposal methods. There are plenty of hidden subsidies, too. We place a cap on liability for accidents (like the BP oil spill). We offer the nuclear industry large loan guarantees. And, of course, we maintain an immense military embroiled in the Middle East and elsewhere as it tries to secure access to energy resources around the globe………..”

“We can waste money and distort the market by subsidizing all of these forms of energy. Or we can just call it quits on the waste. Disarm completely. Kill all the subsidies—yours and mine,,,,,,,,,,,.”

“So we find ourselves in a new political moment when for the first time it is possible to imagine an alliance of GOP libertarians, disaffected environmentalists, and budget hawks coming together for a grand deal that would sweep away sixty years of bad energy policy. Obama should seize the moment to bring this coalition together in support of a single objective: to eliminate all government subsidies and tax credits on production of all primary sources of energy.”

We also need to rethink how we fund our government. The current tax system discourages work, productivity, free enterprise, job creation and almost every other goal and value our economy is purported to be based upon. The anger growing across America is in large part inspired by the complexity and irrationality of our tax system.

It is increasingly obvious that it isn’t enough trying to address the massive challenges that confront our nation by making minor adjustments to the sclerotic patchwork of contradictory public policies that has emerged over the decades. And recent efforts at government micromanagement of the entire econ0my are clearly not going to work. It is pretty clear from the polls that most Americans are fed up with Congress, the federal government and with politicians from both parties.

But one real solution to address many of our most fundamental challenges is astoundingly simple, clear and bold. It is a solution that can be strongly supported by people across the entire political spectrum of America – once we overcome our profound fear of sensible change.

I propose that it is time that we replace 100% of our federal government revenues with an energy tax and in doing so completely unleash our society  from the burdens and distortions of our current counterproductive tax system.

That sounds completely impossible at first thought, but as shown below, the numbers work. It is actually a far more realistic proposal than all counterproductive pseudo-solutions to the daunting problems our country faces that make their way through Congress these days.

After the failures of the Copenhagen Climate Conference and the Cap and Trade corporate welfare scheme in the Senate, the environmental and clean energy communities are regrouping to figure out what’s next.

Many environmentalists are now jumping on board with the Breakthrough Institute and others who are calling for massive new government research and development for clean energy solutions on the order of the Manhattan Project or NASA’s mission of the 1960’s to put a man on the moon. Surely better technology will be welcome. But after all the recent waste our federal government has been involved in and the massive deficits we already face, it is highly doubtful that Congressional or public support for such a huge government effort will be forthcoming.

Others have long argued that if we are serious about reducing pollution from our wasteful energy system, making renewable energy cost competitive, spurring the growth of dynamic new energy industries, creating bountiful new job opportunities, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, improving our balance of trade deficit and all sorts of other notable goals – then we clearly need to raise the price of petroleum. And we should do it simply and completely transparently through an oil tax. But up until now everyone, including me, has been talking about timid energy tax solutions that are unlikely to be enough to either do the job or garner adequate public support.

Upon reflection, I’ve come to realize conventional solutions aren’t nearly enough. Neither a modest energy tax or  significantly increased public investment in clean energy technology,  while infinitely better than corrupt proposals like Cap and Trade, are bold enough solutions. Facing continuing economic stagnation, as we pass the crest of the era of peak oil production, it’s time to completely re-imagine political possibilities and get serious about  transforming our economy and restoring our nation’s economic productivity.

Replacing 100% of our federal government revenues with an energy tax is a transformative proposal that can inspire the American people and appeal across the political spectrum, while igniting an unprecedented era of economic prosperity.

Look at the numbers:

According to the US Energy Information Agency, our country currently consumes 19,498,000 barrels of petroleum a day, which is the equivalent of 298,904,340,000 gallons of petroleum a year.

All federal revenues for fiscal year 2010 are projected to be about $2,165,000,000,000. That includes all individual income tax, corporate income tax, investment taxes, social security tax, disability insurance, hospital insurance, unemployment insurance, excise taxes, fees, energy and transportation taxes, and every other form of federal government revenue other than debt.

So doing the math, if we were to replace every single source of government revenue with a tax on petroleum, that tax would only be $7.24 per gallon. And if you add in the full recent cost of gasoline of about $2.60 a gallon nationally, not even discounting for the federal and state taxes already built into that price, the total price on gasoline and other petroleum based fuels would be $9.84 a gallon.

According to the US Energy Information Agency, that isn’t significantly more than average European gas prices in March of this year: Belgium-$7.18, France-$6.98, Germany-$7.12, Italy-$7.06, Netherlands-$7.68. And those countries are burdened with massive taxes on top of high energy prices.

On average according to the US Energy Information Agency, along with paying far more for petroleum, Europeans paid about twice what Americans paid for natural gas and coal in 2009. So if we added to the energy sources being taxed to offset current federal revenues both the over one billion short tons of coal consumed each year in the US, along with the 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas we consume annually, the overall level of fuel taxes could be around the same as  European energy prices, while completely replacing all other forms of federal taxation and government revenue.

Most sensible people would jump at the opportunity to trade a European level of energy prices in exchange for no IRS, no income taxes, no payroll taxes, no business taxes, no inheritance taxes, no government fees and no government interference with our personal lives and business revenues.

For those who will inevitably scream this level of energy taxation will make American industry uncompetitive, the one other revenue source the feds should have is a tariff on goods from countries that don’t implement similar levels of taxation on energy. That unilateral action will do far more to spur other countries toward responsible energy policy than complicated well intentioned, but unenforceable climate treaties. At the same time it could further reduce our energy taxes, or perhaps help offset the federal budget deficit.

Of course change this profound couldn’t happen overnight and would need to be phased in. And inevitably in the transition, the winners and losers will all be lobbying madly in Washington to turn a simple idea into the inevitable compromised and complicated sausage making that is all Congress seems able to produce. But if we insist that simplicity and transparency are fundamental to success, perhaps a bold proposition like this could gain enough public support to overcome the corrupting influence of lobbyists.

Is this whole idea completely crazy? …..  Maybe.

Or maybe its so obvious and simple that the only reason not to consider it is all the special interests that will be completely upended by the elimination of our current corrupt and senseless tax system. Lets face it, this kind of change would impact every single American in a major way and will scare the hell out of many. But in the end, anyone honest will recognize that it would be a far more rational and sensible way to fund our government than the increasingly untenable ways we do so today.

Think of the business and investment potential it would unleash. Think of the truly free economy unfettered by manipulations of the tax code. Think of the productivity gains when businesses make decisions based on common sense rather than tax consequences. Think of the rebirth of American industrial opportunity when advantages are eliminated for cheap products from China being subsidized by their low cost energy, lack of environmental standards and the low cost of wasting fuel in transport. Think about the jobs created when we no longer impose punishing taxes on working and on productive investment. Think of the jobs restored to this country when we eliminate the insane tax subsidies for shifting industrial productivity overseas and eliminate the payroll tax penalties on hiring people. Think about the time, money and talent it would free up when we no longer have to spend countless hours and dollars reporting our personal business to the IRS. (According to CNS news: The Internal Revenue Service  estimated that about 7.75 billion hours of human labor went into completing all of the 2009 tax forms and that doesn’t begin to count the huge amounts of time and money wasted figuring out how to game the system and avoid taxes).  Think of the personal freedom and productivity regained for everyone when we eliminate the entire irrational tax code.

Many will argue that people will start to conserve energy with high price signals, thus putting government revenues at risk. Radically reducing energy waste and pollution is one of the two fundamental propositions of the whole idea. And yes, significantly reducing the size and scope of the federal government is the other fundamental goal and benefit, one that would be a welcome relief to the vast majority of Americans.

Most Americans fundamentally trust and favor transparent market oriented solutions and don’t want the government meddling in our lives and in our economy.  Watching the sales of fuel efficient cars after the 1973 Oil Embargo, the 1979 Iranian Oil Crisis and the huge spike in gasoline prices in the summer of 2008, as well as the lack of interest in such vehicles when oil prices dropped, nobody should question the reality that unlike government programs, price signals actually  work to inspire the goals clean energy advocates hope to achieve.

This proposal is a real test for environmentalists, as well as political liberals and conservatives alike.

Are environmentalists really concerned about the environment, or as opponents often suggest, are environmental issues merely excuses for increasing the power of elitist bureaucrats to exercise government control over every aspect of our lives?

Are conservatives really interested in political freedom, economic efficiency and free markets, or is all their rhetoric really just a cover for protecting the special privileges and loopholes for increasing the wealth and power of the already wealthy and powerful corporate oligarchies in our country?

Liberals are bound to hate the idea initially because it removes all the redistributionist “progressive” aspects of our tax code. But based on the accelerating levels of wealth disparity in our country, the impenetrable complexity of the tax code and the hypocritical shenanigans that many prominent liberal politicians get caught using to avoid the tax burdens they want to impose on the rest of us, maybe its time for everyone to just admit that the current system is completely failing to meet those idealistic goals, which are negated by all the special loopholes embodied in the unreadable thousands of pages of the tax code. The reality is that when one includes payroll taxes in the overall calculation, our current tax system is neither progressive, fair or in any way rational.

Rather than everyone just pointing fingers and blaming the other guys for our problems, if we focus on finding solutions simple enough, bold enough and sensible enough to actually garner broad support, maybe maybe there is a possibility of rediscovering consensus in our society.

Lets start taxing waste and pollution instead of using the tax system to punish people for working, creating jobs and making productive investments. Let’s actually try real market based solutions and restore the economic competitiveness our nation enjoyed before every aspect of the economy was micromanaged by the government and manipulated for tax reasons.   Let’s encourage the prudent conservation of our limited fossil fuel reserves so we don’t impoverish our children and grandchildren with our prolifigate waste. And yes less sensibly prune back the over-reaching size and scope of our federal government.

Why single out fossil fuels for taxation? Energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy. The highly concentrated energy available from fossil fuels is a precious resource both for us and for future generations. Unlike metals and other minerals that can be readily recycled in a prudent society, once mined and burned, the concentrated energy in fossil fuels is dissipated and unavailable for future use. Arguably, those concentrated energy resources stored over millions of years shouldn’t be squandered, but rather should be husbanded wisely, as higher price signals would encourage. Balance of trade, foreign policy, pollution and a variety of other reasons which almost everyone is aware of, further contribute to the selection of fossil fuels as the sensible focus for taxation.

Perhaps as this fundamental idea of tax shifting gets refined, we will find consensus to add other wasteful, dangerous or polluting industries to the mix of appropriate consumption taxes, so we can begin to balance our federal budget and pay down our out of control federal debt, while also making our nation a safer, healthier and saner place to live.

But we should start the conversation recognizing how surprisingly affordable it could be to align rational revenue policy with sensible market mechanisms that would encourage economic prosperity, job and business growth, broadly shared environmental and clean energy goals along with the basic principles of freedom and liberty that our country was founded upon.

Let’s fundamentally reform the American economy with a government funding system that no longer undermines the most essential ideals and principles of our national heritage. Let’s support an idea bold enough, simple enough and compelling enough to actually work.