 |
|
|||||
| Responsibility for the factual accuracy of each press release rests entirely with the individuals or organizations identified on the release.
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||||
Georgia Power recently announced that DeKalb County, GA has become the first vendor to agree to produce electricity under the Georgia Public Service Commission’s Green Energy Program. According to Georgia Power, DeKalb County will develop a landfill gas project at its Seminole Road facility and sell the electricity to Georgia Power under a 10-year contract. The landfill gas project is expected to start producing electricity by fall 2006. Georgia Power noted that the Green Power program, which charges customers a premium for each 100-kilowatt-hour block of “green” electricity, has been seeking a vendor since the program was enacted in July 2003. Source: EIN Renewable Energy Today, 7/14/2005.
The U.S. EPA has released an updated version of its Top 25 list of the largest U.S. green power purchasers, which includes the following four new additions: HSBC (No. 7), Mohawk Paper Mills (No. 13), Starbucks (No. 22), and Syracuse University (tied for No. 23). The U.S. Air Force remains the top purchaser, followed by Johnson & Johnson, the largest corporate purchaser of green power. EPA and the World Bank hold steady in third and fourth place on the list, respectively. The current Top 25 Partners are buying or generating enough renewable energy to power more than 157,000 homes a year. Together, the Top 25 are using more than 1.7 million megawatt hours of green power annually. Source: GEA Update July 14 2005
The Bonneville Environmental Foundation recently announced that a new civic center located in Hillsboro, OR, will be the first municipal headquarters building in the state to meet all of its energy needs with renewable resources. According to BEF, the civic center will utilize a 3,150-watt, 18-panel roof top solar array and purchase the balance of its power from Portland General Electric's Clean Wind program. BEF noted that PGE paid the greater part of the solar array's cost. Contact: Bill Jeppesen, BEF, phone 916-941-7553. Source: EIN Renewable Energy Today, 7/8/2005.
Like the fumes from its trash heaps, the Seminole landfill proposal to sell electricity has floated back to the surface. The DeKalb County Commission unanimously approved a deal with Georgia Power that it had tabled months ago, deciding that the county's chance to earn an estimated $1 million per year in the energy business was too attractive to abandon after all.
The deal potentially opens the door to a proposal from Mack Trucks to convert excess methane gas to liquid fuel for trucks. The company is performing a feasibility study and will present the results to the county, which stands to collect revenue as the supplier.
The plan stalled in April when commissioners and community activists expressed concerns about the potential impact of the conversion process on air quality above the Ellenwood facility. Commissioners complained that the financial details required more time for them to review than what they were given. This time, county officials said they supplied studies and other research showing the success and environmental safety of more than 300 methane conversion programs nationally.
The 10-year contract calls for the county to convert methane gas — a byproduct from processing waste — at its landfill to at least 22,500 megawatts of electricity annually for Georgia Power. The energy company then will provide the environmentally friendly "green energy" to customers.
County administration officials say the start-up costs would be $4 million to $5 million to build a power plant, but that the expense would be recouped after five years of revenues. Landfills are a sore point for residents in south DeKalb. Activists have spent years battling to close privately owned landfills — some of which have polluted the air and soil — and have established a strong record of success.
Currently, the methane produced in the decomposition of waste at the landfill is destroyed by being burned. As renewable energy, methane is in the category of "green" energy sources that are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. County officials say that converting methane instead of burning it would save 400,000 barrels of oil each year. Georgia Power's requests for green energy producers comes at the request of the Georgia Public Service Commission, which directed the utility to increase its reserves for customers. Source: By Corey Dade, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/14/2005.
Three semitrailer trucks have trucked in more than two dozen prefabricated concrete slabs, each weighing up to 5,000 pounds and lifted into place by a crane. Several men are steadying and caulking the 5-inch-thick, 9-foot-high basement walls.
The future home has hypnotized some. Completed homes are scattered throughout this subdivision in progress, and several residents have stopped to stare and question. So Brad Shive, vice president of sales and the "janitor" of Superior Design Homes, says he's going to set up a hot-dog stand.
"A lot of people are familiar with this foundation," says John Peters, president of Superior Design Homes. "They've seen it on TV." "But they've never seen it in DeKalb," Shive says. When another semi drives past, carrying concrete forms for pouring concrete in a nearby house's foundation, Shive says, "I just see tons of work and three weeks before they have a foundation."
Peters, Shive and their third business partner, Vice President of Construction Dave Colclasure, are overseeing their newly formed company's first home in The Bridges of RiverMist in DeKalb. The foundation was erected within eight hours, and the exterior and interior walls were expected to be up 12 days later. An independent streak impels them.
The three men, each recently retired, started this business so they can create what they would want. They've chosen prefabricated concrete slabs for the foundation because they say it speeds up construction by eliminating field work, saves on concrete waste and prevents heat loss from the basement. Structurally Insulated Panels also will be installed to keep the home air-tight and save energy.
They're environmentally friendly construction workers concerned about their customers' monthly electric and gas bills. They tout this slogan: "Controlling your future energy costs." "I think houses can be built better than they are being built," Colclasure says. "We all know utility prices are only going to go one way. It's an expendable commodity. It's going to run out eventually."
"Someone is always out there to build a better house with better efficiency, better materials, better designs, better systems," says Dennis Sweeney, vice president of Home Builders Association of the Greater Rockford Area, an organization with 205 members. "There's that constant drive to build something better."
He cites the 2,200-square-foot ecofriendly home built by McCanse Builders Inc. on the Kickapoo Nature Conservatory in Oregon as evidence of an increasing interest in "green" homes. This model house, on display for the Parade of Homes, was made from sustainable materials and uses alternative energy sources.
"There is no question that as the cost of energy rises, home buyers are going to be paying attention to energy-efficient designs," Sweeney says, adding that energy costs could start dropping if consumers start conserving. Superior Design Homes is certified through ENERGY STAR, a government-backed energy efficient program, for appliances and lighting; they hope to eventually add a certification through the American Lung Association Health House for air quality measures. This business also will contract Rockford Geothermal to install a geothermal heating, ventilation and air conditioning system in the homes they build.
"It's a whole system we're selling," Colclasure says. "Geothermal is what brings it together in one nice bundle." Rockford Geothermal assessed Superior Design Homes' first house design at The Bridges of RiverMist and determined, with its specifications of 2,200 square feet, they could guarantee its heating and cooling expenses would not top $531 annually for the first five years, and if they did the company would pay the difference. But since the city of DeKalb does not yet have an ordinance pertaining to home geothermal systems, this house could not be built up from geothermal energy. So with a high-efficiency gas furnace, a gas water heater and a gas stove, utilities are expected to run $1,561 a year. An energy-efficient system, Colclasure says, should translate into 25 percent to 30 percent in savings; if this home had been built traditionally, its utilities would run, roughly, an additional $800 to $1,000 a year.
Colclasure says Superior Design Homes will, during the course of 30 years, save its homeowners hundreds of thousands of dollars. "We're building for the future," Peters says. "We believe this is the future for light construction." Says Sweeney: "Everybody builds a house for the future. It's got to last. It's got to last through the mortgage."
For energy-efficient homes to work for energy savings, Sweeney says, the system has to produce a savings and a payback within "X" amount of time — in the long run and the short-term, within three to five years, as most people live in one home for seven to eight years.
Peters was on the forefront of the energy-efficient home-building movement several decades ago. In 1992, he built his own home. "He was an innovator," Shive says. "I was an experimenter," Peters says. He had a wife to convince first. Peters' wife asked if he should be experimenting with their money, and what they would do if the house caved in. Peters told her the research indicated it would work, so he was going to trust the research. Peters bought property in a subdivision owned by Shive.
Shive also was keen on energy-efficient homes and had accumulated a file for "earth homes" — houses built partly underground to save energy costs by relying, in part, on solar energy. "Did you have a tie-dye shirt?" Shive asks Peters. "No," Peters says. "I wasn't a radical." At the time, Peters hadn't heard of geothermal energy, so he installed a gas stove, a gas water heater and a high-efficiency gas furnace similar to the one to be installed in Superior Design Homes' first house in The Bridges of RiverMist. Peters' wife likes the home's year-round even temperatures, and Peters loves that it's quiet and cozy, and cheap to heat and cool. He estimates the system saves them between $30 and $50 a month.
Peters' credibility on the subject is only bolstered by his prior career. He and Colclasure worked at the Exelon nuclear power plant in Byron — Peters for 19 years, Colclasure for 20 years. "Basically," Colclasure says, "we would control the grid for northern Illinois. Daily, I saw what the consumption is." Starting at 3:30 a.m., Colclasure watched the electrical use start its daylong spike. He's been tracking society's broader demand for the utility, which grows 5 percent to 10 percent annually, and says this growing dependence and battle between supply and demand has spawned energy-efficient companies.
Superior Home Designs evolved when Peters, who knew Colclasure from work and Shive from his property purchase, introduced the other two, and the three men talked about their common desire to make a "better widget." "We're not the only ones doing it," Shive says. "But to my knowledge, we're the only ones in the area." "Traditional builders are not inclined to experiment," Peters says. "When it comes to something new like this, they won't try it until someone else does, until it's tried and true."
"It's just like anything else," Shive says. "There's some naysayers (that say), 'We don't know anything about it.' They just don't want to change. So they don't." Sweeney says that money will make or break the movement. "Most people still have to borrow money to build a home," he says. "The banker has to be convinced the house is worth at least as much as you're borrowing. That's where idealism and reality clash. That's the reality of buying a home."
Peters, Shive and Colclasure are standing next to their first home under construction, watching employees from Superior Walls of Central Illinois in Springfield set the house's concrete basement walls. They hope to sell the house for $349,000. Peters says they can build a cheaper version of an energy-efficient home.
"This has all the bells and whistles," Colclasure adds. "This is not a beginner home. But we can build an energy-efficient beginner home." Instead of 2,200square feet, they could make it 1,200square feet. Although this house doesn't have a buyer yet, the men already are banking on the future homeowners' marketing abilities. When neighbors talk next year about their high energy bills, Shive expects the residents of this house in The Bridges of RiverMist "will be selling homes for us" as they tout the fact their bills are half as much.
"The way I look at it," Colclasure says, "if I build and no one buys it, I'll move into it. I'm building it the way I would want it." For more information on Superior Home Designs, contact President John Peters at 815-761-9367, or send a letter to 1524 Brentwood Drive, Sycamore, IL 60178. Source: By Abbie Reese, Rockford Register Star, 7/14/2005.
Plan now to attend the Geothermal Resources Council 2005 Annual Meeting- on September 25 through 28-at the Reno Hilton Nevada Conference Center. Co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and contributions by GRC Members, this year’s Annual Meeting theme is Geothermal Energy-The World’s Buried Treasure. With its Technical Program and other events, the GRC 2005 Annual Meeting will also provide a unique opportunity for exhibitors to showcase their projects, equipment and services at the Geothermal Energy Association Trade Show (see below).
The GRC 2005 Annual Meeting will feature distinguished Keynote Speakers at its Opening Session, as well as Technical and Poster sessions on a broad range of timely geothermal resource and development topics. This year’s event will also offer Technical Workshops; Field Trips to nearby geothermal projects; the GRC Banquet and Annual Awards Luncheon; and the GRC Golf Tournament.
For more information visit the GRC web site or contact them at Geothermal Resources Council, 2001 Second St., Ste. 5, P.O. Box 1350, Davis, California 95616 • USA, Phone: (530) 758-2360, Fax: (530) 758-2839.
On August 17, 2005, the U.S. Department of Energy GeoPowering the West Program will be conducting a Utah Geothermal Power Generation Workshop at the Utah Department of Water Resources located at 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT.
This meeting is designed for utility resource personnel and focuses on the key benefits and risks of including geothermal power in a utility’s resource portfolio. The event is cosponsored by the following organizations:
The highly qualified speakers bring a mix of professional experience in all aspects of geothermal energy. Attendees will:
There is no registration fee for the meeting, HOWEVER, you must register to attend. To register, contact Guy Nelson at (541) 994-4670.
Please save the date and make plans to join us for this leading-edge forum in Santa Fe. Conference attendees will choose from policy and technical sessions on developing renewable energy throughout the Southwest. Policy sessions will include Energy Policy Best Practices, Forums for Advancing Clean Energy Policy, Voluntary Green Power Market, Re-Valuing Renewable Energy and more. Technical sessions will offer Case Studies in Integration and Interconnection, Transmission Access in the West, Renewable Energy Technology Costs and Trends, and Project Development Case Studies, to name a few. Plenary sessions will be offered on Climate Change and Western Energy Choices, and Creating Regional Renewable Markets. Historically, the Southwest Renewable Energy Conference has been held at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. In an effort to broaden the reach of the Conference, we will convene this year in New Mexico. We will return to Arizona in 2006. A limited number of rooms are available at the Conference Rate. Source: Amanda Ormond, Conference Director.
iGreenBuild.com is an information packed sustainable building web site created by people who are passionate about improving and preserving our planet's environment through environmentally friendly building practices.
On June 30, Great River Energy filed its Integrated Resource Plan with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The plan, which analyzes the future electricity needs of Great River Energy's 28 member cooperatives, identifies the need to add approximately 1200-1400 MW (megawatts) of capacity over the next 10 years to satisfy an increase in member demand for electricity. In addition to this needed capacity, Great River Energy will continue to add increments of wind energy to meet the state's renewable energy objective.
"We are pleased that our studies show that meeting the state's 10 percent renewable energy objective reduces our overall power supply costs," said David Saggau, Great River Energy president and CEO. "Of course, this assumes the federal production tax credit for wind energy is renewed. As it stands, Great River Energy is committed to the renewable energy objective."
Great River Energy already is ahead of the prescribed schedule for the state's renewable energy objective with more than 2 percent of its energy from renewable resources. Later this year, the cooperative will begin taking power from Minnesota's first commercial-scale, landowner-developed wind farm, making an additional stride towards achieving the 10 percent renewable energy objective by 2015. The project, which is located near Trimont in southwestern Minnesota, will begin delivering 100 megawatts of wind energy to Great River Energy and its member cooperatives later this year.
Great River Energy's system demand is forecasted to grow on average 3 percent a year over the next 10 years. This is one of the fastest growing systems in the Upper Midwest. "Because Great River Energy's members serve many fast growing communities, we're predicting high growth over the planning period," said Saggau. "We are committed to adding new resources to meet this growth in an economically efficient and environmentally sound manner."
The IRP also outlines what resources are currently available to Great River Energy and how the organization will consider new resources for the future. Great River Energy will look at adding peaking and intermediate resources in 2008 to 2010 and baseload capacity in 2014 to 2016. For these new resources, a variety of options will be considered including gas peaking or intermediate capacity, baseload capacity, power purchase contracts and renewable energy sources such as wind energy. Source: Great River Energy, 7/12/2005.
Business and industry are dependent upon services provided by ecosystems, but many, such as fisheries, forests and water supplies are in decline. By 2010, this could mean increased costs for companies who rely directly and indirectly on these natural resources, warns a new report from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Source: Environment News Service, 7/12/2005.
The Renewable Energy Resources Committee and Sustainable Development, Ecosystems and Climate Change Committee with its co-sponsors, the ABA Section of Public Utilities, Communications & Transportation; the Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership Inc.; the American Council on Renewable Energy; the Association of the Bar of the Cityof New York; the DC Bar Association; Environmental and Energy Study Institute; and the Clean Energy States Alliance invite you to join future monthly Multi-Site National Teleconference/Brown Bag programs. A listing of these programs follows:
September 21, 2005: BIOFUELS: Their Future is Now. Brown Bag Seminar 12 - 2 p.m. Eastern Time. Teleconference 12:15 - 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time. An expert panel will discuss how current environment, tax and energy law (combined with rising oil prices and emerging trading markets) are changing the energy transportation landscape.
October 19, 2005: Meeting Expectations? An Overview of Renewable Portfolio Standard - Programs Implementation Experiences. RPS programs promulgated to encourage the development of new renewable energy projects have drawn a mixed response with some developers finding states without such programs to be more hospitable while others have been able to use these programs to obtain the contracts or funding needed to build new power plants. This program will explore what is happening with these RPS initiatives and look at some of the key issues, such as renewable energy credits, that have yet to be resolved.
November 16, 2005: Distributed Generation and the Grid: Who Should Pay Whom for What? A discussion by a panel of experts on how traditional cost-of-service utility ratemaking can accommodate distributed generation, including use of such mechanisms as net metering and locational marginal pricing, to be followed by a policy debate as to whether such accommodations for DG are fair to utilities and their other ratepayers.
Other programs will follow: To offer suggestions for future programming or for more information about these programs, e-mail Edna Sussman or Robert Faron. Please note: We regret the difficulties some of you encountered during the last program with the quality of the sound on the teleconference and have taken steps to correct the problem for the July program. If the problem persists notwithstanding our efforts, we will be switching teleconference providers to assure a high quality program. For a full listing of upcoming Section programs, view the programs calendar. Source: CEEP Inc., Deirdre Murphy, Program Director, Environmental Business Association of New York State, Inc.
Gas-fired plants have emerged as an increasingly important component of the electric power generation system in the United States, and recent fuel cost increases and price volatility have raised questions about how diversification of the country's generating fleet can help to address these concerns. To address this issue, the National Wind Coordinating Committee released an issue brief entitled: "Wind Energy And Natural Gas: Balancing Price And Supply Volatility.” Source: Miles Keogh, National Wind Coordinating Committee, 7/13/2005.
Idaho National Lab is pleased to announce that the Virtual Hydropower Prospector was launched on the web on July 11, 2005. You can access the application via the DOE Hydropower Program Web site. Click on the Virtual Hydropower Prospector link under What's New or in the navigation alley on the left side of the homepage. Chose a hydrologic region of interest using the Region Selector and the VHP desktop will be displayed with the region you selected in the map view window. You may want to read the Introduction to New Users on the VHP homepage for a quick overview. Source: Doug Hall, Project Manager, INL, 7/12/2005.
The "Climate Change Impacts and Adoptions in California" document presents a short review of the existing literature on climate change impacts and adoption options for California.
The Federal Network for Sustainability held a meeting on June 1 and 2, 2005, The minutes from the meeting have been posted onto the FNS website. The presentations from some of the guest speakers are also posted on the Web site. Source: Alan Hurt, 7/14/2005.
After years of debate and deliberations, the House and Senate selected members for a Conference Committee that is expected to work out the differences in their respective versions of a national Energy Bill. Expectations are high that they can produce legislation for President Bush to sign into law before the fall. Numerous issues will need to be resolved between the House and Senate versions of the bill, from widely differing tax provisions to electricity reform and MTBE.
For the renewable community, there are several provisions that will quite literally determine the future of renewable power in the US. It is likely the final legislation will move towards a more competitive power system and prospectively repeal PURPA contract obligations. This makes the bills provisions for renewable tax incentives and a national Renewable Energy Standard even more critical.
The Senate requested a conference with the House on H.R. 6 and named its conferees as: Sens. Domenici, Craig, Thomas, Alexander, Murkowski, Burr, Bingaman, Akaka, Dorgan, Wyden and Johnson from the Energy Committee; and Sens. Grassley, Hatch and Baucus from the Finance Committee. Even before the House named its Conferees, staff from both the House and Senate began meeting July 6th to “walk through” the hundreds of provisions in the bill. House and Senate Leadership were optimistic that the Conference Committee could complete action before the congressional August recess. The White House was also calling for quick action.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) appointed the following members to the conference committee on H.R. 6 - Energy Policy Act of 2005:
Republican Conferees for H.R. 6 – The Energy Policy Act of 2005: Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) – chairman; Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.); Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.); Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R- Fla.); Rep. Paul E. Gilmor (R-Ohio); Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas); Rep. Charles "Chip" Pickering, Jr. (R-Miss.); Rep. John B. Shadegg (R-Ariz.); Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.); Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.); Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
Armed Services: Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.); Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.); Agriculture: Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.); Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.); Education and Workforce: Rep. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.); Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas); Financial Services: Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio); Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio); Government Reform: Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.); Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.); Judiciary: Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.); Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio); Resources: Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.); Rep. Barbra Cubin (R-Wyo.); Rules: Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.); Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.); Science: Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.); Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.); Transportation and Infrastructure: Rep. Don Young (R-Ark.); Rep. Thomas E. Petri (R-Wis.); Ways and Means: Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Calif.); Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.).
The Conferees were expected to meet Thursday, July 14th, for opening statements. After that meeting, the staff indicated it was likely the Conferees would meet every Tuesday and Thursday and staff would work around the clock on resolving differences. Rep. Barton (R-TX), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will chair the Conference Committee along with Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.
Here is a brief discussion of some key issues:
PTC: The Senate has passed a provision that extends the Production Tax Credit for three years, provides new geothermal facilities a full ten-year credit, established a new clean energy bonding incentive for public power and cooperative renewable power projects, and provides significant boosts in the investment tax credit for solar and small wind systems. These renewable tax provisions are the single largest portion of the Senate Energy Bill’s tax package, in terms of their potential budget score. The House has no comparable provisions. Its energy incentives largely support more conventional energy resources. Meanwhile, the White House has pressed both the House and Senate to keep the tax “score” (or cost) of these provisions to the minimum.
Renewable proponents see this energy bill as the principal chance in this Congress for these renewable provisions to be enacted. In particular, this is probably the only avenue for the substantive changes being proposed – i.e. the full ten-year PTC credit for geothermal and other renewable technologies, clean energy bonds, significant ITC changes. If the final Conference Agreement does not include the Senate renewable tax provisions, the fallback would be an end of the year extension of existing law for probably one or two years. Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) of the House Ways and Means Committee reportedly prefers the extension approach, and is expected to want to see the Senate renewable provisions trimmed back if they are kept in the Energy Bill. Meanwhile, Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Baucus (D-MT), say they will fight to keep their tax package, and Senator Hatch (R-UT) who was a sponsor of an amendment making some of the substantive improvements in the PTC has also been appointed as a member of the Conference Committee and is expected for push to keep the Senate provision.
RES (or RPS): The Senate bill also contains a national Renewable Energy Standard, requiring 10 percent of utility generation to come from renewable sources by 2020. The Senate RPS provision includes provisions intended to address concerns about any potential for this measure to disrupt state RPS measures, which are so critically important to renewable power growth. The House bill has no RPS provision, and both bills repeal the renewable power purchase provisions of PURPA, prospectively.
The RES proposal faces numerous complications. First, there will be a significant debate about whether there should even be a federal “mandate.” House Members in past conferences have opposed a national RPS, and are likely to do so again or seek significant moderation in its terms and requirements. Also, there will be the question of what technologies qualify. Energy efficiency advocates are already pressing to have efficiency measures included, and other technologies that consider themselves “clean energy” are likely to be considered as well. There remains the question about how to deal with the many existing state RPS requirements. While the Senate bill explicitly seeks to have a federal RPS maintain and support the state initiatives, there are some who would want a national RPS to take precedence, particularly if it can impose on the states specific requirements about technologies to be included. Another issue of concern to renewable providers would be any attempt to include in the provisions language that would change the ownership of renewable credits. Finally, it would be important to all renewable power producers that any final proposal support production from the existing renewable power facilities.
Geothermal Steam Act: Both the House and Senate bills re-write the Geothermal Steam Act. While there are significant differences in the details, many provisions of the bills are largely in agreement at least in principle. Both would: require regular bi-annual lease sales at least the major geothermal states, direct MMS to simplify royalties and consider a gross proceeds approach, create a separate approach to leasing and royalties intended to encourage direct use facilities, mandate a new national resource assessment by the USGS, eliminate the additional royalty on any minerals produced as a byproduct of geothermal power, and both provide for leases to continue indefinitely as long as there is commercial production. The royalty provisions of the House Bill are very similar to recommendations recently made by the MMS Royalty Advisory Committee. However, a GAO investigation launched by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is expected to impact House-Senate discussions and the GAO recommendations are unknown.
DOE Renewable Resource Assessment: In addition to the USGS multi-year resource assessment discussed above, House and Senate Bills also include provisions directing DOE to conduct a near term assessment for all renewable technologies. While there are some differences between them, they are very similar and are each found in Section 201 of the respective bills. Here is the House requirement:
SEC. 201. ASSESSMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES.
(a) Resource Assessment- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of Energy shall review the available assessments of renewable energy resources within the United States, including solar, wind, biomass, ocean (tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal, and hydroelectric energy resources, and undertake new assessments as necessary, taking into account changes in market conditions, available technologies, and other relevant factors.
(b) Contents of Reports- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall publish a report based on the assessment under subsection (a). The report shall contain—
(1) a detailed inventory describing the available amount and characteristics of the renewable energy resources; and
(2) such other information as the Secretary believes would be useful in developing such renewable energy resources, including descriptions of surrounding terrain, population and load centers, nearby energy infrastructure, location of energy and water resources, and available estimates of the costs needed to develop each resource, together with an identification of any barriers to providing adequate transmission for remote sources of renewable energy resources to current and emerging markets, recommendations for removing or addressing such barriers, and ways to provide access to the grid that do not unfairly disadvantage renewable or other energy producers.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations- For the purposes of this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
Research Direction: The House bill has general R&D direction for DOE. The House provisions state:
(a) In General- The Secretary shall conduct programs of renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application, including activities described in this subtitle. Such programs shall be focused on the following objectives:
(1) Increasing the conversion efficiency of all forms of renewable energy through improved technologies.
(2) Decreasing the cost of renewable energy generation and delivery.
(3) Promoting the diversity of the energy supply.
(4) Decreasing the Nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies.
(5) Improving United States energy security.
(6) Decreasing the environmental impact of energy-related activities.
(7) Increasing the export of renewable generation equipment from the United States.
(b) Goals-
(1) INITIAL GOALS- In accordance with the performance plan and report requirements in section 4 of the Government Performance Results Act of 1993, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress, along with the President's annual budget request for fiscal year 2007, a report containing outcome measures with explicitly stated cost and performance baselines. The measures shall specify renewable energy performance goals, with quantifiable 5-year cost and energy savings target levels, for wind power, photovoltaics, solar thermal systems (including concentrating and solar hot water), geothermal energy, biomass-based systems, biofuels, and hydropower, and any other such goals the Secretary considers appropriate.
(2) SUBSEQUENT TRANSMITTALS- The Secretary shall transmit to the Congress, along with the President's annual budget request for each fiscal year after 2007, a report containing—
(A) a description, including quantitative analysis, of progress in achieving performance goals transmitted under paragraph (1), as compared to the baselines transmitted under paragraph (1); and
(B) any amendments to such goals.
(C) Public Input- The Secretary shall consider advice from industry, universities, and other interested parties through seeking comments in the Federal Register and other means before transmitting each report under subsection (b).
Geothermal R&D: The House bill includes specific direction for the DOE geothermal research program.
SEC. 941. GEOTHERMAL.
The Secretary shall conduct a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for geothermal energy. The program shall focus on developing improved technologies for reducing the costs of geothermal energy installations, including technologies for—
(1) improving detection of geothermal resources;
(2) decreasing drilling costs;
(3) decreasing maintenance costs through improved materials;
(4) increasing the potential for other revenue sources, such as mineral production; and
(5) increasing the understanding of reservoir life cycle and management.
The Senate bill includes a broad authorization for renewable energy research, and specific direction for some programs but not geothermal energy. The Conferees will have to decide whether to accept the House direction, modify it, or adopt the more general Senate approach. Recently, GEA’s Executive Director wrote Senators urging the Senate to adopt more specific objectives for future geothermal research efforts. Several interested Senate staffers felt that this was best addressed in Conference.
ANWR: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not expected to be an issue in the energy bill discussions. Provisions that allow drilling to begin along the Coastal Plain were included in the House-Senate Budget recommendations, and ANWR leasing is expected to be included in the Budget Reconciliation package that is due to be acted upon separately in September.
MTBE: In the last session of Congress, indemnification from certain lawsuits for producers of MTBE was a significant hurdle when the legislation returned to the Senate. It’s not clear whether House-Senate negotiators will be able to craft a compromise that can obtain Senate approval. Rumors abound about how the MTBE issue might be dealt with, including the possibility that this issue might be addressed in other legislation. Source: GEA Update July 14 2005
California has the potential to double its installed wind capacity within five years, according to a staff report at the California Energy Commission.
“California has one of the most diverse electricity supply systems in the nation with a large potential to generate electricity from renewable sources, such as wind, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric and solar,” says Dora Yen-Nakafuji in the draft ‘California Wind Resources’ prepared for a workshop on renewable energy potential in the state. “With the recently adopted Renewable Portfolio Standard, the challenge facing the state will be how best to integrate and manage renewable energy resources with traditional generation while ensuring a reliable electrical system.”
“Although many of the power qualities with existing wind technology have been addressed, issues related to increasing intermittent wind resources are introducing new challenges,” it explains. “Though new technologies are on the horizon, several barriers combine to limit the number of areas to generate power form renewable resources such as wind. These barriers include transmission capacity constraints, intermittency management issues, and occasionally perceptions, which combine to limit available areas of renewable resources like wind.”
“California continues to be a leader in installed wind capacity with just over 2,000 MW, and the potential exists to double this amount in the next five years,” it concludes. “In the future, renewable resources will play an even larger role in providing bulk electricity for the state.”
New turbines will be able to generate power in wind speeds of 5 m/s, at which time California would have the potential for 31 GW of turbines at 30 m hub height, which would cover 1.2 percent of the land area. At 50 m height, the potential increases to 56 GW in low-speed areas and 10 GW in high-speed regions, with annual generation of 213,214 GWh.
At a height of 100 m, the state could have 127 GW of turbines in low-speed regions and 21 GW in high-speed, generating 479,362 GWh a year from turbines on 5.7 percent of the land area. The dispatchability of wind will be improved by locating turbines closer to strategic locations in the grid, and recent improvements in a number of aspects of wind energy mean that California wind resources need to be routinely assessed, the report notes.
California requires electricity providers to procure at least 1 percent of of their electricity from green power, and to achieve a 20 percent renewable mix before 2010. The white paper provides an estimate of the wind resources within the state which are potentially available, noting that the gross estimates are unconstrained by technical, economic or environmental requirements.
Existing utility-scale wind generation facilities are found in five major resource areas, of which three (Altamont, Tehachapi and San Gorgonio) account for 95 percent of all commercial wind power generation in the state and 11 percent of the world’s wind-generated electricity. The 3.5 billion kWh of annual output from wind provides electricity for 530,000 homes.
The capacity factors of California’s wind turbines range from 10 percent to 41 percent, and recent improvements have increased that capacity factor by 8 percent. Domestic turbines accounted for 67 percent of total installed capacity in 1985, compared with only 37 percent in 2001, and 35 percent of US-made turbines manufactured in the 1980s and 1990s remain in operation in California. Source: ReFocus, 7/13/2005.
The Associated Press recently reported that the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has approved the development of a $250-million wind farm by Invenergy Wind LLC on a 50-square-mile site in the southern part of the state. According to AP, those opposed to the project had claimed that the site’s 133 turbines would kill migratory birds. Ap said opponents of the wind farm may still argue against the commission’s decree that the turbines should be kept at least two miles from a nearby marsh, insisting on a buffer of at least five miles instead. AP noted that the wind farm is expected to produce enough power for 72,000 homes. Source: AP, 7/8/2005 via EIN Renewable Energy Today, 7/13/2005.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a $3,405,000 grant to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research to fund the Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education and Training, a classroom and Online education and training program based in Boulder, Colo.
The COMET Program utilizes new weather technologies to gain a better understanding of mesoscale meteorology. The program delivers information directly to the MetEd Web site, which can be accessed without cost. In addition to research, the grant will be used to educate working professionals about hydrometeorological issues, and provide financial support to universities for projects in coordination with forecast offices.
"It is important that we have programs like COMET to supply scientific knowledge about the atmosphere to the operational and educational communities," said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "This grant supports NOAA's mission by promoting the transfer of science to practice and serving the taxpayers with an important public good."
COMET was established in 1989 by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and the National Weather Service. Today the COMET Program addresses education and training needs in the atmospheric and related sciences through distance education, residence classes, and a collaborative research outreach program between the university community and NWS operational forecast offices. The COMET staff includes meteorologists, hydrologists, computer scientists, graphic artists, and instructional designers as well as administrative, information technology, and quality assurance specialists.
Each year, NOAA awards approximately $900 million in grants to members of the academic, scientific, education, and business communities to assist the agency in fulfilling its mission to study the Earth's natural systems in order to predict environmental change, manage ocean resources, protect life and property, and provide decision makers with reliable scientific information. NOAA goals and programs reflect a commitment to these basic responsibilities of science and service to the nation for the past 35 years. Source: NOAA Release, 7/13/2005.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture requests applications for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. The purpose of the USDA SBIR program is to provide an opportunity for U.S. owned, for profit small business firms to submit innovative, applied, R&D projects that address important problems facing American agriculture, and have the potential to lead to significant public benefit if the research is successful. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, Animal Waste Management, Rural and Community Development, Aquaculture, and Wildlife. Up to $19.4 million expected to be available, award range $80K to $300K. Responses for Phase I due 9/1/05, Phase 2 due 2/2/06. For more info, contact Charles Cleland. Refer to Sol# USDA-GRANTS-060105-001. (Fedgrants 6/2/05). Source: Western Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Energy, 6/28/2005.
The Climate Trust requests proposals for projects in Oregon that reduce or sequester carbon dioxide emissions. The carbon dioxide emission reductions should be in addition to those that would likely occur in the absence of offset project funding. Projects must be implemented after the carbon funding is awarded, however expansions of existing projects are eligible. The Trust is interested primarily in projects seeking more than $1 M in carbon funding. Although there is no price ceiling for projects, The Trust expects to fund projects at a carbon price of $5/metric ton CO2. The funding the Climate Trust will apply to this effort was provided by Portland General Electric as part of their requirement to offset the emissions from their new power generating facility in Port Westward, OR. The Climate Trust is seeking a minimum of $4.3 million in carbon dioxide offsets, 2 to 5 project anticipated. Responses due 8/24/05. For more info, contact Ted Presberg. Source: Western Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Energy, 6/28/2005.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requests proposals for Waste-To-Energy: Strategic Geographic Planning Tool Development; Phase II in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The goal of this initiative is to promote energy recovery activities that will improve public health and the environment, and help increase energy security. Of particular interest is the development of renewable energy from the biomass and methane produced in concentrated animal feeding operations, solid waste landfills, publicly owned treatment works, farming operations, animal rendering, and a number of other waste biomass generating industries. $110K expected to be available. Responses due 7/24/05. For more info, contact Steven Pratt, EPA, at (204) 665-2140. Refer to Sol# EPA-GRANTS-060905-003. (Fedgrants 6/9/05). Source: Western Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Energy, 6/28/2005.
The U.S. Department of Energy's Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies Program requests applications for High Temperature Solid Oxide Technologies Research. The objective of this initiative is to advance high temperature solid oxide technologies for the co-production of electricity and hydrogen. $4.96 million expected to be available, 2 awards anticipated. Responses due 7/25/05. For more info, contact Genevieve Wozniak. Refer to Sol# DE-PS36-05GO95019. (Fedgrants 5/31/05). Source: Western Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Energy, 6/28/2005.
The Peter F. Drucker Award for Nonprofit Innovation is given each year to a nonprofit organization that has made a difference in the lives of the people it serves. The award is accompanied by a first-place prize of $20K and two runners-up prizes of $2.5K each. To be considered, the programs must further the mission of the organization; have specific and measurable outcomes; exemplify innovation by demonstrating a "new dimension" of performance; have made a difference in the lives of the people they serve; and serve as a model that can be replicated or adapted by other organizations. Responses due 8/12/05. (Foundation Center RFP Bulletin 5/20/05). Source: Western Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Energy, 6/28/2005.
This news item comes to you as a service of Western's Renewable Resources Program.
|
