Rep. Ross McGregor introduced H.B. 632 to require the Director of Natural Resources to establish a plan to make available for lease areas of the bed of Lake Erie for the purpose of wind energy development and to require Lake Erie wind farms to be certified by the Power Siting Board.

Legislation is necessary to create a mechanism to place wind turbines on Lake Erie.

For those who have not been following this proposal, here are some links of interest:

Great Lakes Energy Development Task Force-  This group, lead by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, has been exploring the feasibility of developing off-shore wind in Lake Erie. The feasibility study will recommend whether or not to proceed with the development of the Great Lakes Wind Energy Center – and if so, how to fund and implement its development. The study will provide a conceptual design for the offshore turbines, including the technical function and scope of the site.  The feasibility study is expected to be completed by the second quarter of 2009. 

Volokh Conspiracy– Blog post regarding design issues faced by locating in the Great Lakes versus Salt Water.  Good array of comments that further flush out the issues…

Opposition View from Local Cleveland Blog-  Bill Callahan questions whether the Region’s first investment "should be a handful of experimental wind plants that can’t go on line in less than five years; must be engineered from the ground up with unpredictable costs, unpredictable construction and operating problems, and unpredictable output economics; and for all these reasons can only be built with millions of dollars in scarce public subsidies that would otherwise support lots of smaller, less risky initiatives?"

Proponent View Green Energy Ohio-  On their wind activities page they discuss the progress being made on the project.

My View-  In yesterday’s post I discussed the prospect of Ohio becoming a leader in developing Clean Tech to boost its economy.  In that post I discuss the need for Ohio to find ways to lead the nation in Clean Tech development.  Austin (Texas) and Research Triangle (N.C.) and Silicon Valley (Calif.)  where the first to identify and lead in promoting technology to develop their economies.  For Ohio, and hopefully Cleveland, to beat all the other areas competing for Clean Tech jobs it must be a visible leader.  It must do something bold and first.  For those reasons, being the first to develop fresh water wind makes sense.

(Photo: Flickr Phault)

The gloom and doom of today’s economy, especially in Cleveland, is covered almost daily.  Job’s have been disappearing from the area at a rapid clip.  The front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer has almost been dedicated to breaking the bad news.  See, Plain Dealer Article "Northeast Ohio Job Loses Spread."

The Article includes the graphic to the left which shows areas of job growth and declines.  The question swirling around Norheast Ohio is how to get the overall economy growing again. 

The most important change is to adopt a Statewide strategy to pursue jobs of the future, rather than putting most of our efforts and money to try and protect struggling industries like the auto companies. We need to look to where the jobs of the future are going to develop and be aggressive about jumping into that space.

Northeast Ohio has done that well with its efforts on attracting medical innovation investment.  Growth in health care is here to stay. 

So what is another job growth area of the future?  It has been discussed with ever increasing regularity- Shifting towards attracting clean technologies jobs that will be associated with the monumental changes associated with energy and Climate Change. 

I am by no means the first to point out Northeast Ohio needs to be aggressively positioning itself to attract those jobs.  For example, locally we have had champions like the Cleveland Foundation pushing leaders to fully embrace a strategy to attract Clean Tech to Northeast Ohio (see, Rich Stuebi’s recent op-ed piece in the Plain Dealer)  And leaders are paying attention.  You may not know this but the Greater Cleveland Partnership was the only chamber of commerce in Ohio that supported including renewable mandates in Ohio’s Energy Bill that passed this summer.

Progress is being made, but we better double our efforts or will be beat out by other states and regions who have their eyes on the same jobs.  Like it or not, Northeast Ohio’s chances at success are intertwined with State leadership efforts on developing a Clean Tech economy.

What is leadership?   Leadership means being out front, not coming late to the party.  For example, Iowa long ago embraced wind energy and has a large portion of generation from wind.  So which state is landing a multi-million dollar new manufacturing facility? Of course it is Iowa.  Meanwhile, Ohio was one of the last states to adopt a mandate on renewable energy.

Texas has also been taking notice and positioning itself to tie its economy to the forthcoming growth in Clean Tech.  An organization call Catalyst just completed a study of Clean Tech opportunities in Texas.  The study includes a series of recommendations for State leadership to adopt to ensure Texas is well positioned. 

Below I have taken out the recommendations that are included in the Texas study and provided my own analysis as to how Ohio is doing in these areas.  It is intended as a scorecard on Ohio’s strategy to attract Clean Tech jobs.

Market Recommendations

  • Spur the creation of renewable energy markets by modernizing the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to promote non-wind generation, and update the state’s wind policy to promote the next generation of wind investment. (Ohio passed S.B. 221 that includes a broad RPS to encourage varies technologies.  The key issue with Ohio’s RPS are the "out clauses" if costs to comply exceed 3%. Hopefully these clauses don’t render the mandate useless)
  • Incent and reward residential and commercial energy customers who choose renewable electricity options, including aggressive rebates or tax credits for solar installation or other distributed generation. (Ohio does include some limited incentives for renewables. The Ohio Department of Development (ODOD) has information regrading solar for consumers.  But an analysis should be done to compare Ohio incentives to those provided by other states. Growth in residential demand helps attract companies to Ohio.)
  • Promote Texas companies by tying customer rebates and incentives to products designed, manufactured or marketed by Texas companies. (I am not aware that Ohio is doing anything in this area.  I know there is a "Buy Ohio" program, but I don’t think it has much value in the Clean Tech arena)

Economic Development Recommendations

  • Conduct a comprehensive analysis of how Texas’ new energy economic development incentives compare to those of other key states. (Ohio should perform such an analysis.  Ohio has new funding for alternative energy projects through the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA).  However, more information is needed as to whether this is enough of an incentive to put Ohio ahead of other states)
  • Consolidate existing and new incentives into a comprehensive and simple New Energy Incentive Package, and actively promote and market it by establishing a visible, coordinated state office to serve as a single point of entry for new energy economic development inquiries. (Ohio gets a mixed scorecard on this one.  Governor Strickland gets credit for creating an Energy Advisor position.  Also, he has increased available incentives.  However, authority and funding is split between OAQDA and ODOD.)
  • Commit specific and significant portions of the Emerging Technology Fund and Texas Enterprise Fund to companies and efforts in new energy industries. (Again, Ohio has created the Alternative Energy Fund as part of its Job Stimulus Package.  However, grants are limited to between $50,000 to $250,000 on renewables which seems hardly enough to attract series development. It may be a good program for helping bridge research to commercial deployment, but a larger effort is needed.)
  • Create a state-sanctioned venue through which university and community college officials, workforce development officials, regional and local chambers of commerce, and state leaders can develop a Green Jobs education and training strategy. (This has not been done at all in Ohio.  Efforts are scattered and not coordinated across the State.)

State Reputation Recommendations

  • Change the political rhetoric surrounding the new energy economy. The world has recognized this is no longer a partisan issue, but an economic opportunity. As long as Texas leaders position the future—and the new energy economy—as bad for Texas’ economy, businesses will go to other states where they’re welcome. This will require current leadership to demonstrate more enthusiasm for the future economy. (This same sentiment can apply equally to Ohio.  Due to its historical manufacturing base and reliance on coal, associations and leaders view major changes such as Climate Change as only bad for Ohio’s economy.  To be a leader, the State must be willing to embrace the changes and work to take advantage of them.)
  • Convene a blue-ribbon commission on the new energy economy—consisting
    of traditional energy companies, renewable energy companies, universities,
    entrepreneurs, utilities and economic development entities—to design
    a long-term new energy economic development strategy for the state. This strategy should build upon the general suggestions of the Governor’s Competitiveness Council’s Report and State Energy Plan, and provide specific, executable strategies for promoting the new energy economy in Texas.     (Another suggestion that would be wise for Ohio to adopt.  While there have been smaller efforts, development of a comprehensive plan is the only way to position the State for success.  A piece meal approach to incentives, RPS and training only means Ohio will be at best a middle tier state in attracting Clean Tech jobs)
  • Appoint a statewide, cabinet-level New Energy Economy Czar, responsible for identifying, articulating and executing a statewide strategy for maximizing Texas’ New Energy economic development opportunity. (Governor Strickland did create the position of Energy Advisor filled by Mark Shanahan. However, this position certainly does not have equal status to the recommendation in the Texas study.)
  • Launch a Manhattan Project-style initiative to design the model “future grid” that could serve as a national proving ground for emerging energy technology and a model for networks nationwide.  (While I don’t have enough insight to determine if this is a worthwhile recommendation, the notion is correct that the State must take nationally visible efforts to distinguish itself from all the other States competing for these jobs.)

 

As reported by Platts, on October 21st the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asked whether the parties involved in the lawsuits that led to vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) want the entire rule to be thrown out or to be kept in place until U.S. EPA revises the rule. 

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday
ordered petitioners — which include utilities Duke Energy and Entergy — to
respond within 15 days to its inquiry.

It is a move CAIR supporters see as a hopeful sign.

"We see it as a sign that [the court is] working through the reasoning of
our position and, hopefully, will make the right decision" and keep CAIR in
place, said EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar.

Asking the petitioners whether they want the entire rule thrown out or a
stay of the court mandate indicates the DC Circuit is "taking our petition
seriously," he added.

If the DC Circuit stays its mandate, CAIR could stay in place until EPA
puts in place a revised rule.

This puts the Utilities in an interesting position.  EPA has indicated that CAIR would need a significant rewrite which would include weakening protections that were provided to the Utilities under the original rule.  The weakening would likely include removal of the shield that EPA constructed that protected the Utilities from claims that interstate transport of pollution was not adequately addressed by CAIR.

Given the 15 day deadline, the briefs should have been filed.  It will be very interesting to how the Utilities like to gamble.  Would they prefer the rule to be thrown out and take their chances a new program is developed that is stronger?  Would the prefer maintaining at least the first phase of CAIR to give them some certainty in the allowance markets and be able to plan for new pollution controls?

 

 

It didn’t take long for the Deseret Power Decision to come back to Ohio.  The debate is over whether a permit for the proposed coal to liquid fuel plant proposed by Baard Energy and AMP Ohio’s new coal power plant can move forward in light of the decision.  Here is a sampling of the debate over the Baard project as it appears in the local paper The Vindicator:

The statements came as the state EPA is on the brink of issuing an air permit for the proposed $5.5 billion Baard Energy plant that would turn coal into liquid fuel. Settles said a decision is expected to be made within the next two weeks.

The air permit would be the final permit needed to begin construction that would be a boost to the local economy. Permits regulating the plant’s effects on water and wetlands have already been approved.

In a statement, the Sierra Club said it went before the EPA Appeals Board in May of this year to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant in Utah be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution.

The Sierra Club’s statement said the decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.
 

AMP Ohio’s permit is facing an equal challenge.  In today’sDaily Sentinel, AMP Ohio was a bit cautious in its statements:

Carson (AMP Ohio) also pointed out, the decision was not in Ohio, which has a fully approved state permitting program, and that AMP-Ohio has worked for over a year in cooperation with Ohio EPA in meeting all requirements of Ohio law in regards to getting the plant online. Carson also pointed out the permit for the Utah plant was not denied but sent back to a regional office for reevaluation.

In a press release, the Sierra Club stated: “Two of the largest new coal proposals for Ohio, the AMP-Ohio power plant in Meigs County and the Baard liquid coal plant in Columbiana County, are likely to face setbacks from the ruling. Both companies had previously insisted that carbon dioxide should remain unregulated — an argument rejected in today’s ruling — and had resisted attempts to establish carbon limits in their air permits.”

Obviously there is a disagreement between the Sierra Club and Ohio EPA on how the decision will affect the permits at issue.  While Ohio EPA is correct that it is one federal court decision, the two cases that have had final decisions issued on whether C02 must be evaluated as part of federal New Source Review (NSR) have certainly been more in favor of requiring controls.  The Georgia State court held CO2 is a regulated pollutant and the pollution control analysis (BACT) for the new coal plant had to include controls for CO2.

The Sierra Club is a certainly overstating the decision in Deseret (see their Press Release) by claiming that all new coal plants must address CO2.  As discussed in my last post, the Environmental Appeals Board remanded the permit to U.S. EPA.  The Board said U.S. EPA has discretion to go either way- determine CO2 is a regulated pollutant or decide monitoring requirements are not enough to trigger requirements to control CO2. 

The Board did reject U.S.EPA’s basis for saying historical precedent tied its hands from determining monitoring was enough to trigger regulation of CO2.  However, the Board did not say U.S. EPA couldn’t develop a defensible position.

What is certain, is there is tremendous uncertainty.  From these comments we can anticipate Ohio EPA will issue the permit (known as "The Ohio River Clean Fuels LLC") without requiring analysis of CO2.  The Baard permit will be challenged and it is totally uncertain as to whether the permit will be invalidated by either a State or Federal Court in Ohio. The AMP Ohio Permit faces similar uncertainty.

Talk about your pro-bowl quality punts…U.S. EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board made a major one this week on the issue of climate change.  All eyes were fixated on the Board waiting for their decision on whether the Clean Air Act requires immediate regulation of greenhouse gases  (GHGs-which include CO2).  The Board’s answer?  We would rather let the Obama Administration decide.

Others on the web point out this may hold up permits for coal plants while EPA deliberates on what to do next.  There is uncertainty after the decision, but other Courts don’t have to follow the EAB ruling.

-See Coal Plant Stop Orders and Power Landscape Changes After Ruling

Background:  For those not keeping up to date on the latest litigation over regulation of GHGs, a major decision was issued yesterday- Deseret Power Electric Cooperative (Bonanza).  At issue in the case was whether the current language of the Clean Air Act requires immediate regulation of GHGs.

The Sierra Club appealed a federal permit that would have allowed construction of a new coal fired power plant.  The Sierra Club argued the permit was illegal because it did not require control of CO2 and the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandates regulation of the pollutant. 

Under the CAA,  EPA would have to require controls for CO2 if it is a pollutant "subject to regulation" under the Act.  The issue turned on the amount of regulation necessary to trigger this provision.  The Clean Air Act does require monitoring and reporting of CO2 for some sources.  But EPA argued monitoring is not enough, claiming that it has interpreted "subject to regulation" as meaning the Agency has set a standard requiring reductions, not just monitoring of emissions.

Implications:  A win for the Sierra Club would have had immediate and dramatic impacts on business across the country.  Hundreds of thousands of businesses, even commercial buildings may have needed a federal air permit to control CO2 emissions.  The EPA would have been overwhelmed with a tidal wave of new work. Why?

As discussed in a prior post, the permit thresholds in the CAA are extraordinarily low in the context of greenhouse gases.  Just how low?  The Act requires federal regulation for sources that emit 100 or 250 tons of a pollutant, depending on various factors.  That’s fine for traditional pollutants like sulfur dioxide and soot, but ridiculous when viewed in the context of greenhouse gases.  As a comparison, California’s Climate Change Program (AB-32) uses a threshold of 25,000 metric tons. 

On the other hand, if the Board sided with U.S. EPA then regulation of GHGs would be delayed until either U.S. EPA completed its lengthy rulemaking process or legislation is enacted by Congress.

Decision:  The Board definitely punted.  It did not agree with the Sierra Club that the plain text of the CAA requires CO2 to be regulated.  However, it rejected the EPA’s position that an analysis of its historical interpretations forecloses the possibility that monitoring requirements are sufficient to trigger the need to regulate GHGs as a pollutant. 

The Board returned the permit to the Agency for further deliberation.  The Board said it is within EPA’s discretion to begin regulating GHGs because the CAA includes monitoring requirements.  The Board concludes with the following paragraph:

Accordingly, we remand the Permit to for the Region (U.S. EPA) to consider whether or not to impose a CO2 BACT limit in light of the Agency’s discretion to interpret, consistent with the CAA, what constitutes a "pollutant subject to regulation under this Act."  In remanding this Permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, we recognize that this is an issue of nation scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding.  The Region should consider whether interested persons, as well as the Agency, would be better served by the Agency addressing the interpretation of the phrase "subject to regulation under this Act" in the context of an action of national scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding.  (emphasis added)

In otherwords, we want the Obama Administration to decide this through a regulatory interpretation that will apply universally and not by us requiring it in the context of a single appeal of a permit.

(Photo: Tostie14/everystockphoto.com)

When a former Secretary of State (George Shultz) and a Vice President (Al Gore) can’t seem to navigate local ordinances to install solar systems on their own homes, what are the chances for everyone else? 

These are two high profile examples cited in a recent report that discusses streamlining the local approval process for solar and small wind projects-  Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power.  

After interviewing experts from around the Country regarding various local impediments, the study includes seven principle recommendations:

  1. Remove barriers to photovoltaics (PV) systems from building and zoning codes.
  2. Simplify PV permit application forms and review processes.
  3. Adopt flat permit fees or fee waivers for PV and small wind systems.
  4. Incorporate information about wind energy opportunities into municipal comprehensive planning.
  5. Establish small wind turbines as permitted uses, with appropriate design guidelines, performance standards, and review processes.
  6. Ease permitting processes by establishing statewide interconnection standards and educating building and electrical inspectors about proper installation procedures for distributed renewable energy systems.
  7. Adopt legislation at the state level mandating consistent and appropriate permitting requirements for distributed renewable energy systems.

A review of recent articles from around the Ohio shows zoning ordinances pertaining to solar and wind projects have become a hot topic.  Local governments would be wise to examine the study to determine ways to draft ordinances and administer local permit processes to encourage development of renewable energy projects. (See Dispatch:  "To avoid fights, set rules for windmills now")

Granville– debate over allowing solar panels in a historic district.

Morrow County–  Established zoning ordinances governing utility scale wind projects, but local governments ignore standards for small scale wind project. 

Hamilton County Planning and Zoning Officials– Consider an array of zoning regulations including restrictions on height, noise and placement for energy-generating windmills, solar panels and outdoor furnaces. Example regulations:

  • Windmills may not exceed 100 feet in height, cannot be in front or side yards, and their noise may not exceed 62 decibels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (roughly the volume of a conversation).
  • Solar panels on roofs may not be taller than the highest point of the roof. Detached solar panels may not exceed 14.5 feet.

Clermont County– Windmills and outdoor furnaces are lumped into the "accessories" category of the zoning code which means there is a 14-foot height limit without a permit.

City of Columbus-  According to an article appearing in Ohio Planner’s News (November/December 2006 Issue) discussed some Ohio zoning code application to solar and small wind turbine projects.

The City of Columbus staff recommends that the request for a solar installation be preceded by “preliminary zoning clearance review,” which is an official way of saying, “bring in your request and a map of the property.” According to the plans examiner, a solar installation would probably be handled under local code enforcement by your contractor (under the engineered systems section) and comply with the National Electric Code regulations per Article 690 Solar Photovoltaic Systems and Chapter 14 of the Ohio Mechanical Code.
 

The City of Columbus also states that, “A wind tower as a principal use on residentially zoned property does require a use variance (Council variance) because said use is not permitted in many districts. However, a wind tower as an accessory use to a principal dwelling may be permitted but most certainly is subject to specific development standards…” Notice the distinction between “principal use” (the only use for the property) and “accessory use” (a use that fulfills a need for the house) and the ability to avoid a variance. The distinction is critical for easy success in the hearing process.

For additional Resources:

Wind:  The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has a web site that goes state by state discussing various aspects of small wind projects.  The AWEA also has put together various resources to assist in permitting small wind projects as well as local policies to encourage their development.

Solar:  GE has a list of frequently asked questions about residential solar projects.  However, there is also plenty of information provided at the state level regarding residential solar project.  For example, the Ohio Department of Development also has made available resources for Ohioans interested in installing solar panels on their home, including the Ohio Consumer Guide to Buying a Solar Electric System.

See http://www.green-energy-efficient-homes.com/green-electricity.html for more information on green energy options for your home.

 

 

(Photo:  Great Valley Center Image Bank/everystockphoto.com)

 

 

On Friday, November 7th, the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA) held a bidders conference to launch the Advanced Energy/Job Stimulus Program.  The Job Stimulus package set aside $150 million (over three years) to increase the development, production and use of advanced energy technologies in the state.

Those interested can begin filing applications for either grants or loans through the web portal on OAQDA’s web page.  Unlike other competitive programs decisions will be made on a rolling basis, there is no deadline for filing applications.  However, $150 million is not a lot of funding for the types of projects involved, therefore it is likely available funds will dissipate quickly. 

The program has two separate pots of money:

  • $66 million for clean coal technology projects administered through OAQDA’s Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO).  Grants can be for up to $5 million for each project  The funding set aside for these projects is similar to other funding opportunities that have been provided by the OCDO.  Proposals will be reviewed by staff, outside reviewers and the Technical Advisory Committee and approved by OAQDA;
  • $84 million for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Grants will be awarded in amounts from $50,000 to $250,000.  Loans will be $1 million to $2 million.  Funding will be in three $28 million annual appropriations administered by OAQDA. Projects will be reviewed by staff and outside reviewers, the Development Finance Advisory Council, approved by OAQDA.  Before funding can be awarded Legislative approval is necessary through the Controlling Board.
     

Some of the tips provided to bidders during the conference include:

  1. "Tipping Point"-  Explain why a grant award or loan would be the tipping point in the project.  Would it help get the project through a difficult time?  Would funding allow some type of breakthrough? Would it lead to a possible major expansion in Ohio?
  2. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs-  The main point of the funding is to stimulate job growth in the Ohio.  Therefore, you must be prepared to demonstrate that the project will generate jobs immediately.  New jobs will be favored over retained jobs.  Better if the are considered "foundational jobs"- meaning the project will lead to more jobs in the future.  Also, want to see better paying jobs.  
  3. Leverage- The State wants to see that a grant award will other funding in the project.  Private funding is favored over other public financing.  The higher the leverage the better the application will be viewed. 

Applications can be made through the web portal.  To start the process applicants must only fill out a "letter of intent" which requires only minimal information.  OAQDA said at the bidders conference it is there goal to weed out unfundable projects early in the process. 

One other note, if you are going to pursue a coal grant, be advised that similiar with other funding through the OCDO, you will be required to sign a royalty/payment agreement.  OCDO is required by statute to seek a recovery for investing in research and development projects.  While I understand it is in the statute,  this requirement discourages businesses looking for funding that will accelerate commercial deployment of a proven technology. 

 (Photo: Great Valley Center Image Bank/everystockphoto.com)

I have discussed  the ability of green jobs to help stimulate our economy.  However, that was before our energy crisis ended….temporarily.  The Wall Street Journal discussed President Elect Obama’s plan to add 5 million new jobs through spending on clean energy.  As shown below, the Article questions the economic theory behind that plan.  Stating the Obama proposal does not account for the jobs that would be lost in the gas and coal sectors of the economy when such a shift occurs. 

The green-jobs argument rests on the notion that big capital investments in new-energy technology today will be more than offset by savings in reduced fossil-fuel costs. Though oil prices have fallen, the International Energy Agency predicted Thursday that once the economy picks up again, they will resume climbing, potentially topping $200 a barrel by 2030. The IEA called the current energy system "patently unsustainable" and called for "radical action by governments."

Several studies estimate that $1 invested in renewable energy or energy efficiency would yield up to four times as many jobs as $1 invested in oil and gas, whose basic infrastructure of wells, refineries and pipelines has been around for years. Moreover, those studies say, clean-energy jobs are likely to be centered in the U.S., unlike jobs in the oil and gas industry, which increasingly are spread around the world.

Critics say analyzing only new green jobs misses half the story. "It’s not looking at the other side of the coin: You are spending more money for your energy," says Anne Smith, a vice president at CRA International. The consulting firm wrote a report for the coal-mining industry in April that concluded that, under a bill to cap global-warming emissions, gains in green jobs would be "more than offset" by job losses elsewhere in the economy. That bill failed, but Mr. Obama has said he supports capping emissions.
 

While the journal focuses on the loss in jobs in oil and gas, I think the main issue is the fall in commodity prices like oil and coal.  When those prices were soaring everyone wanted to shift into alternative energy, however the energy crisis is temporarily over.  I highlighted the statement in the article that "once fossil fuel prices climb again" the shift to clean energy will make sense.  The key is…"once the prices climb again."

Once the world economy grows again we will be in the same place we were in this summer.  It is a fact that there is just only so much oil to go around.  However, as discussed in my last post, the failing economy will also temporarily take away the momentum behind the green jobs push.  With oil down below $60 a barrel, the strong motivating factor that made everyone interested in alternative sources of energy is temporarily gone.  Right now we will be going into survival mode.  The question will remain for business- "What is the cheapest form of energy right now?" 

When commodity prices climb again (and they will), businesses will again consider clean energy has a hedge against ever escalating commodity prices.

(Photo: Flickr Crashworks)

Have you ever heard of the irresistible force paradox?  What would happen if an irresistible force met an in-movable object?  I think this paradox may describe what will happen when the Obama Administration’s environmental agenda meets the reality of the economy. 

Remember a few months back when oil peaked around $140 a barrel.  Of course you do…But do you also remember the momentum that the green movement due to the reality of limited resources and escalating energy prices.  Everything looks possible- a shift to renewable energy, energy conversation, higher gas mileage vehicles, and climate change legislation.

Now, only a few months later and oil is around $60-70 a barrel (I just filled up my gas tank for $1.90 per gallon)  We saw an economic meltdown the likes that has not been seen since the Great Depression.  How did this effect the momentum (the irresistible force) behind the Green Movement.  Let’s take a sampling of recent headlines….

  • Many Solar Energy Firms Likely to Fold During Economic Crisis- Analysts say nearly three-fourths of all solar energy companies could go out of business due to extremely tight credit, intense competition to produce solar panels, and falling prices.
  • Local Government’s Reconsider Costs of Green Building Mandates– The poor economy means tight budgets for most local governments.  This has forced local governments to begin questioning the costs associated with mandating LEED certification on new construction.
  • T. Boone Pickens Places Wind Farm On Hold-  The dramatic drop in the cost of natural gas and the global credit crunch makes wind less competitive, according to Pickens.  As a result, he is putting on hold or scrapping plans for his massive 4,000 megawatt wind farm in Texas. (comment:  I guess Mr. Pickens is still a business man and not just motivated by getting us off of foreign oil)
  • Renewable Energy Blues-  As reported in the Wall Street Journal, "when fossil fuel prices were soaring, things like offshore wind farms suddenly looked appealing, and guaranteed electricity prices from wind farms looked like a bargain. But with fossil fuel prices headed south and capital getting more expensive, renewables are losing some of their glow." (see also "Clean Energy Meltdown, Now GE is Bailing")
  • Will EU Member States Use Economic Meltdown to Avoid Climate Targets-  When the economic crisis spread to Europe, the EU’s ambitious goals on Climate Change were second guessed.  The current EU target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020 is set to automatically increase to 30%. Recently, Poland, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria have opposed an increase in reduction targets.   Other EU countries are also second guessing their commitments. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Germany’s foreign minister said recently: “This crisis changes priorities.” 

Exit polling from yesterday’s election indicated that around 60% of the people who cast their vote made their decision based on issues associated with the economy.  After a quick search I could not even find where the environment ranked as a motivating issue.  I’m willing to bet it was a non-issue for the majority of the voters.

When the Obama Administration takes office and develops their environmental agenda it is likely to include: strong climate change legislation, renewable energy mandates, and policies that will not favor fossil fuels.  However, that Agenda will meet an immovable object that will likely cloud Obama’s entire first term…the economy.  What emerges from the collision is anyone’s guess.

(Photo: Flickr Transplanted Mountineer)

On June 24, 2008, Governor Strickland signed Amended Substitute House Bill No. 562 (HB 562).  The legislation directed the Ohio Power Siting Board to adopt rules for the construction, operation and maintenance of electric generation wind facilities.  After receiving numerous comments from individuals, renewable energy associations, and other interests, the Power Siting Board has finalized the rule for wind facilities.  The rules outline requirements for issues including aesthetics, setback, noise levels, ice throw, blade shear and shadow flicker.  Here are some of the major issued under debated were resolved:

Siting of Wind Farms Treated Like Other Major Utilities

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) argued that the siting of wind farms should not be treated like other major utility facilities.  As a result AWEA argued some of the standards and application requirements would not apply to siting of wind farms.  The organization cautioned that doing so may discourage development of wind farms in Ohio.  But the Board rejected this approach after the sponsor of the bill, Senator Seitz, indicated it was the legislature intention to treat wind farms equally. 

Noise Standards

One significant issue of debate among commenters was whether the rules should include noise standards.  The Staff responded to those comments by rejecting the proposal to adopt a specific noise standard and evaluate each project on a case by case basis:

The Board and Board Staff shall evaluate the noise levels in
association with each application on a case-by-case basis in
light of the composition of the area surrounding the proposed
facility and will impose conditions on the noise emissions
during construction and operation of the wind-energy facility
as the Board determines to be appropriate. Such conditions are
enforceable pursuant to Section 4906.98, Revised Code.
Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to impose noise standards
as proposed by E-Coustic or to adopt operational noise
standards and measurement protocols as proposed by UNU.

Under the rules, each applicant will have to use computer modeling software developed for wind turbine noise measurement or a similar wind turbine noise methodology, including consideration of broadband, tonal, and low frequency noise levels to evaluate operation noise levels.

Setback Requirements

Another issue of significant debate was requisite setback requirements from wind turbines.  Many individual commented that strong setback requirements were needed to protect their property values and for public safety.  Similar to the issue with noise levels, the staff of the PUCO has decided to evaluate setbacks on a case by case basis. 

 (Photo: Kevin Dooley/everystockphoto.com)

Continue Reading Ohio Adopts Rules Governing Siting and Operation of Wind Farms