Back
As the first frost visits the mountains of western North Carolina, thousands of households are bracing themselves. Thinly insulated manufactured homes will provide little barrier to the cold. Gaps around doorways will invite it in. Old furnaces, if they work at all, will consume already strained monthly budgets.
A lucky fraction of these families will benefit from a flood of federal weatherization dollars headed to the state thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law passed two years ago.
But for Buncombe County residents who don’t or can’t take advantage of the decades-old Weatherization Assistance Program, there’s an innovative nonprofit in Asheville working to fill the gaps.
Since 2017, Energy Savers Network has helped some 1,000 households cut down on energy waste by tightening air seals, adding DIY storm windows, and performing other upgrades at no cost to occupants.
Designed to help complement, not supplant, federal weatherization funds, the project’s success is due in part to its speed and simplicity. And its track record has earned it a prominent place in Buncombe and Asheville’s plans for 100% renewable energy.
“By embracing local, clean energy sources, going electric and saving energy,” said Buncombe County Council Chairperson Brownie Newman, in a press release, “we’re taking essential steps toward combating the climate crisis while ensuring a just transition for all residents.”
Distributed largely by community action agencies formed during the War on Poverty, weatherization assistance has evolved to become one of the federal government’s most successful energy efficiency programs, helping some 7 million low-income households nationwide reduce energy waste since 1976.
But deploying assistance still presents a host of challenges: identifying potential recipients and earning their trust, hiring and training the workers who can perform the work, and remediating homes with immediate health and safety repair needs. Clients-to-be in Buncombe County may spend a year or more on a waitlist.
Though southwestern North Carolina is set to receive $4.8 million over five years as part of the state’s $90 million share of the infrastructure law, just 440 single-family households are expected to benefit over the 13-county region.
With some 18,000 families living in energy-inefficient manufactured homes in Buncombe County alone, the demand for energy efficiency upgrades far exceeds the supply of assistance.
That’s where Energy Savers Network comes in. The concept began 100 miles west in Hayesville, where members of the Good Shepherd Episcopal Church “answered a combined moral calling to help the poor and be good stewards of Creation,” Interfaith Power and Light wrote.
The team of parishioners and other volunteers helped families cut their energy use by 10% to 20% — first conducting an audit, then tracking down free or low-cost materials, and finally performing simple upgrades like replacing lighting or adding weather stripping free of charge.
When church member Brad Rouse, a one-time financial and utility consultant, decided to devote his time to climate causes and move to Asheville, he brought Good Shepherd’s idea with him.
Today, the Energy Savers project is staffed by a small team at the Green Built Alliance, but the volunteer spirit and the simplicity remain.
At farmers’ markets, community events, and through word of mouth, potential clients indicate interest. Staff then follow up to ensure they meet the income guidelines and can otherwise benefit from energy efficiency upgrades.
“We do a lot of the intake over the phone,” said Hannah Egan, the project’s outreach and resource manager, “explaining what we might be doing, what we need from them, how long the appointment could last.”
A visit is scheduled. A staff person and two to three volunteers arrive and do what they can accomplish in a day. “Once we’ve qualified the client over the phone, we just go there with our crew,” Egan said. “It’s just a lot easier to do it all in one go.”
They seal air leaks. They replace lightbulbs, insulate hot water heaters, and reinforce single-paned windows. “And then more as we see fit,” Egan said, “because every home is different. Our goal with that is to make homes more comfortable, reduce their energy usage and their utility bills.”
On average, the improvements help occupants cut energy use about 15%, fueling a virtuous cycle. “A lot of times, when we do get in their homes,” Egan said, “they’re really happy with the work we do,” prompting friend and family referrals. “That’s been a main source of client recruitment since COVID.”
Hiring building performance expert Kelvin Bonilla onto the Energy Savers team, Egan said, “drastically improved the quality of our work.” A native of Honduras, Bonilla has also helped spread the word to the county’s sizable Spanish-speaking community.
“He’s a really good people person,” Egan said. “He’s very professional, and he knows how far to go and when to stop.”
Many times, Energy Savers refers clients to Community Action Opportunities, the local provider of weatherization assistance. In some cases, they can return to repair or replace ailing furnaces with high-efficiency heat pumps. Dogwood Health Trust also funds minor home repairs, such as replacing a door or damaged flooring.
With additional support from Duke Energy, the city and the county, the team serves roughly four households a week and nearly 200 a year. From start to finish, the process takes between two and six weeks.
Moving forward, the hope is to both expand the scope of work and serve as a model to other communities. “We asked for an increase,” Rouse said. “There’s still a little bit of a hole. In order to expand the way we would really like to expand, we need more money.”
Offshore wind is going through some rough waters.
Last week, the industry saw a big setback as Danish wind giant Ørsted canceled its Ocean Wind I and II projects off the New Jersey coast. The company blamed supply chain issues and rising interest rates for the decision — issues that had been threatening wind projects up and down the East Coast for months.
So far, those other major projects are still slated to be built, and they’re critical to keeping the Biden administration’s clean energy goals on track. But to make sure that happens, other Northeast states like New York will have to pick up New Jersey’s slack, Politico reports.
Still, industry analysts aren’t sure state action will be enough to preserve Biden’s wind goals. That’s why governors and lawmakers are calling on the federal government to step in to speed up offshore wind farm permitting and make sure projects can fully take advantage of federal tax incentives, E&E News reports.
But there’s good news for the industry, too. On the same day New Jersey’s two projects sunk, the Biden administration approved what is slated to be the country’s biggest offshore wind farm: a 176-turbine project off Virginia’s coast that’ll be able to power as many as 660,000 homes.
💰 Financing a “carbon bomb”: Banks around the world financed “carbon bomb” projects to the tune of $150 billion last year, paving the way for developments that could each pump a gigaton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. (Guardian)
🛠️ Clean jobs are coming: The Inflation Reduction Act is expected to create more than 300,000 construction jobs annually as it spurs clean energy development, plus another 100,000 jobs in operating those projects. (Canary Media)
🔋 Battery shortages aren’t so bad: As automakers slow their rollouts of electric vehicles, an industry trade group says it will actually help battery manufacturers scale up and rely less on China for materials. (E&E News)
🧾 Carbon tax collab: Three Republicans introduce a bill to levy fees on imports from countries with high carbon emissions, and Democratic senators look to find common ground. (E&E News)
🚂 Ticket to electrify: The world’s first battery-powered heavy freight locomotive made its debut last week, but electrifying the U.S. rail system is still in very early stages. (Canary Media)
🛫 Prepare for takeoff: The journey of a Beta Technologies’ electric plane down the East Coast provides a glimpse into the future of electric aviation. (New York Times)
⚡ Hawaii’s clean power success: A Hawaii utility cooperative says its publicly owned grid model has helped it reach its goal of generating 60% of its electricity from clean energy sources. (Canary Media)
🏁 A Texas-sized climate win: Austin, Texas, becomes the largest city in the country to drop minimum parking requirements for new developments in a move aimed at lowering emissions and increasing housing supply. (Texas Tribune)
🏗️ Buildings are getting cleaner: Inflation Reduction Act incentives for building electrification, efficiency measures, and solar and storage installation could help cut building emissions as much as 70% by 2035, a U.S. EPA analysis finds. (Utility Dive)
One by one, tiny solar companies abandoned their rooftop ambitions in Prince William, defeated by tangles of red tape in the booming Northern Virginia county.
Undeterred, Ray Masavage, owner of CAVU Solar since 2018, hung in there. Why?
It pained him to see seas of array-less houses in sprawling subdivisions as the planet cooked. And he had faith that officials in the county he calls home yearned to shed the label of worst solar permitting jurisdiction in the state.
Now, he’s hopeful that a Board of Supervisors vote to waive fees associated with new residential solar installations beginning Sept. 1 represents a crack in county bureaucracy. It’s just one piece of a long checklist of potential improvements to streamline solar permitting.
“In terms of diplomacy, this is a big deal,” Masavage said. “I give county officials credit for looking at the problems and doing something about them.”
He also praised Solar United Neighbors, an advocacy organization with roots in Virginia, and the Chesapeake Solar & Storage Association, a Mid-Atlantic trade group, for pressuring the county to simplify long-lingering, tedious permitting requirements and boost transparency.
“We’re contractors working 24/7,” Masavage said. “We can’t stop when we’re on a roof somewhere and go back to address a resubmission in Prince William County.”
The county’s balky application website, higher-than-average permitting fees, and nitpicky reviews requiring multiple plan submissions had paralyzed many solar companies and bedeviled homeowners puzzled by the lack of forward movement on planned arrays.
Last December, mounting discontent prompted Solar United Neighbors to invite frazzled homeowners in Prince William to participate in an Action Alert. SUN wanted residents to know that the county — not installers — was to blame for delays and setbacks.
That alert encouraged residents to send complaint letters to both their local county board supervisors and the editors of local newspapers.
Prince William authorities took note.
In February, the county named Mandi Spina as acting director of the Department of Development Services. She replaced — at least temporarily — Wade Hugh, a county employee for 27 years.
In her new role, longtime county employee Spina said she had multiple phone calls with Aaron Sutch of Solar United Neighbors and wanted “to thank him for his continued advocacy of the solar community as well.”
Spina also lauded what’s called the Residential Solar Working Group, which Hugh had rolled out last November. Its 14 members included county staffers and industry representatives intent on repairing the fumbles of the past.
She noted that the impasse began to break when more than 55 stakeholders met on July 12 to hash out their differences.
“This is important as we are committed to partner with industry,” she said.
Sutch, director of SUN’s Atlantic Southeast Region, said he’s encouraged that the campaign has yielded results.
“This feels good and we applaud the county’s decision,” he said. “It’s the first measurable step. But it still has to be followed up with other major improvements.
“Solar is not going away. People in the county want it.”
In late July, supervisors allocated $1.2 million from the county’s year-end savings to a one-time fee reduction on new solar installations through June 2024.
Earlier this month, Spina was named deputy director of the Department of Development Services. That followed an earlier personnel shift, when Hugh was promoted and appointed deputy county executive for community development in late June. He now oversees numerous county agencies, including development services, which he used to lead.
The development agency will initiate a budget request for the next fiscal year to extend the waiver beyond the June 2024 deadline, possibly making it permanent, Spina said.
“I understand we are an outlier compared to our neighboring jurisdictions,” she said about the urgency of reducing permit costs and speeding up timelines.
Indeed, by digging into a federal Solar Trace database, Solar United Neighbors researchers confirmed that Prince William’s median solar permitting fee of $586 was more than double that of four surrounding counties, where fees ranged from zero to $200.
As well, between 2018 and 2021, solar permitting took longer in Prince William than it did in Arlington, Fairfax, Stafford and Loudoun counties.
While waiving the permit fee attracted across-the-board kudos, solar contractors and advocates are encouraged by a handful of other actions to be initiated by the county because of the due diligence of the working group.
For instance, Prince William is issuing a standard list of pre-approved solar components, which will save the industry from having to submit safety compliance listings with each application.
In addition, the county and industry representatives are jointly designing what’s called a residential solar county typical plan. This will eliminate the need for engineers to sign and seal documents because all pertinent information is already included. Instead of dragging on, review time is limited to five business days.
The county is also on track to adopt a pilot program for Solar APP+, a tool developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to standardize the rooftop permitting process.
Solar APP+ is deployed widely in California and Arizona. In Virginia, Prince William would join Richmond, Culpeper County and Harrisonburg, three other jurisdictions testing it on trial runs.
Warming to the online application would be fantastic for smaller operators, advocates say. The conversion would allow all players to be on the same page because the software integrates with existing government regulations, automates plan reviews and provides final signoff of inspections.
“I am confident that” these upgrades “will provide a wide range of options to alleviate frustration surrounding the time and cost to permit in Prince William County,” Spina said.
Sutch said the county of 484,000 residents could be a solar haven if updated policies fulfill the promise of matching contractors and homeowners.
“We feel we’re 40% to 50% of the way there,” he said about busting up the logjam. “This is proof that if you are persistent enough and know the levers of power, you can make a difference. Now, we want to hear positive stuff.”
“We’ve seen tremendous growth with solar projects,” Spina said. “And we know that growth is going to continue.”
Successful applications for installations, which stood at just 14 in 2016 and 19 in 2017, leaped to triple digits — 149 — by 2018. Except for a setback caused by the pandemic, they have ramped up at a steady clip.
By 2022, applications for solar projects had exploded to 1,087 — roughly quadrupling the 2021 total of 274. Each one required both an electrical and a structural permit.
Hugh stood by the rooftop solar data he compiled, although advocates questioned the validity of his records. They constantly questioned why it took so long to greenlight projects — which often didn’t happen until a developer made a second try. Each repeat submission added roughly $100 to the permit cost.
Ideally, developers desire approval within a month for the sake of efficiency and to keep installation costs close to the estimate provided to homeowners. They had to walk away when waits were interminable, thus rendering projects cost-prohibitive.
Masavage is a licensed pilot whose company, CAVU, is shorthand for the aviation term “clear and visibility unlimited.” Prince William’s efforts to expedite permitting are encouraging him to double down.
“To have all of these homes that are perfect candidates for solar is an amazing dream,” he said. “We’re facing a world crisis and, as installers, we have the ability to do something about it.”
Spina is optimistic that the changes will lure solar contractors to the county — and allow the local government to meet its strategic goals of sustainable energy consumption.
Still, some installers remain content to keep their distance.
Nolie Diakoulas, who heads up 10-year-old Virginia Beach-based Convert Solar, expanded his small business’ reach statewide three-plus years ago as interest in renewable energy swelled.
However, he began second-guessing his forays into Prince William when the hurdles proved constant and insurmountable.
Diakoulas backpedaled when basic fees connected to permitting escalated beyond $1,000, too big for an installation to be profitable. He figured the county was a better fit for Ion, Tesla and other solar giants with access to a cadre of internal system designers, engineers and other specialists.
The recent county turnaround isn’t even on his radar.
“We have stopped installing in Prince William County,” he said, “so I have not been keeping up with the news.”
Taking its cues from a successful program in Connecticut, Rhode Island is poised to launch a new initiative to deploy solar and reduce electricity costs in homes owned by low- to moderate-income residents.
The Rhode Island Commerce Corporation recently issued a request for proposals from solar companies interested in partnering on the initiative, called Affordable Solar Access Pathways. The program will offer affordable leases for solar equipment on homes owned by residents with incomes less than or equal to 80% of the area median income. That’s a maximum of $65,460 annually for a family of four, or $44,512 for a two-person household.
“There will be no money down and net savings from day one,” said Vero Bourg-Meyer, project director at the Clean Energy States Alliance, or CESA, which collaborated with the Commerce Corporation to develop the program.
The homes must be located in environmental justice areas, as defined by the state Department of Environmental Management. Those areas are primarily in and around the cities of Providence, Pawtucket, Woonsocket and Newport.
That will enable the program to take advantage of the new environmental justice adders to the Investment Tax Credit passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Those adders will allow solar system owners to qualify for a higher tax credit when homes are located in census tracts designated as environmental focus areas, Bourg-Meyer said.
CESA has been working to persuade states to develop more-inclusive solar programs by promoting Connecticut’s Solar for All program as a model. Under that program, the Connecticut Green Bank paid incentives to a solar company, Posigen, which was then able to offer a reduced price to customers for a 20-year rooftop solar lease.
The program helped drive a 185% increase in solar in low- to moderate-income communities in Connecticut between 2015 and 2018, according to a 2020 white paper.
Third-party ownership of the solar equipment was a critical aspect of that program’s success, Bourg-Meyer said, since lower-income customers are less likely to be able to obtain or afford financing.
Another key aspect was the program’s community-based marketing — “having neighbors speak to other neighbors about it,” she said.
Rhode Island’s program will be administered through the commerce agency’s Renewable Energy Fund, which will provide an initial $1 million in funding, in collaboration with the state Office of Energy Resources.
It’s not clear how many homes that $1 million will cover, as it will depend on how the program’s solar partner designs its program and incentives, said Shauna Beland, administrator of renewable energy programs at the energy office.
“The more creative they get the better,” she said.
There are no funds available to help out homeowners who need roof repairs in order to accommodate solar panels. But it’s possible that the solar installer will work with a roofing contractor and wrap those costs into the lease, something that is fairly common in Rhode Island, said Karen Stewart, manager of the Renewable Energy Fund.
The program should launch this spring.
Hawaii launched a solar program for low- to moderate-income homeowners last year, and Virginia is working on it, Bourg-Meyer said, adding, “it’s something that’s percolating across the country.”
Numerous studies have found widespread inequities in solar adoption across the country. However, a 2020 report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory concluded that those disparities are gradually diminishing, with several states, including Connecticut, even demonstrating income parity between solar adopters and the broader population.
A battery storage development is replacing a fossil-fuel-burning power plant in western Massachusetts, providing a model that supporters say could be emulated elsewhere.
The project is only financially viable, however, because of a unique state incentive program designed to cut emissions related to peak electricity demand.
Power company Cogentrix is developing the facility at the site of the former West Springfield Generating Station, which was shut down in June 2022. The $80 million project includes 45 megawatts of storage that will be able to send electricity onto the grid for up to four hours. It is expected to come online sometime in 2025.
“This will be really big, and set a nice precedent for transitioning from fossil fuel to storage and renewables,” said Rosemary Wessel, founder of No Fracked Gas in Mass, a program of the Berkshire Environmental Action Team.
This transition is happening at a time when there has been increased discussion about the role of so-called “peaker plants” — facilities that are only called upon at times of peak power demand. Peakers are generally older facilities that emit more greenhouse gasses than other plants, and the power they generate is more expensive.
Utilities have said peaker plants are necessary to ensure a reliable electricity supply in emergencies and times of high demand. Wessel’s organization and other environmental groups, however, argue that storage technology, especially when paired with renewable generation, can also meet these needs. They contend no new peakers should be built, and old ones should be taken out of use as quickly as possible.
“These are really the low-hanging fruit for starting to take existing fossil fuels off the grid,” said Wessel, whose group has been pushing power companies that own peaker plants in western Massachusetts to consider transitioning to renewable energy generation and battery storage.
The plan for the West Springfield plant came about when longtime energy developer Chris Sherman, vice president of regulatory affairs at Cogentrix, wanted to take his work in a new direction. He has a background in clean energy — he was project development manager for the ill-fated Cape Wind offshore wind plan — and was interested in returning to this work.
His employer put him in touch with Wessel, who had reached out to the company about the future of the West Springfield Generating Station. The plant first started generating power in 1949, initially burning coal. In the 1960s it was converted to an oil-burning plant, and in the 1990s the ability to burn natural gas was added. It was officially shut down in June 2022.
Once power plants shut down, the land is often hard to redevelop, Sherman said. However, the properties are already surrounded by the infrastructure needed to send power into the grid, so building battery storage and renewable energy installations on these sites is a promising strategy.
Sherman and Wessel met in June 2021, and it was quickly clear that their goals aligned. The two began working together to create plans for the site, which had not yet closed officially. Their collaboration, Sherman said, has made it easier to bridge the perceived gap between the logistical, technological, and financial aspects of his work, and the environmental and social concerns of community members.
“If I were to just call people and say ‘energy developer,’ they might not be willing to enter into an objective discussion,” Sherman said. Wessel “has done an incredible job at generating interest and then facilitating communication in the broader stakeholder community.”
The plan that emerged is a pragmatic one that attempts to satisfy environmental goals while also dealing with the financial realities of the energy market. The initial plan calls for charging batteries during times when demand and emissions are lower, and then discharging at times of higher demand. Cogentrix hopes to eventually install solar panels to make the energy it stores even cleaner and lower cost.
The project is now in the early permitting stages, with the goal of beginning site work over the coming winter and installing battery containers in the spring.
West Springfield leaders have expressed support for the project and the chance to put the property, formerly the largest taxpayer in the city, back on the tax rolls, noting that revenue took a hit when the plant closed last year. They are also pleased to see emissions-free batteries and solar panels take the place of the pollution the former plant created.
“I look forward to the potential redevelopment of this site,” said West Springfield Mayor William Reichelt. “Though we are in the early stages of what’s possible, overall any improvement to the site will certainly benefit the community and the region.”
Because the plan for the site represents a new sort of energy development, existing revenue models don’t necessarily apply. Sherman had to work hard to convince investors that the novel approach will turn a profit. There is enough room on the site to develop about 100 megawatts of storage, but his investors are only willing to back 45 megawatts until they see convincing results, he said.
A small amount of revenue will be made by charging batteries during times, such as overnight, when prices are lower, then selling the power back onto the grid and higher-demand, higher-priced times. Another block of money will come from participation in the regional capacity market, in which power sources are paid for committing to be available to provide electricity at some future point.
Additionally, almost half of the project’s revenue is expected to come from the Massachusetts Clean Peak Standard, an incentive system unique to the state. The standard, which took effect in 2020, offers incentives to clean energy generators and battery storage owners that discharge power into the grid at times of peak demand, helping to lower the demand on power plants.
“But for that standard, our project would not be viable,” Sherman said.
Wessel and Sherman both express hope that this project might be the beginning of a trend toward locating storage and power plant sites. Cogentrix is looking at potential projects on sites in Maine, Maryland, and New Jersey. In these cases, the power plants have not yet been retired, though Sherman said the plans should still reduce emissions.
For the concept of replacing peakers with batteries to really catch on, states will need policies that add incentives such as Massachusetts’ Clean Peak Standard that can dispatch stored power at peak demand times, Sherman said. State-backed policies, he said, will help convince backers that such projects are financially feasible.
“What I need to demonstrate to investors,” he said, “is that we can have predictable, durable, long-term revenue streams.”
The following commentary was written by Larry Glover, a Maryland-based energy marketing & communications subject matter expert and community engagement specialist. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
We just lived through the hottest summer in recorded human history. From coast to coast, the United States set heat records, the brunt of which underserved communities felt the most.
One thing we were fortunate enough not to experience this time were rolling blackouts due to energy shortfalls. But we came close. In Texas, for example, rooftop solar helped keep the state’s grid online during the hottest summer on record.
Despite its benefits, the real value of rooftop solar isn’t always acknowledged as a solution to climate change and the needs of our electricity grid. We have seen some states take the lead, but we must act quickly to leverage resources to benefit underserved communities.
As climate disasters become more normal, our state and national grids will be tested more often. We can resolve this sad reality, however. Ensuring our nation’s clean energy movement is both inclusive and empowering has never been more important.
Here’s what I believe: Rooftop solar and batteries have a proven track record to deliver economic, community, and environmental benefits to everyone – and have the potential to positively impact our entire grid distribution for the better.
Not only are individual rooftop solar and battery systems critical for our clean energy future, but this technology can be connected and serve as a massive, distributed, power plant. Called a Virtual Power Plant (VPP), these networked systems can help bring value and grid stability and contribute to our clean air goals by reducing CO2 emissions.
For example, ConnectedSolutions has solar and battery system programs in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. The goal is to lower grid costs for all residents. Replicable programs such as these make it easier for home and small businesses to share their clean electrons when the grid needs it most, bolster climate and clean energy goals and help to mitigate unnecessary costs to grid infrastructure.
If we take the best of what we know and apply it to low-income and underserved communities, we can create energy solutions with enormous benefit to the communities that need it most. Harnessing the benefits of VPPs and connecting rooftop solar and batteries will deliver benefits with far greater impact than any of those initiatives applied individually. Bills introduced in Michigan this year (HB 4840 and HB 4839) proposed not only to create a virtual power plant, but also provide additional, targeted incentives to get batteries into the low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities that have experienced the most severe impacts of power outages.
In 2022, more than 140 million people across the US were impacted by either rolling blackouts or calls to conserve power due to extreme weather. The proven reliability of local solar and batteries is paramount to ensuring that all of our communities stay safe.
Building virtual power plants in LMI communities offers immense potential for positive change. In fact, the Department of Energy recently just released a new report about the benefits of VPPs, and they found that tripling VPP capacity from 80 gigawatts to 160 gigawatts by 2030 could save ratepayers $10 billion per year in grid costs. Earlier this year, Brattle released a report that found that VPPs could save utilities $15-$35 billion in capacity investments over the next 10 years. Regardless of which study turns out to be accurate, the opportunity before us is immense. It can provide reliable and affordable electricity access while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We should easily conclude that rooftop solar is a necessary element in the energy solution for communities.
There is a risk, however, that these innovative solutions may inadvertently exacerbate existing inequities if not implemented with careful consideration. The first step is ensuring equal access to virtual power plant programs. This means providing opportunities for participation regardless of income level or location. By doing so, we can avoid creating a situation where only certain privileged individuals or communities can benefit from these advancements in energy technology.
It is imperative that we address equity concerns to ensure that all community members can reap the benefits of virtual power plants. Ensuring equitable access is crucial in creating a sustainable and inclusive energy future for LMI communities. Virtual power plants have the potential to revolutionize our energy systems by enabling decentralized generation and distribution of electricity.
It is important to consider the specific needs and challenges faced by marginalized communities. By actively involving communities in the planning and implementation processes, we ensure that their voices are heard, and their unique circumstances are considered.
The benefits of implementing virtual power plants with rooftop solar and batteries in LMI communities is a game changer. How else can we address energy affordability, grid reliability, reduced energy costs, job creation and community empowerment all within one focused initiative. We know it comes with its challenges and obstacles. However, as we search for long term solutions that prepare all communities for the great energy transition this is surely a way to leave no community behind.
Like it or not, the next presidential election is just a year away. And while President Biden is sure to campaign on the Inflation Reduction Act, it may not win him too many voters — because they don’t know much about it.
In a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll from July, more than two-thirds of Americans said they hadn’t heard about new tax credits incentivizing solar panel, electric vehicle and heat pump purchases passed under the IRA — even though a majority said they’d support these things. Nearly three-quarters hadn’t heard of the IRA at all.
Another newer poll from data sciences firm BlueLabs Analytics had similar results, finding that 40% of all Americans say they know nothing about federal subsidies for electric vehicle purchases.
Whether residents know it or not, the IRA is bringing big investments to the swing states Biden will try to win over next year, E&E News reports. In Georgia, electric vehicle and solar panel manufacturing is taking off with backing from the IRA and support from the state’s Republican governor. Michigan and North Carolina are likewise seeing a surge of new electric vehicle investments.
But as advocates and officials tell E&E News, Biden and his allies have a lot more work to do if they want voters to know how those investments came about.
🚗UAW reaches milestone deal: The United Auto Workers reach a tentative deal with General Motors after doing the same with Ford and Stellantis, but it’s unclear how well the agreement will protect workers as electric vehicle sales slow and automakers trim their EV investments. (Inside Climate News, E&E News)
🖊️ Redefining clean energy: As states struggle to meet their own clean electricity goals, some are changing definitions to include nuclear, natural gas and biomass generation. (E&E News)
⚖️ Who’s behind protest criminalization: Fossil fuel companies have spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign donations to state lawmakers who’ve enacted laws that penalize protests near pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure. (Guardian)
🛢️ Captured carbon’s oil-boosting fate: At least 60% of carbon captured annually fossil fuel plants around the U.S. is used to extract more oil through so-called “enhanced oil recovery.” (Washington Post)
🏭 Meet our biggest polluters: Coal and oil power plants top a list of the U.S.’s biggest greenhouse gas polluters last year. (Inside Climate News)
💵 Governments buy clean: Federal and state Buy Clean programs aim to use governments’ massive purchasing power to drive manufacturing of low-carbon steel, cement and other building materials. (Canary Media)
🌎 Climate denier of the House: Newly elected Republican U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson has a long track record of supporting fossil fuels and denying their contributions to climate change. (The Hill)
🗣️ Scientists speak out: Climate scientists who once stayed out of the public eye are increasingly raising their voices to warn the world of a worsening climate emergency. (Washington Post)
Climate and clean energy advocates in New Hampshire say a pending proposal to define nuclear power as clean energy could undercut solar and wind power in the state.
Though the details are still in the works, state Rep. Michael Vose, chair of the legislature’s science, technology, and energy committee, is drafting a bill that would allow nuclear power generators, such as New Hampshire’s Seabrook Station, to receive payments for contributing clean energy to the grid.
“The broad idea is that, long-term, we can hope and expect that that reliable source of baseload power will always be there,” Vose said. “It won’t be driven out of business by subsidized renewable power.”
Some environmental advocates, however, worry that the proposal would provide unnecessary subsidies to nuclear power while making it harder for solar projects to attract investors.
“It’s just another way to reduce support for solar,” said Meredith Hatfield, associate director for policy and government relations at the Nature Conservancy in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire’s renewable portfolio standard — a binding requirement that specifies how much renewable power utilities must purchase — went into effect in 2008. To satisfy the requirement in that first year, utilities had to buy renewable energy certificates representing 4% of the total megawatt-hours they supplied that year. The number has steadily climbed, hitting 23.4% this year.
New Hampshire was the second-to-last state in the region to create a binding standard — Vermont switched from a voluntary standard to a mandated one until 2015. New Hampshire’s standard tops out at 25.2% renewable energy in 2025, but the other New England states range from 35% to 100% and look further into the future.
Vose, however, worries that even New Hampshire’s comparatively modest targets could put the reliability of the power supply at risk.
“Until we can have affordable, scalable battery storage, the intermittency of renewables is going to guarantee that renewables are unreliable,” Vose said. “And if we add too many renewables to our grid, it makes the whole grid unreliable.”
That idea has been widely debunked. Grid experts say variable renewables may require different planning and system design but are not inherently less reliable than fossil fuel generation.
The details of Vose’s clean energy standard bill have not yet been finalized. A clean energy standard is broadly different from a renewable energy standard in that it includes nuclear power, which does not emit carbon dioxide, but which uses a nonrenewable fuel source. Those writing the legislation, however, will have to decide whether it will propose incorporating the new standard into the existing renewable portfolio standard or operating the two systems alongside each other.
Clean energy advocates say they are not necessarily opposed to a clean energy standard, but argue it is crucial that such a program not pit nuclear power and renewable energy against each other for the same pool of money. And they are concerned that that’s just what Vose’s bill will do.
“While we would welcome a robust conversation about how to design a clean energy standard, I fear that’s not what this bill is,” said Sam Evans-Brown, executive director of nonprofit Clean Energy New Hampshire.
If a clean energy standard is structured so both nuclear and renewables qualify to meet the requirements, clean energy certificates from nuclear power generators would flood the market, causing the price to plummet. Seabrook alone has a capacity of more than 1,250 megawatts, while the largest solar development in the state has a capacity of 3.3 megawatts. Revenue from renewable energy certificates is an important part of the financial model for many renewable energy projects, so falling prices would likely mean fewer solar developments could attract investors or turn a profit.
At the same time, nuclear generators could sell certificates for low prices, as they already have functioning financial models that do not include this added revenue. Nuclear could, in effect, drive solar and other renewables out of the market almost entirely, clean energy advocates worry.
“The intention of the [renewable portfolio standard] has always been about creating fuel diversity by getting new generation built, and a proposal like that would do the opposite,” Evans-Brown said.
A single standard that combines nuclear and renewables could also hurt development of solar projects in another way, Hatfield said. When New Hampshire utilities do not purchase enough renewable energy credits to cover the requirements, they must make an alternative compliance payment. These payments are the only source of money for the state Renewable Energy Fund, which provides grants and rebates for residential solar installations and energy efficiency projects.
“If you add in nukes and therefore there’s plentiful inexpensive certificates, then you basically have no alternative compliance payments,” Hatfield says. “It could potentially dry up the only real source we have in the state for clean energy rebates.”
Though Vose and the bill’s other authors have not yet released the details of the proposal, he has indicated that he would not like the new clean energy standard to significantly increase costs for New Hampshire’s ratepayers. The existing standard cost ratepayers $58 million in 2022, when utilities were required to buy certificates covering 15% of the power they supplied, according to a state report issued last month.
The legislation may meet the same fate as last year’s effort, Vose acknowledged, but he is still eager to get people talking about the issue.
“Even if we can’t get such a standard passed in this session,” he said, “we can at least begin a serious discussion about what a clean energy standard might look like.”
This article originally appeared in the Idaho Capital Sun.
Todd Fischer, an electrical engineer, has lived in his North End home since 1988. Built in 1905, the Victorian-style home is a juxtaposition between Boise’s historical architecture and modern energy technology.
On the inside, the home is aligned with wooden columns and a wooden staircase, but on the outside sit 16 solar panels on the south side of his rooftop that generate electricity for his home.
In an interview, Fischer said he installed his solar panels in 2016 and receives monthly credits for providing additional energy to Idaho Power’s grid. In the winter he pays $5.24, and in the summer months he pays $0.24.
“My power bills are beautiful,” he said, while holding a stack of power bills he has collected since installing the panels.
Fischer’s solar panels are a part of Idaho Power’s “legacy” system, meaning he qualifies for the company’s original credit system for homeowners providing extra energy to the grid. Fischer does not get paid for over generation, but instead he accumulates credits from Idaho Power that compensate for the cost of his energy usage from the grid at another time.
But soon, homeowners who are a part of the “non-legacy” system, meaning they installed solar panels after December 2019, could face changes in the amount of money Idaho Power credits to their account.
Idaho Power is awaiting a decision from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission on a proposal to decrease the amount it credits customers who sell their rooftop solar back to the grid. Fischer, who is compensated under the “legacy” system, would not be affected by the changes if approved by the utilities commission.
But along with local environmental advocates, Fischer argues that Idaho Power’s proposal disincentivizes home owners from installing solar panels.
On Aug. 5, the Idaho Climate Justice League, a youth environmental advocacy group, held a rally outside of the Idaho Power building in downtown Boise addressing concerns about the company’s proposal to reduce its credit rates for solar.
In a letter to Idaho Power CEO Lisa Grow, the youth advocates said the proposal is contradictory to the company’s 100% clean energy goal by 2045.
“We, the youth, demand change,” the justice league letter said. “We are the ones who will face the future consequences of your inaction. As the climate crisis intensifies, and as the date on your commitment to 100% clean energy draws closer, we will not stand idly by.”
But Idaho Power negates the justice league’s claims. In a response letter to the justice league, the company said it is committed to reliability and affordability for all of its customers.
“We support solar and we’re seeking to pay a fair market price for it, whether that’s from a large solar array or a customer’s rooftop,” the Idaho Power letter said. “We are proud to have some of the lowest energy costs in the nation, but we can only maintain that by making sure we’re looking out for the interests of all customers while we invest in our clean energy future.”
Jordan Rodriguez, the spokesperson for Idaho Power, told the Sun that residential solar power brings many benefits to the company, but that its current credit system, established 20 years ago, is outdated.
Rodriguez said Idaho Power supports customer choice, and it acknowledges that residential solar saves the company money on expenses that it would take to generate and distribute that same energy using other sources.
However, the proposal to change its credit system is meant to be more equitable to customers without solar, Rodriguez said – noting that the number of customers with solar generation in the company grid has grown significantly in recent years.
The number of Idaho Power customers with residential solar power has increased from nearly 1,000 in the Idaho Power system in 2016 to more than 13,000 in 2022, according to a company report.
Rodriguez said the rise in Idaho homeowners with solar panels is largely driven by the decrease in costs associated with installing solar.
Solar installation costs have declined by more than 50% over the past decade, so in addition to a decrease in installation costs, the desire to run on clean energy or save money on electric bills is driving solar adoption across the country, according to an article from the Solar Energy Industries Association.
“An average-sized residential system has dropped from a pre-incentive price of $40,000 in 2010 to roughly $25,000 today (2022),” the article said.
“We are looking to change the way we credit customers for energy they generate because the current credit structure is unfair to the 98% of our customers without solar panels,” Rodriguez said. “Customers without rooftop solar currently pay an unfair share of grid maintenance and improvement costs.”
The change would more accurately reflect an on-site generator’s use of the electrical grid, he said.
If approved by the utilities commission, the changes would include:
Idaho Power requested an effective date of Jan. 1, 2024, but the case is ongoing and the timing of the order is at the discretion of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
Rodriguez said the outcome of the utilities commission case will not impact the company’s 100% clean energy by 2045 goals, adding that the company has several large-scale solar projects under construction.
“We support solar energy — our proposal is intended to ensure our customers don’t pay more for solar energy from one source than they would from another,” he said. “Looking into the future, Idaho Power expects solar energy will continue to be an important part of our energy mix and clean energy goal.”
In late 2022, Idaho Power began purchasing energy from the Jackpot Solar Project at some of “the lowest prices for solar energy in the nation,” Rodriguez said. The project brings up to 120 megawatts to Idaho, providing energy to roughly 24,000 homes, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported.
Rodriguez said the company is also working on pairing the solar projects with batteries. The batteries would help store power generated during periods of lower use and deliver the power during peak energy consumption times, which he said are typically during hot summer evenings when the sun has set but energy use remains high.
Rodriguez said misinformation about residential solar plays a role into public discontent with the company’s credit rate proposal.
“Customers are encouraged to get the facts about solar energy before making a financial commitment,” he said. “Any Idaho Power visits to customers’ homes will be preceded by a phone call or other communication. Idaho Power employees will arrive in a company vehicle clearly marked with Idaho Power’s logo.”
Idaho Power is hoping to dispel misinformation and scams related to residential solar power on its website.
Common tactics being reported include solar sales representatives:
While Fischer believes a new credit system at Idaho Power would disincentivize homeowners from installing solar panels, he said his decision to install solar panels was “definitely not a financial” decision—adding that installing them cost him about $17,700.
Additionally, the amount of time it will take to get a return on the investment is so long, assuming that he will be living in the same home until then, he said.
Fischer said he acknowledges that Idaho homeowners already enjoy a low electricity rate because of the state’s rich hydroelectricity production.
As such, he said investing in solar panels is not as “financially viable” as it would be in a state like California, which ties with Maine as the state where electricity prices are increasing the fastest in the country. Both states have seen a rise in electricity prices by 78% in the last decade, according to the Sunpower Solar Energy Report.
So what motivated Fischer to install solar panels? The decision was based on curiosity, he said.
As an electrical engineer, Fischer said he was “intrigued by solar power,” and wanted to get firsthand experience with it. He said his biggest concern when deciding to install solar panels was finding a reputable installer.
After installing the solar panels, he said there were other costs outside of the installation that he did not initially take into account such cutting down trees, replacing his roof and fixing water damage in his home after the solar panels were incorrectly installed.
“My advice would be to talk to your friends that have solar, find out if they were happy with the quality of work that installer did,” he said. “They can fall off your roof in a windstorm, and they can cause a leak in your roof.”
Despite the lessons he learned along the way, Fischer said he has no regrets after installing his solar panels.
“There’s a lot better investments you could do than solar panels,” he said. “If you wanted to spend that much money to have a lower carbon footprint, I suspect there are better options than solar panels.”
The following commentary was written by Alli Gold Roberts, senior director for state policy at Ceres. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
As the harmful economic and financial effects of climate change become increasingly clear, investors and companies around the world are rapidly adjusting their business models — not just to reduce the risk and their exposure to climate catastrophes, but to capitalize on the industries of the future.
That’s why, across the U.S. and in Colorado, businesses and investors are doubling down to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in innovative and sustainable clean technologies. And as that technology has advanced to make it easier and more advantageous for companies to cut their pollution, policymakers at both the state and federal level have worked to incentivize exactly these kinds of investments — to ensure their economies benefit from this windfall as they build for the future.
In Colorado, we have seen officials take bold policy action to accelerate the adoption of clean electricity, clean transportation, clean buildings, clean appliances, and even clean lawn tools — an impressive suite of policies that have helped the state keep pace with other national climate leaders. Now the state has an opportunity to trailblaze in another sector of the economy, one that has so far lagged in pollution reduction: heavy industry and manufacturing.
Under Colorado’s ambitious climate and environmental justice laws, the state is required to slash climate pollution from industrial sources — like factories and plants — by 2030. To achieve that goal, policymakers are in the process of crafting what will be a first-in-the-nation regulatory program: Phase II of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Management for Manufacturers, otherwise known as GEMM II, will be adopted later this year and go into effect as soon as next year.
At a time when cleaner products are growing their competitive advantage in the global marketplace, GEMM II gives the state a real chance to be at the vanguard of clean manufacturing. But to reap the economic benefits promised by this transition, Colorado must get the policy right.
The sustainability nonprofit I work with, Ceres, partners with companies and investors to capture the economic benefits of clean energy and reduce the financial risks of climate change. Having done this work for more than 30 years, Ceres has developed a robust understanding of how public policy can best help the private sector achieve these goals so that they can benefit entire state economies. Even companies that are not part of the manufacturing sector have a strong interest in reducing emissions from within it, because they often rely on its products — from microchips to glass bottles — within their supply chains and know they cannot fully clean up their own operations without policy support.
That is why Ceres recently submitted a letter to state officials outlining what we believe are the best ways to successfully achieve the goals of GEMM II. Chief among them is simplicity. Colorado is on the clock to meet its climate goals, and 2030 is coming up fast. Policy clarity is essential to helping manufacturers prepare.
This is not the time to introduce complex programs that essentially allow manufacturers to keep polluting at the same rate. Instead, GEMM II should prioritize rules that directly reduce climate pollution from manufacturing sites, encouraging them to adopt innovative yet proven technologies that will achieve the program’s goals while better positioning industry to thrive into the future.
The GEMM II program must also strongly favor solutions that reduce not only pollution that harms the climate, but also air pollution that harms people and often comes from the same sources. Air pollution is a serious issue in its own right, causing increased rates of heart disease, lung disease, and other serious health problems in nearby communities. Almost all of the facilities that would fall under the GEMM 2 policy are located in communities that currently suffer from disproportionately high levels of pollution. Beyond its health effects, the threat of air pollution to their health and livelihood is also a drag on local economies. In addition, Colorado law requires that these communities must benefit from GEMM II — and reducing their exposure to toxic pollution is a clear benefit.
While GEMM II may sound like a challenge to some manufacturers, it should be better understood as an opportunity. New incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act and other recent federal climate investments, as well as state tax credits and grant programs for the industrial sector, have made it more feasible for manufacturers to clean up their operations. What’s more, they have also sparked a rush of investor and corporate interest in clean manufacturing, and a number of success stories as industry leaders move to embrace clean solutions.
We urge Colorado policymakers to seize this momentum and help manufacturers capture the swelling interest by adopting the most ambitious version of GEMM II possible. This is a chance to set a gold-standard policy that will make the state’s industrial sector more competitive, its climate goals more achievable, its air cleaner, its communities healthier, and its economy better positioned for the decades ahead.
.svg)
