Green Economy

Archived Posts from this Category

July 19, 2010

California Sues Federal Government! BerkeleyFirst and GreenFinanceSF In Jeopardy

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Just Plain Wrong, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Mortgages, Risk Transfer | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The local California programs that allow homeowners to pay for green renovations through an added assessment on their property taxes is in jeopardy.  The BerkeleyFirst program – the first Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program in the nation, is still up and running, but San Francisco suspended the GreenFinanceSF program, and Sonoma County now sends warning letters out with every application.  Mind you, 22 states now have PACE programs (enabled in California by AB 811), and President Obama wants to allocate $150 million in federal funds for these programs.  Someone in his office better call the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), because they don’t like the programs one bit.

The issues started when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sent out a letter in the beginning of May that scared some investors and homeowners because it stated, “an energy-related lien [i.e. PACE loan] may not be senior to any mortgage delivered to Freddie Mac.”  Then, at the beginning of this month, the FHFA (who oversee Fannie and Freddy) stated that the PACE loans pose a risk to lenders, and called for the programs to be stopped.  Last week, California shot back and sued the Federal Government to have the FHFA back PACE programs.

FHFA’s concern is that if a property goes into foreclosure, property taxes are the first debts paid off.  Since the PACE loans are an assessment included in property taxes, the PACE loans would be paid off first in a foreclosure.  Almost universally, a primary mortgage is paid off before any subsequent loans taken on a property.  The PACE loans throw that fundamental rule out the window.  This allegedly adds risk to the primary mortgage, and since Fannie and Freddie are the largest purchasers of mortgages in the nation, they object.

To make matters worse, a New York Times article reports that Fannie and Freddy might not accept mortgages with PACE loans.  Fannie and Freddy turning down mortgages is huge.  The two entities own nearly 50% of the mortgages in the nation, and banks rely on the ability to sell mortgages in bulk to Fannie and Freddie.  If PACE loans make mortgages less valuable in the mortgage market (the banking market that bundles groups of mortgages and sells them wholesale between banks and investors . . .e.g. “mortgage-backed securities”), that will essentially end the programs.

I understand the FHFA point of view, but I think their concerns are overblown. The improvements to the property add value, and the PACE payments are generally very small. A $25,000 loan at 6.5% over 20 years comes to about $185 / month.  If you consider the savings to the owner’s energy bill, are we really talking about a debt obligation that will jeopardize someone’s mortgage payment?  Indeed, what if the local government just increased taxes outright?

The PACE programs are gaining tremendous momentum, creating jobs, and leading us toward energy independence.  Throwing a wrench in the system over something quite small is not only counter-productive, its subversion.  We’ll track this issue closely, and let you know of further developments.

More on the lawsuit from Sustainable Business here

More on the lawsuit from the San Francisco Chronicle here

The CGBB first post on BerkeleyFirst is here

 

July 14, 2010

California Suspends Solar Incentive Program!

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Photovoltaic, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The California Public Utilities Commission instituted a three month suspension of rebates under the California Solar Initiative.  This Solar Initiative is the vehicle whereby the state government provides tax-funded incentives to install solar arrays.   To read the ruling, click here.

What is so unfortunate about this ruling is that the suspension is directed at non-profits and schools – the very entities that can not make up for lost incentives through tax breaks.  (The Federal government offers tax breaks for solar installations, and California offers tax incentives for solar installations under Section 73 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, amended by AB 1451 in 2008.)  The suspension is also directed to projects that are 30kw or greater, an obvious attempt to control the cost of the program by pausing incentives to the biggest beneficiaries.

The PUC suspension also appears counter-intuitive from an ROI perspective.  Tax-funded rebates to schools are far more likely to pay for themselves because school utility bills  are also paid with tax dollars.  The school utility bills will decrease after solar arrays are operational – a direct return on tax-payer investment!

The California Solar Initiative is wildly successful, and it has always been the intention of the program to gradually reduce the allocations as the cost of installing solar systems decreases.  (Environment California has a great report and chart (albiet two years old) that shows how the projected reduction in incentives is tied to the projected reduction in the cost of installations).  This is smart tax policy, but to suspend the Solar Initiative for the entities that provide the tax-payer with the greatest ROI, just does not make sense. 

The PUC is receiving comments on the California Solar Initiative over the next three months while the suspension is in effect.  

The California PUC recently issued its Annual Program Assessment to the Legislature regarding the California Solar Initiative.  Click here for a summary and access to the full report.

The Oakland Tribune has a great article on the suspension: Click here to read that article.

 

 

June 16, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 4

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Carbon, Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings divided their recommendations into four themes.   In this final post of our series, we address the final theme, “Lead By Example.”

The theme speaks for itself.  The task force essentially states that the city must institute change in municipal buildings before it can insist on changes in the private sector.   I emphatically agree, if for no other reason than the government needs to understand how the systems work before enforcing their use.  San Francisco, under Chapter 7 of the Environment Code leads by example, and there are other examples.  The recently launched GreenFinanceSF, a Green Finance program from the SFPUC, is a direct answer to the task force report.  Admittedly, we missed it in our last post on the topic, but we’ve updated the post, and we will discuss the program in the future.  Please check out the program, it looks great.

Some argue that the private sector is more adept to implement change.  The belief that the private sector will lead the way, however, is misguided.  The private sector has had years to renovate existing buildings, but the implementation is only on the fringe.  Below, please find a quick timeline as to why this is.

The 1960’s and ‘70’s saw a huge surge in societal awareness of sustainability.  This was due to hippies, the oil embargo, and in my case, Ranger Rick, Woodsy Owl, the Tearful Native American, and John Denver (among others).  Even then, these advocates addressed pollution and environment.  Sustainability in construction was considered a fringe movement for those who could afford it.  Then, sustainability lost momentum when the price of oil tanked in the 1980’s.

Even when oil prices rose in the ‘00’s, and analysts touted life-cycle cost savings, private developers were unwilling to pay a “green premium” (the cost difference between a green building and a standard building).  But in 2001, citing life-cycle costs, energy independence, and social consciousness, California and Oregon required that all new municipal buildings meet high environmental and energy efficiency standards.  Other states including Washington, and New York followed, and in 2003, the GSA mandated that all new federal buildings meet LEED Silver standards.   Other states including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Florida joined the green movement.

With such huge markets mandating green, economies of scale took over.  To answer the large orders from state and the federal government, manufacturers produced higher volumes of green products thus reducing the price. The municipal contracts created a new green economy, and materials such as denim insulation (pun intended) emerged as viable products.  New companies formed and new technologies were invented to answer the call for green supplies.  Large contractors altered their methodologies and trained their workforce for the green future.

Legislating incentives to encourage green building helped too.  The government, with the help of the taxpayer, led all of this.  Let’s be clear.  If it were not for government, the green building movement would still be for the eccentric fringe. Period.

I’ve said many times that political parties are a liability to progress.  There is no room for partisanship in promoting sustainability and green building.  Energy independence is a matter of national security, and as the gulf oil spew shows, clean energy is a matter of protecting our domestic economy (e.g. keeping fisheries open, generating new construction, or creating auto jobs building electric vehicles at the NUMMI plant).   There is nothing wrong with government leading the way in green building and energy efficiency.  To the contrary, it must be one of their highest priorities.  Government involvement in sustainable development creates jobs, and makes us a stronger, more secure nation.

The task force report is very good, but now the hard part begins.  It has been six months since the report was issued, and I have not seen any new legislation passed or proposed.  GreenFinanceSF is a great program, but that was in the works long before the task force report was issued.  According to the San Francisco Examiner, the Mayor was going to propose new legislation, but I haven’t heard about it since.  I’m happy to help if that’s what it takes, but let’s keep up the momentum.

 

June 2, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 3

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Solar, Sustainable Community, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Parts One and Two of our analysis of the Final Report and Recommendations from the Mayor’s Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings discussed mandatory energy audits, the risks associated with allowing unilateral submetering, and the welcome drive to increase transparency in energy use reporting under an expanded implementation of AB 1103.  In Part Three of this post, we look at the task force’s proposal to “attract game-changing capital.”

First, it should be noted that the task force’s interest in attracting game-changing capital comes from not only prudence, but also awareness of the acute financial restraints facing our society.  The task force offers low-cost solutions such as the Green Tenant Toolkit, and looks to engage the private sector in these and other initiatives.

There are two possibly expensive financial initiatives proposed by the task force that we will address at length.  The first is a Financial Optimization Tool (FOT) – a fantastic idea.  The proposed FOT is software that organizes and amalgamates all incentives and rebates available to building developers, managers, and tenants.  Currently, the best place to find such information is through the Database of State Incentives and Renewable Energy (www.dsireusa.org) (a website that is the anchor on our Tax Incentives and Rebates page).  The problem with DSIRE, and other resources such as the Flex Your Power website or the US Department of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Newsletter, is the fluctuating information is difficult to organize.

DSIRE addresses this problem by simply listing every incentive available, and weekly (if not daily) updating that list.   This approach is thorough, however it creates a mountain of information to sift.   The FOT is a great alternative because it allows owners to use all incentives to design an energy efficiency program specifically tailored to their financial circumstances and their building’s design and condition.

To address the need for constant updates, the task force suggests a public-private partnership (P3).  The inclusion of a private partner could be effective.  But, as with so many other opportunities that are offered to private industry, this represents an early sale of future assets.  Further, including private industry may undermine the intent of the FOT

P3s have an essential place in our society, however, for this situation P3s are not an effective solution.  To have the greatest impact, all parties should have access to the FOT.  Use could eventually be required as a standard of care for the building management industry or as part of energy audits.  But, if a P3 private company is involved there needs to be a profit angle. Due to its niche market, the FOT will not produce sufficient advertising revenue.  And without advertising, the only profit angle is through subscriptions.

A subscription-based FOT will fail because it will deter a majority of potential users including other municipalities.  Further, if the FOT is privatized, anti-trust issues arise if use of the FOT is required

The best approach to implement the FOT is a “top down” approach that I will discuss in Part Four of our analysis.  The federal government, working with state and local agencies, must come up with this tool, so that it is accessible to all interested parties.  Perhaps federal leadership is too much for a locally convened task force to suggest, and perhaps this tool needs to start at the state level with contributions from our state universities.  What the FOT does not need is a private partner seeking profit.

There are areas where a P3 will work, and one surprising area the Task Force misses is an opportunity to suggest a partnership in finance.  The report suggests following the BerkeleyFirst distributed power program that utilizes AB 811.  As we previously discussed on the CGBB, the BerkeleyFirst program is not only innovative in attaching the debt obligations of a solar installation to property taxes, it is also innovative in allowing a private company to underwrite the financing for the installations.  This powerful P3 model epitomizes P3 success.  The private partner provides funding, and earns a fair return on investment.  The municipality reaps the reward of infrastructure development at a fraction of the cost.   Perhaps the task force was wary of opening the proverbial floodgates to private enterprise, or perhaps the task force did not want to single out Renewable Funding LLC, the underwriter in the BerkeleyFirst program.

Nonetheless, San Francisco launched GreenFinanceSF, and the city called on Renewable Funding LLC to finance the project.  BerkeleyFirst deserves a great amount of credit as the first program of this type in California, but GreenFinanceSF looks to be a broader initiative that has a longer list of eligible projects.  Unlike BerkeleyFirst which funds solar residential solar installations, GreenFinanceSF finances a long list of energy and water retrofit projects.  The California Green Building Blog will offer further analysis of the GreenFinanceSF program in the future.

The next and final installation of our analysis of the task force report will discuss a topic near and dear to my heart – the suggestion by the task force that government “lead by example.”  I am a firm believer in this approach.  This is not about government intervention, this is about leadership.  No matter where your political loyalties fall, you’ll want to read next week…

 

May 25, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 2

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Lease, Research, Sustainable Community | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

In Part One of our analysis of the report from the Mayor’s Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings, we discussed the task force’s four themed approach to improving the energy efficiency of existing commercial buildings: 1) “maximize transparency,” 2) partner with the private sector, 3) attract game-changing capital, and 4) lead by example.  We now turn to theme two, “partner with the private sector.”

As discussed in Part One of this post, the transparency mandates suggested by the task force, and/or mandated under AB 1103 will force private industry to report energy use.  These reporting requirements will generate market forces that push buildings to higher energy efficiency.  But, will developers, owners, and tenants really compete in a race to the top of efficiency based on AB 1103 alone? The answer is “probably not,” or maybe I should say, “probably not quickly enough.”

Sure, required energy reporting will occur, but the desired reduction in energy use will not manifest rapidly.   Without government mandate and assistance for developers, owners, and tenants, the measures suggested by the task force, including mandatory energy audits, will create resentment and real hardship for businesses.  Also, the local taxpayers might not be happy with the incentives and rebates suggested to assist in deferring the cost (though some of the underwriting will come from state and federal grants).

The task force suggests two low-cost “tools” to rapidly generate efficiency results and ease the private burden of implementing energy efficiency.  The first suggestion is a “no-brainer,” but the second might not be as simple.

The first tool is the “Green Tenant Toolkit” (“GTT”).  Rather than simply mandating energy efficiency, the GTT proposes a “toolkit” with suggestions for developers, owners, and tenants regarding “best practice recommendations, a model green lease, [and] a standardized checklist to identify green features of spaces for lease.”  Also, as a part of the “partner with the private sector” theme, the task force suggests a public/private (dare I say) task force to come up with the language and suggestions for the GTT.  The proposed GTT is a quick and easy resource, and one that will ease the burden of implementing energy efficiency measures.

The second tool suggested by the task force is “unilateral submetering.”  This strategy proposes allowing tenants or landlords to implement submetering at the requester’s expense.  This is risky, and not completely thought out. First, this option likely already exists for a majority of tenants and landlords, and second the suggestion ignores the issues that arise from such a policy.

For example, unlike other tenant-level capital improvements, submetering affects the operating costs of other tenants.  Generally, a building’s utility costs are averaged, and then allocated to tenants based on square feet.  If a large tenant has a significant amount of space that is below the average energy use in a building, and that space is removed from the building energy calculation, the average cost will rise for other tenants.  Conversely, a landlord, at the bequest of other tenants, may submeter a power-sucking data center.  This action will lower rent for a majority of other tenants, but send operating costs for the data center through the proverbial roof.  It’s not quite that simple, but the example above is closer to the reality than the task force lets on.

To achieve the equity the task force seeks, unilateral submetering will need further analysis, or testing before city-wide implementation.  Perhaps if a tenant submeters, a landlord could be forced for one year to keep the submetered tenant in as part of the calculation for the building’s energy use averages until other tenants can take action to either lower energy costs or also submeter?  Or perhaps the city will limit the amount a landlord can raise an energy charge thus encouraging energy efficiency?  Perhaps other tenants will just have to “get with the program,” submeter, and increase their efficiency to realize ROI.  There are no easy solutions to this question, but submetering is an effective tool to reducing energy use, and is required for any effective energy efficiency policy.

The task force’s next suggestions – including the suggestion of a government fund to cover expenses for implementation of energy efficient technologies – will be covered in part three of our analysis.  Stay tuned…

 

May 10, 2010

Friendly Reminder, Webinar Series Starts Wednesday, May 12

Posted by Steve Sacks under BIA / Building Industry Association, Build It Green / Green Point Rated, Building and Design, Building Operations, California Green Builder / Building Industry Institute, Editor's Note, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Speaking Engagement, Sustainable Community, USGBC / LEED | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Hi All,

A friendly reminder that I am presenting in one of three great webinars presented by the State Bar of California.  The webinars will be on May 12, 19, and 26.  If you can’t make these dates, you can register by the date of the event, and listen any time in the three months afterward.

The first webinar is “Sustainable Development: Moving Beyond Green Building Toward Sustainable Building and Sustainable Master Planning” I will discuss alternatives to LEED and the many factors interested parties should consider when designing and developing sustainable buildings and neighborhoods.  Jeff Conner (Conner & Associates), Matt Burris (CTG), and Patricia Chen (Miles Chen Law Group, P.C.) will join me  in a roundtable discussion that will discuss LEED as well as other ways to develop a sustainable project (i.e. ICC, GreenPoint Rated, or independent assessment).  Each approach requires unique planning and permitting.  More information can be found by clicking here.

Our webinar is the first of a series.  There are two more webinars that are really worth checking out.  The first is , “Sustainable Development: Charting a Course to a Sustainable Future Through CEQA Compliance and Effective Climate Action Planning – Demystifying AB 32 and SB 375″ and the second is “Sustainable Development: The California General Plan Law and General Plan Updates: The Future of Sustainable Development”

We hope to catch you online at these events!

 

April 22, 2010

Happy Earth Day! Sustainable Community Interview Special!

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Innovators, Interview, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, People, Photovoltaic, Solar, Sustainable Community | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Geof Syphers is the Chief Sustainability Officer at Codding Enterprises, developer of Sonoma Mountain Village, a One Planet Communities development in Rohnert Park, California that aims to be close to net zero…as a village!

We’ve written about Sonoma Mountain Village (SOMO) before.  Click here to review that post. Now, as an Earth Day special, please enjoy the interview I conducted with Geof a few days ago.  Click here for the full text, or just click on the “Interviews” tab at the top of this page.

The thing that makes the interview so relevant to Earth Day is SOMO is a One Planet Community.  This means that if every community on the planet lived like the residents in SOMO, we would only use the resources available on one Earth.  As it stands now, if everyone on the planet lived like the rest of the United States, we would need multiple Earths to support our lifestyle! (Click here to take a fun, albiet non-scientific, quiz to check your sustainability footprint).

So, Geof, and the group at Codding are onto something.  Enjoy the information in the interview, and have a great Earth Day!

 

March 17, 2010

Efficiency Efforts Insulate Windows In Empire State Building

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Green Economy, Innovators, Make Money, Materials and Manufacturing, Save Money | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Serious Materials, a California-based company, just announced an agreement with Johnson Controls (NYSE: JCI) to “super-insulate” over 6,500 windows as part of a $13.2 million energy efficiency retrofit program for the nearly 80 year-old Empire State Building.

Note, I wrote they will “insulate” the glass, not replace it.  According to Sustainable Materials, here’s how it works:

“The existing glass of the building’s 6,514 double-hung windows will be removed from the window frames, separated, and cleaned in the processing space. New super-insulating IGUs [Insulating Glass Units] will be produced using the old glass panes, new spacers, suspended coated film, and special gas fill [argon-krypton gas mixture]. The IGUs will be re-installed into the existing window frames.”

These efforts alone will directly reduce energy costs by over $400,000 per year, and the remarkable fact is Serious Materials is using the old glass!

The Empire State Building project is a model of what needs to happen across the nation.  Old buildings are highly inefficient, and provide the greatest opportunity to gain real energy savings.  The Empire State Building plan calls for eight separate measures in lighting, insulation, electricity controls, HVAC, and tenant training and incentives.  Once all measures are complete, the Empire State Building retrofit team predicts a 33% reduction in cooling load, and a reduction of peak energy load by 3.5 megawatts (yes that’s just the reduction).  The retrofit team also predicts a 38%reduction in total energy use and an eventual energy cost savings of $4.4 million / year.  How about that for ROI?

Click here to find out more regarding the Empire State Building’s eight measures

Click here for the press release from Serious Materials

Editor’s note: Don’t miss tonight’s Clean Tech Event at McCormick and Kuleto’s. Click here for more information

 

March 10, 2010

Book Review! Our Choice, By Al Gore

Posted by Steve Sacks under Book Review, Carbon, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Research | Tags: , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

I have a core belief that one can not complain unless one provides a solution (that is certainly part of the reason for this blog). Perhaps a number of people went to Al Gore with the same complaint.  Inconvenient Truth was heavy on problems and light on solutions.  Well, Al Gore’s new book, Our Choice: A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis, is all about solutions, and it is a must read.

The central theme of Gore’s work is that civilization must price carbon emissions based on the effect they have on humanity.  There are other solutions Gore provides, but without monetizing carbon emissions, Gore’s plan falls apart.  It’s not a new concept (cap and trade), and Gore admits that.  If you don’t believe in cap and trade, the book is still a very valuable read.  There is something for everyone.

The book is very well written, and easy to read – which says a lot given the sometimes technical and dense content.  Gore is less colloquial than Tom Friedman (click here for my review of Hot, Flat, and Crowded) whose style sometimes loses efficacy to gain mass appeal.  Gore is more academic, but concise.  And on top of that, it’s just plain interesting.  As with Inconvenient Truth, there are graphics and photos to keep the book flowing through the technical parts.

The first half of the book systematically establishes the foundation of the problems we face (a quick summary of Inconvenient Truth), and provides options for the solution.  Mr. Gore addresses the issues with each sector of industry: energy, manufacturing, transportation, farming, housing (though there is really no section on green building per se) and then lays out all of the options for a solution (solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration).

Our Choice is the kind of book one will use as a reference.  Not only does the book provide significant policy arguments, it backs up the positions with facts and science (and a healthy analysis of psychology).  The real take-away is the book drills down to risk/benefit analysis for each approach to solving the climate crisis.  Is nuclear energy really an option?  Can carbon capture and sequestration work for coal-fired power plants?  Our Choice asks the reader to make the choice based on the well-defined pluses and minuses for each technology.

The second half of the book focuses on the challenges of convincing the populous and governments that change must occur now.  Climate change detractors and some members of the Republican Party may take issue with some of this subject matter.  The first half of Our Choice is generally non-partisan, but the second half contains some chapters that take on detractors – many of whom are Republican.   A lot of the content in these sections is re-hashed argument, but it needs to be aired and recorded.  In so doing, the differences of opinion are laid out, and some progress can be made toward a political solution.

Mr. Gore has stated repeatedly that our need to create renewable energy is not just a matter of global warming, it’s a matter of national security.  I agree.  As someone who finds political labels a liability, I suggest we consider at least that rationale.

Al Gore does that and more. Our Choice is a great book to help anyone understand the diverse options we face.

 

March 4, 2010

AB 510 Signed By Governor Schwarzenegger! (Part 2)

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Photovoltaic, Solar, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 510 on February 26, 2010 (Click here for full text of AB 510) (Click here for press release and video). We covered the basic elements of the new law in Part 1 of our coverage last week (click here for that post). Now, we turn to some other elements of the law… some of the fine print, if you will…

The law balances the interests of utilities, customer-generators, and non-participating customers. (This balance, and the fact that there is no discernable impact to the General Fund, are likely the reasons the bill passed the Senate by a nearly unanimous vote.)    In addition to lowering the proposed cap from 10% to 5%, an example of concessions to utilities is found in Section (3)(l).  That section requires that customer-generators pay the Department of Water Resources for all charges that would otherwise be imposed on the customer had they not entered the net-metering arrangement.

Another significant concession is found in Section (5)(B).  Under that section, the utilities can use the energy provided through net-metering arrangements toward the Renewable Portfolio Requirements (outlined in Public Utilities Code Section 399.15 and 387).  Under previous net-metering law, utilities were not permitted to count net-metering toward these obligations.  Now, utilities have a chance to meet the aggressive target of generating 33% of their energy from renewables by 2020.  (The utilities are far from reaching the Renewable Portfolio Requirements of 20% of energy from renewables by 2010).  If California residents and businesses continue to install solar and wind power generation, the utilities have a chance to meet the portfolio requirements, but the current 5% cap will have to rise again.

On the consumer side, there are very reasonable concerns that net-metering raises the energy bill for non-metering customers.  To assuage those concerns, the bill establishes a rate-setting commission that will set net-metering compensation rates and provide a report detailing 1) the market effects of net-metering and co-energy metering, and 2) how the authority’s rate schedule ensures consumers who don’t enter net metering arrangements pay the same for power that customer-generators pay.

AB 510 reflects a state leading the way in establishing energy independence.  It is great legislation now because it doesn’t tap into the General Fund, and it encourages private businesses (e.g. Solar City or Renewable Funding, LLC).  The law is another step forward that keeps California as a leader in United States renewable energy generation.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers