July 9, 2011

PACE Lawsuit Update

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

As you will recall, the Property Assessed Clean Energy program allows residents to pay for solar installations through a tax assessment on their property.  Last year, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) essentially stopped the program with a letter advising mortgage lenders that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not purchase mortgages on homes that also have PACE financing.  California and eight other parties sued the FHFA to rescind its letter and change its policy.

The PACE lawsuit (Case Nos. 10-cv-03084 CW, 10-cv-03270, CW, 10-cv-03317 CW, 10-cv-04482 CW) continues with a possible end some time in the summer of 2012.  A trial date is set for April 30, 2012.  (click here for the Case Management Order).  Some of my previous coverage of the lawsuit can be found by clicking here. In the beginning of this year, the court asked the Attorney General of the United States to submit a Statement Of Interest offering its position regarding the PACE lawsuit.

Although the executive branch previously endorsed the PACE program, and the creative financing mechanism that is the cornerstone, the Statement of Interest evades the issue at hand (the subrogation of primary mortgages).  Instead, the DOJ argues simply that the the FHFA has authority to bring and defend its own lawsuits and the DOJ does not see a need or mandate to interfere with FHFA’s handling of the matter.  The DOJ then states its only area of concern is that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit.  While plaintiffs may lack standing (I doubt it), the DOJ could have also offered analysis of the legitimacy of the program’s structure.

The parties are now heading to the discovery stage of litigation, but frankly there is nothing to discover.  As far as I can tell, there are really no material facts in dispute.  Either the FHFA is going to allow for PACE programs to move forward, follow the Department of Energy guidelines (Full Guidelines Here), and acknowledge the minimal risks involved.  Or, the FHFA will undermine one of the best modern approaches to nurturing mainstream adoption of sustainable development.

Unless Congress passes a law supporting PACE financing, the lawsuit will move forward, and frankly the prospects don’t look good for plaintiffs.  That means PACE programs will essentially become a great idea undermined by the inflexibility of bureaucracy.

 

June 13, 2011

An Argument For Renewable Energy, And A Response To Robert Bryce

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Government, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[3] Comments 

On June 8, 2011, Mr. Robert Bryce, author of the recently published Power Hungry, The Myth Of Clean Energy And The Real Fuels Of The Future, wrote an Op-Ed piece to the New York Times. In the piece, Mr. Bryce argues that the recently signed mandate requiring a 30% renewable portfolio standard places too high a burden on society.  Mr. Bryce attempts a clever approach addressing considerations some sustainability advocates fail to consider.

Of note, I will be reading Mr. Bryce’s book and commenting on it shortly.  While I do not agree with Mr. Bryce’s observations in his Op-Ed piece, he does raise essential considerations that any advocate for sustainability must address.

The two main issues that Mr. Bryce raises in his short Op-Ed are that renewable energy sources such as solar thermal and wind power require vast amounts of space to generate large-scale power.  The other issue is that the manufacture of renewable power infrastructure requires vast natural resources.  Mr. Bryce’s Op-Ed can be found here.  Below is a critique of Mr. Bryce’s opinions.

(more…)

 

October 20, 2009

Congratulations AB 920!

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Government, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Photovoltaic, Wind | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
[3] Comments 

AB 920 was signed into law last week.  The law requires that utilities pay for energy they receive through net metering.  We have followed AB 920 (previously AB 1920) here at the CGBB since we posted our first articles nearly a year ago.  AB 920 is the common-sense approach to net metering.  

Net metering is an arrangement whereby utilities purchase power from consumers who generate power from solar arrays or small wind turbines.   Previously, utilities would provide credits against a utility bill.  Starting in 2011, utilities will be forced to pay power-producers wholesale rates for the power (if a credit remains at the end of the calendar year).   Cash compensation to the original power producer makes sense because the utility makes money by selling that same power to end users.  

AB 920 is a great step, but California needs to travel light years before we realize the “million solar roofs” idea.  At the very least, California needs to abandon the limits on the sizes of residential power production.  Currently, to be eligible for net metering, residences must limit the size of their solar array or wind turbine.  PG&E and other utilities argue that larger arrays and turbines will result in higher electricity rates for those not participating in net metering.  This argument can not be summarily dismissed.  There are legitimate concerns about reliability from residential power producers.  However, utility concerns can be addressed in future legislation (such as infrastructure service fees or production guarantees for net meter users over a certain size).   I appreciate that ideas such as this were left out of AB 920 in order to get it passed, but by no means does this mean the work is done.

Also, the net metering program has an overall cap, and after the cap is met residential power producers are not compensated for their power produced.  AB 560, proposed by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, representing the 14th District, would have raised the cap for net metering power available for purchase from 2.5% of peak power to 5% of peak power.  PG&E supported that bill, but it died in committee .  For an article on some of the issue with the bill, click here.

AB 920 represents a positive step for residential solar and wind power in California, but we have miles to go before we sleep.

 

April 28, 2009

“New” Bills Propose Zero Net Energy Buildings And Zero-Limits On Net Metering

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Carbon, Energy, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Assembly Member, and Speaker Pro Tempore, Lori Saldaña from the 76th Assembly District (based in San Diego County) has sponsored a great idea!  AB 212 proposes to have all new residential buildings in California meet zero net energy by 2020.  AB 212 was sponsored last year, and passed the Assembly before dying in the State Senate (much like AB 1920 which died last year, but was resurrected as AB 920 this session.  Check out our quick update of former AB 1920 below).

AB 212 proposes:

“The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to adopt building design  and construction standards and energy and water conservation standards to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consuption of energy, including energy associated with the use of water. 
 
This bill would require the commission to adopt, in collaboration with specified parties,  building design and construction standards and energy and water conservation standards to require new residential constructions commenced on or after January 1, 2020, or on a date by which the commission determines that the use of photovoltaic technology is cost effective, whichever is later, to be zero net energy buildings, as defined.”

 

The bill defines a “zero net energy building” as:

“[A] building that implements a combination of building energy efficiency design features and clean onsite or near-site distributed generation that result in no net purchases from the electricity grid on an annual basis and produces enough electricity to  offset the energy use attributable to an onsite use of purchased natural gas.”

 

Of course, we would like to see this bill pass, and we would also like to see it extended to non-residential construction as well!  Critics argue the legislature should focus on refurbishing old construction, and they are correct to that extent.  However, there is no reason to only focus on old construction.  Contrary to the critics, we have full confidence the legislature can walk and chew gum at the same time.  The legislature must address both old and new construction!

We will track the progress of AB212, and report back regularly.  For the full text of AB 212, click here

Also, since we’re on the topic of legislation, remember AB 1920 sponsored by Assembly Member Jared Huffman?  That bill proposed elimination of  limits on net metering (among other things).  Well the bill has been re-introduced as AB 920 and is now in front of the Natural Resources Committee for a vote.  You can read more about the original bill from our previous posts ( click here) and (click here) and our Interview with Assembly Member Huffman (click here).  Our understanding is AB 920 is essentially the same as AB 1920.   Let’s hope AB 920 doesn’t get lost in politics as its predecessor did.

 

December 30, 2008

Interview With California Assembly Member Jared Huffman

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Interview, Law, Legislation, and Policy, People | Tags: , , , , , |
1 Comment 

The California Green Building Blog is proud to post our first interview.  Visit the “Interviews” page for all of the text.  The interview is with California Assembly Member Jared Huffman (6th Assembly District), sponsor of Assembly Bill 1920.  For further information on AB 1920 visit our post on the proposed legislation (Click Here).

Assembly Member Huffman joined the California Legislature in November 2006.  Prior to his service in State office, Assembly Member Huffman was Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and served on the board of the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD).  He served for 12 years on the MMWD including three terms as Board President.

He lists  as some of his top priorities, preserving our natural resources; fighting global warming while building the California economy by investing in clean new technologies; and promoting sustainable land use and transportation policies. 

For more information on Assembly Member Huffman and his initiatives, visit his website (Click Here).

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers