On May 26, a day that hit 92 degrees (a +4 degree record), there was no mincing words.

A decorated and experienced panel, hosted by the Pew Charitable Trust, presented a talk called Energy & Climate Change: National Security Challenges and Opportunities.

The speakers included Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn (U.S. Navy ret), Captain Michael Green (U.S. Army veteran from the war in Afghanistan), and Jim Kesseli, President of the innovative engineering company Brayton Energy.

The Undeniable Inevitability

In 2007, a report was issued by the CIA’s think tank CNA, with advisory input from thirteen members of the military’s upper ranks. The report is called “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” (PDF Download).

This report reaches a number of conclusions, which it does not shy from stating plainly:

Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world … Unlike most conventional security threats that involve a single entity acting in specific ways and points in time, climate change has the potential to result in multiple chronic conditions, occurring globally within the same time frame.

Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world … Extreme weather events and natural disasters, as the U.S. experienced with Hurricane Katrina, may lead to increased missions for a number of U.S. agencies, including state and local governments, the Department of Homeland Security, and our already stretched military, including our Guard and Reserve forces.

Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

The military takes the relationship between climate change and energy very seriously. Here is a replica of a slide from Adm. McGinn’s presentation:

The Call to Act

In response to these dire findings, the US Military is taking aggressive action to change their fossil fuel usage.

The Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate released a report, “Reenergizing America’s Defense: How the Armed Forces Are Stepping Forward to Combat Climate Change and Improve the U.S. Energy Posture.”

The Pew commission documents a number of initiatives by all branches of the military, including:

• The US Army’s plan to build a 500-megawatt solar power generation plant at Fort Irwin, California and transition to the use of 4,000 electric vehicles during the next three years
• The Navy’s goal to reduce petroleum use in the commercial fleet by 50 percent by 2015 and launch the “Great Green Fleet,” a strike group fueled completely by alternative fuels, by 2016.
• The Air Force’s Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada – home to one of the largest solar arrays in North America, providing more than 25 percent of base energy, saving $1 million and reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 24,000 tons annually.
• The Marines’ goal to reduce energy intensity 30 percent by 2015, while simultaneously increasing renewable electric energy to 25 percent by 2025.

Green: The New Color of Patriotism

The speakers focused, in different ways on a simple conclusion – that our current path of reliance on oil harms not only the environment, but ourselves, domestically and internationally.

Army Capt. Michael Green, a New Hampshire native who has recently returned from the Middle East  struck the audience with this analogy: “When you think of a wind farm or a solar field, think of a World War Two victory garden.”

We couldn’t agree more!

Getting off oil is a most patriotic thing – not just as a way to preserve the old American way of life, but to spur the growth of the new one.

Enough crude oil has spilled in the gulf to power all of Maine’s oil-based electrical generation plants

It’s now been a month since the catastrophic drilling accident that lead to the loss of 11 lives and the spewing of at least 5,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico each day (some scientists say that number may be much higher).

We won’t spend time here elaborating on the unprecedented environmental disaster save to say that all conscientious people are taking a hard look at their lifestyle and evaluating how we can get this nasty black stuff out of our lives.

Many of us feel powerless about our reliance on oil – we need basic transportation, we need homes that are comfortable to live in, and power to do our jobs and run our households. How can we reduce the role of oil in our lives?

It’s Going Out the Window

What you may not know is that a shocking amount of oil in New England goes into heating our homes. The US Energy Information Administration says of Maine “About three-quarters of Maine’s households – the highest share in the Nation – use fuel oil for home heating.” That amounts to roughly 17 million barrels of oil used each year (Source:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=ME).

This leads to a number of problems for us. Not only is it dangerous to use a product that is environmentally destructive, but we expose ourselves to the risk of a fluctuating market.

Maine has no fossil fuel reserves and no refining capacity – the crude oil that is imported into Portland Harbor is then shipped to refineries in Quebec or Ontario, Canada (again, US Energy Information Administration). We are vulnerable not only to ecological ramifications, but also to market forces.

Our dependence on oil emerged when fossil fuel was cheap, and weatherization poorly understood and not a priority. As a result, we see time and again inefficient mechanical systems installed on homes, causing expensive oil heat to pour, literally, out the window.

What About Electricity?

Electricity has an equally scary genesis. Maine does have a mandate for minimum 30% renewable electric sources, provided mostly by hydro. Clean, solar electric, which is proven in Maine, doesn’t yet register on the radar as a major energy source:

Instead, natural gas and oil, both fossil fuels, dominate our electricity consumption. The basic reality is that adoption of renewable energy is still very slow, though the need is more urgent than ever.

How You Can Change Your Relationship with Oil

Walk more, drive less. Eat local. And consider carefully how your home consumes energy.

In many houses, switching to a solar hot water system will conserve 300 gallons of oil a year, a savings of roughly 5,500 lbs of C02 emissions each year. An average home solar electric system (sized at 3kw) will save around 2,778 lbs of C02 emissions each year (mostly from coal-fired power plants).

Contact us to talk more. Or leave your suggestions for an oil-free planet below.

Janet Ward, a friend of ReVision Energy in Concord, New Hampshire, recently alerted us to some questionable legislation making its way through the New Hampshire State Senate.

Bill SB 334, which states that it is “encouraging the installation and use of small scale renewable energy resources by homeowners and businesses,” is coming under fire because it would allow Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) to divert $5 million of money that should purchase renewable energy credits for a single solar development project in Manchester.

As reported from the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association:

PSNH is asking the New Hampshire House of Representatives for permission to fund a single solar energy project in Manchester with funds it is supposed to use to purchase Renewable Energy Certificates or pay into the State’s Renewable Energy Fund(REF).

The REF funds are intended to be available throughout the State for renewable energy projects to benefit residents, small businesses, and municipalities. The funds are vital to the small businesses which are building New Hampshire’s green economy.

The PSNH project, funded via the RPS program, undermines investment in New Hampshire’s small business future.

The bit of legislation that is causing the controversy:

In lieu of PSNH making payments under RSA 362-F:10 for class II electric renewable energy standard obligations or purchasing certificates, as defined in RSA 362-F:2, III, to comply with RSA 362-F class II electric renewable energy standard obligations, beginning upon the effective date of this act PSNH shall retain such payments and utilize $5,000,000 of such amounts to invest in the development of the solar photovoltaic renewable energy project in Manchester. The amounts retained by PSNH shall be used to amortize the outstanding capital investment for the project. When the nominal payments retained by PSNH equal $5,000,000, PSNH shall return to routine compliance with RSA 362-F:10 for going-forward class II electric renewable energy standard obligations.

What This Means

Under current law, the $5,000,000 would go towards the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (the Renewable Portfolio Standard or RPS) or pay into the New Hampshire’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF).

According to The Green Energy Times, “The REF funds are intended to be available throughout the State for renewable energy projects which benefit residents, small businesses, and municipalities. The funds are vital to the small businesses which are building New Hampshire’s green economy.”

In other words, the act would allow PSNH to create their own special project and avoid the current process, which incentivizes small businesses and entrepreneurs to create renewable energy projects, and drives a competitive renewable energy marketplace.

RPS requires New Hampshire to generate 16 percent of new energy from renewable resources such as wind, solar, biomass and hydro by 2025, and Renewable Energy World predicts New Hampshire’s energy will be 22-25% renewable by 2025 should the effort be successful.

Performance requirements for the PSNH project are not defined in the bill, though there is some verbiage in the Bill that suggests that performance of the PSNH project would be subject to review.

Opponents to SB 334 claim that the RPS program has led to regular employment for 126 electricians and solar installers and grants for more than 270 renewable energy projects across New Hampshire. In contrast, they claim that the PSNH project will create only five full jobs a year, “at a cost of $1 million per full-time position.”

What You Can Do

ReVision Energy encourages you to read about the legislation and then take action – there is a great amount of information as well as links to newspaper articles and opinion pieces at http://www.nhsea.org/public-policy.php.

You can contact members of the New Hampshire House Science, Energy and Technology Committee via e-mail: HouseScienceTechnologyandEnergy@leg.state.nh.us or visit the New Hampshire House website for for complete contact information for the Committee.

Most importantly, you can attend the Committee’s Public Hearing on SB 334, which will be held this Thursday, April 15 at 1pm in room 304 of the Legislative Office Building, 33 North State Street, Concord, New Hampshire (map and directions).

Clean solar electricity and solar hot water system installed on a home in Porter, Maine

Many people ask us how solar affects a home’s resale value.  The quick answer – solar can be a huge asset when it comes time to sell your home, though there are a variety of considerations you should take into account.

Lower Utility Costs Equal Increased Value

Let’s look at the purely rational economics of a solar energy system.

In the 1998 Evidence of Rational Market Valuations for Home Energy Efficiency report (link, PDF Download) by The Appraisal Journal there’s a section they call the “Rational Market Hypothesis” which describes the relationship of market value to energy savings.

Using fixed (and very conservative) utility costs savings, compared to the cost of the investment, they are able to project an economic value for energy improvements:

Fuel costs may be considered just one of many complex factors affecting the decision to buy a home, but the same can be said about other determinants of home value—from number of bedrooms to the quality of local schools. In a rational, competitive market, the value of energy efficiency, like the value of any other housing characteristic, should reflect its marginal value to home buyers. If home buyers expect stable fuel prices, then the marginal value of energy efficiency in recent years should be $10–$25 for every dollar reduction in annual fuel bills. (emphasis added)

Note that this 1998 report reflects a very different energy situation than what we face today.  We would now argue that the $10–$25 value increase per dollar of reduction in annual fuel bills is only a starting place, as home buyers should NOT expect stable fuel prices for the future.

Over the life of a 30 year mortgage, the fuel cost/utility savings will rise dramatically as fossil fuel heating and energy resources become increasingly scarce.

In addition, purchasing solar electric is particularly attractive right now because solar panel prices have reached record lows, so the payback time is greatly reduced.

Solar as an Attractive House Feature

There is huge emotional value to a solar hot water or solar power installation in addition to the purely logical economic argument.  A renewable energy system makes a strong statement about your commitment to sustainability and the environment, which is increasingly desirable in the marketplace.

In a down market, a solar system may be the differentiator that makes your house attractive to potential buyers.

An recent article on sunpluggers.com featured a subdivision in Northern California that is using solar panels in its homes as a way to differentiate itself.

How successful is it?

“We are the bestselling project in the market right now,” [Hal Woods, president of privately owned CenterStone Communities] says. “All of our Phase 1 and Phase 2 are sold out. We expect to have the project complete in the spring of 2010. A number of other builders are scouting us and looking at the success that we’ve had.”

While the attractiveness of a solar system will vary depending on your location and potential buying pool, it stands to reason that interest and excitement about renewable energy will only grow in the future as the need to move away from fossil fuels becomes more critical, and all things “green” become more mainstream.

Both solar hot water and solar electricity are proven, mature technologies that will provide a payback for you as long as you live in your home, and a more competitive position should you need to sell your home.

Like all investments, the earlier you put solar on your house, the sooner you will reap the rewards.  As we sometimes say, payback doesn’t actually start until the system is installed!

A solar power project completed this week in New Hampshire – clean energy is ready to go!

In his first official State of the Union address, President Obama offered a rousing challenge to Congress to get to work on a variety of issues – jobs, security, health care, and the transition to a clean energy economy.

With 2009 behind us, but its challenges far from over, Obama took an approach that was urgent, while at times light-hearted, as he analyzed the country’s problems and his suggestions for implementing change.

We were pleased to see “clean energy” make it into the speech some dozen times, though Obama mentioned “solar panels” only once.

Here’s our take on some of the key points raised during the State of the Union address:

• Obama Lauds Success of Recovery Act
  

  “Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy”

  Obama put a lot of effort into defending the actions necessary in 2009, both the unpopular bank bailout and the ongoing American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), aka the Stimulus.

  While Obama’s focus on clean energy jobs was on the manufacturing side – he mentioned both “the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels” and a need to create “new factories that manufacture clean energy products,” the Stimulus also has had a big positive effect on those who install those panels thanks to financial incentives that were part of ARRA.

• Obama Sees Clean Energy as the Route to Tomorrow
  

  “We can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow … There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products… I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”

  Obama seemed very cautious about making the environmental case for a switch to a clean energy economy, instead rooting his argument in the need to create very real clean energy jobs.

  While we couldn’t agree more, and laud Obama for finding common ground, it’s a bit disappointing that the very real crisis facing our planet is still a point of argument.

  The reality is that regardless of the state of the economy, we need to make a move to clean energy now as an act of survival.

  That Obama was cautious to acknowledge this threat points to an even greater challenge of worldview we still have to resolve.

• Getting There – Incentives and Innovations
  

  “We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. … Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history, an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched.”

  Again, Obama mentions investment in research as a major player in the move to a clean economy. While we agree, the reality is that there are plenty of technologies that are already here which are reliable, affordable, and available.

  Both grid-tied photovoltaics and solar hot water are energy investments that make economic and environmental sense.

  We’re eager to see what Obama plans to offer with “rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient,” and wish we’d heard something about a feed-in tariff.

• The Economy of Old – Nuclear, Oil, and Gas?
  

  “But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

  After so much invigorating news from Obama, it was disappointing to hear his last word on energy mention nonrenewable sources of energy.

  While it may be necessary to find some common ground with Republicans to move the overall initiatives forward, we still disagree that more power plants and “clean” coal are the best way to build the nation’s infrastructure.

Disappointments aside, it’s encouraging to see how large a role clean energy fits into Obama’s plans to move the country back into recovery.

As Obama acknowledged, we have some mighty challenges ahead of us, but the technology is here to move to a clean economy.

What is difficult is mustering the will to act.

On Tuesday February 17th, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This 787 billion dollar bill, devoted to tax cuts and infrastructure projects, will allocate 40.75 billion dollars toward clean energy applications.

According to the New York Times ‘the Obama administration is poised to start a huge program to develop renewable energy sources – and at the same time, it hopes, create jobs, limit pollution and narrow our trade imbalance’.

The stimulus package includes efforts to support loans for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies, provide funds to convert federal buildings into high performance green buildings, and provide greater tax credits for clean energy projects at both the residential and commercial levels. According to the magazine Renewable Energy World ‘for residential renewable energy systems, the act removes all caps on the tax credits, which equal 30% of the cost of qualified solar energy systems, geothermal heat pumps, small wind turbines and fuel cell systems. The act also eliminates a reduction in credits for installations with subsidized financing.’ The Solar Energy Industries Association includes that not only does the new provision lift the $2,000 cap, providing a full 30 percent credit for qualified solar water heating properties, the credit may also be claimed against the alternative minimum tax.

Eliminating the cap for solar hot water systems will help make an investment more affordable and decreases the amount of time it takes for these systems pay for themselves through energy and fuel savings. Solar hot water systems are often considered the lower hanging fruit when compared to other renewable energy technologies. Solar thermal systems are generally less expensive than other renewable energy options and are an efficient and effective way to reduce the amount of energy you use. Referring to reducing energy usage, a recent New York Times editorial says that ‘after conservation, one of the most effective and efficient steps the government can take is to encourage the use of solar hot-water systems — a well-developed and relatively low-tech method for using the sun’s energy.

‘Solar hot water systems are not as well known as the electricity-generating solar panels that use photovoltaic cells to gather energy. But hot water systems are more efficient than photovoltaic systems and can create the same amount of useful energy with fewer panels. Water heating accounts for a large share of a home’s energy use — typically the largest share after heating and cooling.’

The changes to the tax credit for solar hot water in the stimulus bill match the federal tax credit already in place for solar electric (PV) systems. At the start of 2009 the $2,000 cap was lifted for residential solar electric installations, making the available tax credit 30% of the installed cost of system, after any applicable state incentives.