• The program is a more efficient use of taxpayer money because 100% of the incentive goes to the company making the investment and creating the jobs. Taxpayers get more jobs and clean energy per dollar spent.
• the 1603 tax credit program restarted stalled projects and saved all 40,000 jobs at risk 
  
• fossil fuels have received permanent taxpayer money since 1920s, costing taxpayers well over $500 billion. 
  
• fossil energy still receives 5 times the subsidies as renewables  
• Every job saved was an American job. 100% of projects that receive investment tax credits through 1603 are built in the U.S. as required by the Recovery Act. The program also supports America's growing manufacturing and supply chain industries. U.S. wind turbine domestic manufacturing has grown 12-fold, with an increase in domestic content from 25% only a few years ago to over 50% now, and nearly 400 American manufacturing facilities making wind components. Contrary to recent campaign ads, data from the International Trade Commission (ITC) shows that less than 5% of the value of turbine parts used in the U.S. is imported from China.

Renewable Energy Tax Credits: Keeping America at Work

By Rob Gramlich, AWEA   |   October 21, 2010   |  

 

Recent stories and campaign ads have challenged renewable energy tax credits. Representing 85,000 people working in the American wind industry, we can say unequivocally that this tax credit has been one of the most effective public policies in existence for saving American jobs.

At a time when the recession threatened at least 40,000 American wind construction, manufacturing and other jobs, the 1603 tax credit program restarted stalled projects and saved all 40,000 jobs at risk. This year, a study by Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (LBNL) found that the 1603 tax credit supported shovel-ready projects and over 50,000 American jobs. The 1603 program actually led to a record-breaking year of 10,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind in 2009, compared to the 4,000 MW feared prior to the Recovery Act.

Tax credits for renewable energy begin to level the playing field with oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy.  As a matter of fact fossil fuels have received permanent taxpayer money since 1920s, costing taxpayers well over $500 billion.  Even in recent years, after maturing for a century, fossil energy still receives 5 times the subsidies as renewables, according to the Government Accountability Office. Even more, Americans pay for fossil fuel in the form of an additional $60 billion in healthcare costs according to the Bush Administration report on hidden costs of energy. We have a choice between a balanced energy plan that includes wind and renewable America energy or plan that continues our increasing dependence on fossil fuels for our electricity which is now over 60 percent.

In the recession, project development and financing was difficult to obtain and costly. Many wind projects in mid-development could not complete financing. As a result, wind investment stalled with some projects stopping mid-construction; laying off construction workers and leaving wind towers and blades on the ground.

Every job saved was an American job. 100% of projects that receive investment tax credits through 1603 are built in the U.S. as required by the Recovery Act. The program also supports America's growing manufacturing and supply chain industries. U.S. wind turbine domestic manufacturing has grown 12-fold, with an increase in domestic content from 25% only a few years ago to over 50% now, and nearly 400 American manufacturing facilities making wind components. Contrary to recent campaign ads, data from the International Trade Commission (ITC) shows that less than 5% of the value of turbine parts used in the U.S. is imported from China.

The 1603 program continues and modifies the Production Tax Credit, which was first passed in 1992. In most respects the program operates exactly like all other tax credits in the tax code:  all eligible projects receive the credit and it applies to all projects completed in a given year. However Congress tweaked the program in one respect to make the tax credit useable during a recession. While the oil and gas industries are allowed to use "Master-Limited Partnerships" (MLPs) enabling companies to use tax credits, MLPs are not available to renewable energy industries. Instead, Congress provided for a reimbursement of the eligible tax credit which made the program successful even in the deep recession. The program is a more efficient use of taxpayer money because 100% of the incentive goes to the company making the investment and creating the jobs. Taxpayers get more jobs and clean energy per dollar spent. Many people have confused this program with discretionary government grants and recent news stories have suggested, for example, that the only projects that should receive the incentive are those begun after the Recovery Act was passed. In this case a key part of the program's success was to complete many projects that had begun but were completely stalled, keeping Americans at work.

The 1603 tax credit program has been extremely effective at keeping Americans at work. Unfortunately the program is set to expire at the end of 2010. Unlike the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries that have permanent incentives, renewable energy industries will be stalled again unless Congress acts soon to extend the program into 2011 and 2012.

Timeline of the renewable energy tax credit: 

1. 1992:  Congress passes first renewable energy tax credit.
2. 1999, 2001, 2003:  Congress allows tax credit to expire.
3. October 2008:  President Bush Extends Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit for the year 2009.
4. Late 2008:  Credit Crisis Hits the Economy and the Wind Industry:
   • Renewable energy project financing was difficult to obtain and costly, many wind projects in mid-development could not complete their financing due inaccessibility.
   • Wind investment slowed; projects were halted mid-construction; construction workers were laid off; wind tower and blades lying on the ground at construction sites.
5. Late 2008:  Wind Industry fears 50% Drop in Investment and Loss of 40,000 Jobs:
   • With lack of financing and new projects held in the balance, the wind industry feared that up to a 50% drop would occur in new wind projects in 2009, dropping the industry to 4,000 MW of new projects, compared to 2008 at 8,500 MW.
   • This drop put at least 40,000 of existing wind industry jobs at risk.   
6. 2009:  Recovery Act Puts Tax Credits Back to Work with the 1603 Program: 
   • The American Reinvestment & Recovery Act included a simple but critical reform to the Production Tax Credit converting the tax credit into a usable form.   
   • 1603 Program meant companies could take the tax credit in the form of a reimbursement, with the law stating the program would "reimburse such person for a portion of the expense of such property" as long as the property is "placed in service during 2009 or 2010".[1] 
7. 2009:  Confidence is improved in the marketplace and financing is re-activated:
   • The 1603 program led to a record-breaking year of 10,000 MW of new wind in 2009, compared to the 4,000 MW feared prior to the Recovery Act.
   • Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (LBNL) found that ARRA's 1603 program supported more shovel-ready projects and over 50,000 American jobs.[2] 
8. 2009-10:  100% of projects that receive investment tax credits through Section 1603 of the Recovery Act (ARRA) are built in the U.S.:
   • Over 150 small and large wind projects have moved forward by taking the tax credit through 1603 program, creating local construction, engineering, transportation, operations and other jobs to build their wind projects.
   • These wind projects have led to millions in local tax payments to towns & cities, as well as lease payments to local landowners hosting the projects.
9. The U.S. Wind Industry is able to Continue to Grow Domestic Manufacturing: The U.S. wind industry currently employs 85,000 people. Beginning with major growth in 2005, the U.S. now has nearly 400 wind manufacturing facilities.
   • According to data from the International Trade Commission (ITC) China currently represents less than 5% of the imported value of turbine components for the U.S. market.
   • Today, only 3 out of 33,000 (0.009%) wind turbines installed across the U.S. were sourced from China while there are American wind turbine manufacturing facilities coming online including brand new facilities in Jonesboro, Arkansas and Hutchinson, Kansas. Beginning with major growth in 2005, the U.S. now has nearly 400 wind manufacturing facilities.
   • "The growth in wind turbine installations and a period of stability in government policy led to significant investment in U.S. manufacturing by both U.S. and foreign companies from 2005 to 2008, along with a rapid increase in domestic production." [3] - U.S. ITC
   • "The overall import fraction is found to have declined significantly from more than 80% in 2006 to roughly 40% in 2009." [4] – U.S. DOE
   • U.S. International Trade Commission states: "Overall, imports peaked as a share of the market in 2006 and U.S. production in 2008 and 2009 was significantly higher than in 2005, indicating a growing role for domestic producers. If planned U.S. manufacturing plants come online in the next few years, U.S. production capacity will continue to expand." [5]
   • The United Steelworkers, BlueGreen Alliance and AWEA found that "the wind industry has increased its domestic content since 2005, the first year in which a strong market for turbines existed, to approximately 50 percent in 2009. From 2005 to 2009 annual installations quadrupled, representing even greater growth in domestic manufacturing for wind." [6]

[1] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.txt.pdf

[2] http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-3188e.pdf

[3] http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/working_papers/ID-25.pdf

[4] http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/2009_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf

[5] http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/working_papers/ID-25.pdf

[6] http://assets.usw.org/releases/misc/bga-report-062510.pdf

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Will Clean Energy Manufacturing Create US Jobs?

By Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor   |   November 1, 2010   |   

In this series of articles on the state of clean energy jobs in the U.S., we delve into the clean energy job market outlook for 2011. Here the focus is on manufacturing.

New Hampshire, USA – In the U.S. manufacturing jobs have slipped to level not seen since before 1945 (see chart, below). From 2000 to 2009, manufacturing in the U.S. shed upwards of 7 million jobs. It's no wonder that politicians all over the country are hoping that the promise of the new clean energy economy will result in a restoration of a strong manufacturing base in the U.S.

Of course, it's not that easy. In the solar industry, where the potential for millions manufacturing jobs exist, much of the "heavy lifting" is being done in Asia, according to Robert Lahey, a VP at Ardour Capital.  He said that for many clean energy technologies the US's competitive advantage might be forever lost to China.

"A lot of the companies, especially in solar and wind, have closed the quality gap," he said. 

Lahey pointed out that a number of the large PV manufacturers, even those that have opened U.S. facilities, are still doing the silicon, wafer, ingot and cell manufacturing in China, and it is in those areas that jobs proliferate. In addition, with less red tape and more efficient policies that allow manufacturers to access the capital they need to set up facilities and lower labor costs, China will be a formidable force well into the future, he said.

Other industry experts are not sure why there is so much pressure on the industry to create manufacturing jobs. Carrie Cullen Hitt is Executive Director of The Solar Alliance, an organization that works with companies and legislators to create strong solar policies.

"All this pressure is being put on solar to create manufacturing jobs and it's just misplaced," she said. "Manufacturing is fine, but there are so many other jobs in other aspects of the industry. It's a misperception that you're going to get the most amount of jobs out of encouraging manufacturing," she said. 

Hitt thinks good policy is the key to creating jobs. But she doesn't think it should be all about manufacturing. "There are development jobs, installation, financing, the whole value chain…If you have a good solar policy all those aspects of development will create jobs in a state," she said.

A Failure of U.S. Policy

Schott Solar is one company that has recently opened a manufacturing plant in Albuquerque NM. The plant employs 300 people directly right now and could eventually expand to 1,500 in the future "with the correct policy and support," according to Jim Stein, VP of Government Affairs at the company. 

Stein said the fall of domestic manufacturing is a major area of concern. "The green industry can't just be about services and installations," he said in a presentation on Enabling and Sustaining Green Jobs for the Expanding Solar Market at Solar Power International (SPI) in October.

Stein pointed to 5 key policy elements that he said are missing right now. The first is robust, consistent financing mechanisms for manufacturers. Five years ago, the U.S. supplied 42% of the PV industry, today it is less than 10%. We need to get some of that base back to the U.S. to create jobs, he said. In addition, the industry needs market access, which includes fair trade policies for international trade and grid access for the end-user; a trained workforce the uses certifications and standards to ensure quality installations; strong policy framework that includes an RPS; and active government commitment to the industry. 

Ardour Capital's Lahey thinks policy could be tweaked to spur more job growth in manufacturing.  He points out that the $2.3 billion that was set aside for manufacturing tax credits (MTC) in the ARRA program ended up going to the larger manufacturers that could afford to expand anyway. "It's the kind of program that really should favor the entrepreneurs, the thin-film solar guys in the U.S. looking to build their first commercial facility, 100 MW or something like that," he said, and those types of entrepreneurs typically don't have enough revenue at the start to take advantage of a tax credit. As a result, the MTC didn't spawn the type of manufacturing expansion that it was intended to.

The wind industry, too, has long since touted its economic and manufacturing benefits.  Turbine equipment is cumbersome and heavy, making it difficult and expensive to transport.  As the industry grows, the need for domestic manufacturing grows with it.

According to a report from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), entitled, "Winds of Change, A Manufacturing Blueprint for the Wind Industry," from 2005 to 2009 as annual installations of wind power quadrupled, domestic content in turbines reached 50%.   The reports points out that during the same time period, manufacturing jobs increased from 2500 to 18,500 and there are 14,000 more in the pipeline "but these and further jobs will only come online with policies dedicated to regrowing our manufacturing sector," according to the report.

AWEA believes that only with long-term policy support such as an RPS, strong manufacturers incentives, a price on carbon and an extension of the 1603 cash grant in lieu of tax credit will the wind manufacturing industry continue to add jobs at the rate it has been.

Are Manufacturing Jobs Forever Gone?

If you examine the chart above, it's clear that manufacturing losses have been happening in the U.S. for a long time, much longer than clean energy has even been recognized as an industry that could create jobs.

Andrea Luecke of The Solar Foundation whose organization released The National Solar Jobs Census report in October states that, contrary to what people are hearing, manufacturing in the solar industry is in fact increasing at 36%, making it one of the fastest growing sectors of the solar industry in general.  "Right now manufacturing has about 25,000 solar workers and in the next 12 months with the 36% increase there will be an additional 9000 solar workers in the manufacturing sector," she said.

Further, there are still many places where clean energy manufacturing in the U.S. makes good economic sense.  Ardour Capital's Lahey sees the many burgeoning clean energy industries as excellent sectors in which U.S. manufacturing will grow. "In most cases these are the first commercial facilities on the market," he said.  For 2011, look for opportunities for growth in the manufacture of "smart grid [components], advanced batteries, 2^nd and 3^rd generation biofuels and even fuel cells," he said.

And don't forget about the U.S. as an end-market.  The solar and geothermal markets are expected to show phenomenal growth in installations in 2011, as may offshore wind, biofuels and others.  In industries where there is still a lot of R&D taking place, domestic manufacturing is necessary.  And with wind power, where components are heavy and expensive to ship, it makes sense to manufacture as close to where the product will be installed as possible. 

If the U.S. offshore wind market continues to develop in 2011 as it is predicted to, expect to see more announcements like the one Mass Tank made in October. 

In partnership with the EEW Group of Germany, Mass Tank said that it would establish the first facility in the country for the manufacture of the offshore wind power components. The new line of production for Mass Tank, a longtime manufacturer of steel storage tanks, will result in the creation of more than 100 jobs, and that number could grow to more than 350 jobs, should Massachusetts become a major supplier to offshore wind installations up and down the Atlantic Coast.

Make no mistake, there are great minds focused on how to restore the U.S. manufacturing base in order to put more Americans back to work.  As it also did in the 1980's when manufacturing was also experiencing a low point, MIT recently launched an initiative that will focus on U.S. manufacturing as way of putting America back to work.   According to an article in the Boston Globe,  "in Germany, another high wage nation, manufacturing accounts for nearly one-fifth of economic output, compared with about one-tenth in the United States." 

To hear more from Andrea Luecke of The Solar Foundation about The National Solar Jobs Census report, play the video at: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/will-clean-energy-manufacturing-create-us-jobs?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-November4-2010

In our next installment, we will look at the U.S. as an end-market, where the potential for clean energy job creation is strongest.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Answers to persistent questions about vapor diffusion

Vapor Retarders and Vapor Barriers

Posted on Mar 12 by Martin Holladay, GBA Advisor

Walls with foam sheathing need to dry to the interior. This chart is based on Table 402.5.1 in the 2007 Supplement to the International Energy Conservation Code. The table serves two useful purposes: it helps building officials understand why the interior of a foam-sheathed house needs to be vapor-open; and it provides builders with guidance on the minimum foam thickness required to prevent condensation in wall cavities. (Click on the image to expand it.)

Although building science has evolved rapidly over the last 40 years, one theme has remained constant: builders are still confused about vapor barriers.

Any energy expert who fields questions from builders will tell you that, year after year, the same questions keep coming up: Does this wall need a vapor barrier? Will foam sheathing trap moisture in my wall? How do I convince my local building inspector that my walls don't need interior poly?

To begin a discussion of vapor retarders and vapor barriers, I'll answer just a few of these persistent questions. Since I plan to return to this topic in a future blog, I invite readers to submit further questions.

Q. Why would I want a vapor retarder in my wall or ceiling?

A. Vapor retarders help slow the diffusion of water vapor through a building assembly. During the winter, a vapor retarder on the interior of a wall will slow down the transfer of water vapor from the humid interior of the home into the cool stud bays. During the summer, a vapor retarder on the exterior of a wall will slow down the transfer of water vapor from damp siding towards the cool stud bays.

However, a vapor retarder is a double-edged sword: while under some circumstances it can have the beneficial effect of helping to keep a wall or ceiling dry, under other circumstances it can have the undesirable effect of preventing a damp wall or ceiling from drying out.

Q. How often does water vapor diffusion through walls and ceilings cause problems?

A. Very rarely. In many cases, in fact, an interior vapor retarder does more harm than good. The main mechanisms by which moisture enters a wall are from the exterior (usually due to flashing defects that admit wind-driven rain) and via air leaks that carry "piggy-backing" moisture that condenses in a wall cavity. Vapor diffusion is a relatively insignificant cause of moisture problems in walls. (For more information on why air barriers matter more than vapor retarders, see "Air Barriers vs. Vapor Barriers.")

Q. Under what circumstances can vapor diffusion cause problems?

A. Although vapor diffusion problems are rare, they can occur. Dangers of vapor diffusion problems are higher:

• In very humid rooms (for example, greenhouses or rooms with an indoor pool);
• In homes with humidifiers; and
• In homes located in extremely cold climates.

Even in a home with one of the characteristics listed above, the mechanism for moisture transport into walls and ceilings is much more likely to be air leakage than vapor diffusion.

Q. What's the difference between a vapor barrier and a vapor retarder?

A. A vapor barrier stops more vapor transmission than a vapor retarder. A vapor barrier is usually defined as a layer with a permeance rating of 0.1 perm or less, while a vapor retarder is usually defined as a layer with permeance greater than 0.1 perm but less than or equal to 1 perm.

Q. What does the code say about vapor retarders?

A. Codes vary; older versions of model building codes often included more sweeping requirements for vapor retarders than more recent versions.

The 2006 International Residential Code (IRC) and the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) both define a vapor retarder as a material having a permeance of 1 perm or less. This definition includes such materials as polyethylene sheeting, aluminum foil, kraft paper facing, and vapor-retarding paint.

In section R318.1, the 2006 IRC requires: "In all framed walls, floors, and roof/ceilings comprising elements of the building thermal envelope, a vapor retarder shall be installed on the warm-in-winter side of the insulation." It should be emphasized that this code requirement makes no mention of polyethylene; vapor-retarding paint fulfills this code requirement.

The 2006 IRC includes exceptions to the vapor-retarder requirement. It allows a vapor retarder to be omitted:

• In Climate Zones 1 through 4 (an area including most of the West coast and the South);
• In walls, floors and ceilings made of materials (like concrete) that cannot be damaged by moisture or freezing;
• "Where the framed cavity or space is ventilated to allow moisture to escape" — an apparent (although poorly worded) reference to vented attics and walls with rainscreen siding.

In section 402.5, the 2006 IECC requires: "Above-grade frame walls, floors and ceilings not ventilated to allow moisture to escape shall be provided with an approved vapor retarder. The vapor retarder shall be installed on the warm-in-winter side of the thermal insulation."

In the 2006 IECC, the exceptions to the vapor retarder requirement are very similar to the exceptions listed in the 2006 IRC, except for an additional exception: "Where other approved means to avoid condensation are provided." This last exception gives broad latitude to the building official — and places a heavy burden on any builder intent on convincing a local official that a certain building assembly complies with this exception.

The 2007 Supplement to the IECC and the 2007 Supplement to the International Residential Code (IRC) introduced a new vapor-retarder definition. (Of course, many jurisdictions in the U.S. are still using local codes based on the 2006 — or even earlier versions — of the IRC and IECC.) Vapor retarders are now separated into three classes:

• Class I: Less than or equal to 0.1 perm [e.g., polyethylene];
• Class II: Greater than 0.1 perm but less than or equal to 1.0 perm [e.g., kraft facing];
• Class III: Greater than 1.0 perm but less than or equal to 10 perm [e.g., latex paint].

Since 2007, the IECC has required (in section 402.5) that walls in climate zones 5 (e.g., Nevada, Ohio, Massachusetts), 6 (e.g., Vermont, Montana), 7 (e.g., northern Minnesota), 8 (e.g., northern Alaska), and marine zone 4 (Western Washington and Oregon) have a Class I or Class II vapor retarder — in other words, kraft facing or polyethylene.

The exceptions have also been rewritten. Three of the exceptions are listed in section 402.5 of the IECC, which notes that vapor retarders are not required on a basement wall, on the below-grade portion of any wall, or on a wall constructed of materials that cannot be damaged by moisture or freezing.

Further exceptions are allowed in section 402.5.1, which states that in climate zones where a Class I or Class II vapor retarder would normally be required, a less stringent vapor retarder — a Class III retarder like latex paint — can be used under the conditions listed in Table 402.5.1 (see accompanying figure). Only certain types of wall assemblies are worthy of this exception; they must have either an adequate layer of exterior foam sheathing or "vented cladding."

Q. Clearly, I can get in trouble with my building inspector if I omit a vapor retarder in certain climates. Are there any situations where I could get into trouble for including a vapor retarder?

A. Yes. Although it's perfectly legal to install interior polyethylene or vinyl wallpaper in any climate, these products can lead to moisture and mold problems in most of the U.S. Unless you're building in Canada, Alaska, or somewhere close to the Canadian border, you don't want interior polyethylene or vinyl wallpaper — especially in an air-conditioned house.

Interior polyethylene and vinyl wallpaper prevent a wall from drying to the interior during the summer, when inward solar vapor drive (a phenomenon associated with so-called "reservoir claddings" — for example, brick veneer and stucco — that absorb and hold moisture) can cause condensation on the exterior side of the wallpaper or poly. Unless the moisture introduced into the wall by inward solar vapor drive is able to dry to the interior, wall damage can result.

Q. When it comes to vapor retarders, what do the experts recommend?

A. Here's a sampling of statements by leading building scientists on the subject of vapor retarders:

• Anton TenWolde: "The calculations show that even with very low air pressures across the assembly, and even with a very good air barrier, sufficient moisture can bypass a poly vapor retarder, degrading its performance. In practice it doesn't matter what the permeance of the vapor retarder is, because the air leakage will go around it for moisture transfer. I came to the conclusion that the idea that we need a vapor barrier to keep our walls dry doesn't hold a lot of water, so to speak."
• John Straube: "The whole reason we're talking about vapor barriers is not because vapor diffusion control is so important, but because people believe it is so important. The question comes up, have we seen diffusion-related building failures? And the answer is, very few — maybe in rooms with a swimming pool. Assuming that the vapor came from the inside, you would have to have a very high load before you would see a problem. I think that solar-driven vapor is much more important. The moisture is coming from the other side of the assembly."
• Joseph Lstiburek: "In North Carolina, for whatever reason, they build their walls with fiberglass insulation and with poly on the inside. Depending on the cladding — brick and stucco being the worst — the walls rot like crazy."
• André Desjarlais: "We can't assume that the building envelope is perfect. We have to assume some level of failure: some rain will get into the wall, and there will be imperfections in the air barrier."
• Achilles Karagiozis. "It's all related—the vapor control strategy, airtightness, and whether or not there is a ventilation cavity behind the exterior cladding. If you have a ventilation cavity behind the cladding, it doesn't matter what kind of vapor retarder strategy you use."
• Bill Rose: "In the South, no vapor barrier. In the North, as long as you have insulated sheathing that meets the dew-point test, also no vapor barrier."
• Anton TenWolde: "When you put enough foam sheathing on the wall you get away from the cliff rapidly, and there's no reason to worry about vapor barriers any more."

Last week's blog: "The Energy-Efficiency Pyramid."

Tags: polyethylene, vapor barrier, vapor diffusion, vapor retarder, vinyl wallpaper

---

Image Credits:

1. Martin Holladay / IECC

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

2010 ACEEE Energy Efficiency Scorecard Cites

2010 ACEEE Energy Efficiency Scorecard Cites State Leaders

October 20, 2010

States across the country made strides in energy efficiency, according to the 2010 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard released on October 13 by the nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Among the highlights in the fourth edition of the scorecard are: a near doubling of state energy efficiency budgets from 2007 spending levels from $2.5 billion to $4.3 billion; the adoption or active consideration by more than half the states of energy efficiency resource standards that establish long-term, fixed efficiency savings targets; and a one-year doubling of the number of states that have either adopted or have made significant progress toward the adoption of the latest energy-saving building codes for homes and commercial properties.

California retained its first place ranking for the fourth year in a row, outperforming all other states in its level of investment in energy efficiency across all sectors of its economy. Massachusetts again placed second. The four most-improved states were Utah (up 11 spots from 2009 to number 12), Arizona (up 11 spots to 18), New Mexico (up 8 spots to 22), and Alaska (up 8 spots to 37). California, Massachusetts, and Washington have implemented transportation-specific greenhouse gas reduction targets while several other states have adopted policies to encourage the creation of compact and transit-oriented communities.

The fourth edition of ACEEE's State Energy Efficiency Scorecard examines six energy efficiency policy areas: utility and public benefits programs and policies; transportation policies; building energy codes; combined heat and power; state government initiatives; and appliance efficiency standards. See the ACEEE press release, the complete report online, and the Energy Scorecard Web site.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

First Solar Power Tower on U.S. Public Lands

Interior Department Approves First Solar Power Tower on U.S. Public Lands

October 13, 2010

The Ivanpah solar project will rely on solar power tower technology, which employs a field of flat mirrors to concentrate the sunlight on a receiver, mounted at the top of a central tower . Credit: BrightSource Energy

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) approved on October 7 the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, the first large-scale solar energy project on U.S. public lands to use "power tower" technology. Proposed by BrightSource Energy, the project could produce up to 370 megawatts of clean energy, enough to power 111,000 to 277,500 American homes. Located in San Bernardino County, California, the project is expected to generate approximately 1,100 new jobs. The DOI decision authorizes Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to offer BrightSource a right-of-way grant to use the public lands for 30 years if all rents and other conditions are met. The site is in Southern California's Mojave Desert, near the Nevada border.

The Ivanpah project uses innovative technology that, when completed, will include three solar thermal power plants. The technology employs mirror fields to focus solar energy on power tower receivers near the center of each array. Steam from solar boilers in the towers drive a turbine that generates electricity for the transmission grid. Construction of all three project phases is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2013. To lessen its environmental impact, BLM reduced the size of the project by more than 15%, from 4,073 acres to 3,471 acres; it also reduced the number of heliostats (solar mirrors) from 214,000 to 173,500.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, renewable energy developers whose projects begin construction by the end of 2010 can apply for payments of up to 30 percent of the eligible costs of the project. Also under the Recovery Act, DOE awarded BrightSource $1.37 billion in conditional loan guarantees for this project. See the DOI press release and an fact sheet on Ivanpah.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Snake Oil Awards and Koch Industry

Dear Scotts Contracting,

Thanks for casting your vote for Koch Industries in the 2010 Snake Oil Awards. You've joined thousands of supporters in shining a spotlight on the fossil fuel industry's dirty tricks.

But it isn't enough just to crown a winner -- we need to spread the word about the vile tactics and outright deceptions of big polluters and climate deniers.

You can make that happen. Tell your friends, family and colleagues about the Snake Oil Awards: ask them to vote for Koch Industries before November 5 at midnight.

http://acp.repoweramerica.org/snakeoil-voteKoch

Thanks for standing up to the snake oil salesmen,

Dave Boundy
Campaign Manager
Repower America

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Earth Dance: Eco Friendly Invitation in St Louis

EarthDance:

Come join us at their party Saturday night!

PESTO FESTO!

Pesto Festo is EarthDance's premier fundraising celebration of the year and includes live music, local food, live art, a silent auction,
The EarthDance Mission Awards, and much more.

Located at the historic Savoy in Ferguson, Missouri, on Nov 6th, it is a confluence of community and an opportunity to give thanks for the year's harvest. Much of the food that will be served at Pesto Festo is even grown by EarthDance farm apprentices just 1 mile from the event!

St. Louis Earth Day's Recycling on the Go program is assisting EarthDance in making the event near zero waste. Festo-goers will dance to the tunes of the Maple Jam Band, bid on "live" art created right before their eyes, and meet this year's incredible
EarthDance Mission Award honorees!

For more details, visit www.pestofesto.org

Buy Tickets

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com