Introducing Myself: Why I'm Excited to be Working as One of GEI's New Energy Fellows

By Andrea Lang, Energy Fellow

Now that I've gotten into the swing of things at GEI, I wanted to use this week's blog post to introduce myself: I’m Andrea Lang, and I started as an Energy Fellow with Green Energy Institute in August. Since then, I’ve been working on an important project aimed at assessing Oregon’s current approach to climate policy, and recommending ways it can be improved. Through this project, I have learned that while the state has taken lots of individual and well-meaning actions to address the state’s emissions, it has yet to enact a comprehensive climate policy that ensures state agencies work together collaboratively and sets a legally enforceable emission reduction target. I am enjoying my role in identifying gaps in the existing policies, and helping to suggest what a comprehensive Oregon climate policy might look like.

After obtaining dual undergraduate degrees in Biology and Environmental Science, I applied to law school because of what I saw as a huge disconnect between what scientists say about the natural world and what the law does about it ­­­– for pollution, climate change, land management, conservation, and a multitude of other environmental topics. With this goal in mind, I tried to focus on the intersection between science, law, and policy as I completed my J.D.. In accordance with this objective, I co-authored an article with Professor Michael Blumm (Shared Sovereignty: the Role of Expert Agencies in Environmental Law, to be published by Ecology Law Quarterly in late 2015) about how federal agencies with scientific expertise help inform, and sometimes control, environmental decision making. I also worked with Columbia Riverkeeper in the summer of 2014 to analyze the extent to which science should inform the risks of oil traffic on and along the Columbia River.

Now that I am working as a Green Energy Institute Energy Fellow, I’m excited to help tackle the issue that I see as having the biggest disconnect between science and policy: climate change. I hope that in this capacity, I can continue to use my science background to bridge this gap. There is a lot of research to be done on how energy policies could be implemented at all levels of government to encourage renewable development and mitigate climate change. I look forward to learning more about these policies and advocating for effective solutions with GEI.  

When I’m not working, I can be found mushroom hunting, birdwatching, or beating everybody at nerdy European board games.

An Introduction to Offshore Wind: The Energy That Piqued My Interest

By Joni Sliger, Policy Extern

Credit: Siemens AG and NREL

As a policy extern with GEI, I am very interested in researching Oregon’s policies and possibilities for a renewable energy future. After all, state energy policies are what first piqued my interest in the field of energy law.

While studying Global Environmental Change & Sustainability at Johns Hopkins University, I got involved with a campaign to amend Maryland’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to add offshore wind energy. The campaign brought together labor unions interested in wind turbine manufacturing jobs, public health groups interested in transitioning Maryland (and Baltimore especially) off asthma-inducing fossil fuels, and students and environmentalists like myself interested in ensuring a sustainable energy future without volatile fuel prices and without huge greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the campaign did not succeed before I graduated in 2012. However, the following term, the legislature finally passed a law to amend the RPS.

Most RPSs require utilities to obtain a certain percentage of retail electricity sales from eligible renewable energy sources. Instead of merely adding offshore wind energy to the list of eligible resources, Maryland’s Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 created what is known as a “carve-out.” The carve-out requires that, within the percentage from renewables mandated by the RPS, a certain percentage must come specifically from offshore wind energy, beginning in 2017.

While an RPS provides investors with the certainty that a market exists for renewable energy, an RPS carve-out provides even greater certainty for a particular type of power. That is critically important for an emerging technology like offshore wind. At least, the technology is still emerging in the United States; Europe, in contrast, has already invested in offshore wind energy projects with a combined capacity of 8,000 megawatts, according to 2014 data from the European Wind Energy Association. Meanwhile, the very first offshore wind farm in the U.S.—Block Island Wind Farm in Rhode Island—began construction just this past July. While the U.S. farm is not yet operational, wind enthusiasts like myself can still celebrate the construction as a sign of progress.

Some scientists has referred to offshore wind energy as a “missed opportunity” for the United States. But the opportunity has not passed. Offshore wind is coming. There have been growing pains, but as highlighted by last week’s Summit on Offshore Wind Energy, the White House is looking to streamline the permitting process. In its press release, the White House announced the creation of an Interagency Working Group on Offshore Wind to coordinate the permitting process. The Summit also announced the funding of a multi-state project in the Northeast, the creation of an International Offshore Wind Regulators Forum to learn from experiences abroad, and the recent approval of two more areas for leasing to developers.

The United States might be late to the offshore wind party, but the possibilities are strong. The Department of Energy says the nation could obtain 86,000 MW from offshore wind by 2050.  Last week, the American Wind Energy Association hosted a conference on Offshore Wind in Baltimore, Maryland. The event brought together industry leaders that are optimistic about offshore development. After all, plans are underway to build a 500 MW farm off the coast of Ocean City, Maryland. Maryland’s amended RPS was a major incentive for this project; the developers will be applying for the offshore energy credits this month.

I am thrilled to see offshore wind energy finally taking off in the U.S. Obtaining permits and financing may have slowed the industry’s development, but those obstacles have not stopped it. We need this renewable energy, and we are on our way to getting it. “Wind is here,” noted one commentator, “and [so is] the ripple effect.”

Community Solar in Portland: Options and Barriers

By Andrea Lang, Energy Fellow

 

 

Credit: NREL

In my last blog post, I wrote about the difficulty of securing long-term access to solar energy as a barrier to residential rooftop solar development in Portland. However, many people, particularly in Portland, rent houses or apartments and thus aren’t in a position to install solar PV on their rental units or buildings. Even for those that do own their property, a 2008 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that only 22–27% of the country’s total residential rooftop area is suitable for solar PV installation. 

So what do you do if you want to install solar panels but don’t own a suitable roof? In some parts of the country, community solar presents an attractive alternative to individual solar ownership. Community solar refers to a system in which multiple people can invest in a solar project and receive power and/or financial benefits in proportion to their investment in the project. There are a number of models for community solar projects ranging from small-scale solar gardens and co-ops to large utility-sponsored projects. These options were explained in greater detail in a 2014  blog post by GEI Fellow Kyra Hill. More information on community solar in general is also available in the U.S. Department of Energy’s “Guide to Community Solar.” 

In Portland, however, community solar options are limited. In 2012, the City of Portland attempted a community solar pilot project, but ultimately concluded that the state’s net metering law presented a significant barrier to development of small scale, non-utility community solar projects. Oregon’s net-metering law allows solar owners to obtain credit from their utility for the amount of power they transmit onto the grid. Unfortunately, Oregon’s net-metering law provides no way for offsite solar generation to provide credit to solar owners, or for multiple solar owners to share credit for the generation from a jointly-owned system. Some other states allow what is called “virtual” net metering, which increases the viability of community solar by allowing multiple solar owners to share the benefits of net-metering from an offsite project in proportion to their ownership. Unless Oregon amends its net-metering policy to allow for virtual net-metering, it will be difficult to get community solar projects off the ground in Portland, because community solar owners cannot derive much financial benefit from such projects.

In the meantime, prospective Portland solar owners who do not own solar-suitable properties may turn to utility-sponsored “community” solar, as Energy Fellow Brandon Kline blogged about earlier this week. Under a program like PGE’s “Green Future,” the utility can invest in solar projects, while passing the cost onto those customers that choose to support the investment by joining the program. Thus, although these types of programs encourage utilities to invest in solar projects they might not otherwise pursue, they also require customer participants to pay an additional premium on their electricity bills. In short, they amount to “feel-good” programs where customers can pay more to know that some of their electricity is coming from solar, but do not otherwise provide  financial or energy benefits to the customers. In order to help community solar projects get off the ground in Portland, the state should adopt virtual net metering legislation that truly incentivizes development of jointly-owned, offsite solar projects.

Green Defaults Help Consumers Choose Renewable Future

By Brandon Kline, Energy Fellow

“The future ain’t what it used to be,” the great Yogi Berra once said. In the world of energy policy, the existing path for getting to the future has usually come down to engineering a trade-off between the costs and benefits for the current generation and those of future generations. Rather than an “either-or” approach, what we need, of course, is a framework that provides a balance that is good for both.

The early development of renewable energy sources means decreased dependence on imported fossil fuels.Since the late 1990s, economists have cited this trade-off in calling for restructuring electricity markets to promote newer, clean, renewable energy resources (i.e., Renewable Portfolio Standards for wind, solar, biomass and geothermal). States have a variety of approaches to Renewable Portfolio Standards.

Since 2007, Oregon’s largest utilities have been obligated to source 25% of their electricity from renewable energy by 2025.

Earlier this year, Hawai’i became the first state in the nation to require its utilities to generate 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045. Meanwhile, Ohio legislators are calling for an open-ended freeze to that state’s policy requiring utilities to meet annual increases in clean-energy production.

What’s in a Renewable Portfolio Standard?

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a Renewable Portfolio Standard refers to a state-level requirement, typically established through legislation, to provide a minimum amount of energy from renewable resources. These requirements are often defined as a percentage of renewable-energy use by a given date – for example, 20% by 2020. States define what technologies are eligible for RPS requirements and which utilities are subject to them.

But not every state has adopted a Renewable Portfolio Standard. As of the end of 2013, 29 states and the District of Columbia had an RPS in place, while eight states had voluntary renewable-energy goals.

With that backdrop, last week Portland General Electric announced a new limited program enabling customers to obtain their electricity from a solar energy project in Willamina that generates enough power to produce 2,935 “blocks” of solar energy.  This community solar program has the virtue of meeting PGE’s RPS requirement while allowing PGE customers to make a choice that reduces their carbon footprint.

Such community solar programs have gained popularity as utilities and developers have started to see a serviceable market for households that want to plug into renewable energy sources, but are precluded by their circumstances (e.g., renters, apartment dwellers, and others).

Why not implement an automatic green default? That way, utilities would have to automatically enroll customers in renewable-energy alternatives. By reversing the dynamic, consumers would have to opt-out to use fossil-fueled power, instead of having to opt-in to get clean electricity. Green defaults make it the norm to go clean rather than putting up a roadblock at the point of consumer decision-making.

In a thoughtful piece published in the Harvard Environmental Law Review, Harvard Law School professor Cass R. Sunstein and Copenhagen Business School Lucia A. Reisch make a strong case for the role of default rules in their article, “Automatically Green.” Their research suggests that public and private institutions can make great progress on environmental problems by becoming far more attentive to selecting appropriate defaults.

“If the goal is to protect the environment, and to save money in the process, default rules are an important tool in the regulatory repertoire, and they may well be able to achieve a great deal more than other tools, including those that would cost taxpayers or the private sector a great deal of money.”

Beyond energy policy, defaults play a pervasive role almost all of the choices we make in our daily lives – from fuel and emissions standards in new cars to paper receipts and plastic bags at the grocery store. In the face of weak preferences, we are often engineered to mindlessly consume as a matter of course.

Indeed, Sunstein and Reisch illustrate how this can be reversed in a range of domains.

At Rutgers University, for instance, a policy changing the computer lab’s default setting from “single-sided” to “print on front and back” reduced paper consumption by 44% – the equivalent of 4,650 trees.

Another example stands out in light of PGE’s new program. In Germany, utilities have achieved clean-energy usage rates well above 90% through green defaults. In the Black Forest community of Sch¨onau, local residents passed a referendum to establish an eco-friendly utility cooperative in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster. That company now promotes solar energy and places a great deal of reliance on renewables.

In contrast to Oregon’s PGE, Sch¨onau customers are allowed to opt out and to use other energy sources, but they have to find relevant information to identify alternatives. Almost no one opts out. Over the course of a number of years, the opt-out rate was less than 1%.

Sunstein and Reisch are certainly onto something. Clearly, green defaults are in the future.

For now, no state has gone as far as adopting a Renewable Portfolio Standard with a green default rule…although Hawai’i, with its 100% renewable RPS, comes pretty close. Or as Yogi would advise, “When you get to a fork in the road, take it.”

“Energy for All”: UN Includes Access to Energy in New Sustainable Development Goals

Credit: United Nations Sustainable Development Summit.
For more information, visit http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/.

On Friday, the UN adopted an ambitious set of Sustainable Development Goals. These goals replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in outlining a 15-year game plan for combating poverty worldwide. Unlike the MDGs, the new goals recognize a critical component to fighting poverty: access to energy.
                                                            
The U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goal 7 aims to “[e]nsure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.” To achieve this goal, the U.N. has proposed five targets to pursue. First is “ensur[ing] universal access” to energy, even if the energy is not sustainable. Others include globally increasing the proportion of renewable energy generated and increasing the rate of gains in energy efficiency. Finally, the targets encourage international cooperation in sharing and developing technology and in investing and upgrading infrastructure in developing countries.

Like all the new goals, Goal 7 is remarkably ambitious, some say possibly too much so. Unfortunately, it is unclear how the U.N. intends to implement and achieve this goal. The four key characteristics for energy (affordability, reliability, sustainability, and modernity) are not clearly defined. For example, a “modern” energy source should not include nuclear energy, according to the German Development Institute. However, according to The U.N. Chronicle, coal could be considered “modern” but not “sustainable.” The Chronicle reports that “modern” would not include traditional fuels such as wood or animal dung. It notes that about 40% of the world’s population (about 2.7 billion people) use these traditional fuels, which contribute to indoor air pollution.

If one follows the Chronicle’s understanding, ensuring access to coal could support progress towards the first target but not towards the ultimate goal. Thus, the first priority is to increase access to energy and second to ensure that energy is sustainable.

But that separation of priorities may very well be unnecessary. The best long-term investments for alleviating poverty around the world will be providing access to energy that does not have volatile fuel costs or high emissions. Ideally, areas lacking access to energy can “leapfrog” over unsustainable energy sources to renewable ones.

It remains to be seen how the world will respond to the UN’s new call to action. Here in the Pacific Northwest, at least, we already know there is a lot to do to move beyond our controversial dirty energy exports to exporting clean energy, technology, and other assistance like the UN is calling for.

Drought Dries Up California’s Hydropower but Not its Vision for a Renewable Energy Future



Credit: NREL and MWH Global

California legislators recently passed a bill to increase the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require 50% renewables by 2030. That is, by the year 2030, at least half of all electricity consumed in the state must come from qualified sources like geothermal, solar, wind, and small hydroelectric. Raising an RPS can be a great way to encourage investment in renewable energy, and pursuing additional low-emissions sources may be particularly critical today as California suffers production losses from its hydroelectric facilities.

In 2014, California generated approximately 47% less conventional hydropower than its ten-year average, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. While hydropower is often recognized as a low-emissions resource, most states limit the extent to which it qualifies under an RPS. This makes sense for encouraging investments in new technology, since many hydroelectric facilities were already online and operational before RPSs were adopted. (It also makes sense given hydropower’s significant environmental shortcomings.)

Unfortunately, excluding hydropower from an RPS can also mean that when hydropower generation decreases, producers have little incentive to generate the replacement power from a renewable energy source. Indeed, California lost hydropower and primarily saw a corresponding rise in natural gas production, according to a report from the Pacific Institute. The report estimates that from 2012 to 2014 alone, the switch cost ratepayers $1.4 billion and raised California’s carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions by 8%. Those emissions included almost 14 million tons of carbon dioxide, plus other pollutants like nitrous oxides, volatile organic chemicals, and particulate matter. To be fair, California also saw more renewable facilities come online, but some say the new facilities were simply already in the pipeline.

Hopefully California’s new RPS will bring more renewable energy facilities online and help reduce the risks of an increasingly uncertain energy future. Droughts might reduce hydroelectric power (of late, something not unique to California), but that does not have to mean increased greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps more Western states should consider following Hawaii’s and California’s leads in raising their RPS goals before they, too, face declining hydropower.

Securing Solar Access in Portland: Voluntary Solar Easements Are Not Enough

By Andrea Lang, Energy Fellow

Last week, I attended Solar Now! University, a conference put on by Solar Oregon with lots of great local presenters on topics related to solar technology and policy. While I could write many pages (and I likely will, in future) on all the interesting solar technologies being developed, the panel that got me thinking the most was on the issue of planning and zoning for solar.

One risk of developing solar energy on your home or business is that future development could block your panels’ access to the sunlight. Currently, the only protection for solar access in Portland is through voluntary easements: Oregon law allows solar owners to enter into contracts with neighbors to secure a solar easement so that panels won’t be shaded. The problem with this kind of easement is that parties to these agreements do not have equal bargaining power. Solar owners need to ensure that the easement will run with the land, so that the solar access lasts into the future. Neighbors, on the other hand, do not want to restrict future development on their properties, and agreeing to an easement that runs with the land has the potential to affect property value. As a result, neighbors will often refuse to enter into a solar easement, or will demand exorbitant amounts of money in exchange.

There are a number of other policy options the City of Portland could consider besides solar easements. Ashland’s municipal code, for example, protects solar access from shading by buildings through required setbacks establishing a minimum distance between a proposed structure and a solar owner’s property boundary. To protect from shading by vegetation, Ashland allows solar owners to apply for a Solar Access Permit, which imposes duties on neighbors to trim vegetation to preserve solar access. In another example, the City of Boulder uses its zoning code to protect solar access. Boulder’s zoning code creates an invisible “solar fence” around properties, which protects properties from shading by adjacent properties. Like Ashland, Boulder also has a permit system in place to provide further protection beyond the “solar fence.” 

I realize that enacting laws restricting construction and tree growth is a tough proposition in a city like Portland that favors building up instead of out, and that prides itself on being literally green. Yet, earlier this summer, the City of Portland adopted an ambitious climate action plan which lays out strategies to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 and acknowledges the importance of solar development to cutting emissions. However, if Portland really wants to encourage solar development, it should consider adopting new policies that would reduce the risks associated with solar investments by making sure that solar access is secured for those who choose to invest in it. Given the expense of obtaining a solar easement, or the risk of proceeding without one, a voluntary easement system is simply not enough.