Friday, December 31, 2010

Alternative Energy World Applauds Tax Breaks


From: AJC

Earlier this month, as Congress argued over tax cuts, Georgia’s energy industry quietly kept its fingers crossed.

Energy-related tax benefits were also in the tax deal that Congress eventually approved, said Stephen Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

“They got slipped into the grand tax deal,” he said. “Right below the surface were 10 or 15 really good tax programs for energy.”

The list included extended tax credits for buyers of energy efficient homes, and the revival of a Bush-era tax credit for makers of bio-fuel, which had expired at the end of last year.

More traditional energy players also got breaks. The tax deal extended tax credits for coal-to-liquid facilities and for corn ethanol.

The most surprising renewable energy measure was the extension of a temporary economic stimulus program that had replaced renewable energy tax credits with cash. The industry had been so sure that program was going to expire as planned that companies were scrambling to get projects started before New Year's Day.

The cash program was intended to fill a financing hole left by the recession. Historically, renewable energy companies had been able to leverage their federal tax credits to get financing by hooking up with highly profitable companies that have big tax liabilities.

“They would go into partnerships with companies like Goldman Sachs and trade off the tax benefit,” Smith said.

Then the recession hit.

“Everybody got hammered,” Smith said. “A lot of companies no longer had tax liabilities they needed to offset.”

The 2009 stimulus package addressed that by allowing renewable energy companies to get cash instead of the tax credits they couldn't trade anymore. The benefit was simplicity. The alternative energy companies no longer had to seek out investment bank partners.

Grant money helped them attract private investment, said Lee Peterson, a manager with the Reznick Group accounting firm, who works with renewable energy firms.

"It affects investors' ability to get comfortable with the investment," Peterson said.

Like most in the industry, Peterson expected the program to revert to a tax-credit system in 2011, now that profits and the need to offset tax liabilities have returned to big banks.

“It was a stimulus program,” he said. “Theoretically, it had no further reason to exist, not that the wind and solar folks see it that way.”

Double Electric Hike Takes Effect New Year's Day

From: AJC

Two simultaneous increases in the cost of electricity from Georgia Power take effect on New Year's Day.

A rate increase approved by utility regulators Dec. 21 and a nuclear fee mandated by the state Legislature in 2009 both hit bills for the first time in January.

The combined impact will push up the typical residential power bill -- defined as 1,000 kilowatt hours of power usage -- by nearly $14.50 per month or almost $175 a year.

The rate increase allows Georgia Power to recoup its investments in infrastructure, including transmission expansions and government-mandated environmental controls, and to earn a return on those investments of 11.15 percent.

The nuclear fee begins collecting the costs of two new reactors at Georgia Power's Vogtle nuclear plant. The company expects to bring the new reactors on line in 2016 and 2017.

State lawmakers mandated the fee in 2009 after a vigorous lobbying campaign by Georgia Power. Consumer groups opposed the fee.

The utility says the early collection will allow it to shave hundreds of millions of dollars from the cost of financing the $14 billion project.

The state's municipal power companies and most of its electric membership cooperatives are sharing in the Vogtle costs, although most are not charging customers yet.

Georgia Power customers will see further increases in 2012 and 2013 under a compromise deal approved two weeks ago by the state Public Service Commission.

The further increases will add about $4 more to the typical residential monthly bill.

By 2013, that typical bill will be $216 more per year than it is today.


Seriously, nuclear power plants? ...Come on, Georgia.

2010 Deadliest Year In Coal Industry Since 1992

From: AJC

The US coal industry had its deadliest year in nearly two decades in 2010, with much of the death toll stemming from a single explosion. According to federal Mine Safety and Health Administration records, 48 miners were killed while working in the nation's 1,500 mines this past year. That's the highest since 55 miners died in 1992. And it was much higher than the 18 killed in 2009, the industry's lowest tally since 1900. Most of the 2010 deaths occurred in West Virginia, where 29 perished in an April 5 explosion at Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine.

In 2011, lets make a pledge to decrease our reliance on coal and focus instead on a safer, cleaner source of energy.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

2011 Energy Star Tax Credit For Metal Roofing Decreased To $500




From: EnergySavvy

As of Dec. 17, 2010 the federal energy efficiency tax credit has been extended through 2011, but the federal government has significantly changed the credit limits and eligibility requirements.

The credit will be reduced from 30 percent to 10 percent of the energy efficiency improvement costs, and the maximum tax credit will drop from $1,500 to $500. Additionally, the $500 cap will apply to anyone who received the credit from Jan. 1, 2005 to present, which means, if you claimed $500 or more of the credit at any point since Jan. 1, 2005, you won't be eligible for the 2011 extension.

If you haven't yet received the credit or haven't fully completely used the $500 available, certain energy efficiency upgrades such as ENERGY STAR appliances, HVAC systems and more will be eligible for the credit. The credit, which you'll be able to claim on your 2011 federal tax returns, will be equal to 10 percent of the cost of installation up to $500.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Retired Florida Couple Fuels Their Home On Solar Energy


Source: Tampa Bay Online

Walking into the Million's pleasant Sebring home all decorated for Christmas, you would never know that it's almost entirely powered by the sun.

Jerry Million, 87, and his wife Elli, 83, showed off their most recent electric bill: $13.

"Just a little bit of a change," joked Jerry, who admitted a typical bill in the past ranged from $150-$200 a month.

The Millions have two hot water heating panels and 22 photovoltaic solar panels on the backside of their roof with plans to install 12 more. It's hard to get a look at them without climbing up on the roof or backing far enough away from the house to see the sloping shingles with discreet, black rectangles attached.

How do solar panels work?

The water heating panels are designed to do just that - heat water for the home. They do not produce electricity. The Millions installed their two hot water panels 15 years ago. "They won the contest 15 years ago for being the most efficient," said Jerry. "I paid an outrageous price for them - $650," he said, keeping the jokes going. "It was such a good deal, I think. They pay for themselves every three years."

The Millions were very impressed with the results from the hot water panels, saying that they never ran out of hot water once and that the temperature of the water was "boiling hot."

Jerry decided he wanted to go ahead and start installing photovoltaic panels, which are able to convert the sun's rays into electricity that can be used to power the rest of the home. They had 22 panels installed in June 2009 by a local company known as One Solar.

Photovoltaic solar panels make use of clean, renewable energy from the sun and are connected into the home's electricity meter. When the panels make electricity, it causes the meter to run backwards and when the household uses electricity, the meter runs forward. At the end of the month, the electric company (in the Million's case Progress Energy) sends them a bill for the difference. If the home produces more energy than the household uses, the electric company actually purchases that electricity from the homeowner.

The Millions haven't made any money off their panels yet, but they are expecting to once they get the next 12 panels installed. "General Electric is coming out with new panels with a substantial operating efficiency. Much better than what we have now," said Jerry, excited to take advantage of the newest technology.

He figures that if he can get a $13 electric bill with 22 older model panels, the 12 new upgraded panels should make a big difference. "Right now we've got a big irrigation system because of the two vineyards on the property," he added, speaking of his 1.5 acres of muscadine grape vines. "You can't even tell that we're using big electrical pumps."

Thinking ahead

But is the new installation isn't really about making money from the electric company. Jerry and Elli have their eyes on the future. "My thinking was, quite honestly, we're getting to run out of oil and it won't be too many years and then what the heck is mankind going to do?" said Jerry.

A big Warren Buffett fan and stock trader himself, Jerry quoted the legendary investor. "Warren Buffett said one thing: in 20 years the cars coming off the line will be predominantly electric." Jerry plans to buy an electric car and fuel it from his roof.

Which car is he planning to buy? "He's studying that," said Elli.

"I probably at this particular moment, and excuse me for saying it, but the Chinese are out in front," Jerry admitted. "The Chinese are going to have one according to Buffett that goes 250 miles with no recharge. That gets me over to the V.A. hospital in Bay Pines and gets me back."

How much did it cost?

The hot water panels cost the Millions $650 fifteen years ago, but the photovoltaics were another story. They had to come up with $37,000 for installation of the 22 panels up front, but have since received a federal rebate for $11,000. The state of Florida owes them another $20,000 rebate, which the Millions have yet to see. If the state comes through, that would put the Millions' total cost of ownership at $6,000, which means the panels would pay for themselves in two and a half to three years.

The Millions are not pleased about the delay in the rebate payment, but Jerry feels worse for those who had to borrow money in order to go solar. "A lot of people took out a loan with the bank. They haven't gotten their money yet, but they've gotten (to pay) interest on it!"

Retired and relaxing

A retired photographer with the Aviation Section of the U.S. Signal Corps, the direct ancestor of the U.S. Air Force which was in place from 1914 to 1918, Jerry pursued a career in photography and journalism for most of his life. The Miami native met his wife Elli at age 78 through an online computer dating ad.

"He's the luckiest man in the world!" Elli chimed in.

Elli is currently the second vice president of the Highlands County Democratic Women's Club and has a background in politics and government. In fact, she was responsible for pioneering volunteerism in the Dade County school system back when volunteers were not allowed in public schools. Her program, which was originally started to help migrant children who were falling through the cracks, was later picked up by the Dade County School Board.

"I'm in the first history book of 'Women Who Make a Difference' in Dade County," Elli admitted.

For now, the couple enjoys making wine and using the electricity that they generate without so much as lifting a finger.

"It makes sense. If that sun is up there and I can go ahead and operate this whole property, everything about it, with the energy that falls on those panels, why not take full advantage of it?" said Jerry.

He predicted that the rest of the world will eventually catch up to them, especially here in Florida where there is plenty of sun 360 days of the year to run a home with rooftop panels.

"We've got so much solar," admitted Elli. "Why not use it?"

Monday, December 27, 2010

PV Market to See Big Growth In 2011

From: PV Magazine

Flying in the face of the financial crisis, mounting overcapacity, intensifying competition and feed-in tariff (FIT) reductions, PV has displayed extraordinary resilience, with 2010 witnessing impressive growth in terms of new installations. Having bettered the 24 percent increase in global PV demand seen in 2009, the market is predicted to grow by between 80 and 90 percent this year. Bank Sarasin calculates worldwide capacities will reach in excess of 13 gigawatts (GWs) by the end of December. Maintaining pole position, Germany was once again the clear leader, with EuPD stating that 7.2 GWs of capacity has been installed there to date. The rest of the world, thus far, makes up 6.2 GWs. Italy, the Czech Republic, Japan, the U.S and France were named as the main drivers. “Growth was tremendous, despite all the FIT cuts,” Sarasin’s Senior Sustainability Analyst, Matthias Fawer told pv magazine. “It’s amazing how elastic and flexible the industry can react to these cuts and how the prices could adapt to the situation.”

Both IMS Research and Sarasin confirmed that 2011 will get off to a weak start, however, due to further FIT cuts. Impacting most significantly will be the expected 13 percent degression in Germany, which is likely to come into effect on January 1; other markets like the Czech Republic will also play a role. Consequently, both price and margin pressures for suppliers and buyers will intensify, and it is forecast that overall worldwide growth will reach just ten percent next year. As Fawer explains, “Our estimate is that we will see slow growth in the first quarter, in a way that buyers and sellers will have to find and arrange new prices. Then it’s really an open question as to whether module producers are still able and willing to adapt to the new situation of the FITs – we believe it will be hard for them. They had really seen some margin squeeze in 2010 and there will be growing pressure on all the other players, the so-called balance of systems (BOS), such as inverters, cables and mounting systems.” He says that if the 13 percent cut were introduced in Germany, system prices would need to come down by circa ten to fifteen percent.

Does he see movement from the BOS industries to reduce prices? “Not really,” he states. “There is not that much pressure from overcapacities and module producers like to say ‘We’re not taking the burden’, but on the other hand what speaks against them is the growing overcapacity in module production and the fact that some big Chinese producers might just say ‘Ok, I don’t want to have a big inventory of modules, so I’d rather give them for a low price’ – that’s the struggle for the module producers.”

Steep drop off

Ash Sharma, Research Director at IMS believes the industry may well see rapid price reductions, similar to the start of 2009. For example, he says modules could hit around 1.55 U.S. dollars (USD), which would represent “quite a steep drop off”, while inverter prices could decline by up to 15 percent.

Speaking on behalf of EuPD at this year’s 11th Forum Solarpraxis in Berlin, company CEO Markus Hoehner said that if internal rates of return (IRRs) are to be kept stable, module prices would have to be reduced by between 13 and 19 percent next year, depending on the reduction of BOS costs. For German module brands, for example, this would imply installer purchase prices of between 1.47 and 1.57 euros per watt peak (2010: 1.80 €/Wp), while Chinese Tier 1 brands would be purchased at between 1.35 and 1.44 euros per watt-peak (2010: 1.66 €/Wp). Hoehner explained that if prices don’t decrease then IRRs will be very unattractive. “A stable system price would drive down IRRs significantly across all segments. For a five kilowatt-peak roof system, the current IRR of 6.75 percent would drop to 4.64 percent in 2011, and as low as 1.44 percent in 2012. At this point, investing in a PV system would become unprofitable and the market would collapse.”

He added that a system price reduction of 15 percent would lead to higher IRRs in 2011 (7.12 percent), as the price decrease would exceed the actual FIT degression. In comparison, a drop in system prices of ten percent year on year would lead to IRRs of 6.22 percent in 2011 and 4.28 percent in 2012. “The consequences would mean stable demand in 2011, but in 2012, IRRs would be too low for investors, but enough for ‘regular’ residential customers.”

Germany still on top?

With the changes that have taken place over the last year, which markets are expected to lead in terms of installed capacity? “A lot depends on what happens in Germany – whether that remains attractive,” Sharma tells pv magazine. He says there are two scenarios for Germany in 2011: firstly, the country could completely slow down, and install between five and six GWs – something Günther Cramer, President of the German Solar Industry Association, said would be positive during his presentation at the Forum Solarpraxis; or secondly, “if a cap starts to be seriously discussed by the government (…) it could have another explosive year.” Hoehner, for instance, believes it could reach as high as 9.8 GWs.

And, as he further pointed out, in order to compensate for the potential downsizing of the German market, and to ensure a stable global market volume in 2012, other markets would need to grow at rates of 100 percent or more, between now and then. This could prove challenging however, when such limiting factors as market caps (e.g. Spain, and Austria), bureaucratic factors and de facto caps (e.g. Italy and France), and strict local content requirements (e.g. Japan and Canada), have thus far “hindered stronger growth”.

Emerging markets

According to Fawer, eight new markets will emerge in 2011, which will make up at least 500 megawatts (MWs) a year in installations: Italy, France, Spain, the U.S., Canada, China, India and Japan. Sharma expanded by saying the industry will start to diversify, with lots of the smaller markets becoming more important. For example, he believes the UK, while it is “no Germany”, will install around 300 MWs next year, thus helping to turn it into a “sizeable and stable” market. Thailand, which is due to connect its 44 MW PV ground-mounted system to the grid late next year, and Israel, which has recently renewed its small-scale FIT, are also expected to do well next year.

In terms of country attractiveness – defined as financial attractiveness, market maturity, growth potential and effective administration processes – Sarasin’s latest research report, ‘Solar industry – Entering new dimensions’, says that Italy, Germany and Japan will be the most attractive markets next year for small-scale rooftop PV systems up to three kilowatts in size. Canada, France and Spain follow in third, fourth and fifth place respectively. “Although Germany and Japan no longer have the high rates of return, their high level of market maturity and ambitious political targets account for their high rankings,” states the report. Large-scale PV systems, on the other hand, are most attractive in Italy, Germany and South Africa, with Belgium, Greece and Canada following just behind.

What about Eastern Europe? If the news reports are anything to go by, there are many which see this region as having a big growth potential. “There’s lots of movement going on in places like Bulgaria and Romania, but its not that safe,” says Fawer. “There are talks about feed-in tariffs, also in Turkey, but it’s not set yet. Bulgaria, for instance, has a FIT, but it’s readjusted every year and you don’t know what’s going on. You have the additional risk of the exchange rate,” he added. Table one shows the projected 2011 installation figures.

Production capacities

In terms of production capacities, Bank Sarasin states they have been rising steadily over the past few years. Consequently, it estimates that annual polysilicon production for both the solar and semiconductor industry will reach 180,000 tons in 2011, from the 145,000 tons seen in 2010, with the bulk coming from new Chinese market entrants, such as GCL Poly, and established manufacturers, such as Hemlock, MEMC, Mitsubishi Materials, REC and Wacker Chemie.
In comparison, crystalline silicon wafer production capacity is projected to increase to 38 GWs in 2011, from an expected 23 GWs in 2010. Due to strong expansion rates in wafer production capacity, Sarasin says it anticipates wafer prices to drop by around 20 percent in both 2011 and 2012, to reach USD 0.8 and USD 0.65 per watt respectively.

PV cells, on the other hand, saw strong growth in 2010, with global production reaching 12.3 GWs peak; a 52 percent increase on the previous year. China, Malaysia and Taiwan were said to have enjoyed the biggest year-on-year growth, with their combined global market share having reached 66 percent. While Japan accounted for half of the world’s solar cell production five years ago, its market share has shrunk to just 12.5 percent. Germany, however, increased production by 22 percent. The Philippines, South Korea and India were all cited as up-and-coming cell production countries. In 2011, global production is projected to reach over 20 GWs.

Cost trap

As mentioned, price pressure for modules is expected to rise significantly in the first quarter of next year. “The shift in production quotas among regions,” says Sarasin’s report, “reflects the cost trap that companies currently face. Established European producers suffered heavy losses in 2009 and could not keep pace with the aggressive pricing policy and cost structure of Chinese manufacturers.” As a result, it believes non-silicon based costs are becoming increasingly important. It explained, “In the case of polysilicon, procurement prices are now more or less the same for both European and Chinese cell and module producers. When it comes to non-silicon-based costs, however, the top company in China can produce a module at a cost of USD 0.90 per watt, compared with around USD 1.50 per watt for European companies. This difference is split into 0.35 USD/watt material and energy-related costs, and 0.25 USD/watt labor costs.”

However, the report questions whether these Chinese advantages are permanent in nature, because the currently seen subsidies may not be in place indefinitely and labor costs are coming under increasing pressure. As Sarasin says, and Suntech confirms, despite the belief that human labor is cheap in China, the situation is changing and it is getting “tough” to find staff. “Many companies like ourselves couldn’t get enough labor here,” stated Shi Zhengrong, Suntech’s Founder and CEO.

Another factor is the exchange rate. Bank Sarasin points out the weakness of the euro currently puts European production locations in a more favorable position than China. As a result, Fawer tells pv magazine most of the big module manufactures will start to set up production bases in locations other than China. “It makes more and more sense to be close to your customers,” he says. “When we look at the really big players – and I guess this will be a kind of consolidation phase in the next coming two years – size matters in terms of mass production, so we believe they [the big manufacturers] are going to install production bases in at least two to three markets, i.e. Asia, Europe and the U.S.”

This view is backed up by several major companies, including: Sharp, who’s philosophy, “local production for local consumption”, believes localized production bases allows it to avoid exchange rate disadvantages, and enjoy reduced transport routes and costs; SolarWorld, which has production sites in the U.S. and Korea; REC, which has just opened up an integrated manufacturing facility in Singapore; and Suntech, which in October established its first U.S. module manufacturing facility in Arizona.

IMS Research however, currently feels there is a continued shift towards Asia. Sharma says, “There are certain parts of the supply chain which will be located near the manufacturer, but in terms of modules it’s still going to be much cheaper to manufacture in Asia and have a global logistics network. So we see production going more and more towards Asia. China will be the main hub, although there is manufacturing in other regions.”

Who’s leading the module pack?

There has been a plethora of announcements throughout 2010 pertaining to capacity ramp ups, company mergers and takeovers, and increased investment. So who is going to be leading the module manufacturer pack, and are there any newcomers on the scene? According to Fawer, Yingli, Suntech and Trina Solar will continue to dominate, followed by First Solar. SunPower, although not in the same league, and REC, which has “really ramped up” this year will also be important players, while SolarWorld will continue to do well as a fully integrated manufacturer. Sharma additionally believes companies with large pipelines will be particularly well placed. “If you look at most of the major module suppliers, they’ve all ramped production this year or are planning to do so next year, so I think those large suppliers are likely to capture a greater share of the market at the expense of some of the smaller tier two, tier three suppliers,” he explains. Looking at the capacity expansion announcements this year, companies like Solarfun, ReneSola, LDK, JA Solar and China Sunergy will also be major players to watch out for.

More significantly though, it seems as if thin film cell and module manufacturers are set to make quite an impact on the market in 2011. Bank Sarasin reports that thin film PV (TFPV) technologies, as a proportion of total solar cell output, rose by five percentage points in 2009 to 18 percent, or 2,300 MWs. In 2010, it expects production volume to reach around 3,400 MWs, while the latest estimates for 2011 stand at an impressive 5,325 MWs. “Last year,” says Fawer, “we were rather pessimistic and took our figures down in terms of how thin films will gain market share, and we were proved right with the pull out of Applied Materials, and with Oerlikon Solar having problems. Nevertheless, we are more optimistic now for a few companies, especially for First Solar, which is really at the top for module producers overall.”

However, he states that new companies like Sharp, which works on amorphous silicon technology, will really ramp up, as will companies like Japan-based Kaneka and Chinese company Trony Solar. “There are a few that really seem to make the move now from pilot production to commercial production lines and it seems like they get the finance right.” And, despite worries that cadmium telluride would be banned under the European restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) directive, companies like First Solar can now breathe easier, after the decision was made in November not to prohibit its usage.

In order for thin film to compete successfully though, Bank Sarasin identifies five factors, which must be present: (i) a low cost structure; (ii) low investment costs; (iii) low BOS costs; (iv) a low technology risk; and (v) new application areas.

Growing diversity

Asked to sum up his impressions of what next year will bring, Fawer tells pv magazine, “the positive thing about the coming year is really the growing diversity in terms of countries that see a huge installation of PV systems.” However, he warns that the industry must not to be too dependent on individual changes in feed-in tariffs in single countries, in order to promote more stable growth. As always though, in such a constantly evolving industry, it is often the case of watching and waiting to see what the coming year will bring. While the analysts can predict many factors, there is always something just lurking out of sight, ready to fundamentally change the industry’s direction or add some fire to the mix. Just look at Spain in 2008; just look at the Czech Republic now.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Energy Roofing Systems of Cumming, GA Brings First Commercial Solar Project To North Georgia


CUMMING, GA (December 21, 2010) – Energy Roofing Systems announced today that they will be developing a 20kW solar installation for an automotive warehouse located in Dawsonville, GA. The solar panel array will not only save JRF Energy, LLC money on electric bills and reduce their carbon footprint, but also will produce extra power and serve as an added source of revenue for the business. Local utility providers Georgia Power, Sawnee EMC, and Amicalola EMC all confirmed that this is the first commercial solar project in Dawsonville. The 20kW project will make the most of Georgia’s optimally tilted surface, which receives more sunlight on average than the entire state of California. The project will generate approximately 32,494 kWh in its first year, which is equivalent to offsetting 38,023 lbs. of CO2, planting 663 trees, or offsetting 888 gallons of gasoline.

Energy Roofing Systems specializes in applying advanced alternative energy systems with the highest quality cool metal roof technology and installing them in the most cost effective manner. Designed to reduce utility bills, their cool metal roofing serves as the perfect foundation for solar. Unlike traditional shingle roofing which needs to be replaced periodically over time, cool metal roofing is designed for long term durability and will outlast solar technology. This translates to extra money saved. One recent study indicated that it can cost as much as 25% of the original cost to de-install and then reinstall solar panels when replacing a shingle roof. Energy Roofing Systems was founded by a former custom homebuilder with over 30 years of experience in the metro Atlanta area and an alternative energy entrepreneur from New England. They are taking a forward thinking and sustainable approach, encouraging both commercial and residential customers to “Rethink Your Roof.”

Alpharetta, GA based Solar Energy USA was chosen to install this particular project due to their friendly and knowledgeable staff as well as their proximity to the North Georgia area. Their installation team, a staff of technical experts, is lead by one of the most respected names in the photovoltaic industry with 10 crew members being NABCEP (North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners) certified. The company has established itself as a premier provider of “Affordable Solar Solutions” for anyone interested in promoting renewable energy.

Energy Roofing Systems educated JRF Energy, LLC about federal, state, and local tax incentives that helped make this project possible. The Federal Clean Energy Grant is covering 30% of the total system cost while the Georgia Clean Energy Tax Credit picks up another 35%. Additionally, local utility provider Sawnee EMC is providing a $3,000 dollar incentive and a guarantee to purchase any excess energy this system generates.

Over it’s expected 35-year life the 20kW system will generate approximately 1015 RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates) equivalent to offsetting 868 tons of CO2, planting 20,712 trees, or offsetting 27,740 gallons of gasoline. JRF Energy, LLC will see utility savings on average of $614 dollars every month.

The Federal Clean Energy Grant (also known as the 1603 Treasury Grant Program) was extended last week as part of the tax legislation passed by the U.S. Congress. As a result, Energy Roofing Systems has plans to help many local businesses qualify for the grant in 2011 by adopting solar PV and solar hot water systems.

Interior Dept OKs Nevada Solar Project






Source: AJC




A solar energy project that will generate enough electricity for 75,000 homes in Nevada has been approved by the federal government. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in Nye County is the ninth large-scale solar facility approved by the Obama administration in an effort to encourage renewable energy development on public lands in the West. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says construction of the 110-megawatt plant will create up to 500 jobs. Once finished, it will employ 50 in operations and management positions. The project 13 miles northwest of Tonopah was proposed by Solar Reserve's Tonopah Solar Energy of Santa Monica, California. It will encompass about 2,200 acres on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management.


This is a win for alternative energy proponents as well as the people of Nevada and the federal government.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

DOE Installs 'Cool Roof' on DC Headquarters

Source: Reuters

Taking a page out of its playbook, the Department of Energy has replaced a roof at its headquarters in Washington, D.C., with a cool roof made from light-colored material that is expected to save taxpayers $2,000 a year energy costs.

The new cool roof covers 25,000 square feet atop the DOE's Headquarters West Building. In spring, the department plans to replace the 66,000-square-foot roof of the DOE Headquarters South Building with a cool roof. Together, the new roofing systems, which include increased insulation, are expected to save taxpayers $8,000 in energy costs.

Roofs made with white or light-colored materials or similarly hued special coatings reflect heat and absorb less solar energy than traditional roofs so that buildings require less energy for cooling. Cool roofs also reduce the heat island effect caused by a concentration of black or dark-colored surfaces such as traditional roofs, pavement and parking lots.

According to researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, using roofs and pavement made with light-colored materials in urban areas around the globe can potentially cancel the heating effect of as many as two years of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions.

In July, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the DOE's Cool Roof initiative and directed his department to install cool roofs when constructing new ones, or replacing old ones, as long as it is cost effective to do so. Chu also urged other department heads and agency leaders to do the same, and he released the DOE's Guidelines for Selecting Cool Roofs.

The cool roofs concept got another boost this fall when New York City highlighted its CoolRoofs program as part of Climate Week NYºC 2010.

"The reason why we wanted the DOE to take the lead in cools roofs is to demonstrate that this really saves money," said Chu on Tuesday in announcing the completion of the cool roof on the DOE Headquarters West Building. Installing light-colored instead of traditional material did not add to the costs for the roof replacement project, according to the DOE.

Wake Up, America!



The people of the state of Louisiana woke up this summer. Did you? Have you fallen back to sleep? Its time to rethink oil. Mother Earth called and left us a message. It said, "Wake up, America!"

Canada Weighs In With Rooftop Solar PV System Development Advice

Source: AltEnergyMag

Ontario’s
Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program presents a compelling business model for commercial and industrial building owners interested in generating clean solar power on their rooftops. Renewable energy developers have succeeded under similar tariff models across Europe, growing a new industry that has attracted dramatic growth in investment capital.

Here in Ontario, the tariff rates are among the highest in the world, backed by a 20-year contract with the Ontario Power Authority. As a result, there are many new renewable energy startups (and some experienced developers) entering the Ontario solar market.

As Ontario’s building owners evaluate this opportunity, it is critical to understand the many complexities specific to rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) development. Successful execution and delivery of expected returns requires careful management of the complex route to rooftop solar PV development.

Project success is dependent upon the following key considerations:

1. Access to Financing and Start-up Capital
Solar projects are capital intensive. For 250kW projects, the costs for fees and securities can be upwards of $100,000 before the panels are even purchased, at which point, an investment upwards of $1.3 million is required, based on Enfinity’s own internal calculations and market assessments.

Favorable financing terms are a key component to the creation of a successful investment profile.
As Canadian lenders begin building experience with the financing of renewable energy projects, financing will only be awarded to project proponents that can demonstrate experience, a healthy corporate balance sheet, and a bankable project plan involving an aggregated grouping of projects.

2. Accurate and Reliable Revenue Modeling
The key metric for this investment is consistent, reliable power production over a 20-year term. Accurately forecasting this production is very site-specific and comes from experience, reliable data, design expertise, and an intimate knowledge of various PV technologies.

For example, have you completed accurate horizon surveys? Do you understand the effects of shading, snowfall, debris, and other site-specific factors that will impact power production? These are critical considerations to gaining a realistic view of the power production potential of the site.

3. Careful Structural Analysis by Qualified Engineers
Protecting your existing structure is paramount. In the Ontario climate, there are several structural considerations that require careful examination, and in some cases, detailed modeling to properly understand.

Careful analysis of the existing building by a qualified structural engineer, combined with a detailed analysis of the impacts of the panels themselves, is a critical step of the design process. Proceeding with anything less than this degree of rigor is a mistake when dealing with the complexities presented by the Ontario climate.

4. Technology Best Suited for the Building’s Characteristics
There are many PV technologies and mounting systems available on the market. Selecting the best solution for your roof requires the right technology, for the right roof, at the right price.

Every roof is different (structurally, membrane differences, orientation, geometry, rooftop furniture, etc.). Your ability to maximize power production (and therefore revenue) depends on your ability to deploy the technology best suited to the characteristics of your building.

As a project proponent, you must ask yourself questions such as: Is this chosen technology proven in a comparable climate? Are there performance data available? Is the mounting system appropriate for the existing structure? Is the manufacturer a reputable, bankable entity?

At the same time, a developer must ensure its solar equipment meets the domestic content requirements as stipulated in the FIT program specifications (50% rising to 60% in 2011).

With the Ontario solar manufacturing market still in its infancy, the domestic content requirement can significantly impact your cost structure if you don’t have access to a competitively priced supply chain. This usually only comes with buying power and economies of scale of larger solar project portfolios.

5. Project Management That Can Navigate Change
Installation of rooftop solar projects requires management of permitting processes generally involving the Ontario Power Authority, distribution companies, municipalities (building permits), and the Electrical Safety Authority.

The FIT process is still evolving and as such, navigating the changing waters of the process will be challenging. Projects can be optimized only if the proponent has intimate knowledge of the requirements and processes surrounding domestic content, approvals, design, reporting, timelines, and the agencies and stakeholders interacting with the project. Building the right project team of specialists and managing them through the process can mean the difference between a project that is on time and on budget and one that is not.

6. Array Design That Maximizes Power Production
A rooftop solar array will not meet its fullest production potential without an effective DC design from an expert in solar engineering. Optimizing an array design involves such considerations as: varying resistance across the array, temperature differential, incompatible panels, differential shading, proper degradation calculations, optimization of panel spacing and layout, understanding snow melt, and intimate knowledge of the PV technology.

Attention to these design details goes straight to the bottom line as power production is maximized.

7. Installation Expertise through a Reputable Contractor
Safety and quality are the two objectives of the construction of the array to ensure no performance issues and/or accidents occur. Proper procedures and documentation all require the involvement of an experienced, reputable contractor.

Working with a contractor will ensure the protection of your existing roof system and minimize your exposure through warranties and guarantees on the work.

8. Multiple Insurances to Ensure Favorable Conditions and Costs
The solar PV array should be insured on a broad form and replacement cost basis, and include liability insurance. Proper installation from an experienced contractor, a comprehensive operations and maintenance program, and maintenance of a suitable security system on the PV array will ensure the most favourable conditions and costs.

9. Comprehensive Maintenance to Meet Estimated Power Production
In order to meet the predicted power production supporting your investment, a comprehensive maintenance program is required. This includes regular cleaning of the panels, digital monitoring and analysis of performance, emergency response, regular inspection of array connections and safety considerations. Knowing what to look for and how to make the necessary ongoing adjustments ensures the array is performing as expected.

Further, it is necessary to establish and manage sinking funds to cover replacement costs of fixtures. For example, for larger commercial installations, we have calculated internally that the inverter will be replaced during the 20-year term at a cost of more than $100,000.

10. Enough Administrative Resources to Handle Operations
Operating the solar array requires administrative resources. Systems and personnel must be in place to successfully operate a solar array, including the management of the payments with the local distribution company and the Ontario Power Authority, management of reserve funds for inverter replacement, panel repair and replacement, array removal for roof maintenance, operations and maintenance contracts, insurances, reporting, and array disposal at the end of project lifecycle.

Options Exist for Building Owners Wanting to Take Advantage of Solar
Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff program presents an opportunity for building owners to create new revenue from their building by generating clean solar power on their rooftops. Maximizing your investment returns while mitigating your risks requires unique skills and resources. Executed well, investment in solar panels will generate returns in the range of 8 to 10% based on Enfinity’s internal calculations and market assessments. Missing the mark on any of the above can quickly diminish your expected returns, or in some cases, turn your investment into a cost.

There are options for those who would like to benefit from solar arrays on their rooftops without committing the required resources or taking the risks associated with rooftop solar projects. One such option is leasing your roof to a qualified, experienced developer who will finance, design, install, maintain, and operate the solar array. Likewise, developers can offer joint venture models for cost and revenue sharing, which also work to reduce the capital outlay and risk to the building owner. Such models enable a greater number of building owners to boost the cash flow of real estate assets at no cost or commitment of resources, while participating and making a valuable contribution to the sustainable energy initiatives of the Province of Ontario.

Solar Grant Program May Have New Legs


Source: RoofInfo

As Greg Jenner reported yesterday, there may be hope for solar funding in one version of the tax bill currently before the Senate.

This version, a compromise between the Senate and the White House, was voted on Tuesday, Dec. 14, and includes a one-year extension of the Treasury Grant Program mandate (TGP; 1603) to Dec. 31, 2011. Unofficial “cloture” vote counts indicate the measure will pass handily.

For renewable energy firms, especially those planning utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV), solar thermal and concentrating solar power (CSP; parabolic trough, Fresnel lens, Stirling engine and heliostats with a power tower), this means the rush to break ground or expend 5 percent of project costs now has a one-year breathing period.

Jenner, former Acting (and Deputy) Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury for Tax Policy and currently a partner and tax adviser for a prestigious law firm, notes that this package is simply an extension, and does not reflect any compromise with the House.

As Jenner is quick to point out, the TGP remains on perilous ground, because the House is the author of the complete revision and may refuse to agree on any Senate version. In fact, it is not obligated by law or tradition to do so, so the Senate version – which includes the 100-percent deduction for the year the property goes online – may be nothing more than whistling up the wind.

This is particularly true of a Democratic House faced with losing its majority once new members are seated in January – a precarious power position that makes the word “compromise” seem like weakness.

We can only hope that elected Representatives see not a power base but a bigger picture, in which the new American economy and its renewable energy paradigm comes first. Because the TGP doesn’t just provide clean, renewable solar energy. It also provides jobs.



Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Electric Rate Hike Meets Late Resistance

From: AJC

A week from Tuesday, state utility regulators will decide on a three-year deal that would give Georgia Power one of its biggest rate hikes in history -- and eventually add another $15 to the typical family's monthly electric bill.

The deal was signed by Georgia Power, the Public Service Commission's litigating staff and many -- but not all -- of the interest groups involved in fighting the utility's original, $1.1 billion rate hike request. It would give the company an $844 million hike.

Now the holdouts are pushing back, in a last-ditch attempt to shave the rate increase further.

They filed their own three-year deal proposal at the state Public Service Commission last week, asking the commission to approve that version instead of the one agreed to by everybody else.

The holdouts include the consumer group Georgia Watch, AARP, The William Bonnell aluminum manufacturing company in Newnan and Resource Supply Management, which argues for lower commercial power rates.

The groups said their proposal is a compromise for all of them, and asks for a series of changes in the deal put forth by Georgia Power.

Those changes include cutting Georgia Power's rate hike to $435 million and its maximum allowed profits from 12.25 percent to 10.75 percent. The group also wants all excess profit returned to customers, instead of the two-thirds in the original deal.

"In this economy, ratepayers can not afford to pay inflated profit margins for necessities like electricity," Georgia Watch said in a brief.

The group also wants to nix a part of the deal that would allow the company to file for a new rate increase inside the three- year term if its profits fall below a certain level.

The alternative deal isn't likely to fly, since Georgia Power and PSC staff have signed another one.

The PSC can't impose binding multi-year rate plans on the company if the company doesn't agree.

It may create some fireworks, though, when the commission discusses the case for a final time next week.

The final vote is scheduled Dec. 21.


Yet another reason to look into alternative sources of energy and become energy independent.

We would love to help.



Confirmation Code: GHMXDBS7479205

Saturday, December 11, 2010

WSJ Talks Solar Sports Arenas

WSJ gets it!

Oil receives $120 BILLION dollars worth of US subsides a year!

Thursday, December 9, 2010

State Of Georgia Fails Clean Energy Policy Scorecard


Source: NNEC

The recent report entitled "Freeing The Grid" by the NNEC takes a look at the role state governments play in accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy. 2 main factors are analyzed:

Net Metering

Commonly known as the policy that enables a customer’s electric meter spin backwards, net metering is the billing arrangement by which customers realize savings from their clean energy systems. 1 kWh generated by the customer has the exact same value as 1 kWh consumed by the customer.

What makes an effective net-metering program?

  • Allow net metering system size limits to cover large commercial and industrial customers’ loads; systems at the 2 MW level are no longer uncommon.
  • Do not arbitrarily limit net metering as a percent of a utility’s peak demand.
  • Allow monthly carryover of excess electricity at the utility’s full retail rate.
  • Specify that customer-sited generators retain all renewable energy credits for energy they produce.
  • Allow all renewable technologies to net meter.
  • Allow all customer classes to net meter.
  • Protect customer-sited generators from unnecessary and burdensome red tape and special fees.
  • Apply net metering standards to all utilities in the state, so customers and installers fully understand the policy, regardless of service territory.
Interconnection

Each state regulates the process under which a generator can connect to the distribution grid. These policies seek to keep up the stability of the grid as well as the safety of those who use and maintain it. Technical standards serve an extremely important purpose in the U.S. economy. By meeting a uniform set of procedures and electrical specifications, a wide variety of products and technologies, like distributed generation (DG), can be developed at low cost.

What makes effective interconnection standards?

  • Set fair fees that are proportional to a project’s size.
  • Cover all generators in order to close any state-federal jurisdictional gaps in standards.
  • Screen applications by degree of complexity and adopt plug-and-play rules for residential-scale systems and expedited procedures for other systems.
  • Ensure that policies are transparent, uniform, detailed and public.
  • Prohibit requirements for extraneous devices, such as redundant disconnect switches, and do not require additional insurance.
  • Apply existing relevant technical standards, such as IEEE 1547 and UL 1741.
  • Process applications quickly; a determination should occur within a few days.
  • Standardize and simplify forms.

The state of Georgia did not received a grade for lack of having an Interconnection Policy in place. We also received an F in the Net Metering category for having a very low aggregate system capacity cap at 0.2% of the utility's peak load. The Freeing The Grid report recommends increasing this to at least 5% as well as adopting safe harbor language to protect customers from extra and/or unanticipated fees.



Georgia came in 44th out of 50 in Net Metering, receiving an F along with South Carolina and Oklahoma, and did not receive a score under Interconnection for lack of Interconnection policy along with 16 other states.

The highest scoring state under Net Metering was Colorado and the top scorer under Interconnection was Maine.

The full report can be downloaded here.

77% Utility Savings With Solar Power

Source: Solar Power Cost Blog

*Note These figures are based on California electric prices, but it is still an interesting report showing just how much a household can save on energy costs by adopting solar panels.

This example is taken from a solar cost analysis for a 5-kilowatt (kW) solar energy system for a homeowner in northern California.

As you can see, after installing solar panels, our California homeowner’s annual electricity costs are reduced by 77 percent! In other words, our annual electric bill goes from about $2075 to $685, a total savings of $1390 in the first year of operation.

These electric bill savings are incredibly reliable — and they add up. Over the course of the system’s life, we could expect to save over $90,000 on electricity costs – all thanks to our brand-spanking-new solar home energy system.

A few more notes:

  • Solar panels generate more electricity during the summer months, when days are longer. In fact, our solar energy system in this instance generates enough power in May and June to effectively eliminate our bill in those months!
  • Thanks to net-metering, if our solar panels produce more electricity in a given month — say June — the utility will issue us credit for it on July’s bill.
  • You’ll notice that, in this case, our use of electricity peaks in June, July and August. An electricity usage pattern like this is usually caused by increased use of air conditioning. When you get a solar home energy quote or an energy audit, an installer will analyze your particular usage patter and suggest energy solutions that are best suited for your needs.
  • Even though solar panels produce more power in June, July and August, it’s important to note that solar panels actually perform more efficiently in cool temperatures. This is because semiconductors — like the silicon in most solar panels — face modest efficiency losses as temperatures increase.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Georgia Has Just As Much Solar Potential As California


This map shows the average value of total solar energy received in peak sun hours per day on an optimally tilted surface during the month with the lowest solar radiation. As you can see, most of GA has between 3.5 and 4.0 peak sun hours per day. CA ranges from 3.5 to 4.5 while states like Utah, Nevada, and Arizona average 5.0 peak sun hours and up.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Supreme Court To Review Climate Change Lawsuit Against Power Companies

Source: AJC

In a new case about climate change, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from electric utilities that are trying to short-circuit an effort by states to force cuts in power plant emissions.

The court agreed Monday to consider ending a federal lawsuit by eight states, New York City and others that accuse the power companies of being among the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world. The suit asks a federal judge to order reductions in the emissions in plants in 20 states.

A federal judge initially threw out the case, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said it could continue.

The lawsuit says carbon dioxide is one of the chief causes of global warming. The greenhouse gas is produced when coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels burn.

Similar lawsuits are pending in California and North Carolina.

The American Electric Power Co. and the other utilities do not want courts getting involved in the issue. The companies argue that only the Environmental Protection Agency can set emissions standards.

The other utilities are Cinergy Co., Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia, Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota, and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority.

The Obama administration, representing the TVA, urged a middle course that would have avoided a full-blown hearing at the high court.

The administration angered environmental groups with its position that the states should not be allowed to proceed in federal court because, among other reasons, the EPA already has begun to take actions to compel cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.

EPA regulation is a more efficient process than a federal lawsuit, the administration said.

In 2007, the court split 5-4 in its first global warming case in a ruling that declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The court said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environment law. The same reasoning applies to power plants.

The case will be argued in the spring.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was on the 2nd Circuit panel that heard the case, is not taking part in the Supreme Court's consideration of the issue.

The states in the lawsuit are: California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The Open Space Institute, the Open Space Conservancy and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire also are plaintiffs.

The case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 10-174.

Selling Natural Gas - The New Mary Kay?

Rebecca Bigbie asked a crowd in a hotel conference room in Peachtree City recently to imagine making $4,000 a month whether or not they did anything to earn it.

The agency responsible for certifying Stream to sell natural gas, the Georgia Public Service Commission, said it is charged with protecting natural gas customers, not salespeople, and Stream’s rates and services have been similar or better than other gas companies. Regulating Stream’s agreements with sales directors is the job of the Governor’s Office of Consumer Protection, said Mike Nantz, director of PSC’s consumer affairs division.

The governor’s consumer office said it looked at Stream at the request of the PSC. “For all we could tell, Stream complied and was within the law,” said spokesman Bill Cloud.

Some consumer experts say regulatory agencies often struggle to distinguish between multilevel marketing and pyramid schemes.

Since the company’s founding in Texas in 2005, Stream says, more than 172,000 people signed up as Ignite directors — independent contractors who sell gas to customers and recruit more directors. These directors collectively paid at least $51 million to join. The company says it has more than 400,000 energy customers. That includes at least 20,000 gas customers in Georgia, according to the PSC.

Stream would not say how many Ignite directors live in Georgia.

It’s possible to be both a Stream customer and sales director, but it’s not clear how many customers are sales directors too.

Robert FitzPatrick, who runs a watchdog group called Pyramid Scheme Alert, examined the most recent income disclosure from Stream’s website for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Fitzpatrick has served as an expert witness in pyramid cases.

Fitzpatrick said his calculations show 90 percent of Stream’s sales force lost nearly all their investments; 8.5 percent made no profit; only 1 percent made what he said amounts to minimum wage-level income and fewer than 0.1 percent earned substantial income.

“It’s like a chain letter,” he said.

Asked about Fitzpatrick’s analysis, Thies said the company makes clear to prospective associates that success depends on their efforts.

“It is true that a large number of people may or may not make their money back,” Thies said. “The business model itself does not dictate your level of success.”

Perry Betts, of Ringgold, a plaintiff in the Georgia suit, saw a good opportunity when he was introduced to the company by a woman from his church. His “eyes are a little more open now,” he said, and he realizes he cost the one man he recruited into sales hundreds of dollars and could have “victimized” friends and family, all because he thought selling gas had to be well regulated.

“It seemed to me if they were approved by the state as a provider, they had a stamp of approval from the regulators,” Betts said. “I don’t know any other way to look at it. They weren’t selling cookies.”

Selling like Mary Kay

Multilevel marketing strategies are increasingly common nationally and include household names like Mary Kay. They are legal under federal and state law.

However, Federal Trade Commission officials generally distinguish multilevel marketing from illegal pyramid schemes by explaining that pyramid schemes promise consumers or investors large profits based primarily on recruiting others to join their program, not based on profits from sales of goods to the public.

Stream says its focus has always been selling a real product — energy.

The company was licensed by Georgia to sell gas in 2008. But even before it was approved to market gas, Ignite directors began recruiting in the state, PSC records show. Ignite sales pitches swept through neighborhoods, churches and companies.

“They were holding ‘revival’ meetings all over Georgia, promising to make millionaires out of anyone willing to take a few ‘simple’ steps to gain financial freedom,” said Cynthia Cornelius, then head of PSC consumer affairs, in an e-mail to the AJC.

That’s how Stream came to Peachtree City, with its concentration of Delta employees.

In web presentations and lavish rallies, including one with a performance by Cirque du Soleil, Ignite offers tips like how to focus on FRANK — friends, relatives, associates, neighbors, and kids — and how to avoid the “Valley of Death.” That’s when a director scares off a prospective recruit by saying too much too soon.

There was a covert element in the early days, as seen in complaints to the PSC. One forwarded an e-mail advertising an Ignite “webinar,” but warned the company was in its “quiet period” and did not have permission to market gas.

“Please do not randomly forward this email,” it said. “Send the link only to personal contacts and make sure no one contacts the PSC.” Stream blamed rogue directors, who were disciplined.

Ignite’s high-ranking directors sell the company as God’s work, according to training material; in an online audio clip, one executive director likened marketing Stream energy to Harriet Tubman’s work freeing slaves. To appeal to the more materialistic, the training material advertises unlimited bonuses with the potential for “geometric growth to infinity.”

Some participants say Stream serves them well.

Mike Hubbard, a Peachtree City resident, said he likes the “recession proof” income he gets on gas sold to his customers and to those of directors he signed up — between 50 cents and $3 a month per customer.

Hubbard paid the standard $300 to join plus $25 a month for an Ignite website.

The pilot who recruited Hubbard, meanwhile, got a bonus of $100 to $325, once Hubbard signed the required number of customers, according to the range of bonuses in Stream’s promotional material. Bigbie, at an even higher level, received a bonus of $75 to $225.

And so the bonuses flow.

Regulatory dispute

The PSC referred inquiries about Stream’s marketing strategy to the governor’s consumer office in 2008, said Cornelius, who headed the PSC consumer division. She said her staff “tried to engage” that office, “just couldn’t get [them] to bite.”

But the governor’s consumer office did investigate, Cloud said, and found that Ignite implied it had permission to market gas before it did; did not explicitly describe the duties of directors, and omitted a required opt-out provision in contracts.

Stream and Ignite signed a letter of understanding, admitting no wrongdoing and promising to follow the law.

The company also agreed to a year of monitoring. During that time, Cloud said, the office received no complaints “of consequence” and Stream seemed to follow the agreement.

The consumer protection agreement didn’t address whether Ignite emphasizes recruiting more than sales.

Cloud said his office will investigate the matter again, due to issues raised by the AJC.

Customers make it legal

Ignite directors are not shy about discussing the importance of recruiting.

Presley Swagerty, a top-ranking director known as “The Coach,” said he made $117,000 in one month, and $10 of it came from energy customers, according to a website run by several Ignite directors.

In Peachtree City last month, Bigbie said that, even though leadership says it’s about the residual income from energy customers, “60 to 80 percent of your check is bonus money” from recruiting new directors.

Still, “customers make this legal,” she said.

Stream’s Thies disputed Bigbie’s and Swagerty’s claims. He said 68 percent of 2010’s payout to the sales force was for commissions on energy customers. The remaining 32 percent, he said, was bonuses paid for recruiting directors who obtained a set number of customers. It’s four or less, according to company literature.

“No Ignite associate has ever been paid simply for the act of associate recruitment,” he said.

Yet, FitzPatrick, the pyramid expert, said that misses the point.

“Would it be worth your time to sell just the gas?” FitzPatrick asks. “Most people would say ‘no,’ that’s not how you make money. Then what are you selling if you recruit someone into the same business you’re not making money from? You’re selling a seat on a chain.”

Still, some participants say the model works for them. Among them: Randy Hedge, a top-ranking Ignite director known as “The Cowboy.”

“I don’t care if they call it an octagon, a parellellogram, a rectangle,” Hedge told an audience in 2006. “They’re sending me a check.”

Marketing in tiers

Here’s what the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection says about multilevel marketing and pyramids:

“Multilevel or “network” marketing plans are ways to sell goods or services through distributors. Typically, these plans promise that if you sign up as a distributor, you’ll get commissions not only from the sales you make, but also from the sales of the people you recruit to become distributors.”

Not all multilevel marketing plans are legitimate. Some are pyramid schemes. It’s best not to get involved in plans where the money you make is based primarily on the number of distributors you recruit and your sales to them, rather than on your sales to people outside the plan who intend to use the products.

Joining a pyramid is risky because the vast majority of participants lose money to pay for the rewards of a few people at the top.

Pyramid schemes are sometimes confused with Ponzi schemes, such at the one that got Bernie Madoff sent to prison. The Securities and Exchange Commission describes a Ponzi scheme: “A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.”

The price of gas

Once licensed in 2008 to sell gas in Georgia, Stream Energy set a price that was among the lowest in the state.

Its rates have since drifted toward the middle, compared with the other nine marketers in Georgia, but have generally remained below most providers’.

Stream has posted natural gas prices with the state Public Service Commission for 32 months.

Here’s a summary of their pricing in that time:

Cheapest

May and September 2008, January and February 2009

Highest-priced
She asked them to imagine taking their families on a cruise. She said they could make $2 million in a year selling natural gas for Stream Energy.

“Can you fail your way to $22,000 a month?” asked Bigbie, an executive director with Ignite, Stream Energy’s marketing arm. “That’s what I did.”

Bigbie confided to the audience: When an Ignite representative initially approached her, she did not have the $325 joining fee. But “I said, what’s another $325?” and added the fee to her credit card debt.

Nods rippled across the audience.

It’s a scene that has played out in Georgia hundreds of times since 2007.

But if the offer sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is, two consumer advocates say. Most who sign up as sales directors will lose money, they say.

A Texas lawsuit claims it’s more than just a bad deal, it’s illegal. The suit alleges that Stream sells energy as cover for a sophisticated pyramid scheme designed to take money from the vast majority of sales recruits and funnel it to the top.

The Texas case is in early stages and Stream is vigorously defending itself. A similar lawsuit filed in Georgia by the same attorney was dismissed this year on procedural grounds. However, a Texas appellate court recently declined to dismiss the Texas case on the same issue.

Paul Thies, senior director of communications for Stream, adamantly denied the company is a pyramid scheme. He said Stream uses a legitimate multilevel marketing strategy, like Avon, paying its sales force on their own sales as well as those of the salespeople they recruit.

Scott Clearman, the lawyer suing Stream, says the state’s weak consumer-protection laws have left Georgians vulnerable.

March 2010

The value of experience

This is not the first venture into multilevel marketing by Stream executives. Chris Domhoff, a founder of Ignite, and other executives helped run Excel Communications, according to a lawsuit filed in Texas against Stream.

Excel was founded in 1988 to market long-distance phone service in the newly deregulated telecommunications industry and became one of the largest resellers of communications services in the country. The company was purchased in 2002 by VarTec, which filed for bankruptcy in 2004.

Along with the executives, some top sales associates at Excel also now work for Ignite. High-level director Presley Swagerty — the Coach — used the same back story for both companies, telling recruits for Excel and Stream that he was a high school basketball coach with bills piling up before each company changed his life.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Designers Create Solar Benches

Source: SolarFeeds

Designers Sean Park, Olbae Woo and Owen Song have collectively designed a concept bench that will not only generate electricity from solar energy, but will also utilize recycled material for its construction. The design is as simple as it can be. The bench includes a battery that will store electricity generated by thin solar panels placed on the surface. The main frame of the body is made up of recycled aluminum and recycled plastic. The designers claim it to be capable enough of generating electricity in conditions when the weather is not favorable.

It can be installed anywhere without any specific requirements for its working. An embedded Wi-Fi module will let people access the internet, and at night this very bench will use stored electricity to function as night-lighting system. The outer cover can be customized to match it with a particular environment such as parks. In brief, the concept aims to provide simple and low cost multifunctional service to future generations.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

A Solar Installation Spree as the Deadline for Federal Grants Approaches


Source: NY Times

Owners of commercial buildings are rushing in such numbers to meet an end-of-the-year deadline for a federal Treasury grant program for solar energy installations that inventories of some equipment have dried up, solar energy experts said.

Incentives for owners to install solar panels on their warehouses, or even on excess land, have been growing in recent years, with one of the most important being a federal tax credit for 30 percent of the solar project’s cost. That credit was converted to a Treasury grant program in February 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Instead of having to wait to take the credit against taxes owed, owners receive a check within 60 days of the project’s completion.

As an example, an owner installing a typical 500-kilowatt photovoltaic system on a 100,000-square-foot rooftop at a cost of about $2.2 million would receive $660,000. Depending on how the building is used, that 500-kilowatt system could generate all the building’s power or, for high-demand uses like data centers or refrigeration, as little as 2 percent.

According to a September study by the U.S. Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance, a group of renewable energy financiers, investment in solar systems nationwide doubled from 2008 to 2010 under the Treasury grant program, going from $3.4 billion to an estimated $6.7 billion by the end of 2010. By Oct. 26, 1,118 solar energy systems had been installed under the grant program, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group.

But the federal grant program will expire on Dec. 31. If Congress does not renew it, it will revert to an investment tax credit valid through the end of 2016. Without an extension of the Treasury grant program, industry groups say they expect investment in solar systems to shrink drastically.

Few commercial owners could come up with the capital expenditure necessary without the help of the 30 percent Treasury grant, said Jamie Hahn, a managing director at Solis Partners, a solar developer based in Manasquan, N.J. He said that after Congress established the grant program, the market for solar installations on commercial buildings changed from one in which the installations were mostly owned by investors, who then sold power back to building owners, to one where the business owners themselves did the installations.

“Prior to the cash grant coming out, about 70 percent of large-scale commercial solar projects were owned by third-party investors,” he said. “The cash grant made it feasible for actual building owners and companies themselves to own the solar assets.”

Whoever owns the system gets the most benefit, Mr. Hahn said. With federal, state and local subsidies, he said, the investment in a solar system can be extremely attractive. It can even generate income for the business, while locking in or providing free electricity for the 25 years the systems are typically under warranty.

Owners of commercial buildings are lining up to install their solar systems before the grant program expires. Donnelly Mechanical Corporation, a mechanical contractor based in Queens, plans to install a 50-kilowatt system on a 25,000-square-foot building with warehouse and office space, said Robert Ragozine, the company’s president. That will reduce the company’s electricity bill by about 15 percent.

Mr. Ragozine said he expected to meet the Dec. 31 deadline. To qualify for the grant, either a large enough part of the construction of the solar installation must be completed or 5 percent of the cost must be incurred. But if Donnelly does not make the deadline, Mr. Ragozine said, it will continue with the project and receive the tax credit.

Donnelly’s project is intended to maximize incentives. The solar installation is small for the size of the rooftop, but anything larger would not qualify for a solar rebate program, worth $1.75 a watt, offered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

“We could fit more on the roof, but we’ll max it out at 50 kilowatts,” said Mr. Ragozine, whose solar installation will cost about $275,000. “That’s a maximum rebate of $87,500.”

Other perks include a federal tax benefit for depreciating the system over five years instead of 39, he said. Also, New York City allows building owners to deduct 8.75 percent of the solar installation costs over a four-year period from their property taxes, with a maximum of $62,500 in taxes offset, Mr. Ragozine said.

“With the solar installation that we’re looking at, we would probably be able to save $11,000 to $12,000 a year off our electric bill,” he said. “And with the incentives, we’re looking at a payback about Year 4.”

Incentives have greatly shortened the period of time that owners must wait to break even on their investment. LPS Industries, a packaging maker in Moonachie, N.J., worked with Solis Partners to install a system on its 165,000-square-foot rooftop last June at a cost of $5.7 million. Adding in federal and state incentives, LPS anticipates payback in about five years, said Madeleine Robinson, the company’s chief executive.

Ms. Robinson said she had been so pleased with the solar installation — for which she received her 30 percent Treasury grant about 20 days after installation — that she would like to install a solar farm on adjacent vacant land owned by LPS. The 704-kilowatt system on the roof at LPS now provides almost 25 percent of the company’s energy, saving about $10,000 to $20,000 monthly, she said.

Also, New Jersey, instead of offering rebates, has a thriving market for Solar Renewable Energy Certificates, which enable owners of solar installations to sell their clean energy credits to utilities looking to avoid penalties enacted by the state for generators of “dirtier” energy. Companies can sell these credits for 15 years after the system’s installation.

Other building owners have been scrambling to qualify for the Treasury grant. As a result, crucial equipment, like solar panels and inverters, are on back order, taking as long as eight to 12 weeks to arrive, Mr. Hahn said.

But owners still have time to sign a contract and start a paper trail demonstrating that they have paid for 5 percent of the project by Dec. 31, he said.

Owners who are considering a new roof could qualify for the credit by installing a system made by Solyndra, a solar manufacturer in Fremont, Calif., that uses photovoltaic cylinders that capture light not only from the sun, but also from a reflective white roof. Solyndra has determined that the re-roofing, if done before Dec. 31, can qualify for the Treasury grant — and the 30 percent grant will include the cost of re-roofing.

Mr. Hahn said the Solyndra system was optimal for owners facing weight constraints because it is light, and for those facing heavy winds because as air flows between the cylinders.

“You might get a roof laid in two weeks,” Mr. Hahn said, “and as long as the roof makes up over 5 percent of the project, that would qualify you for the Treasury grant.”