Tel: (845) 626-2627   Home   Contact  
Sun Volt

Sun Volt Solar

earth, the final frontier

Clean Energy, Clean Environment

We are at a cross roads in human history, we can choose to continue on as we have been, or we can make a change to improve our future and quite possibly the future for several generations to come. We are here to promote energy independence, a better environment, a secure future and a higher return on investment for your hard earned dollar. It is what I believe in, it is why I am in the solar business.

New York to revise its net metering laws

27 Feb 10 | Conservation, Environment, Incentives, Solar Electric

Both the New York Assembly and the Senate has passed amendments to NY’s net metering rules.  The amendment (A.7557A/S.6700) is designed to increase the net metering for non-residential customers by correcting restrictions to the 2008 net metering regulations.   The original 2008 allowed for interconnections up to 2 MW but the wording was ambiguous and most new net metering accounts were residential since 2008.  By allowing larger commercial systems, businesses will be able to take advantage of solar and wind energy, helping to meet NY State’s goal of 25% renewable energy by 2013.

Net metering allows the owner of an on-site renewable energy system to receive a credit on his or her utility bill for any unused power supplied to the electric grid by the system. The credit then offsets the power received from the grid when the customer consumes more energy than the system is generating. In addition to acting as a hedge against rising energy costs and reducing overall stress on the electric grid, on-site renewable energy sustmers provide numerous environmental, public health, and economic development benefits to local communities.

This is the basis for all grid connected PV systems.  It is good that the government of NY realizes the benefits of renewable energy and are taking steps to help implement it here.

The question is, will all of this renewable energy replace fossil fuel based generation, or will it merely increase the energy capacity and thus use in NY?  There are indications that the latter is normally the case, unless fossil fuel based energy becomes too expensive for the average person of business.   After the energy efficiency increases in the 1970’s and 80’s, many people began building larger houses because they could now afford it.  History will repeat itself unless the true costs of energy are passed on to the end consumer and not the taxpayer.

Tags: ,

27 Feb 10 | Conservation, Environment, Incentives, Solar Electric | Comments (0)

A right to the Sun?

04 Jan 10 | Commentary

Solar Energy Industries Association thinks so. They are sponsoring an online petition called the Solar Bill of Rights© to call attention to various law makers throughout the country to:

We declare these rights not on behalf of our companies, but on behalf of our customers and our country. We seek no more than the freedom to compete on equal terms and no more than the liberty for consumers to choose the energy source they think best.

Here is a brief list of items this petition hopes to define:

  1. Americans have the right to put solar on their homes or businesses
  2. Americans have the right to connect their solar energy system to the grid with uniform national standards
  3. Americans have the right to Net Meter and be compensated at the very least with full retail electricity rates
  4. The solar industry has the right to a fair competitive environment
  5. The solar industry has the right to equal access to public lands
  6. The solar industry has the right to sell its power across a new, 21st century transmission grid
  7. Americans have the right to buy solar electricity from their utility
  8. Americans have the right to – and should expect – the highest ethical treatment from the solar industry

Sounds good to me. Items 1,2, 4, and 8 are of particular interest to me. Some sort of national solar policy might better define how to accomplish those.

Item 2 is tricky because regulation of the utility companies has been a states issue. Many, if not most states still regulate power companies in the “Natural Monopoly” system. That is to say the state and the utility company recognize the utility is a monoploy and regulate it in such a way the the public benifits (mostly) from the existance of the utility company. Each state has somewhat different circumstances due to there location and the various conditions on the ground. Putting the feds in charge would likely create many new problems and layers of bureaucracy. Which, I don’t know about you, but I like to keep my bureaucracies on the small side.

Via: Clean Technica

Tags:

04 Jan 10 | Commentary | Comments (0)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; whats in it for me?

14 Feb 09 | Commentary, Conservation

I spent several hours this morning picking through the final conference report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (HR-1), also known as the “Economic Stimulus Bill.”  You can download and read all 647 pages of it here, if you dare. There are several sections that deal with Renewable Energy and solar power systems.  Here are a few of the highlights:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
For an additional amount for ‘‘Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’’, $18,500,000,000, which shall be used as follows:
(1) $2,000,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration and deployment activities, to accelerate the development of technologies, to include advanced batteries, of which not less than $800,000,000 is for biomass and $400,000,000 is for geothermal technologies. (2) $500,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary to implement the programs authorized under 1 part E of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6341 et seq.).
(3) $1,000,000,000 shall be for the cost of grants to institutional entities for energy sustainability and efficiency under section 399A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6371h-1).
(4) $6,200,000,000 shall be for the Weatherization Assistance Program under part A of title IV of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 11 U.S.C. 6861 et seq.).
(5) $3,500,000,000 shall be for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, for implementation of programs authorized under subtitle E of title V of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17151 et seq.).
(6) $3,400,000,000 shall be for the State Energy Program authorized under part D of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321).
(7) $200,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary to implement the programs authorized under section 131 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17011).
(8) $300,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary to implement the program authorized under 3 section 124 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15821) and the Energy Star program.
(9) $400,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary to implement the program authorized under 7 section 721 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16071).
(10) $1,000,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary for the manufacturing of advanced batteries authorized under section 136(b)(1)(B) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013(b)(1)(B))

Cliffnotes: $18.5 Billion for research and development, including biomass, geothermal and batteries, block grants, weatherization, conservation, energy star, battery manufacture, and other grants.

Those are all good things.  I find it interesting that batteries where specifically mentioned for R&D and manufacture.  It seems that one of the major shortfalls of PEV (Plug in Electric Vehicle) is the weight and distance limiting factors associated with batteries.  It would be great if these obstacles can be overcome.

The Department of Education also gets funding for renewable energy systems, under section 11 of the School Modernization section:

(11) renewable energy generation and heating  systems, including solar, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, or biomass, including wood pellet, systems or components of such systems

This will be administered by the states, which in New York State, means NYSERDA, know widely for its bureaucratic efficiency.

Perhaps the most interesting item, from a renewable energy contractor’s perspective is this:

GRANTS FOR SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY IN LIEU OF TAX CREDITS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon application, the Secretary of Energy shall, within 60 days of the application and subject to the requirements of this section, provide a grant to each person who places in service specified energy property during 2009 or 2010 to reimburse such person for a portion of the expense of such facility as provided in subsection (b).
(b) GRANT AMOUNT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount of the grant under subsection (a) with respect to any specified energy property shall be the applicable percentage of the basis of such facility.
(2) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘‘applicable percentage’’ means—(A) 30 percent in the case of any property described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (c), and (B) 10 percent in the case of any other property.
(3) DOLLAR LIMITATIONS.—In the case of property described in paragraph (2), (6), or (7) of subsection (c), the amount of any grant under this section with respect to such property shall not exceed the limitation described in section 48(c)(1)(B), 16 48(c)(2)(B), or 48 (c)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, respectively, with respect to such property.
(c) SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘specified energy property’’ means any of the following:
(1) QUALIFIED FACILITIES.—Any facility described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (9), or (11) of section 45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(2) QUALIFIED FUEL CELL PROPERTY.—Any qualified fuel cell property (as defined in section 48(c)(1) of such Code).
(3) SOLAR PROPERTY.—Any property described in clause (i) or (ii) of section 48(a)(3)(A) of such Code.
(4) QUALIFIED SMALL WIND ENERGY PROPERTY.—Any qualified small wind energy property (as defined in section 48(c)(4) of such Code).
(5) GEOTHERMAL PROPERTY.—Any property described in clause (iii) of section 48(a)(3)(A) of such Code.
(6) QUALIFIED MICROTURBINE PROPERTY.—Any qualified microturbine property (as defined in section 48(c)(2) of such Code).
(7) COMBINED HEAT AND POWER SYSTEM PROPERTY.—Any combined heat and power system property (as defined in section 48(c)(3) of such Code).
(8) GEOTHERMAL HEATPUMP PROPERTY.—Any property described in clause (vii) of section 48(a)(3)(A) of such Code.
(d) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN RULES.—In making grants under this section, the Secretary of Energy shall apply rules similar to the rules of section 50 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In applying such rules, if the facility is disposed of, or otherwise ceases to be a qualified renewable energy facility, the Secretary of Energy shall provide for the recapture of the appropriate percentage of the grant amount in such manner as the Secretary of Energy determines appropriate.

There is a lot to wade through, however, the gist is instead of income tax credits, which may need to be carried over to a second year, a homeowner business owner can apply for a grant from the Department of Energy for 30% of the installed cost of a solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cell, or “Micro Turbine” which I take to mean microhydro turbine. They would receive this money within 60 days instead of waiting until the end of the year to file an income tax return.

I think that the grant options are a good idea for the average homeowner who is outlaying some serious cash for a renewable energy system. I would note that if the program gets too big, there will likely be some abuse, which could give the solar industry a black eye. Picture an NBC news fleecing of America segment. I, for one, am very keen on keep unscrupulous operators out of the renewable energy fields. They are bad for business.

I will reiterate my position on incentives once again. I don’t like them. I would prefer that congress remove the subsides for oil, gas and coal rather than subsidize renewable energy as well. That will not likely happen anytime soon, so until such time, incentives are necessary to level the playing field. One day, hopefully, someone will wake up and realize that we are wasting a lot of money and end the whole subside structure.

Tags: , , , ,

14 Feb 09 | Commentary, Conservation | Comments (0)

National Day of Action, May 20, 2008

20 May 08 | Commentary

Today is the day, Tuesday, May 20, 2008.  For far too many months, congress has been dallying with the extension of the solar tax incentives.  This period of unknown has begun to take it’s toll on the investment and building of the Solar Economy here in the United States.  To that end, several industry groups, companies, coalitions and others have joined their voices together in an effort called the National Day of Action for Clean Energy.  Hopefully, hopefully, like the in movie “Horton Hears a Who,” the House and Senate will hear us.

So common now, I know you can do it.  Everyone needs to make noise of the noisiest kind.  Contact your Congressperson and Senator, let them know that it is important.  Write a letter, make a phone call, send an e-mail drop by the local office in person, do something to make a difference.

Like all the Who’s in Whoville, I don’t want our little spec of dust boiled in beazzle nut oil.

You can read the news iteration of the bill called “HR 6049 renewable energy and job creation act of 2008” and make an informed call.

Tags:

20 May 08 | Commentary | Comments (0)

Why Tax breaks are needed

29 Apr 08 | Commentary

I have been watching the news about the House and the current bill to extend the tax breaks granted two years ago. It is a bit troubling to think that my business is in the hands of congress, but there it is.

When I read things like this:

Continued congressional delays over extending tax breaks to solar, wind and other renewable-energy companies could threaten the clean-technology industry’s growth and the jobs it creates.

I begin to wonder what is really going on. Are we just kidding ourselves in thinking that somehow we, the ordinary citizen, can affect change in America’s energy policy? A policy that has to date, been dictated by faceless mega corporations who can manage to turn the tables to their benefit regardless of what the majority of American’s want. I am beginning to wonder…

Since I deal almost exclusively in solar thermal, losing the federal tax subside would put a serious damper on my sales effort. In fact, I would say it would put me out of business.

That sucks.

It sucks because I believe in solar energy. Will it solve all of our energy problems? No. Can it make a significant dent (greater than 30-40%) contribution to our energy needs? Yes, with enough support, the combination of solar thermal and photovoltaics can generate a huge quantity of energy for our use.

The problem is we are going up against the powerful elite who run the current energy supply system like their own fiefdom. Guess who is playing the role of surf? Profits are to be guarded at all costs without regard to the future, the environment, or the greater good. They have mega cash and are willing to spend it on any effort that will maintain status quo. What we are trying to do is akin to attacking an aircraft carrier with a sling shot.

It sucks because when I see my own electric bill has been reduced by at least $60 per month by a solar domestic hot water system, I know this stuff works. It is proven technology that has been perfected by state of the art solar selective coatings and insulation.

It sucks because we are only asking for a level playing field. If this is a free market economy, and that is a big if, then let market forces decide what is better. The oil and coal industry receive huge subsides from the federal government, on top of the huge profits from the American people. Wouldn’t it be nice if we (the renewable energy sector) could compete economically with that?

Tags: ,

29 Apr 08 | Commentary | Comments (0)

Congress passes Clean Energy Tax credits

11 Apr 08 | Commentary

Much to the credit of the Senate, who, by a 88-8 vote passed the language of Cantwell-Ensign bill as a part of another, less important thing about housing or something. All I can say is YAAAAHOOO!

This is indeed good news for all of us who have been collectively holding our breath since last December when the first attempts were made to pass an extension on the renewable energy tax credits.

The bill now needs to go to the house, where it may be sliced and diced, but I am optimistic as the house has been friendly in the recent past to the renewable energy tax credits.

What this bill does:

  1. extend the investment tax credit for commercial solar power installations for 8 years
  2. extend the residential solar investment tax credit for one year and remove the current $2000 credit cap
  3. remove the exemption on utilities for claiming these tax credits
  4. allow the tax credit to offset alternative minimum tax
  5. extend incentives for energy efficiency improvements

What this bill does not do:

  1. Penalize the big oil companies for making too much money by removing their subsides
  2. Establish where the money will come from for the 6 billion in subsides noted above

I can live with that and hope that next year, a long range renewable energy bill is passed.

Tags: ,

11 Apr 08 | Commentary | Comments (0)

Slowly, the ship is turning

08 Feb 08 | Commentary

In yet another narrow defeat last night, the Senate voted to keep renewable energy incentives out of the economic stimulus package. Once again, Senator John McCain was absent from the voting. It is difficult to imagine why he would choose not to show up in Washington to vote on this important legislation when Both Senators Clinton and Obama made the trip. To me at least, it seems Senator McCain is showing that he is a hollow man. By his words he says that he is concerned about the environment, but his actions show he does not really care enough about the environment to make a stand on either side. Sort of reminds me of George W. Bush before he took office in 2000. We all know how Mr. Bush’s environmental agenda shook out once he was in office.

Regardless of that, once again the tax incentives for solar energy have been cut out of the process by the Senate, this time by only one vote. Several Republican Senators took a bipartisan stance and voted for the measure, which is a nice change. However, in the end it was not enough to keep the Senate from a filibuster and far too few votes to avoid the inevitable Bush veto.

In the last few years, we have fought tooth and nail for the environment, especially in light of the current chief executive of the federal government. There is a long way still to go. In order for renewable energy, most specifically solar power, to stay a viable alternative, either one of two things must happen:

  1. The subsides for Big Oil and Big Coal are ended. This will allow a true market environment where energy costs would be able to float to their natural levels instead of being held artificially low. This is the current European model. In light of the current energy monopolies these two forces have, the energy prices would likely skyrocket to several times there current levels until other forces such as renewable energy are brought to bear causing a competitive market. It would likely ruin the ever so fragile service economy that this country has developed.
  2. Subsides for renewable energy need to be enacted for a long term period. This will encourage entrepreneurs to get into the renewable energy field and get firmly established. No one wants to start a business and then have rug pulled out from under them as happened to the solar industry in the mid 1980’s. Long term subsides will allow stable development of renewables, which, when mature will be able to compete with old tech fossil fuel sectors head on.

Of course, Big Oil and Big Coal are not interested in sharing their markets with anyone, much less any technology that can do what they do better and cleaner (and, if you count the cost of environmental damage, cheaper). The problem is that the old school guys have a lot of money and they like to throw it around. The renewable energy sector? Not so much.

That is where we come in. We are actually the ones who empower our Senators and Representatives by voting for them. To make this system work, however, you must be registered to vote. That is a start, but it is not enough. It would be very helpful if you actually went to the polling place on election day and cast a vote. Then, keep an eye on your elected official’s voting record. If you see something you don’t like, send them an e-mail, let them know how you feel. Before election day, read up on the candidates, vote for the one you think will most accurately represent you.

Remember, these guys (Congressmen/Senators) are not your average Joe. Their life experiences are vastly different from the rest of us. They, as a general rule, have a lot of money and have fairly well insulated themselves against economic trouble. The rest of us who have to work for a living will have to deal with the consequences of there actions or inactions. Don’t assume your Congressman or Senator has your back, communicate!

As for the old school big energy guys, we can cancel out there grasp on power by sticking together. The CEO of Exxon-Mobil for example, is only one vote. So is the CEO of Peabody Coal. If we stick together, send a message to our Congressman and Senators with the status quo is not acceptable, we can beat these guys. But we have to stick together.

One vote.

One District.

One Congressman.

One Senator at a time.

Tags: , , ,

08 Feb 08 | Commentary | Comments (0)

Obstructionist, Corporate lackies, Bush sycophants

14 Dec 07 | Commentary

Last night, at 6:25 pm, the US Senate choose to uphold the current policy of corporate welfare for Big Oil companies and voted for the stripped down version of the 2007 energy bill. Since this bill has everything the Republicans wanted, Bush will naturally sign it into law.

This is a disappointment and a set back for all those that were looking for a change of direction from our elected leaders. The difference between the House bill and the Senate bill are huge. The worst impact, for the ordinary environmentally concerned citizen, is the loss of the tax incentives for installation of solar power, which will expire at the end of 2008.

Fortunately, many states have picked up the ball and carried it a great deal of the way, New York being one of those. As we watch our national “leadership” give away our future to huge mega rich oil companies, it is comforting to know that at least some people have the moral courage to do the right thing. Will it be enough? I don’t know, only the future can tell.

Perhaps during the next election, we can remember the names of the Senators who voted against the non-stripped out 2007 energy bill. Here is a list:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

If you are from any of those states, keep this in mind the next time you are standing in front of a voting machine. In the mean time, perhaps the issue will come up again next year and we will get a second chance.

Tags: ,

14 Dec 07 | Commentary | Comments (0)

Filibuster!

13 Dec 07 | Commentary

In the second procedural vote, the Senate has voted 59-40 for the 2007 Energy Bill. This is not the 60 vote majority needed to prevent a Senate Filibuster by the mostly Republican minority that opposes this legislation.  So what, let them filibuster.

From the Energy Smart Blog:

Senator Reid should not be so quick to cave in front of 40 Senators willing to put their fossil-fuel friends before the nation.  40 Senators willing to put their fossil fuel friends before the future of all humanity.

Senator Reid:  KEEP THE SENATE OPEN for the weekend.  Make the 40 read the phone book in support of tax subsidies for the oil and gas companies.  Make this “CALLOUS MINORITY” explain themselves to the nation.

I agree, let Senator McCain, who is attempting a presidential run stand in front of the country and explain why he does not see the need to encourage development of alternate energy.  Let the rest of the minority opposition explain why, when oil is trading at $94.00 per barrel, it is not important to invest in renewable energy.  Let them explain why, when oil companies are reaping record profits never before heard of in the history of US business, they need huge tax payer subsides.  I for one, would look forward to such an explaination.

Tags: , ,

13 Dec 07 | Commentary | Comments (0)

House passes Energy Bill, Bush promises veto

07 Dec 07 | Commentary

Update: Since this post, dated December 7, 2007, congress has made two more attempts to pass some sort of renewable energy legislation.  This bill and the subsequent bill failed in the Senate.  The Current bill, H.R. 5351 has passed the house and is on its way to the Senate as of February 28, 2008.

The same players that blocked the last two bills are still in place in the Senate.  Therefore it remains to be seen if this will even make it to the President’s desk for signing.

Stay tuned.

The house passed the 2007 energy bill last Wednesday. The bill features some very favorable solar and wind power incentives as well as minimum gas mileage standard for cars, SUVs and light trucks (known as CAFE). Here are some of the highlights:

  • Increases the efficiency of vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, for the first time in a generation;
  • Makes an historic commitment to American-grown biofuels;
  • Requires for the first time that 15 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources;
  • Improves energy efficiency of a wide range of products, appliances, lighting and buildings; and
  • Invests in clean renewable and alternative energy tax incentives to build viable markets and create jobs.

For more specifics you can read the whole thing here.

One very exciting thing is the continuation of tax credits for installation of residential solar and fuel cells. This was set to expire at the end of 2008, however this legislation seeks to extend that to 2016. Also, the tax credit cap, which was initially set at $2,000 has been increased to $4,000.

Naturally, there are detractors of this bill. The Senate is attempting to pass its own very weak version of this legislation, with Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) leading the charge to gut all of the important parts of the bill (If you live in New Mexico, give your senator a call, let him know how you feel).

As far as the cost of this bill, if I read the document correctly, it looks like the total cost would be 16.2 billion dollars, much of which would be offset by repealing several subsides to big oil companies. The total tax burden would be around 6 billion.

A few months ago, former chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, admitted that the Iraq war was more or less about oil. Therefore, it is fair to compare the cost of renewable energy implementation to the Iraq war. Currently, the Iraq war costs us about 1.4 billion dollars per week. So far the total tab is around 475 Billion dollars with no end is sight. Several economist estimate that before it is all over, the cost will be around 1.2 Trillion dollars.

bush

Even if the bill gets through the Senate unscathed, Mr. Bush as already promised to veto it.

Because, why, when oil is between $90-100 dollars a barrel, gas is running $3.20-3.50 a gallon, diesel and heating oil are well above $3.00 a gallon, would we possibly want to pass legislation that would curb our oil use? What are we, stupid? Perhaps crazy? I mean, I love spending my paycheck at the gas station. It makes me feel good to know that the money that is supposed to go toward my daughter’s college education is being used to buy heating oil. I feel like I am really doing my part to pay the CEO of Exxon Mobile’s annual bonus and at the same time, pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. After all, we don’t want the world to get colder, do we?

I would also like to add I am proud to be an American!

Tags: ,

07 Dec 07 | Commentary | Comments (0)
« Previous Posts