energy efficiency

A new study estimates that in 10 years Kentucky could create over 28,000 jobs while lessening the growth of electricity bills by passing clean energy legislation currently in front of the General Assembly. Synapse Energy Economics produced the study, which is an analysis of the Clean Energy Opportunity Act (HB 167) introduced by Representative Mary Lou Marzian.

 “This study confirms that legislation to diversify our electricity portfolio would be economically beneficial to Kentucky,” said Justin Maxson, President of the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED). “The bill would allow the state to hedge against increasing rates by making homes and businesses more energy efficient. And it would spur the creation of clean energy jobs installing renewable energy projects and making energy efficiency upgrades.”

“The era of cheap energy is coming to an end,” said Maxson, “and it is really a question of whether we in Kentucky take advantage of the opportunities that exist in the clean energy economy of the future.”

Synapse’s study is a high level analysis of the proposed legislation’s impacts on Kentucky’s electricity bills, jobs, and economy. The study concludes that making small but significant steps to begin diversifying Kentucky’s portfolio over the next ten years will lower the bills of Kentucky’s residents, business owners, and industrial facilities compared to their bills without a clean energy standard.

Synapse projects that, under the REPS, average annual electricity bills could be eight percent to 10 percent lower than under a do nothing scenario. In addition to saving Kentuckians money, the REPS would lead to over 28,000 net new jobs over and above any jobs lost in fossil fuels and add $1.5 billion to gross state product once fully implemented in 2022.

 “Efficiency and renewables are already the emerging trend in construction in the Commonwealth,” said Kentucky solar entrepreneur Matt Partymiller of Solar Energy Solutions in Lexington. “This report by Synapse captures what Kentucky engineers and contractors already know and what other states have already seen. Legislation like the Clean Energy Opportunity Act will provide the tools necessary for Kentucky builders to create jobs while ensuring Kentucky energy costs stay low.”

The study’s findings are supported by what neighboring states that have passed similar legislation have experienced. North Carolina has seen tremendous growth in the number of clean energy firms operating in their state since passing an REPS in 2007. Ohio built on the strengths of its traditional manufacturing sector to start building clean energy equipment in state, and reap real economic benefits from their 2008 law.

Synapse carried out the study for the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development, a Berea based economic development organization, and the Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance, a coalition of over 50 businesses, affordable housing advocates, non-profit organizations and faith based groups. MACED and KySEA wanted to understand the economic impacts of an REPS in Kentucky, and a comprehensive analysis of a bill like the Clean Energy Opportunity Act has not been part of the policy conversation until now.

The report can be accessed at www.maced.org/files/Potential_Impacts_of_REPS_in_KY.pdf

Kentucky falls in national energy efficiency ranking
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently ranked 37th out of all states on its annual state energy efficiency scorecard. This represents a step down from previous years’ rankings. In 2010, Kentucky was 36th and in 2009 it was 33rd. The rankings are based on an array of metrics including state levels of funding towards energy efficiency and best practices in state energy efficiency policy and program implementation.

Fort Knox Army Base partners with EKPC’s Nolin Rural Electric Co-op to Install Clean Energy Systems
Over the last two years, Fort Knox has partnered with the co-op to create a plan to reduce energy use 35% by this year. The plan included energy efficiency upgrades, a major solar installation, and a geo-thermal heating and cooling system placed in the base barracks. Annual savings from the energy plan is estimated to be $2.8 million. Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Industrial Efficiency Efforts in Richmond, KY Saves Money For Sherwin Williams Plant
Sherwin-Williams is the largest producer of paint in the United States today.  The company owns over 3,000 stores throughout North America, with one of its largest plants located in Richmond, KY.  The Kentucky-based Sherwin Williams plant is doing something unique – it’s leading the way on industrial efficiency.

In 2008, via a partnership with the Division of Energy’s Industrial Technology Program, Sherwin William began the process of launching an energy reduction program.  By the 2010 the plant had reduced its total energy consumption by over 25% - with the potential to reduce energy intensity to 50% as more improvements are brought online.  Source: Personal interview by Lauren McGrath of Sierra Club with plant engineer

Energy Improvements Can Save Money and Create Jobs in Cincinnati Area, Study finds
Energy efficiency upgrades to the area's homes and non-profit buildings can save area residents $60 million in lower energy bills and create more than 300 local jobs, according to a study released last month by the Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance. The study looked at the economic impact of energy efficiency investments to the metropolitan area, which includes the Kentucky counties of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton.

About half of KySEA member groups attended a meeting in Lexington on Monday, November 7th, to discuss the upcoming 2012 Kentucky legislative session.

Thirty three representatives from 23 KySEA member groups participated in lively discussion about how to move the Clean Energy Opportunity Act forward this session and about how to support other opportunities that might arise to advance clean energy in the state.

The group heard preliminary findings about a Health Impact Assessment from the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, which shows the health advantages for Kentucky of moving to clean energy.

Curtis Stauffer, of Metropolitan Housing Coalition, also presented about a recent report from the Metropolitan Housing Coalition, entitled the 2011 State of Metropolitan Housing Report. It looked at a variety of factors surrounding affordable housing in the Metro Louisville area, focusing particularly on approaches to providing fair and affordable housing that uses less energy.  

He showed the graphic above to highligh that denser housing types in transit oriented developments are significantly more energy efficient than less dense housing types in suburban style development.  And, green, energy efficient  building practices- significantly reduce home energy use in all types of developments.

Those present at the KySEA meeting agreed that Kentucky needs better solutions both in building new homes and retrofitting existing homes in order to lower people's energy bills. With electricity rates rising across the state, this will be a topic of much consideration during the next session. And the Clean Energy Opportunity Act, supported by KySEA offers some of those solutions.

Monday, November 7th, 2011
10 am to 4 pm
Northside Library Branch
1733 Russell Cave Road
Lexington, KY

The Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance will host its fall meeting on November 7th. The agenda will include:

-Preview of the 2012 legislative session: Perspectives from key KySEA members including a green energy business and an affordable housing provider, as well as opportunities to plug into KySEA's legislative work

-Overview of the Clean Energy Opportunity Act

-Two exciting presentations on reports related to clean energy by Metropoltan Housing Coalition and Kentucky Environmental Foundation.

Bring a brown bag lunch. We hope you will join us.

Please RSVP by clicking here.

Last Monday and Tuesday, September 26th and 27th, nearly 20 representatives of KySEA member groups attended the Governor's Conference on Energy and the Environment.

Member groups in attendance included: Kentucky Solar Energy Society, Solar Energy Solutions, Alternative Energies Kentucky, Center for Sustainable Cities Design Studio, Phinx LLC, Sierra Club, Wellhead Energy Systems and Kentuckians For The Commonwealth.

KySEA representatives also staffed a table promoting the benefits of clean energy in the Commonwealth and the Clean Energy Opportunity Act during the two days.

The KySEA table entertained quite a bit of traffic, having conversations with conference participants about topics ranging from green energy on schools to clean energy training opportunities to in-depth discussions about the Clean Energy Opportunity Act. Several KySEA member group representatives also took the time to get to know one another.

KySEA representatives attended the wide variety of conference sessions that were offered. The conference did advance the discussion about clean energy solutions compared to last year in that break-out sessions about distributed energy options in Kentucky, the Kentucky Home Performance efficiency program and the statewide Kentucky Recycling organization were offered.

Further, former Governor Bill Ritter of Colorado was invited to speak on a plenary session about the advances his state saw in job creation and renewable energy production during his tenure. He credited the success to the implementation of statewide energy policies that encouraged such growth.

Many speakers, including Energy Secretary Len Peters and Kentucky Chamber of Commerce President Dave Adkisson, indicated that the most promising policy advancement potential in Kentucky, in their minds, is energy efficiency.

"There's a quiet revolution going on in conservation," Adkisson said.

The Clean Energy Opportunity Act, supported by KySEA, would increase the amount of energy that utilities offset through energy efficiency programs every year.

To learn more about the conference or to view the presentations from the conference, please check this page of the state's website soon.

Re-posted from the Alliance To Save Energy

On Thursday, Aug. 16, Millbrooke Elementary School in Christian County, Ky., hosted an awards ceremony to celebrate the certification of the 100th ENERGY STAR school in the state. Organized by County Energy Manager Bob Valentine, the event also honored four ENERGY STAR-certified schools in Christian County – all of which are partnered with the Alliance to Save Energy’s Green Schools program sponsored by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

Keynote speaker and first lady of Kentucky Jane Beshear joined representatives from TVA, local officials and business leaders to honor the state’s ENERGY STAR schools. Since Gov. Steve Beshear took office in 2007, Mrs. Beshear has devoted herself to efficiency initiatives including the Kentucky Green Team and Energy Conservation, which aim to bring energy efficiency to homes, schools and businesses across the state. Kentucky schools have followed suit, increasing the number of ENERGY STAR schools from eight in 2006 to 105 in 2011.

Students Save Energy at School, Home
Students are the key element to a school successfully gaining ENERGY STAR certification. Accordingly, the Green Schools program focuses on giving students an active role in their school’s energy saving initiatives.

Each school has a “Green Team” comprised of students, teachers and staff who work to educate themselves and the school community about the importance of saving energy – at school and at home. Mrs. Beshear noted that students’ hard work on saving energy translates into more money for the school district.

ENERGY STAR Schools Save Thousands of Dollars
The Green Teams made great strides at all four ENERGY STAR-certified schools to promote energy-saving behaviors in students, teachers and parents.

Through campus and community education, the students promote such simple behavioral changes as turning off lights in unused rooms, changing the thermostat a few degrees, and turning off computers and appliances when not in use. Changes like these helped the schools save more than 120,000 kWh of power over the past year, which amounts to over $20,000 saved. Their effort is underscored by the fact that all four schools were built more than 45 years ago.

Green Schools: Growing in Kentucky
The savings continue to add up. Christian County now has eight K-12 schools participating in the Green Schools program, many of them returning for their second year with the program. With continued success of the program, Green Schools hopes to engage more students and the entire community in learning and living energy efficiency.

Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, chief sponsor of the clean energy bill KySEA supports, is a leader in the "Green Schools Caucus" effort in Frankfort. The caucus has helped to facilitate funding to make many of these schools possible. 

 A recent report on green jobs in Kentucky indicates that green employment in the state is expected to grow at a more rapid pace than the workforce as a whole, with anticipated growth of 6.8% over the next two years.

Excerpts from the executive summary:
 
"The survey indicates that approximately 4.6% of Kentucky’s workforce are performing green jobs. A majority (78%) of the green jobs in Kentucky are full time positions while approximately 9.4% of the organizations in Kentucky include green jobs of some type.

The majority of green jobs in Kentucky are in the Recycling and Waste Reduction core category, followed by Energy Efficiency, then Pollution Reduction and Cleanup. However, the Energy Efficiency and Recycling and Waste Reduction categories appear positioned for the most employment growth in the green core areas in the next two years. 

While the state’s green workforce is poised for growth, approximately 9% of employers anticipate difficulty in finding qualified candidates to fill positions in the Energy Efficiency, while an estimated 6% are anticipating similar challenges in finding qualified candidates... [in other green work areas.]

Certifications can have an impact on an employer’s interest in hiring candidates for green jobs. In making hiring decisions over the next two years, 15% of employers indicated a favorable response to hiring a job candidate with a certification in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and 10% of employers cited Build-It Green Certification as increasing the likelihood that they would hire a candidate. On the other hand, a modest 7% of employers stated that they would only hire “already trained” employees for green positions.

The dominant modes of preparing green employees include, in order of employer preference, on-the-job training (79%), in-house classroom (39%), and online training (30%)."

The report was authored by ICF International and the Kentucky Office of Employment and Training.

KY Home Performance is a statewide HOME PERFORMANCE with ENERGY STAR program that offers Kentucky homeowners to invest in the comfort and energy efficiency of their homes with convenience and confidence. By enrolling in the program, homeowners can choose from a cash rebate of up to $2000 or a 3.99 percent loan of up to $20,000 for the recommended energy-saving work.

What do they mean by ‘Performance’?
We measure a car’s performance by miles per gallon or MPG.  Likewise, a home that stays comfortable using minimal energy is a high performing home. KY Home Performance helps lower improve home efficiency in a variety of ways, with a formula for improvement specific to each home.

How does a homeowner get started?
To get started, homeowners can log onto KYHomePerformance.org and use a free self-assessment program called Home Energy Compass. To get started right away, skip the diagnostic tool and use the website to select a KY Home Performance certified evaluator. Schedule a home evaluation with the auditor to get a whole house energy evaluation.

What does a KY Home Performance certified evaluator do?
KY Home Performance certified home energy evaluators will review the home in detail and find out precisely how the home is losing energy and money.  This is a ”whole-house” approach that does not look at just one system or component in isolation, but assesses all of them as part of an integrated system.  With KY Home Performance on-line software, evaluators can show how cost-effective improvements will raise the home’s comfort, air quality, and energy performance.

What happens next?
Once the KY Home Performance evaluation is complete, homeowners will be provided a list of cost-effective improvements.  A minimum set of these must be made in order to qualify for the program financial incentives.  Home energy improvements above this minimum standard are optional.  All work will be performed by a KY Home Performance-approved installer chosen from the website.  Homeowners can apply for either a cash rebate of up to $2000 or a low-interest rate loan of up to $20,000 for ten years at 3.99 percent to finance all KHP-approved work.

Ky Home Performance Quality Assurance
Once the energy improvements have been made, the homeowner will get a post-installation inspection to insure that the intended energy benefits were successful and meet Ky Home Performance standards for the loan or rebate. Ky Home Performance seeks to raise home energy efficiency by a minimum of 20 percent.

Interested? Want to learn more? Log on to KyHomePerformance.org and get started today!

Recently General Electric (GE) announced that it will build a 400 MW solar panel manufacturing facility in the U.S. The plant will be the largest power plant of its kind.

The $600 million plant is expected to employ 400-600 people and make enough solar panels each year to power 800,000 homes.

The announcement follows suit with market-wide acceptance that use of sustainable energy forms will continue to grow rapidly in coming years. This power plant is just one of several renewable energy and energy efficiency projects GE has underway.

GE's investment into sustainable energy has already had a sizable impact on Kentucky's green economy. A recent report about the green economy in Kentucky by the Brookings Institution stated that while jobs are being lost in other sectors, between 2003-2010, nearly 5,000 clean energy jobs were created in Kentucky. The largest job growth came in appliance manufacturing - primarily from GE investments into its high-efficiency appliance manufacturing operations based in Louisville.

When the decision to build the solar power plant was announced, GE indicated that the location would have been revealed by now - but they have made no such announcement as of today. What factors will impact their decision about the power plant's location? GE reported that the deciding factors, will include proximity to solar research facilities, labor availability, and state and local financial incentives.

GE is likely going to choose a state that has passed a Renewable Portfolio Standard and/or other market-based incentives - similar to the policies that the Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance advocates to see passed in Kentucky.

KySEA representatives Nancy Reinhart (KFTC), Casey Sterr (FCAN) and Andy McDonald (ASPI / Ky Solar Partnership) met with seven members of a "Climate Change and Clean Energy" World Affairs Council tour group yesterday.

Group members included individuals working in the clean energy field from the countries Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Mr. Pankaj of Nepal said he appreciated the presentations from KySEA and said he found the KySEA perspective on Kentucky's energy future refreshing and important to hear.  He noted, "After talking to the state energy department (DEDI), you would think renewable energy is not an option for Kentucky for many years and that the only choices you have right now are using coal in new ways and nuclear."

Andy McDonald responded, "When you hear them say something like - wind isn't possible - what it means is, wind is currently more expensive than coal, not that wind isn't feasible."

In driving around Kentucky, Mr. Fazlur of Bangladash said he had seen many farmlands that were suitable for wind power. He encouraged the state to think more broadly about how to use wind power, stating that you don't need a very high or powerful turbine to make enough electricity for a farm. He said that small-scale renewables such as on-farm wind are "positively good investments and will pay back quickly."

Several in the room were struck by how little Kentuckians pay for electricity and Mr. Pankaj added "and there is no way that can be the true cost of the fossil fuel electricity you use. I pay 15 cents per kilowatt hour in Nepal, one of the poorest countries in the world. We are completely micro-hydropower driven."

Two youth from the Frankfort High School also participated and shared their hopes for the future. They told the group that many youth they know take climate change seriously and that they are doing what we can to make a change.

While jobs are being lost in other sectors, between 2003-2010, nearly 5,000 clean energy jobs were created in Kentucky says a new report by the Brookings Institution, with the largest job growth coming in appliance manufacturing. The report identifies almost 37,000 total “clean economy jobs” in Kentucky.

And, with a median salary of $35,585 per year, clean energy jobs pay Kentucky workers $2500 more annually than average wages for all other jobs in the state.

In terms of overall size, Kentucky’s clean energy economy ranks 26th in the nation. Nearby states with clean energy standards in place – which KySEA advocates for in Kentucky – all have bigger clean energy economies than Kentucky. Ranking particularly high are neighbors Illinois (5th), Ohio (6th), and North Carolina (11th).

To learn more about clean energy standards and the positive impact they could have on Kentucky’s economy, read here.

By Tim Darst, Executive Director of Kentucky Interfaith Power and Light, a KySEA group member.

The weather has been the hot topic (pun intended) of many of our conversations these days, so it seems an appropriate time for me to talk about air conditioning.  The power plants are going full steam to produce enough energy to power all the AC we are demanding.  Finding ways to reduce our energy used for air conditioning can help reduce the air pollution and save money at the same time. 

Turning the thermostat up a few degrees is too obvious and often contentious so I won’t even mention it.  Instead let’s look at AC competition.  There are many things that are trying to heat up our house while the AC is trying to cool it, like appliances and windows.  These cause the condenser to run longer. 

Here are some of my suggestions:  Try running your washer, washing machine and dryer at night instead of during the day.  These appliances put off heat that not only competes with the AC, but uses electricity during the peak production hours.  If you can, dry your clothes outside on a clothes line.  Avoid using the oven if possible.  Heat things up using a microwave instead, or grill outside.  My neighbors have a portable single burner that they put on their patio to cook with.  Unplug computers, cell phone charges, televisions and other devices that can put off heat even when turned off.  Don’t use incandescent bulbs; they really put off some heat!  Turn off any lights you really don’t need.   Closing blinds and curtains to keep the sun out can make a big difference.  Have awnings installed.  When you take a shower run the exhaust fan to get rid of the humidity.  Likewise the fan on your stove top can expel the heat while cooking.  Using ceiling fans can circulate the air and make it feel cooler.  Dress down to stay cooler.  Drink lots of cold drinks and don't do things that require a lot of physical activity.  Here’s your permission to relax.  Take cold showers.  Before it gets hot, clean your air filters so that your AC runs efficiently.  Keep plants and debris from accumulating close to your central AC unit outside your house.  It needs room for air to flow.

Here are some more radical ideas if you’re up to it:  Buy a solar oven to cook with.  Open the windows at night when it cools down then seal in that cool air before the day heats up and avoid the AC all together.  Turn off the AC and spend your time at cool places away from the house like swimming pools, coffee houses or the library.  Put shutters on the outside of your windows to keep the sun out.  Plant shade trees on the south side of your house.  Shade your AC condenser, it runs better when not sitting in the blazing sun.  Install solar panels on your roof to provide shade while creating clean energy.

Good luck and stay cool!

By Dan Hofmann, President of RegenEn Solar LLC, a solar panel installation company located in Louisville, KY and a KySEA member.

I had such a great response to my recent commentary that I thought it would be worth the time to take an in depth look at the implications of such a massive undertaking.

Now that we know it’s physically possible for solar photovoltaics (PV) to supply all of the electricity needs in Kentucky by covering only 1/5th of the land already cleared by mountaintop removal (MTR) with solar panels, I think it’s important to ask the following: How quickly could we make the transition from coal to solar? How much would it cost in the short and long term? How would this transition affect coal mining jobs and how many jobs would it create? Can our economy, and our environment for that matter, afford to stick with coal for the long term?

I think the only way to make a transition of this scale possible would be to spread it over many decades. In my previous assessment, I estimated that it would take a 69.1 GW solar array to provide all of the electricity needs in Kentucky today, but if this project is spread out over many years the size of the solar array would need to grow to match the expected increase in electric kWh consumption over time.

Figure 1 below shows what I believe would be a feasible transition from coal-fired electricity to solar PV over the next 50 years. If we start by adding roughly 1 gigawatt (GW) of solar each year and increase that amount by 7% per year for 40 years, we could achieve a net-zero carbon economy by the year 2050; powered entirely by solar PV. It also shows the expected increase in electricity consumption from a total of about 90 terawatt-hours (TWh) today to about 240 TWh in the year 2060. This increased consumption is based on the U.S. Department of Energy’s data that shows an average annual increase of around 2% in electricity consumption in Kentucky from 1980–2005.

Figure 2 below shows the solar PV capacity that would need to be installed per year and the cumulative in direct current (DC) megawatts. There would be a drop off in year 2050 as we achieved net-zero. But, new panels would still need to be manufactured and installed as the industry standard 25-year warranty would expire on earlier solar panels, thereby providing long-term jobs. However, manufacturers claim that solar PV panels can function well past their expiration date, producing electricity for 40 or even 50 years.



Figure 3 below shows the jobs that would be created over the next 50 years. This projection is based on a University of California report that claimed that in the solar industry "20 manufacturing and 13 installation/maintenance jobs [are created] per installed megawatt." As you can see, the 20,000 coal-mining jobs (represented in red in the graph) in Kentucky would pale in comparison to the potential of solar PV. In fact, more than 30,000 jobs could be created in year one with the installation of 1 GW of solar, already matching coal-mining employment. These would not be temporary jobs either. The maintenance jobs would be needed indefinitely and the manufacturing and installations jobs would be needed as some solar panels are retired and replaced by new panels.

Figure 4 below illustrates the corresponding gradual decrease and eventual elimination of coal-mining jobs in Kentucky.


Starting with my estimate from my last commentary, Figure 5 below shows the decrease in the cost per watt DC of installing solar PV and energy storage over the next 50 years. This is based on the fact that the cost per watt to install solar has historically decreased by about 4% per year over that past decade. Energy storage would not need to be added until solar PV electricity production exceeded around 10% of the total, at which point the volatile nature of solar energy can present issues to a stable grid.



Figure 6 below shows the cost per year in dollars to install solar PV, install energy storage, maintain the massive solar array, and build transmission grid infrastructure to get the electricity to residential, commercial and industrial consumers in Kentucky. I used this estimate of $1.5 million per mile to build the high voltage DC (HVDC) transmission lines and estimated an average of 100 miles per line with a maximum of 2,000 MW for each line.  As you can see, the annual payroll for solar manufacturers, solar installers, and solar maintenance jobs could be close to $13 billion a year by 2060, providing much needed employment income to the commonwealth.



Figure 7 below shows the decrease in the consumer price per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for solar energy over time. This cost includes the cost to install solar, install energy storage (beginning in 2020), maintain the solar array, and building the transmission infrastructure. While this decrease may not look like much at first glance, it’s much more desirable than the dramatic cost increases in Figure 8 if we were to stick with coal. 

Figure 8 below shows the expected increasing cost of coal-fired electricity, which is sharply different from the expected decreasing cost of solar PV electricity over the same time period. This projection is based on a the 5% per year increase in the cost per kWh in Kentucky over the past 10 years for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors in Kentucky from empirical data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Figures 9 and 10 below show how costly it could be for Kentucky to ignore to potential of solar energy. While the annual cost of electricity during the transition from coal to solar could be similar to the cost of coal electricity by itself through the year 2030, the exponential increase in coal electricity could drain nearly $150 billion more per year than solar energy by 2060 with a cumulative cost of $1.78 trillion over 50 years. Kentucky has always used the cheap cost of coal electricity to lure business to the commonwealth, the same strategy could be used for solar electricity if we get a head start on competing states.





Figures 11, 12 and 13 show the environmental benefit of using solar PV electricity.

It’s clear that solar energy is superior to coal-fired electricity in this department. Imagine using solar electricity to manufacture solar panels right here in Kentucky!

By Steve Boyce, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth - a KySEA member group

Customers of Berea Municipal Utilities who want to invest in solar photovoltaic panels will soon have an opportunity to do so by choosing to participate in a program called Berea Solar Partners. 

The City is establishing the Berea Solar Farm, arrays of PV panels to generate electricity.  Customers will be invited to become Berea Solar Partners by leasing up to two 235-watt solar panels from an initial array of 60 panels.  The one-time lease fee of approximately $700 will cover a 25-year period.  In return, customers will receive credit every billing period for the electricity generated by their panels.

The Solar Farm is one of three projects supported by a $125,000 Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant to the City of Berea.  The purpose of the grant is to enable Berea to take small but critical first steps in a decades-long movement toward a better energy future. 

One of the other two projects funded by the grant will model improved energy practice in City operations by upgrading lighting in five municipal buildings.  The third project involves starting several energy efficiency programs at Berea Municipal Utilities (BMU) in hopes of making clear how such programs can return important value to the community.  With no history of energy efficiency programs in Berea, getting started in a way that demonstrates their potential value – to the City and its people - is as challenging as it is important. 

Getting back to the Berea Solar Farm, one of the major advantages of the program is that the utility will site, install and maintain the solar panels.  Participating customers will gain access to solar generation at less than $3 per watt, less than the typical installed cost of a home PV system after state and federal tax credits.   It is estimated that at current rates, one 235 watt panel will produce a little over $17 worth of electricity per year.  Assuming that Berea’s electricity rates increase 5% per year on average, the panels have estimated payback in the neighborhood of 23 years. 

Steve Wilkins, a Berea KFTC member who plans to lease panels, says “The opportunity appeals to me in part because I’d like to reduce our carbon footprint through some solar PV generation, but we have a lot of shade all around our house.  So installing panels at home is not a possibility.  I also expect the price of coal-fired electricity to continue to sky-rocket, so I’m attracted to locking in 25-years worth of PV-generated electricity at today’s cost.  And I just like the idea of supporting Berea’s effort to make this kind of option available to its utility customers.”     

The program is ideal for customers who want local opportunities to invest in clean energy but have homes, apartments or businesses – owned or rented – not well suited for solar installations due to directional orientation or shade.  It also provides an opportunity for those who would like to invest in solar energy but can’t afford the relatively large cost of installing an entire system on their property. 

One of the exciting features of this Berea Solar Farm approach is the extent to which it is scalable, both for the City and for individual customers.  For the City, adding additional arrays to the 60-panel beginning can be done in small steps over time in response to customer interest.    The “pay as you go” model means that any future growth will be funded by customer participation.  Customers who choose not to participate will not be asked to subsidize those who do.

For some customers, the scalability could take the form of budgeting over time to offset some percentage – possibly all - of their electricity use by periodically adding one or more solar panels.  To enable broad participation, customers are limited to leasing no more than two panels among the first sixty.  But beyond that, if additional arrays are added, customers will be free to lease as many as they wish. 

Another major benefit of this panel-by-panel leasing approach is the ease of transferring credit for the electricity generated by leased panels.  Since the panels are maintained in a central location, the electricity they generate need not be tied to a specific address.  In the event a participating homeowner or renter moves within BMU’s service territory, the electricity credits can simply be transferred to the new location.  If the move is to a location outside the BMU service territory, the leaser would need to sell or donate the energy generated by the panels to a BMU customer.  If such a move involves selling a house, the house value could be enhanced to the extent that the panels serve increasingly to lower utility bills as coal generated rates increase over time.  Some may find it attractive to support a local non-profit – a school or church, for example – by leasing one or more panels and assigning the billing credit to that organization.

Another aspect of this approach to solar generation that seems exciting is the extent to which it lends itself to local effort.  We are hoping, for example, that many people in Berea will share Steve Wilkins interest in community members coming together to take greater responsibility for their own energy future. 

If this seems to go well in Berea, there may be other small towns around Kentucky attracted to establishing similar community-based efforts to move gradually toward greater reliance on clean, renewable sources of electrical energy. 
 

Interview with Malcolm Bryant, President of the Malcolm Bryant Corporation by Lauren McGrath, Sierra Club organizer - Sierra Club is a KySEA member.

The Malcolm Bryant Corporation (TMBC), a thriving real estate development and property management company, is about to take a new angle on innovation.

Based in Owensboro, KY, the Malcolm Bryant Corp has prided itself with an exceptional customer-focused, entrepreneurial vision that has led to its continued successes including – conducting business in more then fifteen different communities and owning more than one thousand current, and past, property occupants. The company, among other things, specializes in office design, technology, industrial location and hospitality service.  They’re even fully staffed up with everything their clients might need  - a full time construction and remodeling crews, free in-house design experts, full time mechanical and repair personnel as well as office staff. 

And now they’re about to add a new twist to their image – solar panels on their headquarters building in downtown Owensboro.

The install, slated for later this month, will also be the first commercial install of photovoltaic (PV) or “solar” panels in Owensboro, KY.  Following is a brief interview with TMBC’s President, Malcolm Bryant.

Q:  What first interested you, or your company, in solar energy?

A: Our company is focused on learning. We are constantly trying to expose our customers to the latest ways to improve their business and make their guests interested and comfortable in their space. Solar energy is certainly interesting. From the youngest to the oldest all of us are interested in the future. Solar energy offers us a view to the future of our planet and how we take care of ourselves at home and work. We love the creativity it brings to our properties. And we can’t ignore that all traditional energy sources are increasing in costs.
 

Q:  Solar has a pretty hefty upfront cost, what factors helped weigh this initial investment out for you?

A: The building that we are installing solar panels has an interesting past, being Owensboro High School in the early 20’s. We have been trying creative additions to it for many years. We painted a tromp’ loi mural on the facade 15 years ago and KET did a documentary on it, so it has an interesting history. We added a cloth awning 25 years ago and we constantly replace it due to the ultraviolet rays. That’s expensive.  It is now interesting that the sun’s rays should now help the building.  And as we mentioned all energy costs are increasing, so it is a good test model for us in seeing if it can help more of our  properties as well.

But, most importantly we want to show our customers our interest in helping their business. If  this can bring the right curiosity to the property they occupy, it brings good intentions to their business and being green and occupying sustainable buildings, should be good business

Q:  What do you think needs to happen to see these newer clean energy industries thrive in Kentucky?

A: The State and Federal and Local governments need to partner with entrepreneurs such as ourselves that want to make a difference. In the broad picture, I believe our leaders need to make a generation changing statement about energy, much the same way we said when we would put a man on the moon. Simply educating ourselves on the installation and interface with the grid is important on the local front.

Q:  What do you hope to gain from this experience? What opportunities exist?

A: Primarily we hope to create curiosity in the community and introduce our properties consistently as cutting edge places to do business. We have many visitors to our community form other cities and I believe it is a good signal to them that our community is exploring worldly ideas. We want to start the discussions of “what if…”

Q:  Is there anything else you’d like to add?

A:  We are pursuing our new convention hotel under design, being LEED certified, the first LEED project in the region. It may have alternative energy opportunities, also.  We certainly will be the pioneer in this region and that’s a good initiative for us and our customers.

To learn more about solar energy and state energy policies that can support its growth, contact KySEA.

By David Brown Kinloch, whose company - Shaker Landing Hydro Associates - is a member of KySEA

Originally published at www.kentucky.com.

For years, advocates of cleaner power have offered up renewable energy as the solution to our environmental problems. With growing concern about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide, renewables are finally receiving serious attention abroad and in the United States.

With that attention has come pushback from those parties that have a lot invested in the status quo, especially those associated with coal. Originally they said renewables don't work, but renewable technology has become proven. Then they said renewable technology was not reliable, yet it has become very reliable. Then they said renewables could not be done on a large utility scale, and now the large wind farms have proven that wrong. Then they said there were not enough renewables to meet our energy needs, but studies show that there are ample sun, wind and water resources to meet our energy needs many times over, even without energy conservation, which itself will dramatically moderate our growing energy demands.

And now the naysayers have come up with a new reason: renewable can't meet our energy needs because "renewables cannot provide baseload power."

"Baseload" is a term that utilities use to describe their large centralized power plants, usually fueled with coal or nuclear fuel. Traditionally, these plants have been the lowest cost to operate, so they are used first, and usually run for long periods, making up the "base" of utilities' generation and handling the typical "load," with more expensive generators being used to meet the rest of demand on those days when it is higher than usual.

But this traditional way of operating a utility system is about to be turned upside down. Environmental and human health costs will likely make these "baseload" plants more expensive than other options, and as their costs are rising, the costs of renewable resources are coming down.

As we plan for the future, we must overcome the myth that the electric utility system cannot be operated without these "baseload" plants because renewable resources are too variable since the wind does not blow all the time and the sun does not shine at night.

While it is true that some renewable resources have different operating characteristics than current utility plants, some of those differences are positive, while others will require different operating procedures. The problem is not the variability or reliability of the renewable resources, but rather the desire by utilities to not change the way they operate their systems.

To understand this, we must first understand how an electric utility operates its system. Because such large volumes of Alternating Current (AC) electricity are being consumed all the time, it is very difficult and expensive to store this power in the volumes necessary to meet customer demand. So, instead, a utility performs a constant balancing act of making or purchasing just the correct amount of power at any moment to meet customer demand and correct for line losses. If the utility makes too much or too little for an extended period, the system voltage will rise or fall to the point that protective relays in the electric system will open up and the result will be a blackout.

Maintaining this exact balance between supply and demand, constantly 24/7, is the job of the dispatchers. They deal with customers adding or dropping loads, as well as generators coming on and off line. Customer load, which must be matched with generation, varies according to time of day (less power is used at night), time of year (more power is used in the summer and winter for heating and cooling) and by weather (very hot and cold periods require more power). Dispatchers do not look at the use of individual customers (except for very large industrial customers), but instead can fairly accurately predict how much power will be needed in the aggregate, hours or days ahead, using the season, time of day and forecast weather and temperatures.

The concept of "baseload" comes from the method that planners and dispatchers have used in the past to meet demand. Since a certain minimum amount of power will be needed no matter the time of day or year, dispatchers have used their lowest cost large units to meet this "base" demand, then added more expensive-to-operate generators to meet the additional demand during peak times of the day. But this is simply the way that the system has been operated in the past, not a requirement. The only real requirement is that the correct amount of power be provided as that power is demanded and needed by customers.

While these large centralized plants have in the past been used by dispatchers to meet around-the-clock demand, they also have their own set of problems for system operators. Their huge size causes major difficulties if they have a problem and a 500 megawatt plant suddenly trips off line. Dispatchers must scramble using a mix of spinning reserve, quick starting peaking units and borrowed power from neighboring utilities to quickly make up this deficit. To protect against the possibility of big generators tripping off-line, utilities have had to invest a lot of money in extra generating capacity, called a reserve margin (in the range of 20 percent more than their projected highest peak load), spinning reserve (capacity running, but not loaded, for quick emergencies) and interconnections with other utilities. All of these are parts of the ratepayer cost of using large "baseload" plants.

It is also difficult to replace one large unit for another. If a large coal generator trips off line with mechanical problems, getting a replacement unit on line can take a while. It can take 24 hours to start-up, synchronize and load a large coal-fired unit from a cold start. Even from a warm start, the process can still take 6 hours, so large coal units are not started and stopped as load varies. Instead, the units can be backed-down during lower use periods, and operated in a lower output mode, which is also less efficient.

Nuclear power plants add even more operational difficulties. For the most part, these units cannot safely be backed-down during low demand periods, so coal units also on the system must be backed-down even further making them even less efficient. This can cause some real operational problems during minimal demand periods (like spring and fall with no heating or cooling load, late at nights, on a weekend when industry is shutdown). If the nuclear plants can't be backed-down, and the coal units are backed down as far as they can go, the electric system can be threatened by too much power.

One way to deal with the problem of nuclear power plants' inability to safely reduce output during low use times was the development of pumped-storage hydro. In these plants, power is used during off- peak times when there is more power than needed, to pump water uphill to a storage reservoir, then the water is later run back downhill during peak times to generate electricity. While these plants are expensive, they have offered assistance in dealing with large fixed output nuclear plants. There are over 23,000 megawatts of pumped-storage hydro capacity in the U.S. today, located mainly where utilities are also using nuclear power. So utilities have developed expensive but effective ways to deal with the problems inherent in the use of large centralized coal and nuclear plants, and the ratepayers have paid these costs.

Renewable energy plants have their own set of issues that must be dealt with by system planners and dispatchers. Renewable plants tend to be much smaller, so the loss of an individual plant or even a group of plants does not cause the problems of a large centralized plant. Also, most renewable plants can be started and synchronized to the grid very quickly, unlike the large fossil and nuclear plants. So the challenges for planners and dispatchers associated with "baseload" generators generally do not occur with renewable generators. Instead, the major problem with renewables is the variable nature of the power. While no current fossil-fuel or nuclear power plant is available to the dispatcher all the time due to forced outages (something breaking) and planned outages (scheduled downtime for maintenance), renewable plants face longer outage periods due to a lack of fuel (sun, wind or water). Yet these periods are different from the unexpected forced outages that the large coal and nuclear plants experience. Just like expected customer loads can be predicted hours or days ahead by dispatchers using weather forecasts, sun, wind and water produced electric output can be predicted in the exact same way with weather forecasts. Also, geographic diversity of a lot of small renewable generators, like wind turbines, means that all the units taken as a whole have a much higher capacity factor than any individual unit alone.

The other complaint from utilities about wind and solar power is that they are not "dispatchable," meaning utility dispatchers cannot turn these units on or off like they can large centralized power plants. Yet because there is no fuel cost associated with renewable plants, using economic dispatch (which uses the plants with the lowest variable costs first), renewable plants would always be dispatched first, so that dispatchability is a non-issue. The real issue for dispatchers is knowing how much power will be produced by renewable plants in aggregate at any time in the near future and integrating this into their calculations of the amount of additional generation that will be needed. Like customer load that can be predicted using weather forecasts and other factors, renewable generation can also be predicted. So in a sense, this renewable generation will act as negative load, or a reduction in the amount of other load demand that the utility must supply at any given time. Today, future load (say the next day) is predicted by dispatchers, and then they determine which generating plants will need to be on line to meet that predicted load. In the future, the procedure will be the same, except the negative load from renewable generators will be subtracted from the positive customer load, and dispatchers will then need to have the generating assets available to meet the net load.

The question then becomes, with a large penetration of renewable generators, can the electric system be operated without the significant "baseload" units utilities rely upon today? The answer is absolutely yes. While utilities have characterized certain parts of the load they serve as "baseload," and have used large and inefficient centralized plants to meet this part of the load, the reality is that each hour of each day there is a certain amount of load that must be met with power generation, and that load can be met with any type of generation the dispatcher chooses. Today, utilities use large centralized coal and nuclear plants to meet a portion of the load, and then use more expensive gas fired generation to meet the balance. The gas fired generation is also used as a quick start substitute when one of these large plants fail and drops off line.

When renewables become a substantial part of the resource mix, these gas-fired units that now back-up the large "baseload" plants can be used to fill in holes when the mix of renewables is not sufficient to meet predicted load demand. Now that natural gas prices have been coming down as new resources have reached the market, and coal-fired generation is becoming more expensive as pollution controls are needed, many utilities are opting to rely more heavily on gas-fired generation, which should further help with the dispatch of utility systems with large penetrations of renewable generators.

There are also some types of dispatchable renewable plants, such as peaking hydro plants, which can be brought on-line in minutes (not hours), and biomass plants which can be ramped up and down like a large centralized plant. In addition, the pumped-storage hydro plants that have been built to deal with the fixed capacity nature of nuclear plants, can also be used to provide additional backup for renewable generation. And there are solar thermal generating plants being built that will have the capacity to store significant heat for use when the sun isn't shining.

Clearly the customer load can be met, hour by hour, primarily with renewables, without today's 'baseload" plants; in fact these plants may get in the way of renewables providing substantial amounts of the needed power in a given hour.

The problem here is not the nature of renewable resources or any technical hurdle, but rather it is getting utility planners and dispatchers to think outside the "baseload" mindset that they have been stuck in for so many years. Instead of thinking horizontally — adding strips of large "baseload" capacity to run for days or weeks or even months then filling in the gaps, instead the dispatcher needs to look vertically ahead — what will be my load minus my negative load from renewables and then how do I fill any gaps.

The need for large, centralized baseload capacity is not some requirement of the electric power system, but rather a desire to continue to do things as utilities have done in the past, the way they know. What is needed is not additional baseload capacity, but simply the willingness of utilities to look at meeting customer load with different resources, and the development of forecasting tools and dispatch methodologies that easily and reliably integrate clean power sources into their systems.

As the internalizing of the health and environmental costs of the "baseload" plants makes their power more and more expensive, and as it becomes ever more increasing difficult to get these dirty plants to operate under cleaner and cleaner requirements (especially in a carbon-constrained world), utility planners and dispatchers will be forced to think differently as theD switch to clean renewable generators happens, whether they like it or not.

David Brown Kinloch, a Louisville engineer, can be reached at softenergy@juno.com.

A solar panel array, solar hot water collectors and a wind turbine were recently installed on the roof of the education center located on the grounds of the Kentucky state capitol in Frankfort. The building is highly energy efficient as well. The renewable energy systems are visible from the Governor’s office. The solar panels are expected to produce more than 8,000-kilowatt hours of sustainable electricity each year. Solar Energy Solutions, a Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance member, completed the solar installations.

This blog originally posted on the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Footprints on the Path to Clean Energy blog on 7/11.

Cheers for Duke Energy and Progress Energy

People in the Southeast do want energy efficiency! We had no doubts, but it is great to see strong participation in the first full year of new efficiency programs offered by Progress Energy Carolinas (PEC) and Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC). Our analysis shows that  both utilities achieved greater savings and spent less per kWh than they had anticipated. We were particularly pleased to see that both utilities achieved a “cost of saved energy” similar to some national leaders and lower than their Southeastern peers (Table 1).

All Carolinas energy customers are benefiting from low cost energy savings. After the first full year of data, it looks like Duke Energy is outperforming Progress Energy in terms of total savings, and as a percentage of retail sales (Table 2).

What made the difference for Duke Energy? The lower costs and higher savings are driven by large CFL programs, both in terms of number of bulbs installed and savings per bulb. While these programs are very successful and low-cost, the federal lighting standard that goes into effect in 2012 will reduce the amount of savings the utility can claim from a CFL bulb because the utility only gets credit for helping customers go “beyond standards.”

Both utilities are achieving greater savings and lower costs than their peers across the Southeast. This is no surprise to us - just like most business opportunities, energy efficiency programs operate best at an economy of scale.

The results come with some caveats. These are preliminary data: Some of the savings claimed by the utility are still subject to a “true-up”, or measurement and verification analysis. Another caveat is that many Carolinas utility customers are served by other utilities, whose data we haven’t obtained or analyzed yet. So in another year or so, we should have an even better picture of what utilities and their customers have been achieving, and at what cost.

What do these savings mean for customers? An easy way for customers to understand the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency is to compare it to electricity rates. The “cost of saved energy” is like the cost to build a power plant, a power plant that operates for free for years afterwards. Assume that the “energy efficiency power plant” lasts ten years (a common result): if the cost of saved energy is $0.20, then the average cost of energy efficiency is just 2 cents per kWh. That’s cheaper than even the low, low rates that industrial customers pay (around 5 cents per kWh). It’s cheaper to pay for energy savings than to burn fuel in power plants!

Table 1. Comparison of Utility Cost of Saved Energy

Duke opens up with a strong residential lighting program

Duke Energy’s Residential Smart Saver program, which achieved the majority of its savings from residential CFLs, used low and no cost coupons to create an incentive for their customers to purchase and install energy efficient CFLs. They used targeted marketing and had a customer specific code on each coupon so they were aware of who was redeeming the coupons, and who wasn’t. Based on independent measurement and verification, for every 100 free bulbs that Duke Energy gave away, the program received credit for 107 bulbs due to customers purchasing additional CFLs when cashing in their CFL coupon.

Progress delivering energy savings to its business customers

Progress Energy’s commercial business program was successful as well. The program offered commercial, industrial, government and educational customers standard or prescriptive rebates for installing energy efficiency measures. The standard rebate is a set amount, for example, a $6-8 incentive for replacing a T12 light fixture with a T8 florescent light fixture. The custom rebate is for technologies that Progress Energy hasn’t included in its standard program thus far, and allows customers some flexibility in customizing the energy efficiency solution they need for their business.

Table 2. Progress Energy & Duke Energy efficiency savings as a percentage of retail sales

Ideas for improvements

While both of these programs were successful, and we hope will continue to be, there are a few improvements to Duke Energy and Progress Energy’s energy efficiency portfolio that could be made.

Elk's Timberline Cool Roof Shingles don't look different from "normal" shingles, but will cut air conditioning costs.

First, neither utility offers a small business efficiency program. Several utilities have shown great results by designing specific programs that cater to small business. They may offer turnkey or similar implementation of energy efficiency technology.

Second, neither utility offers a complete design-to-commission new construction energy efficiency program for their commercial customers. It is critical to encourage contractors to install energy efficiency during the construction process because many of the measures, particularly with the building envelope, are no longer available cost-effectively after the construction is finished. Then when the building is complete, it is necessary to complete a proper “commissioning” to make sure the building systems are operating to design specs. Many buildings last for longer than 50 years, so it is very important the utilities try and capture these time sensitive savings.

Finally, we recommend that the utilities look at their implementation models. For example, neither of the utilities are offering upstream incentives. This is a program where the utility offers an incentive to the manufacturer, or retail store (“upstream” in the value chain from the customer) to produce or sell energy efficient measures. Often the goal of this type of program is to give the customer the option of purchasing an energy efficiency widget for the same price as the standard widget. One technology that we think would be well suited for an “upstream incentive” program are residential reflective roof shingles.

- Natalie Mims co-authored this blog.