California Renewable Energy News – Advertised under the pretext of a jobs bill, big oil is trying to get the voters of California to approve proposition 23 which would suspend the tough energy greenhouse gas bill which would force the reduction of clean air to the 1990 levels. 80% of the money to put proposition 23 on the ballot and support it has come from out of state.

It would not be so offensive if they were being honest about it but instead they claim it is hurting job growth and are counting on the appathy and fear of the average voter to line their pockets. This is just plain wrong and is not what this country was founded upon!

California Governor Schwarzenegger, in a statement, called the contribution “extremely disappointing.” He described Proposition 23 backers as “a handful of out-of state polluters supporting … the oil companies’ dirty energy proposition.”

California and the rest of America take heed, WE HAVE TO REINVENT OURSELVES! That means jobs that can not be shipped overseas. We have to rebuild our schools. (What happened to the republican “no child left behind”?) We have to think more about our childrens future and that means renewable clean energy like solar, wind and solar thermal.

Climate change is all about jobs! Climate change is all about our economic future. Just a 3 degree warming of the average temperate pushes the Sierra snow pack up 1,500 feet. Less snow, less water for the summer months. Above is a picture of what the central valley agriculture is going to look like without irrigation!

Solar & wind energy works. Solar is now. Solar creates jobs. Solar gets us weaned from foriegn oil. Solar puts control of monthly household expenses in the hands of the homeowner and money in their pocket to spend LOCALLY. Local spending means more small business.

Don’t fall for it California. Vote a resounding NO on proposition 23 this fall and vote against any polition who supports it or refuses to state a position. Your grand children will thank you long after we are gone. Read More -

Bid to suspend California global-warming law gets $1 million from billionaire brothers’ firm. The donation to the Proposition 23 campaign comes from a subsidiary of Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and controls 4,000 miles of oil pipelines.

Los Angeles Times
By Margot Roosevelt,

The fight over a November ballot initiative to suspend California’s global warming law has escalated sharply with the Koch brothers, oil billionaires and “tea party” backers, making a million-dollar entry into the fray.

The contribution to the campaign for Proposition 23 came Thursday from a subsidiary of Wichita, Kan.-based Koch Industries, the nation’s second-largest private company (after the agribusiness giant Cargill). A spokeswoman for the subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources, said the company “may consider additional support.” The Kochs’ company has estimated annual revenues of $100 billion, owns refineries in Alaska, Texas and Minnesota, and controls about 4,000 miles of oil pipelines.

California’s global warming energy law, known as AB 32, is designed to cut the state’s emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the end of this decade. A significant chunk of the reductions would come through regulations aimed at fostering alternative fuels and generating electricity from solar, wind and other alternative energy sources.

The ballot measure would suspend the global warming law until the state’s unemployment rate dropped below 5.5%, a level achieved only three times in the last three decades. Until now, the measure has been largely financed by two Texas-based companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., which operate refineries in Wilmington and in Northern California.

This is shaping up to be an epic power struggle. The initiative is opposed by environmental groups, most Democratic officeholders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who considers the global warming energy law one of the major achievements of his tenure. The GOP candidate for governor, Meg Whitman, has said she is leaning against the ballot measure but would take steps if elected to suspend the global warming law for a year.

The Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Carly Fiorina, had refused to state a position in a broadcast debate Wednesday. On Friday she released a statement calling Proposition 23 “a band-aid fix and an imperfect solution” but saying she would vote for it.

Her Democratic opponent, Sen. Barbara Boxer, responded with a statement released by her campaign manager that called Fiorina “out of touch with most Californians” and accused her of “siding with oil companies.”

The money from David and Charles Koch could significantly help the campaign for the ballot measure, which has been trailing in most polls. They have founded a web of libertarian organizations and think tanks dedicated in large part to fighting what they see as excessive government regulation. They also have helped finance efforts to develop arguments denying that global climate change is a real phenomenon.

Katie Stavinhoa, a Koch spokeswoman, said the company believes that the state’s global warming law will cause “significant job losses and higher energy electrical power costs. It sets a bad precedent for future regulation by other states and the federal government.”

Schwarzenegger, in a statement, called the contribution “extremely disappointing.” He described Proposition 23 backers as “a handful of out-of state polluters supporting … the oil companies’ dirty energy proposition.”

Scientists say greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels to power cars and industries are trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. California is already experiencing the effects of climate change, they say, with rising sea levels and melting snowpacks that affect the state’s chief source of fresh water.

Commercial Refinery owners are keenly focused on the state’s law and regulations, which could significantly reduce demand for their energy products.

The goal of AB 32 “is to reduce the use of petroleum,” said Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Assn. “What happens in California doesn’t stay in California. Other states are waiting to see … if they can inflict similar harm on their constituents.”

So far, the Proposition 23 campaign has raised $8.2 million, of which 97% has come from oil interests and 89% from out of state.

The campaign against the measure has raised $6.6 million, including $2.5 million from Thomas F. Steyer, founder of Farralon Capital Management, a $20-billion San Francisco hedge fund, and smaller contributions from environmental groups and clean technology businesses.

Steyer said that his company has hardly any clean technology investments but that he is backing the measure because “the lion’s share of investment in a clean-air economy is here in California. Our biggest competition is China…. We have to prevent this proposition from passing so we can protect the jobs of the 21st century.”

Admin note – This is going to be a classic epic fight involving news printing, TV and door to door campaigning. We hope all of California takes a firm stance for renewable energy, solar and wind power and send these out of state carpetbaggers packing.

California Energy News – Big Energy is counting on the apathy of the average voter. Any constitutional historian will tell you that the founding fathers sought to frame a document that would protect Americans from power hungry anything. “For the people by the people” meant the “people” need to get into understanding what is likely to happen when they push the voting button. The carefully choreographed 2001 national election is a perfect example of that the conclusion of which was a 2008 meltdown that was beneficial to about 4% of the population but the rest of us will spend years paying for.

We just pushed back PG&E but they are coming at us again with proposition 23. Presented to us as “about more jobs bill”, proposition is not about jobs. Prop 23 was put on the ballot by big energy about lining their pockets and they are counting on the apathy of the average voter.

Don’t be fooled California, this is about clean energy and the future of our country. It is about rolling back pollution levels which only benefit big energy.

Forget the misleading title and read proposition 23 then consider your children and grandchildren and the future we are painting for them. Lets continue down the path of clean energy, high tech solar and wind jobs and send big spending politicians and big corporations a message, we want our country and future back. Do the right thing. Read More -

California’s choice: Build the future, or burn the planet
The most important decision Californian voters might ever make: Yes or no on the state’s global warming law
Salon
BY ANDREW LEONARD

As midterm elections go, California faces a doozy this November. There’s a juicy governor’s race, with former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, a Republican, determined to spend whatever it takes to deny Jerry Brown a second go-round in Sacramento. There’s an equally high-profile senatorial showdown, featuring former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina’s attempt to dethrone the longtime Bay Area liberal stalwart Barbara Boxer. Both races are getting plenty of national attention, and deservedly so.

But the most important choice Californians will make this year won’t be between a Republican or a Democrat. Also included on the ballot will be an initiative asking voters to decide whether to proceed as previously planned in shaping a future aggressively oriented toward clean, renewable energy, or to instead take a giant step backward.

Climate change legislation may be dead at the national level, but in California, a far-reaching law is already in place: AB 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 mandates that California must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. But California’s crazy government-by-initiative system means that just because a law has been passed by the California House and Senate and signed by the governor doesn’t make it secure. On the ballot this November, voters will get their own chance to weigh in on AB 32 by deciding whether or not to pass Proposition 23, the misleadingly named “California Jobs Initiative.”

Bankrolled by a couple of Texas oil companies that operate large refineries in California and are among the state’s biggest polluters (and greenhouse gas emitters), Proposition 23 is designed to gut AB 32. If it passes, it would halt implementation of AB 32’s mandate until California’s unemployment rate falls below 5.5 percent. Since California is currently laboring under a recession-induced 12 percent unemployment rate, that could take quite a long time, if ever.

One would hope that California voters will be smart enough to understand that Texas-based oil refiners do not necessarily have the best interests of Californians at heart. And while there has been relatively little polling done on Proposition 23 compared to the Senate and gubernatorial races, we can take some encouragement from the numbers delivered by a Field poll in mid-July, which reported that 48 percent of California voters opposed Prop. 23, while only 36 percent supported it.

That’s not a good starting position for a California proposition, according to the longtime California politics watchers behind Calbuzz, who argue that successful initiatives usually hit the ground running with about a 60 percent support level. But it’s still early, and in contrast to Meg Whitman, who started her general election advertising blitz the day after she won the Republican primary, the big spending on Prop. 23 hasn’t started yet.

But when it does start, both sides will be loaded. Because Prop. 23 isn’t just a classic fight between environmentalists and oil companies. It’s also a fight over the shape of California’s industrial future, as Todd Woody writes today at Grist.

[This is] a struggle between the industrial behemoths of the old fossil fuel economy and a startup coalition of environmental groups, Silicon Valley technology companies, financiers, and old-line corporations looking to profit from decarbonizing California.

John Doerr, the legendary venture capitalist, has contributed $500,000 to the No on 23 campaign, reports Woody, as has Wendy Schmidt, the wife of Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Thomas Steyer, founder of San Francisco hedge fund Farallon Capital Management, has pledged a whopping $5 million.

So both sides have cash to burn. And one line of argument you can certainly expect the No on 23 forces to be making, as Woody reported last week, is that AB 32 is already working. The prospect of tighter controls on greenhouse emissions has attracted millions of dollars of investment into the clean and renewable energy technology sector in California.

At an event at Google last week, green tech investor Vinod Khosla noted that solar companies are building factories in California even though it would be cheaper to manufacture photovoltaic panels in China.

“The markets are here, the innovators are here, the ecosystem is here,” he said, noting that the state’s global warming law, known as Assembly Bill 32, or AB 32, had created a predictable regulatory climate, spurring investment in California.

In other words, AB 32 is already creating jobs in California. So don’t screw it up! Because there are plenty of other places for those investment dollars and jobs to flow to.

Enter China. In the second quarter of 2010, China attracted $11 billion of investment into the clean energy sector. That’s more than the U.S. and the European Union garnered, combined. The influx was no accident, either; it was a direct result of Chinese industrial policy, including a law passed at the end of 2009 requiring power utilities to buy renewable energy.

China’s foresight means that China will be at the forefront of innovation in and deployment of technologies that will become ever more essential to economic growth as oil prices rise and addressing climate change inevitably becomes a higher priority. California has a shot at getting a piece of that action, thanks to its aggressive environmental stance, its high-tech industrial base, venture capital financing, and AB 32. Voters in November will have an opportunity to ratify the decision to bet on a clean energy future, or shoot themselves in the foot and slip back into carbon-dioxide-stained past. It may well end up being one of the most important votes Californians get to make in their entire lives.

Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon.

By MWAURA KIMANI, The Citizen, BusinessWeek Correspondent, Nairobi

When Charles Rioba tried to light an electrical bulb by assembling a contraption of used radio batteries, the experiment failed to the delight of his eight-year old age mates.

They dismissed the gesture as yet another publicity stunt but little did they know that the episode had set in motion a career path for Rioba who is now Managing Director at Solar World, a leading alternative energy provider in Nairobi.

The firm, which has been in existence for 25 years plans to set up base in other countries such as Burundi and Malawi. It currently has operations in Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda through field offices and agencies.  Just recently, Mr Rioba returned from Sudan where his company has just opened shop to serve the growing demand for alternative and renewable energy solutions.

Mr Rioba quit Total Solar Kenya in 1990, a renewable energy firm where has was a manager, to set up Solar World.

The firm now specialises in solar lighting and heating, power back-up systems and other renewable energy systems

Solar World, which is now recording average sales of KSh150 million annually, up from around KSh10 million five years ago, hopes to grow its revenue base five fold over the next two years.

“We are looking at KSh500 million by 2012,” said Mr Rioba, a chemical engineer who doubles up as a consultant with the Ministry of Energy, Kenya Bureau of Standards and lectures at Kenyatta University. “The trick is blending the technical knowledge, services and customer needs, ” he added.

In Kenya, Solar World is angling for a new opportunities as the government moves to widen energy sourcing through proposed laws that require installation of solar water heating equipment on all new buildings.

The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) has published a raft of regulations requiring families of more than four people that use electricity to boil water, to install solar heaters.

“We are targeting at least 5,000 installations through a financing scheme that will allow homeowners and property developers to acquire the needed systems in a cost effective manner,” said Mr Rioba.

“It will be possible to acquire even the most complex and expensive solar system by spreading payments over a period of six months,” he said, adding that since inception, the Donholm based firm has installed over 50,000 square meters of solar heat collectors to heat more than 2.5 million litres of water country-wide each day.

One of its most famous products is a portable solar power system that can light two rooms, charge a mobile phone and power a radio.

“The product retails for KSh6500 and comes complete with cables, a battery and solar panel,” he said.

The solar heaters market has been growing globally as Governments, big corporations and environmentalists wage the alternative energy campaign.

Entrepreneurs have also been touting solar as a viable source of energy for Kenya by making it more affordable to millions of consumers who depend on the national electricity grid for their energy needs.

Cost of electricity

The cost of electricity has more than doubled in the past 12 months, forcing policy makers to fast-track the roll-out of alternative energy regulations to help increase supply and arrest pricing turbulence.

Frequent power shortages and the accompanying price escalation erode about 1.5 per cent of Kenya’s GDP every year besides weakening the ability of the economy to attract fresh solar investments, according to the World Bank.

Mr Rioba, however, says substandard solar systems continue to flood the market, threatening the earnings of genuine players.

Solar Commentary – These days, I am usually at the front of the outrage line over things like the gulf oil disaster and big corporations taking advantage of middle class America. Since principles only mean something when you stand by them when its inconvenient, I never miss a vote and I am not shy about voicing my opinions. Having said that, I tripped across one of the most thoughtful and insightful articles that is not just about solar in the California Mojave desert. You might normally find me on the other side of the fence on this issue, but the article about our public policies made me stop and consider… what happened to American common sense? In this case, I have to agree with the author.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger put it eloquently when he said “if we cannot put solar in the Mojave Desert (… and I left out this part of the quote in the title,) I don’t know where the HELL we can we put it?”

I do not have a PHD in environmental science, but plain common sense tells me that solar panels in a desert, where there is never going to be any water, it doesn’t interfere with anyones aesthetic vistas, and is close to electrical needs is not going to hurt the desert tortoise? More than likely, it will provide some much needed shade. I don’t need a 5 year 2 million dollar federally funded study to tell me that! Read More –

THE TYRANNY OF THE FEW
Emerginvest
Jim Kaplan, Chairman of Cubic Asset Management LLC

Billy Joe Johnson is a man you would not like to meet in a dark alley. Johnson is a white supremacist, drug and alcohol abusing, serial killer. In 1991 he savagely beat another inmate to death with an ax handle. In 2002 he executed a snitch with a point blank shot to the head in Anaheim. Two years later he murdered another man by clubbing him with a claw hammer. Currently serving a 45 year sentence in the California state prison system for his crimes, he has also confessed to two previously unsolved murders. The state psychiatrist has described him as a low IQ sociopath. But in requesting that he receive the death penalty, Johnson has performed a risk-benefit analysis that would make an economics professor proud. California currently has 685 inmates in San Quentin’s Death Row. Only 13 men have actually been put to death since 1977 when the death penalty was reinstated, none in the last four years. Johnson estimates that the mandatory appeals required by California law before a death sentence can be carried out will take at least 24 years, making him more than 70 years old. In the meantime, he will “enjoy” a larger single cell, while other maximum security prisoners have to share a smaller two-bunk room. Death row inmates have more telephone privileges and have contact visits in private rooms, rather than the communal halls in other institutions. They receive breakfast and dinner in their cells, and have exclusive control over their own television and CD player. It currently costs California $49,000 per year to house a maximum security inmate, compared to $138,000 for a death row inmate. Ignoring inflation, the taxpayers will incur over $2.1 million in expenses because of a dysfunctional appeals process. It is hard to make a case that capital punishment serves as a deterrent when criminals prefer that sentence.

The case of Billy Joe Johnson is a dramatic example of the nation’s collective obsession with placing adherence to the legal process above common sense. Unfortunately, this has dire economic consequences for all of us. Two of the biggest issues facing the United States currently are the stubbornly high unemployment rate and the need to create a cohesive national energy policy. President Obama sees these issues as inextricably linked; the $787 billion stimulus bill included $59 billion in new clean energy tax breaks. The tax breaks, he claimed, will help create 300,000 new jobs and double the supply of renewable energy. According to the White House web site, alternative energy technologies should reduce our dependence on foreign oil and the destabilizing effects of climate change.

One technology which would seem to be consistent with the guiding principles set forth is solar power. Renewable (as long as the sun rises the next day), abundant, non-polluting and silent, it would seem to be a source of energy whose “day in the sun” has arrived. Over the past few years, utility giants Pacific Gas & Electric and FPL Group (Florida Power & Light), with financing provided by Goldman Sachs, in conjunction with a passel of Silicon Valley start-ups, have filed applications to build solar power plants on federal land in California’s Mojave Desert. They have the support of such prominent environmental groups as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club.

But the supporters didn’t anticipate the vehement opposition of the less well-known Wildlands Conservancy, which persuaded California’s Senator Diane Feinstein to introduce legislation banning renewable energy development on more than a million acres of the Mojave, including the land on which the coalition had filed its application. While hundreds of thousands of acres remain available as potential solar farm sites, the prohibited land is nearest to power transmission lines and the populous Southern California market.

A separate lawsuit has challenged the project because of its potential impact on water resources. And for good measure, yet another suit has challenged any development because of the threat it poses to the desert tortoise. To quote Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, “If we cannot put a solar power plant in the Mojave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put it”.

This inability to allow the needs of society at large to trump the procedural maneuvers of organized minorities translates directly into lost job opportunities. Most of the technological breakthroughs over the past forty years that made solar cells economically feasible occurred in labs that were federally funded with tax dollars. Yet Japan was the first to commercialize the construction of solar panels for homes and businesses. Now China has overtaken Japan to produce 35% of the world’s solar cells and 49% of polysilicon wafers, the main material used in solar cells. The U.S. makes just 5% of cells. Even American companies like First Solar, which is opening a new plant every three months and creating 4,000 jobs/year, is building 86% of its capacity in Germany and Malaysia, as both Asian and European countries have done more to stimulate domestic demand.

The other alternative energy source which is currently economically viable is wind power. Once the capital cost of erecting wind turbines has been incurred, wind is free, produces no greenhouse gases, and is available both at night and on cloudy days. While turbines are tall, they occupy a small footprint, and so the land on which they are constructed can be used for other productive purposes, such as agriculture. Even in rural areas that are remote from the electrical grid, wind turbines can generate power that can be used locally. In 1999, a consortium called the Cape Wind Project proposed building the nation’s first offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound, to help mitigate New England’s heavy dependence on oil. Despite the overwhelming support of most environmentalists for promoting the use of non-fossil fuels, various levels of environmental review stalled the project for years. But the delaying tactics were just beginning. Senator Ted Kennedy vehemently opposed the project, because it would spoil the view from the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport. Another lawsuit was filed claiming the project would lower property values by destroying the view. Other suits claimed that it would kill migratory birds, represent a threat to private aviation, and destroy the fishing industry.

The Cape Wind Project successfully overcame every obstacle, at a cost of over $45 million, and late last year it looked like construction might finally begin. The Project’s developer, Energy Management Inc. placed an order for 130 turbines with Siemens. But then the project hit an unexpected roadblock when the National Park Service agreed with the Wampanoag Aquinnah and Mashpee that Nantucket Sound should be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. They ruled that the Project would disrupt the tribes’ spiritual sun greetings and submerged burial grounds, despite the fact that the National Register has previously only been used for specific properties, and that the tribes only used the land under the Sound before the last Ice Age. If this decision is ultimately upheld, it will mean that other federal bodies of water can receive similar designation, slowing any offshore development. As bizarre as this decision seems, it could have been worse. The Aquinnah had actually tried to get the entire Atlantic Ocean added to the National Register.

In late April the Interior Department gave approval to proceed with this long delayed project in a scaled-back form, but ordered additional seabed surveys. Three hours after the decision, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound filed yet another lawsuit. Legal experts estimate that lawsuits may be able to stall the project for yet another five years. Contrast this decade-long delay with the fact that the entire Hoover Dam project went from conception to completion in five years.
Compare this to Europe, where 2,000 megawatts of offshore generating capacity are already operating, and 40,000 additional megawatts are scheduled to be built by 2020, enough to power 25 million homes. Not surprisingly, General Electric has just announced that it is investing approximately $150 million in a turbine plant in the United Kingdom, creating jobs that could just as easily have been created here if only there was end-market demand. I am sure that our oil producing friends around the world will continue to supply us with an unlimited supply at reasonable prices despite our unwillingness to take constructive action to reduce our oil dependence. Aren’t you?

Renewable energy projects are not the only victims of “proceduralism”. Consider the efforts of Rio Tinto, one of the world’s largest mining companies, to develop the Kennecott Eagle nickel mine in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The United States is fortunate to have vast reserves of many raw materials, but is one of the last venues that mining companies consider when planning a project. Rio Tinto first proposed this mine on a 90 acre site in 2002. It would create 500 construction jobs and 200 permanent jobs in an area currently suffering from over 20% unemployment. Rio Tinto has had to obtain literally dozens of permits from local municipalities, the state and federal government, all of whom regulate pollution in water and air. The company has had to provide air and water quality samples, survey maps of potential water leeching, designs for wastewater storage, and plans for reclamation, such as replanting of vegetation. It has faced lawsuits from the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve concerning the project’s impact on wild blueberries that grow in the area, among other issues. After more than seven years, a state agency finally issued the water, air and mine permits necessary to begin. But Rio has yet to receive a federal water permit.

According to an international mining advisory group, of the twenty five top mining countries in the world, the United States is tied with Papua New Guinea for the longest approval process. In the meantime, we remain one of the largest purchasers of raw materials from Australia, Brazil, Canada and Africa of minerals which we could mine at home. It is worth noting that both Australia and Canada have environmental laws governing mine construction that are comparable to those in the U.S., but projects typically move from the drawing board to approval in one to two years in both countries. It is the legal and regulatory climate that creates the difference.

The examples above are by no means isolated. Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport has long been notorious for frequent delays which, because of it’s prominence as a hub for both United and American Airlines, tend to snarl air traffic across the country. Nearly every frequent flyer has a horror story to tell about missed meetings and flights because of time spent on the runway or waiting for a gate at O’Hare. But late last year O’Hare opened a new runway, and the results are startling. Despite being the second busiest airport in the United States, and the fourth busiest in the world, the on-time arrival rate has soared 27% in the ten months since the new runway opened. Delays at O’Hare are now less than at Dallas, Atlanta or Denver. But this was the first new runway at O’Hare in an unbelievable 37 years. On the same day that this runway was opened, Seattle’s Sea-Tac Airport opened another runway that was first proposed over two decades ago. Despite the astonishing growth in air travel, these (and another in Washington, D.C. which also opened on the same day) were the first new runways to be opened in over twenty years at any of the twenty-five largest U.S. airports. NIMBY lawsuits (not in my backyard), environmental lawsuits and noise pollution lawsuits are causing the waste of billions of dollars and billions of man-hours of lost productivity as the nation’s air travel infrastructure falls woefully behind demand.

Nuclear power plants have been similarly stymied. The last nuclear power plant to be built in the United States was the River Bend plant in Louisiana, whose construction was started in 1977. There are over 60 anti-nuclear groups active in the country who have successfully blocked every proposal. This is despite the fact that in the United States there have been zero fatalities or adverse health effects from radiologic exposure from any commercial nuclear power plant. In independent studies over the period from 1970-1992, it was found that there were only 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers. During the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of workers at coal fired power plants, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric plants. Even worse, coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year in the United States, and to collectively emit more than 100 times as much radiation as the nation’s nuclear plants. Contrast the American nuclear landscape with that of France, where 80% of the nation’s electricity is generated by nuclear power plants and that country has become the world’s largest exporter of electricity.

As noted, many of our principal economic competitors do not face the same hurdles when implementing industrial policy. China is currently the third largest economy in the world, and its growth rate is roughly triple our own. But this growth comes with social and environmental costs. China’s Three Gorges Dam, for example, is the largest electric generating facility in the world. Its 34 generators produce a staggering 22,500 megawatts. Construction began in 1994 and the project began generating power in 2008. While some construction is ongoing, the project is coming in roughly $3 billion under budget. In order to build this facility, over 1.3 million people were displaced from their homes, water flows were changed which caused landslides, and numerous cultural and archeological sites have been flooded.

Brazil is the world’s eighth largest economy. But its rapid growth has resulted in massive deforestation of the Amazon rain forest. Since 1970, deforestation has destroyed roughly 600,000 square kilometers of forest, equal to the areas of Great Britain, Italy and Switzerland combined. Brazil has more fresh water than any other country in the world. Yet its two largest cities, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, which have a combined 30 million people in their metropolitan areas, suffer periodic shut-downs of their water supply because pollution makes it unsafe to drink.

Few people would argue that we should permit the same unfettered growth here. But in a global economy, American manufacturers must compete head-to-head with those in countries that have far fewer barriers to low cost energy production, manufacturing, and infrastructure expansion. The painful lesson to be learned is that we can no longer have it all.

Our willingness to tolerate endless procedural delays, which undoubtedly provides us with a safer and cleaner environment, comes with a higher unemployment rate, and a dependency for raw materials, like oil or rare metals, upon economies with less refined sensibilities.

Solar News California – You are going to hear a lot about PACE solar financing in the months and years to come. Property Assessed Clean Energy is a vehicle that local cities and counties can help homeowners to get into solar without the large upfront costs. The city raises a bond, then offers the financing that stays with the property if you sell and is paid back over say 20 years incorporating the loan into your property tax bill. You get the benifit of solar which increases your monthly cash flow by lowering your utility payment. Only problem is… Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac don’t like taking a 2nd seat to your property after the city or county.

I really don’t understand why that is especially since the US tax payer now basically owns Fanny and Freddie becuase they were part of the wall street scam on the average American. Solar means local jobs. Solar means money put into our communities and there needs to be a grass roots movement in this country to get the big bank out of the way of the middle class economic recovery. Even if the home did go into foreclosure, do you think a home with solar energy might sell faster that the thousands of other homes that don’t have the advantage of -0- energy bills?

Jerry Brown and Governor Schwarzenegger, joined by many other responsible Americans, are trying to get this turned around. Read More -

Aurora Sentinel
BY ANDREW KORFHAGE – Syndicated Columnist
Korfhage: Red tape can kill

Imagine putting solar panels on your roof for no money down. You partner with your city or municipality to cover the up-front cost of your new renewable energy system, which you pay back to the city as an add-on to your property taxes. You spread your payments out over 20 years and most likely the savings from your lowered electricity bill more than cover your higher property tax.

Not only do you become more self-sufficient in your energy generation, but also your city spurs development of new solar green-energy jobs. And everybody enjoys the benefits of shifting our society away from fossil fuels.

Sound like a good idea to you?

It did to the city council in Berkeley, California, which set up exactly such a pilot program to finance individual solar renewable energy systems and solar energy efficiency retrofits in 2008. It has also sounded like a good idea to the 22 other states that have approved programs organized on this model for their local governments over the past two years. What’s more, it sounded like a good idea to the White House, which set aside $150 million in stimulus money to help support such programs nationwide.

Widely known as PACE (property assessed clean energy) programs, these innovative financing plans seemed ready to flourish across the country until very recently. Then, in May, giant mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weighed in with a refusal to finance mortgages associated with a solar PACE lien, braking the PACE programs’ momentum.

At issue is who gets paid first if a borrower defaults on a mortgage with a PACE lien attached to it. The way that PACE programs are structured, the lien gets paid first; Fannie and Freddie say the mortgage must be paid first, no exceptions.

What’s most puzzling about the objections is that the PACE programs make good financial sense for residential home. Solar energy systems and energy-efficiency retrofits pay for themselves over time, making borrowers more financially secure rather than less.

However, the size and leverage of these two agencies means that their refusal to participate has brought nationwide PACE programs to a standstill.

For example, Bay Area solar companies have postponed or downsized planned expansions due to business lost when Fannie and Freddie stepped in. “We lost almost a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of solar projects overnight,” Recurve retrofitting company president Matt Golden told The New York Times.

Though PACE programs are similar to thousands of other lien programs used by municipalities to fund infrastructure improvements, Fannie and Freddie stated in their letter of objection that PACE programs “do not have traditional community benefits associated with taxing initiatives.”

Lawmakers and other elected officials disagree.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a lawsuit on July 14 against Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), and other municipalities with now-struggling solar PACE programs have been threatening the same.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received enormous federal bailouts,” said Brown, “but now they’re throwing up impermeable barriers to bank lending that creates jobs, stimulates the economy, and boosts clean energy.”

Similarly, the House and Senate have each proposed legislation that would prevent Fannie and Freddie from blocking local PACE initiatives.

“In many cases, the biggest barrier for homeowners and small businesses who want to make energy efficiency improvements is financing those projects,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), a sponsor of the Senate bill. “This bill removes a bureaucratic roadblock and allows local communities to assist homeowners and businesses if they want to.”

Resolving this conundrum shouldn’t require a lawsuit or legislation. Fannie and Freddie promised “guidance” on the issue in their original letter of objection back in May. They should step forward with their solution now, so local communities can negotiate their differences with the giant lenders and get solar PACE programs back up and running sooner rather than later.

Andrew Korfhage is the online and special projects editor for Green America, www.greenamericatoday.org.

NASCAR fans now have something more to cheer about. Pocano Raceway has installed a large solar array to help offset its power usage and balance its carbon emissions. How about all the NASCAR tracks going solar? Gentlemen, start your solar… Read More

By Diane Mastrull
Inquirer Staff Writer

Oh, how far the engine-whining, exhaust-fume-infused world of auto racing has come on the road to being green.

Pocono Raceway, the asphalt oval that helped propel Mario Andretti, Richard Petty, and Jeff Gordon to racing stardom, is set to go on line Wednesday with a 3-megawatt, ground-mounted photovoltaic system, among the largest solar projects in Pennsylvania.

According to NASCAR, the system also will make Pocono Raceway the world’s largest solar-powered sports facility, ahead of a stadium built in Taiwan for the 2009 World Games.

In the world of NASCAR, Pocono’s solar leap is another badge of honor in a rapidly growing collection of environmentally friendly initiatives intended not only to reduce business costs, but also to encourage its 70 million U.S. fans to be more sensitive about their impact on the planet.

A 500-mile Sprint Cup race with cars using unleaded gas and getting 5 miles per gallon generates about one metric ton of carbon dioxide, according to the racing organization. Solar power will help offset that. The NASCAR Green Program includes planting trees to help absorb those emissions and the recycling of packaging materials, refreshment containers, car batteries, tires, oil, and other engine fuels at its 50 racetracks nationwide.

Not only a plus for the environment, the green effort apparently is also an image booster.

“We’ve actually gained some fans because of it,” Brandon Igdalsky, president of Pocono Raceway, said as he strolled through his $16 million complex of suncatchers one morning last week when the rays were plentiful.

It is a veritable farm – with 39,962 solar modules lined up row after row after row on 25 acres of what used to be a parking field for the track, now in its 40th racing year.

Though it is directly opposite the track on Long Pond Road, the solar farm is far enough away from the grandstand – about three-quarters of a mile – that it is not likely to distract racegoers from the intended attraction: stock cars overtaking one another at average speeds of 160 m.p.h., 200 m.p.h. in the straights.

Yet Igdalsky intends to make sure all who visit Pocono know what’s across the street, and what all those glinting, bluish panels tilted at a 25-degree angle are producing.

The solar field will yield enough power to cover all the racing complex’s energy needs - the garages, the concession stands, the offices, the spectator suites, and the media rooms – with enough left over to feed 1,000 homes.

The track hosts two annual NASCAR Sprint Cup Series summer events, each of which attracts more than 100,000 fans. It also is used by car clubs, driving schools, and auto dealerships. During winter, when Pocono is essentially shut down, nearly all the power coming from its solar array will go into the grid for use elsewhere.

“It’s a solar power plant that has zero air pollution, consumes no water and discharges no water, and . . . ensures the raceway that for the next 25 years [the typical life of a photovoltaic system], it won’t pay any more for electricity,” said John Hanger, Pennsylvania’s environmental secretary. “It’s also an example of how solar benefits consumers who don’t directly take the power.”

At NASCAR headquarters in Daytona Beach, Fla., Mike Lynch, managing director of green solar innovation, praised the Pocono project as “incredibly aggressive.”

If someone had suggested to him less than two years ago that one of NASCAR’s racing venues would have built “a small power plant” by now, he said, “I would have said, ‘You’re absolutely crazy.’ ”

What’s crazy, said Igdalsky, is passing up the economic benefits offered by solar. He said he expected “several hundred dollars a year” in electrical energy savings and a “seven-figure income” each year from selling solar energy credits. The raceway would not release information on annual revenue, citing its private ownership by Pocono International Raceway Inc.

The decision to go solar in such a big way came from a very bottom line-oriented incentive: “Deregulation. We found out PPL was going to jack up our electric bill 40 percent,” Igdalsky said, referring to the end of state-imposed rate caps.

After first considering joining a power-purchasing consortium, then evaluating the possibilities of wind and solar, Pocono settled on blanketing the former parking field with solar panels – at the urging of CEO Joseph Mattioli, a retired dentist who had a practice in Philadelphia and now lives just down the road from his photovoltaic crops.

Important to everyone at Pocono, Igdalsky said, was that all materials used in the project, developed by enXco in California, are American-made. That added $250,000 to $300,000 to the price – something, Igdalsky said, “we all figured was an acceptable cost increase for what it would mean.

“It’s an American sport; it’s an American project, and this is America.”

With a 30 percent tax credit and state alternative, energy incentives, the system is expected to pay for itself in six to eight years, Igdalsky said.

According to NASCAR, the only other of its racetracks to convert to solar power is Michigan International Speedway, which added 8,000 square feet of photovoltaic panels on the roof of a new suite/media center last year that is expected to generate 70,000 kilowatts an hour.

Igdalsky, a Philadelphia native, hopes Pocono and Michigan are just the beginning of a trend that spreads across NASCAR and other sports.

“If we get thousands of stadiums across the country to all throw on a couple thousand panels, that’s some serious megawatts,” he said.

Hoping for just such a chain reaction is Jeff Schmidt, who, as director of the Sierra Club’s Pennsylvania chapter, is generally into more environmentally sound practices than auto racing. But he’s impressed by the latest practices at Pocono.

“It might seem like a disconnect for a fossil-fuel-powered sport to embrace solar energy, but it is an example of how we can transition our current dependence on fossil fuels to renewable energy,” Schmidt said.

He’s hoping for the sport to one day make a dramatic transition and feature “less racing using internal-combustion engines and more racing using solar-powered and electric vehicles.”

For now, Schmidt said, “my sport is gardening and hiking and kayaking – and I drive a Honda Civic hybrid.”

Solar – I don’t get asked, how does solar work?”, much anymore because of the vast amount of data that is available on the internet. I did however, run across an article on solar energy that was well written and is worth reposting. Solar information, Read More

Solar Energy – an easy approach to learn how solar panels work
Author: Barbara Young, Synergy Magazine

What’s solar power ?

Solar energy is radiant energy which is produced by the sun. Every day the sun radiates, or sends out, an immense quantity of energy. The sun radiates more energy in a single second than humans have used since the beginning of time!

The energy of the sun derives from within the sun itself. Like other stars, the sun is a big ball of gases – mostly hydrogen and helium atoms. The hydrogen atoms in the sun’s core combine to create helium and generate energy in a process called nuclear fusion.

During nuclear fusion, the sun’s extremely high pressure and temperature cause hydrogen atoms to come apart and their nuclei (the central cores of the atoms) to fuse or combine. Four hydrogen nuclei fuse to become one helium atom. The helium atom contains less mass than four fused hydrogen atoms. Some matter is lost during nuclear fusion. The lost matter is emitted into space as radiant energy.

It takes an incredible number of years for the energy in the sun’s core to make its way to the solar surface, and then just a little over eight minutes to travel the 93 million miles to earth. This solar energy travels to the earth at a speed of 186,000 miles per second, the velocity of light.

Only a small part of the power radiated by the sun into space strikes the earth, one part in two billion. Yet this volume of energy is enormous. Daily, enough energy strikes North America to provide its energy needs for one and a half years!

Where does all of this energy go?

About 15% of the sun’s energy that hits our planet is reflected back into space. Another 30% evaporates water, which, lifted in to the atmosphere, produces rainfall. Solar energy is also absorbed by plants, the land, and the oceans. The remaining could be used to supply our energy needs.

Who invented solar energy harvesting?

People have harnessed solar energy for centuries. Since the 7th century B.C., people used simple magnifying glasses to concentrate the light of the sun into beams so hot they’d cause wood to catch fire. More than a century ago in France, a scientist used heat from a solar collector to produce steam to drive a steam engine. In the beginning of this century, scientists and engineers began researching ways to use solar power in earnest. One important development was a remarkably efficient solar boiler introduced by Charles Greeley Abbott, an astrophysicist, in 1936.

The solar water heater became popular at this time in Florida, California, and the Southwest. The industry started in the early 1920s and was in full swing just before The second World War. This growth lasted prior to the mid-1950s when low-cost, natural gas took over as primary fuel for heating North American homes.

People and world governments remained largely indifferent to the possibilities of solar technology prior to the oil shortages of the 1970s. Today, people use solar technology to heat buildings and water and also to generate electricity.

How do we use solar power today?

Solar energy can be used in several different ways, of course. There’s two simple forms of solar power:

Solar thermal energy, or solar hot water, collects the sun’s warmth through one of two means: in water or in an anti-freeze (glycol) mixture.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy converts the sun’s radiation to usable electricity.

Here are the five most practical and popular methods solar energy can be used:

1. Small portable solar photovoltaic systems: we see these used everywhere, from calculators to solar garden products. Portable units can be used for everything from RV appliances while single panel systems can be used for traffic signs and remote monitoring stations. They are even printed on t-shirts or other articles of clothing.

2. Solar pool heating: running water in direct circulation systems through a solar collector is an extremely practical solution to heat water for your pool or spa.

3. Thermal glycol energy to heat water: in this method (indirect circulation), glycol is heated by sunlight, the heat is then transferred to water in a hot water tank. This process of collecting the sun’s energy is much more practical now than ever before. In areas as far north as Edmonton, solar thermal to heat water is economically sound. It can pay for itself in three years or less.

4. Integrating solar photovoltaic energy into your home or office power: in many parts on the planet, solar photovoltaics is an economically feasible solution to supplement the power of your home. In Japan, photovoltaics are competitive with other kinds of power. In North America, new incentive programs make this form of solar energy ever more viable. An increasingly popular and practical way of integrating solar energy into the power of your home or business is through the use of building integrated solar photovoltaics.

5. Large independent photovoltaic systems: For those who have enough sun power where you live, you might be able to go “off-grid”. You may also integrate or hybridize your solar energy system with wind power or other kinds of alternative energy to stay off the grid.

How can Photovoltaic panels work ?

Silicon is mounted beneath non-reflective glass to produce photovoltaic panels. These panels collect photons from the sun, converting them into DC electrical energy. The power created then flows into an inverter. The inverter transforms the energy into basic voltage and AC electrical power.

PV cells are prepared with particular materials called semiconductors such as silicon, which is presently the most frequently used. As light hits a photovoltaic cell, a share of it is absorbed into, and therefore captured by, the semiconductor material.

The captured energy unfastens the electrons, permitting them to run freely. Solar cells also have one or more electric fields that act to compel electrons unfastened by light absorption to flow in a specific direction. This flow of electrons is a current, and by introducing metal links at either end of the photovoltaic cell, the current can be drawn from for external use.

Do you know the benefits and drawbacks of solar power ?

Pro solar points

Heating our homes with oil or propane or using electricity from power plants running with coal and oil causees climate change. Solar power, on the other hand, is clean and environmentally-friendly.

Solar hot-water heaters require little maintenance, and their initial investment could be recovered within a relatively short time.

Solar hot-water heaters can work in nearly any climate, even in very cold ones. Simply choose the best system for your climate: drainback, thermosyphon, batch-ICS, etc.

Maintenance costs of solar powered systems are minimal and the warranties are often comprehensive.

Financial incentives offered where you live can reduce the initial investment costs.

Solar drawbacks

The initial investment in Solar Hot water heaters or in Solar PV Electric Systems is higher than that required by conventional electric and gas heaters systems.

The payback period of solar PV-electric systems is long, as well as those of solar space heating or cooling (only solar hot water heating has a relatively short payback period).

Solar water heating does not work well in conjunction with radiators (including baseboard types).

Some AC (solar space heating and cooling systems) are pricey, and somewhat untested, technologies. Solar air conditioning hasn’t been, until now, an economical option.

The efficiency of solar powered systems is dependent on available sunlight. In colder climates, where heating or electricity needs are higher, these systems can be less efficient.

Barbara Young writes on RV solar panel kits in her personal hobby blog 12 volt solar panels(dot)net. Her efforts are centered on helping people save energy using solar power to reduce CO2 emissions and energy dependency.

Portable Solar News – Leonardo DiCaprio is a talented actor who’s films I never miss. Now it turns out I have another reason to admire DiCaprio. The blockbuster movie Inception was made with the energy generated from portable mobile solar power panels thanks to Leonardo. Portable solar energy to make movies now? No noisy generators polluting the air and dripping oil and diesel on to the ground to get washed into the streams. Portable solar panel generators providing complete off-grid systems which contain all necessary components and are both economical and environmentally responsible. Leonardo DiCaprio gets added to our list of American Solar Hero’s. Everyone should go out and see the movie Inception just for that reason alone! Read More

Portable solar panels generated some of the energy on set for the sci-fi thriller Inception.
Forbes
By, Michael d’Estries

A few months ago I mentioned that a company called Pure Power Distribution had been called upon to provide solar-powered generators to the set of Christopher Nolan’s movie Inception. With that film now in theaters, more about how that element of green was added to the production has been revealed, courtesy of one Leonardo DiCaprio.

“A lot of this movie [Inception] was made with solar power,” the 35-year-old said in an interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer. “It’s the first movie I got to do with solar power. I had a conversation about it with Alan Horn, who’s the head of Warner Bros. The generators that we had on the set were all powered by solar energy. It’s going to be a big conversion to do stuff like that every day, not just in making movies but everything in the world.”

The portable solar generators, which output 600 amps/72,000 watts of “pure sine wave power with no noise, and no emissions,” were used to power and provide electricity for the base camp for Inception. According to Pure Power Distribution’s Christopher Smith, the base camp “requires (depending on the film) about 10%-20% of the power that the set requires.”

OK, so film sets still have a bit to go before solar is part of the mix, but in terms of powering other aspects of the production, renewable energy can be a leading actor now. In fact, Inception was one of five feature films that Pure Power Distribution helped power using the sun. In addition, the company has provided solar generators to some television series, as well as the Teen Choice Awards, ESPY Awards, LA Marathon and various music festivals.

“We do a lot of things in the world that are wasteful,” Leo added in the interview. “We keep talking about this all the time. Hopefully, fingers crossed, with these small steps, we’ll make that transition on a much larger scale in the future.”

C’mon studios, someone make these portable solar generators a permanent aspect of every production.

California News – Several Northern California cities were awarded solar installation awards recently. Since we are tree huggers’, and proud of it, any solarcity is good new to us especially when we see California governments in action supporting renewable energy and creating jobs. Solar is now. Solar is for everyone and it would be nice to see the us to accelerate our move in this country to renewable sustainable energy sources like solar. Read More

Richmond Leads Bay Area in Solar Wattage
By VERONICA MOSCOSO, RICHMOND CONFIDENTIAL

The huge 500-kilowatt solar installation at the Bay Area Beverages building, which you can see while driving west on 580 just before the Canal Boulevard exit, is quickly becoming a landmark. This solar installation, along with 52 others in Richmond, was one of the reasons that the Northern California Solar Energy Association recently gave the city an award for installing more solar watts per capita than any other large city in California.

“I think the category that Richmond won is one of the best metrics to win,” said Adam Lenz, sustainability coordinator for the city of Richmond. “It just shows in an even playing field amongst cities, regardless of size, who is pulling their weight the most by installing renewable energy.”

Based on the 2009 Bay Area Solar Installations Report, the Northern California Solar Energy Association, last week awarded prizes to Richmond and other Bay Area cities for their adoption of solar energy. Richmond won two awards in the large city category: first place in watts per capita installs and second place in total watts installed.

The report shows that the Bay Area leads California in new solar installations. Since 2007, with the launch of the California Solar Initiative, a state incentive program, the total number of systems and total solar megawatts installed have almost doubled and tripled, respectively, for both California and the Bay Area. According to PG&E, since 2007 Richmond has completed 94 solar installations through the California Solar Initiative.

According to the report, although California’s overall rate of photovoltaics installations (that means solar) remains strong, it has declined slightly since 2008, due at least in part to the economic downturn impacting California. Last year, however, the Bay Area showed remarkable growth relative to the rest of California, encompassing 61 percent of the state’s new installations and 55 percent of the total megawatts installed.

Richmond appears as a leading large city in the report with the most watts installed per capita —34.77. For total watts installed between 2008 and 2009 Richmond had increased by 399 percent. Lenz said that he was quite surprised that Richmond won the award. “In general Richmond has not necessarily had the best press when it comes to environmental issues,” he said.

San Jose won first place for total amount of solar watts installed, and Richmond won second place. “That’s amazing because we are not even the largest city in the Bay Area. There are other cities in the Bay Area that are many times the size of Richmond, yet we over-installed them in 2009,” said Lenz.

According to PG&E, in Richmond there were six new residential installations in 2007. In 2008 there were 18 residential installations and three non-residential. In 2009 there were 44 residential and 9 commercial. So far in 2010 there have been 13 residential and one commercial new solar installations.

Most solar installations in the state and Bay Area are residential — 93 percent — and the rest are commercial, government and from nonprofit organizations, according to the 2009 report.

But in Richmond, the large, commercial installations generate most of the city’s solar power. “Large installations got us to the watts per capita and we got the award,” said Michele McGeoy, the executive director of Solar Richmond, a nonprofit that provides solar installation and training. She said that in Berkeley, which was awarded first place for the number of systems per capita, residents probably installed smaller systems.

McGeoy thinks that when businesses choose solar it is because they care about doing something that’s good for the environment. “It’s also is an economic decision because they save money over time,” she said.

The 2009 Bay Area Solar Installations Report listed several reasons for the adoption of solar power in the Bay Area: “solar friendly utility rates, net metering, ample sun exposure, supportive local, state, and federal government programs and legislation, and a strong environmental ethic.”

For Richmond, whether it’s a business, residence or non-profit, the incentives include a 30 percent federal tax credit called the Solar Investment Tax Credit. At a state level, the California Solar Initiative rebates 65 cents per watt installed for residential accounts. Several programs are also available to help those interested in installing solar panel systems. State-funded programs such as Smart Solar provide free third-party technical assistance to Richmond residents homes and businesses. Rising Sun Energy Center manages two residential solar energy efficiency programs in Richmond: California Youth Energy Services and Green Energy Training Services. Grid Alternatives provides free and discounted solar installations to low-income families through the Single-family Affordable Solar Homes program, which is funded by the state.

The city of Richmond doesn’t yet provide any incentives, like rebates, for installing solar systems, although it does not charge residents for a permit fee for solar panel installations. The city also supports programs that encourage solar energy use and installation. One of the city programs is RichmondBUILD, a green jobs training academy that started in 2007. Trainees from RichmondBUILD get skills for installing solar through training at a nonprofit/program called Solar Richmond. “Solar installation creates more local jobs,” said Lenz. “We have a history of being a blue-collar city, and we are transforming into a green-collar city.”

Sunlight Electric, LLC, a solar company from San Francisco, hired workers trained at RichmondBUILD and Solar Richmond to install the solar system at the Bay Area Beverages building. Rob Erlichman, CEO of Sunlight Electric, said that his company wanted to support the Richmond community. “What was great about the Richmond Solar Program was that we were able to utilize a pull of solar-trained local people,” Erlichman said.

The city is also making other efforts to generate more renewable energy. Over the last three years, the Richmond Redevelopment Agency installed 24 solar photovoltaic systems on low-income Richmond homes as part of a low-income solar installation program. Last year the city used a bay area company and installed commercial solar panels on City Hall and the Richmond Memorial Auditorium. The library also has 75 kilowatts of solar installed. This summer the city will release a request for proposal to increase solar panels capacity in city facilities with the goal of eventually providing 50 percent of municipal power from local, renewable energy. “We’re going to use this as an opportunity to increase our solar capacity and stimulate the local economy,” said Lenz. “We have a long way to go but we’ve made some pretty good strides in the last couple years.”

San Francisco Examiner

Stacey Wittig

Although Grand Canyon hikers may believe that the Grand Canyon has been solar-powered for eons, the fact is the Grand Canyon National Park has “gone solar” just recently. Eighty-four photovoltaic solar panels are now operational on the Grand Canyon Visitor Center located at the Canyon View Information Plaza near the south rim.

Located both on the Visitor Center’s roof and on ground-mounted platforms adjacent to the building, the panels will be seen by the more than 4.5 million people who visit the Canyon each year. As the first stop for many visitors to the Canyon’s south rim, the Center offers hiking trail maps, informational panoramas to orient hikers and visitors to the area and hiking safety advice.

“A great partnership was created when Grand Canyon National Park and APS came together for this project,” said Steve Martin, Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent. “This solar installation is a shining example of the park’s commitment to protecting the environment through the use of renewable energy. The Visitor Center is the perfect location, making the panels visible to all guests providing an opportunity to educate and inspire.”

An exhibit inside the Center and signage next to the platform-mounted panels inform Grand Canyon hikers and visitors about the mechanics of solar energy, Arizona’s abundant sunshine’s ability to make the state the solar capital of the world, and how they, themselves can help increase the amount of electricity generated by the sun. As part of the exhibit, a live monitor displays in real-time how much electricity the sun is generating for the Center.

The solar panels provide the building with approximately 18 kilowatts of electricity. The panels provide enough energy to offset 30% of electricity used by the Visitor Center.

“This project is symbolic of the commitment we have at APS to environmental protection, sustainability and to make Arizona the solar capital of the world,” APS President and Chief Operating Officer Don Robinson said today at a celebration event hosted by the National Park Service. “We selected the Grand Canyon for this project because of the opportunity that exists there to educate so many people from around the world about renewable solar energy.”

Funding for the solar panels and their installation came from APS customers through APS’ Green Rates and the Arizona Corporation Commission’s Renewable Energy Standard.