Industry News

Florida: Hermann Scheer Receives Standing Ovation--Pushes Feed-in Tariffs at Governor Crist Climate Summit

Posted on Thu, Jun. 26, 2008
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com Schwarzenegger lauds, criticizes climate efforts . . . . . .

Speaking at the closing luncheon of Crist's second summit on climate change in Miami, Schwarzenegger listed all the elements, some serious, some not, that California and Florida shared. . .

. . . With an estimated 800 persons gathered at the Hotel InterContinental in downtown Miami . . .

. . . During an international panel, the most applause was received by Hermann Scheer, a member of the German Parliament and a leading expert in solar energy. "The only real option is to change to renewable,'' Scheer told the audience. He said Germany now produces 50 percent of the world's wind power and is a leader in solar. He said countries pushing renewables need to do three things:

Guarantee access to the grid for any producer of renewable power, no matter how small the amount of power might be.
Make guaranteed payments to those providing renewable power.
Don't cap the contributions of renewable power.

Scheer received a standing ovation.

The crowd of about 500, however, sat silently when Philippe Vinogradoff, the consul general of France in Miami, said his nation needed to retain ''the nuclear option,'' because nuclear was a key source of power in France.

State shuts down FPL's renewable energy program

By Julie Patel | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
July 30, 2008

State regulators on Tuesday shut down a Florida Power & Light Co. green energy program after an audit revealed most of the money collected from customers was used to pay for administrative and marketing costs.

The Florida Public Service Commission voted unanimously to end the Sunshine Energy Program, in which approximately 39,000 customers voluntarily agreed to pay an extra $9.75 per month for renewable energy projects. The state will continue its investigation into handling of the money and will decide later if it should require FPL to issue refunds or invest it in renewable energy projects in the works.

Commissioners want breakdowns from FPL and its contractors showing how much of the money went to travel expenses, a public relations consultant, salaries, office expenses and marketing.

"It could all be profit," Commissioner Nathan Skop said. "It all boils down to lack of oversight by this commission, and our failure to review the contract."

FPL officials acknowledge that three quarters of the $11.4 million collected from customers since 2004 went to administrative, marketing and management expenses, according to a commission report. Much of the rest of the money went to buy renewable energy credits from companies outside Florida.

The credits often supplement the amount of renewable energy a utility produces, helping it meet goals related to reducing greenhouse gases.

"We're grateful to the ... customers who voluntarily contributed to the program and made it one of the best performing renewable energy programs in the nation," FPL spokesman Mayco Villafana wrote in an e-mail Tuesday.

The commission's decision comes weeks after FPL faced fury from customers over an 8 percent rate hike that will take effect next week and another 8 percent increase planned for January. FPL is expected to make a case in the next few months for passing an estimated $688 million in costs to customers for solar projects.

Some utilities with green energy programs in other states spend far less than FPL on marketing and administrative costs.

In California, about 15 percent of the money collected from customers enrolled in Silicon Valley Power's Green Power program goes to administrative and marketing costs, program spokesman Larry Owens said. For Georgia Power's green energy program, about 1 percent of the money collected is spent on marketing and about 14 percent on administration.

Sunshine Energy ranks in the Department of Energy's top five green energy programs by size. But it fell behind in a requirement that it develop 150 kilowatts of solar capacity for every 10,000 residential customers enrolled in the program. By the end of 2005, when more than 20,000 customers were enrolled, FPL did not have any new solar projects completed, according to a PSC report. By the end of 2007, it had 37,184 participants and projects with 319 kilowatts of solar energy — enough to power 44 homes.

Green Mountain Energy Co., an Austin, Texas-based contractor hired by FPL to run Sunshine Energy, defended the program.

"We started with no customers and built the program to 38,000," Paul Markovich, senior vice president of Green Mountain, wrote in an e-mail. "Very few of those customers sought us out — we had to present them with a compelling offer in an effective way."

Julie Patel can be reached at 954-356-4667 or jvpatel@sun-sentinel.com.

Fossil Fuel Interests F.U.D. Renewables!

IBM was a master of creating FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) tactics. Now it seems that utility companies (large businesses that buy fuels and produce and sell electricity), and fossil fuel corporations are adopting IBM’s old strategies. Why is the utility and fossil fuel industry suddenly interested in Solar? Do Utilities and fossil fuel corporations see solar and other renewable energy sources as a threat? Recent incidents in the USA highlight a disturbing pattern of active intervention by utilities and fossil fuel interests to maintain their market stranglehold to the detriment of reducing greenhouse gases and lowering energy prices.

The utilities are fighting to maintain their monopoly stranglehold of the electric market. Take for example Southern California Edison, SCE. In February 2008 they filed a request to implement a Renewable Energy Payment (REP) policy (also called a Feed-in Tariff (FIT)) through the California Public Utilities Commission. The proposed rate would allow SCE to receive 47¢ a kWh for electricity produced from their renewable energy installations with 700 MW or more production capacity. This rate would allow SCE to have a return on investment in under 4 years. At the same time SCE and Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) opposed legislation that would allow residential solar producers from reselling any of their electricity back into the grid. What’s fair for one should be fair for another. If the Utilities demand 47¢ a kWh for their monopoly REP or FIT policies, there should be no opposition for homeowners to receive the same rate.

Recent proposed federal renewable energy legislation also has a built in bias that favors large corporations over homeowners and small renewable energy producers. Take for example S3335, one of seven recently failed energy and tax bills in the US Senate. Under the provisions of S3335, utilities and renewable energy corporations would be entitled to a 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC), but homeowners would be prohibited from any investment tax credit larger than $4,000. This law would effectively give a 30% unfair monetary advantage to utilities and commercial interests to build large systems at the expense of residential taxpayers. Homeowners/voters would be financially constrained to install only a 2kW system or enough to provide only 40% of their energy needs.
Over 450 million people in over 40 countries operate under Renewable Energy Payment or Feed in Tariff policies. These laws provide incentives for everyone—homeowners, farmers, small and large businesses—to produce and sell renewable energy and are proven to stimulate the growth of renewables. Take Germany for example, 41% of their solar power comes from households, farms and small businesses. Overall, in only 4 years, they grew their domestic renewables (wind and solar) from one percent to 14%. In the US, several states have adopted or are considering REP legislation. In addition, a national Renewable Energy Payments bill, HR 6401, has been introduced in the US House of Representatives by Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA). This legislation would take effect in all states and be supervised by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Again, the lobby organizations reflecting the utility interests are not supporting HR 6401. The rest of us need to.

By Norman Mann PLEASE VISIT: www.allianceforrenewableenergy.org