Stop the Ban on Land-based Solar Power In Montgomery County, MD. “Progressive” Councilmembers Will Jawando, Gabe Albornoz, and others could harm regional progress on clean energy

I’ve been a climate activist for 20 years in this region. Google Mike Tidwell and “clean energy” and you’ll see what I stand for. 

In 20 years, I’ve learned to push aggressively for strong climate policies — but to seek legislative compromise when that’s what it takes to move public policy forward. From the small city council of Takoma Park to the Governor’s office in Richmond to Senate committees in Annapolis to legislative efforts on Capitol Hill, I’m proud to have been part of balanced but ambitious agreements that advance clean energy.

Which is why, as a fellow Montgomery County, MD resident, it pains me to tell you I’ve never seen such a total ABSENCE of compromise – and such a scale of misguided energy policy – quite like the vote that six members of the Montgomery County Council are apparently prepared to make tomorrow. They are about to effectively ban land-based solar power development in our county. 

Our County Council is doing amazing work protecting us from the worst impacts of the Covid-19. And I know their intentions are well-meaning on the environment. But the solar vote they are about to make will not only harm our county, it will likely have negative consequences for solar throughout our state and region. I’m not exaggerating. This view is shared by the Montgomery County Sierra Club, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and key environmental legislators in Annapolis, including veteran Delegate Kumar Barve who sent the Council this remarkable protest letter last week.

I’m presenting an unusually long argument in this email. So bear with me – if you can — till the end. It’s that important. 

Tell MoCo Councilmembers Will Jawando, Gabe Albornoz and others: Don’t land-based ban solar  

For the record, the legislators who are on the wrong side of this solar issue and who have resisted a reasonable compromise so far are: Councilmembers Andrew Friedson, Gabe Albornoz, Nancy Navarro, Sidney Katz, Craig Rice, and Will Jawando. The two leaders who probably need to hear from you most are Will Jawando and Gabe Albornoz.

To repeat, our ask of them now is to simply withdraw the amended solar bill. Withdraw it so we can start over and create a lasting and positive solar policy for our county. Meanwhile, the PRO solar councilmembers who’ve already done all they can to achieve a balanced solar policy are Hans Riemer, Evan Glass, and Council President Tom Hucker. Their work is greatly appreciated.

Solar power in the Agricultural Reserve: A controversy?

Chances are you’ve heard something about the idea of placing a limited amount of solar production in the MoCo Agricultural Reserve. Unfortunately, as often happens in public debates, opponents have often been noisier and more extreme in their claims than those of us seeking a truly balanced solution. Indeed, opponents have accused solar companies of greed and “over reach” while saying community solar on farmland would economically harm the farmers themselves, destroy our local food base, and lead to widespread deforestation and harm to the Bay — from solar!! None of this is true. Some critics have even claimed environmental groups like Sierra Club and CCAN are pushing solar for their own financial benefit – which is utterly false.

Now these same critics claim a “compromise” has been reached on the issue. They are asking the MoCo Council to give final passage to the Zoning Text Amendment 20-01 tomorrow. Why? Because that bill, as I mentioned above, has been amended into a de facto ban of land-based solar. Again, I’ve spent 20 years reaching real compromises on clean energy across this region — and this is no compromise. It’s a policy failure.

In the beginning: We had a good solar bill

A good solar policy was in fact proposed last year by MoCo Councilmember Hans Riemer (D-at large). It would have permitted farmers to harvest sunlight on no more than 1800 acres of land in the Ag Reserve (out of 93,000 acres) through a process called “community solar” development. Much of the solar would have benefitted up to 50,000 households, including many low- and moderate-income households and earned nearly $15 million in tax revenue for our cash-strapped county and state. The bill would have allowed a modest 300 megawatts or so of solar. Yet even that modest amount would have lowered total greenhouse gas emissions in the county while lowering the price of electricity for ratepayers and generating a healthy $83 million in local net economic spending. Virtually no tree loss would have been permitted and pollinator-friendly native grasses would have been required to be planted under and around the panels. It was a carefully crafted and balanced compromise bill supported, again, by the County’s two largest environmental groups — Sierra Club and CCAN — and group’s like Poolesville Green and farmers like Doug Boucher. 

But on January 26th, this good bill was amended into a bad bill, one that now stands as a de facto ban on land-based solar power. To repeat, the Council Members who voted for one or both of the bad amendments are Friedson, Albernoz, Navarro, Rice, Katz, and Jawando. 

Again, I cannot urge you strongly enough to REJECT the claims of council members and others when they tell you this amended solar ZTA is a “compromise.” They’ll tell you the amendments simply ban solar on “class two” soils and subject all solar projects to “conditional use.” But it’s a near-total ban. One MoCo solar company has already announced it will cease operations in the county due to the January 26th amendments vote. The two major regional organizations representing the solar industry have confirmed that their members will find it impossible to build projects in Montgomery County under the ZTA as now amended. Unless the bill is withdrawn tomorrow without final passage, more solar jobs will leave our county and we’ll have almost no chance of meeting our renewable energy goals during a full-blown climate emergency.

Tell MoCo Councilmembers Will Jawando, Gabe Albornoz and others: Don’t land-based ban solar

How did we get here? Clean energy confusion in liberal MoCo

Last week, a WAMU radio reporter wrote that an activist in rural Montgomery County considered solar development an EXISTENTIAL THREAT to the Ag Reserve. The activist wasn’t quoted as saying climate change was an existential threat. There was no mention of sod farming as an existential threat – where topsoil and non-native grasses are peeled off of the land and shipped off to golf courses and suburban homes. (More land in the MoCo Ag Reserve produces sod grass than table food for humans). There was no mention of livestock as a threat, where a majority of the Ag Reserve land is used for raising feed crops for the region’s unsustainable livestock industry, venting net greenhouse gas emissions from most of those acres. 

No, the existential threat to the Ag Reserve is apparently solar energy, in the minds of critics. That pretty much sums up the tragically misguided anti-solar movement in our county. Many of the critics of the proposed policy of putting a VERY LIMITED amount of “community solar” production in the AR, will tell you they strongly support clean energy. Some have solar panels on the roofs of their homes. But they don’t want to see farmers harvest solar energy. They describe it as “industrial” solar that will harm the rural character of the reserve. Again, sod farming is apparently okay. Corn fields for pigs are okay. But solar is an existential threat. They want solar in MoCo to be on rooftops and “brownfields” — not as part of a farmer’s mix of operations.

There aren’t enough rooftops and brownfields in MoCo

The problem is there is no way we can reach our county and state clean energy goals with rooftop solar alone or on qualifying brownfield areas left by former industrial sites. These areas are still relatively expensive to develop and, as for stable, non-shaded rooftops, there just aren’t enough qualifying roof areas. We have to put a limited amount of solar on land surfaces. Meanwhile, our farmers are increasingly hammered by extreme floods and droughts from climate change and many of them need the option of harvesting sunlight as a small but supplemental income stream that allows them to hang on to their family farms. 

So last year Councilmember Hans Riemer (D-at large) proposed a sensible policy idea. Let’s change the zoning law to allow a very limited – but needed – amount of solar in the Ag Reserve. No more than 2% of the reserve could be solar – and pollinator-friendly native grasses that sequester carbon into soils would have to be planted under and around the solar panels. Better yet, the energy would have to be produced under the state’s “community solar” program with much of it dedicated to low- and moderate-income families. It was a great compromise bill that was passed twice by a joint committee of the MoCo Council.

But then, on January 26th, before the full council, all pretense of compromise was stripped away. The bill was amended into a ban on agricultural solar. Again, council members will tell you it’s not so! The amendments represent a balanced compromise, they say. But years from now when no solar is built and the county loses tens of millions of dollars in taxes and investments, and vulnerable families have no access to cheaper power – and sod farming continues to flourish in the reserve – then we will all will see the solar ban for what it is.

Right now the Council must be persuaded to simply withdraw the bill and start over. If the bill goes forward as is, it will harm more than Montgomery County. 

The regional harm of a bad MoCo Council vote on solar

Clean energy has to go somewhere. Tragically, even as sea-level rise accelerates worldwide, the mayor of Ocean City and some business leaders there have strenuously objected to offshore wind power even though the turbines would be tiny images 17 miles offshore. And in western Maryland, land-based wind farms are opposed by some Marylanders even if the windmills are placed on ridgetops already strip-mined for coal and gravel. And now, in Montgomery County, solar is fine as long as it’s not on any farmland. 

If the MoCo Council passes the amended solar ZTA, it will set a terrible example for the entire region on clean energy development. If liberal Montgomery County can’t reach a sensible compromise policy, imagine the push back from Republican county and state elected leaders who think climate change is a hoax anyway. Why not ban solar in every rural county in Maryland and Virginia? Clean energy activists like me will be forced to explain the MoCo solar “hypocrisy” every time a clean energy vote comes up anywhere, especially as the years go by and – as intended – no solar farm projects get developed in our environmentally chest-beating county. 

This is doubly unfortunate when recent polling shows nearly 70 percent of Montgomery County voters support a balance of solar production on farm land in the county. And, again, by banning such solar, the Council is denying the county badly needed tax revenue and green investments over the next ten years.

Was a ban on solar the goal all along? 

Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich has told me personally that some residents of the Ag Reserve came to him last year and asked him to support a total ban on land-based solar projects in the Reserve. He told them he would not support a ban like that. 

Many of those same residents then moved on to the full council, trying to achieve a ban through other means. The January 26th amendments dramatically shrink the amount of qualifying acreage in the Reserve by banning Class Two soils. Then any solar projects that do somehow find a few scraps of qualifying land will be subjected to potentially endless legal challenges through a second passed amendment, one that requires a permitting process called “conditional use.” Again, as we’ve seen above, these amendments are already driving solar investments OUT of our county ahead of a possible final vote on the bill tomorrow. 

Does the MoCo Council really care about climate change? 

In December 2017, the Council voted unanimously to declare a “climate emergency” and to commit the county to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions countywide by 2027. Since then, three long years later, the Council has passed no major legislation to actually cut emissions significantly. Only in December did County Executive Marc Elrich release a long-awaited Climate Action Plan, produced by consultants using $400,000 of taxpayer money. Yet the 230-page report itself endorses no specific concrete legislation and sets no specific timelines for meaningful policy implementation. Watch this video.

Honestly, all of this makes voters wonder whether our county government is really serious about climate change at all, even as extreme weather events become more frequent here and nationwide. 

Think about it. If we can’t even compromise on land-based solar, then how will we ever eventually pass county legislation banning gas hookups for new homes and buildings while investing real county dollars in electric vehicle infrastructure and all the other things climate scientists say we MUST do in the next ten years? 

I wish I could be more optimistic. But right now, things are so bad that the withdrawal of a bad solar ZTA bill would actually constitute a victory in our county. So let’s begin with that. 

Tell MoCo Councilmembers Will Jawando, Gabe Albornoz and others: Don’t land-based ban solar

Hopefully, they’ll hear us – and we can actually move forward with the real work that needs to be done to fight climate change right where we live. 

Sincerely, 

Mike Tidwell

Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network and CCAN Action Fund

What Will Accelerate US Solar Adoption?

Written by Kyle Pennell from PowerScout (a marketplace that lets you compare multiple quotes for home solar installations)


While the United States solar industry continues to grow, creating sustainable power and job opportunities nationwide, it has a long way to go before it is on par with European countries like Germany, where solar is cheaper and more widespread.
The United States can close the solar gap by examining the solar learning curve, increasing state-based government incentives, embracing community solar, and passing laws which will see an increased solar carve out applied to the Renewable Portfolio Standard of each state.

The Solar Learning Curve

Solar hardware has been falling in cost consistently since 1977. Back then, at the beginning of the Jimmy Carter presidential administration, solar panels sold at a rate of $76.67 per Watt. Fast forward to today, and you see panels selling for less than $1 per Watt. The price of panels has fallen more than 50% since 2008, and over 100% since 1977 (more on these costs at PowerScout)
By accurately predicting this ongoing decrease, the solar industry can focus advertising efforts and plan for increased production brought about by demand. But how does one predict such things? In the solar world, it’s actually quite easy.
The solar learning curve, or experience curve, is a trackable industry pattern in which for every cumulative doubling of production volume, solar PV hardware has seen an average decrease of 20%. This is a symbiotic relationship which perfectly explains solar cost trends. As more installations occur, the price falls. As the price falls, more people book installations.
Tracking the learning curve will help solar companies focus their marketing efforts and anticipate demand.

Import Tariffs Could Cause Solar Disruption

While states should be embracing laws that help the spread of solar adoption, they should also be fighting against those that would hinder it.
In January, a new situation arose which could threaten the spread of solar adoption and offset the industry’s steady price decrease. The International Trade Commission ruled last year that solar panels produced in China serve as a detriment to the American solar production industry. This ruling gave the White House authority to impose increased tariffs on imported panels, thus potentially causing the price of solar systems in the US to rise. US President Donald Trump passed those tariffs into law on January 22, 2018. Now, all imported solar panels will see a first year tariff of 30%, followed by 25% in the second year, 20% in the third year, and 15% in the fourth. This first year tariff will add 10-15 cents per watt onto every foreign panel, increasing the price of a 7 kW system by over $1,000.   
While this could, in theory, benefit domestic solar panel producers who struggle to compete with China’s low prices, it could stand to offset the nation’s renewable energy efforts. In fact, the SEIA estimates that the decision will actually cause the loss of 23,000 American jobs.
Affordability equates to adoption, and by placing roadblocks in the path of progress, the United States could start to see the European solar market widen the gap.

Pass Laws to Increase Solar Carve Outs

Many states have what is known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires a set increase in the amount of their renewable energy production. Each RPS contains a solar carve out, which sets a percentage goal for power generated by solar panels.
In Maryland, where the RPS is 25% by 2020, the solar carve out is only 2.5%. Newly proposed legislation, spearheaded by local non-profit organizations is calling for an increase of the state’s solar carve out to 14.5%. They are also seeking to up the state’s RPS to 50% by 2030. Such a dramatic increase would do well to spread the adoption of solar throughout Maryland.
States who increase their solar carve out are helping to spread solar adoption to the masses. The Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who first called on the Maryland state government to enact these increases, stated that such a change would provide an investment in health, climate, jobs and equality.

Community Solar

Not everyone can install a solar system on their roof. Citizens with unsuitable roofs or rental properties can still take advantage of solar savings with a community solar program.
Community solar is popping up all over the country, wherein individuals can subscribe to energy generated by a large communal solar panel farm. The power generated by the panels you are renting is then applied to your electric bill. Community solar allows for the use of renewable energy, even for those who cannot afford installation costs.
Some states, like Maryland, have proposed pilot programs to bring community solar initiatives to its residents, with the goal of bringing the benefit of solar power to low and moderate income users. The Chesapeake Climate Action Network has also been working hard to increase community solar programs throughout Maryland, dubbing it “Solar for Everyone.”

More Incentives Nationwide

Government incentives help to make solar energy more attractive to homeowners. Unfortunately, incentives tend to vary state by state. Thus, even though many states have ideal conditions for solar power, because the state government has not embraced this technology, we see less rollout.
Take Michigan for example. Detroit sees average period of sunlight in excess of four hours per day. That, coupled with the state’s lower temperatures make for an ideal solar environment. But with virtually no government aid, Michigan homeowners see far less solar penetration than states such as New York and California.
Some common and helpful incentives that make solar more affordable for homeowners include property tax and sales tax exemption.
When solar is installed in a home, property values rise. Normally, this kind of upswing would be accompanied by a bill from your local tax assessor. But many states have decided to overlook this and free residents from an increased financial burden.
Sales tax exemptions are also helpful. For a state with a sales tax rate of 7.5%, a $20,000 PV solar system would come with an additional $1,500 tacked on. That’s a large amount of money, and its elimination could make or break a homeowner’s decision to install solar.
One way in which we can catch up to European nations would be to govern solar incentives on the federal level, rather than state, to ensure that all US residents are able to afford renewable energy. In Germany, for example, solar is overseen by a uniform national system, making adoption easier across the entire country.

Meet Me In Annapolis

This is our moment. This year, climate activists across Maryland have the opportunity to pass bold climate legislation that will pave the way for a clean energy future.
This year, we can slash climate-disrupting emissions by not only renewing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, but also strengthening and extending its goal — to achieve a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
This year, we can chart the way to power our homes and communities with wind and solar. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will raise our clean energy standard to 25% by 2020 and invest a landmark $40 million into workforce development training in under-served communities.
With the support of legislative champions, including Senators Catherine Pugh and Mac Middleton and Delegate Dereck Davis, we are in a strong position to reach the finish line.
But to get this legislation to Governor’s Hogan’s desk, we need one critical thing: For you to raise your voice in Annapolis and demand that your legislators vote YES!
We are hosting a series of regional lobby nights to ensure our legislators hear our voices before every key hearing and vote. Come to Annapolis and raise your voice for clean energy with fellow climate activists from your community.
You’ll have the opportunity to meet with fellow climate activists in your district and receive the latest political updates on where your legislator stands on our priority climate bills. Following a training and orientation, you’ll meet face-to-face with your legislator.
Sign up for your regional lobby night by clicking on the link that corresponds to your area:

By passing both the the Clean Energy Jobs Act and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, we will slash greenhouse gas emissions, create thousands of good green jobs, and power more of our homes and communities with clean, renewable sources like wind and solar. We’ll also invest millions of dollars into job training to help underserved communities gain pathways to family-sustaining jobs.
Join us in Annapolis and let’s keep building Maryland’s clean energy future.

Crossover 2015: 29 Days of Progress

It wouldn’t be a Virginia General Assembly session without high-stakes drama, last-minute surprises, and a host of political maneuvering. True to form, the first 29 days of the 45 day 2015 General Assembly session have produced more twists and turns than a Hollywood thriller. Thankfully, I can confidently say CCAN’s climate agenda has withstood a bevy of attacks and we’re on pace to seal a very successful legislative session.
Today is officially “crossover,” or the legislative midway point. As of today, all legislation that passed in the House or Senate must officially “cross over” into the other chamber and proceed through the same committee and floor voting process.
At this midway point, here’s a recap of CCAN’s top priorities with an eye of what’s to come in the future.
The Virginia Coastal Protection Act
Richmond-area Democrat Sen. Donald McEachin and Virginia Beach Republican Ron Villanueva championed the most important and aggressive piece of climate legislation we’ve ever introduced. SB 1428 and HB 2205, called the Virginia Coastal Protection Act, would join Virginia into a highly successful multi-state carbon emissions reduction program called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The legislation would generate millions of dollars to protect residents in Tidewater Virginia from sea level rise and invest in other important climate measures like solar and energy efficiency.
This effort was the top priority of our Safe Coast Virginia report released last July. Numerous organizations, from the conservation community to low-income housing partners to the Virginia Chapter of the American Association of Pediatrics, supported this bipartisan campaign. The bill was supported by Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms, the city of Portsmouth, and the city of Norfolk, which was quick to pass a city council resolution in support of the bill and whose mayor personally lobbied for its passage. The Virginian-Pilot editorial board fully endorsed our Virginia Coastal Protection Act and even the Washington Post editorial board called joining RGGI the smart way to reduce emissions.
In short, CCAN’s Virginia Coastal Protection Act quickly became THE most positively embraced environmental legislative initiative we’ve seen in some time. It’s a no-brainer: providing funds to fight flooding while also meeting our carbon reduction goals in a cost-effective manner is a win-win for the state.
However, the bill failed to pass out of a key House subcommittee and came within one vote of passage in the full Senate committee. Delegate Villanueva and Senator McEachin deserve credit for their passion and leadership on this issue. Our supporters also deserve a tremendous amount of credit for helping to put this issue on the radar for so many people. Even though the legislation failed to pass in its first year, we have all the momentum we need to build off this year’s success and come right back next year to pass this urgently needed solution for our coast. Stay tuned for the next steps of this campaign.
Increasing Solar Development
CCAN worked with Sen. Rosalyn Dance and Del. Jennifer McClellan to introduce SB 1395 and HB 1950, which doubles the maximum size of a solar project that businesses can install on their property to help offset their energy usage. Virginia notoriously lags far behind its neighbors in solar development, so this legislation is an important step forward.
Building off the success we made last year when we worked with Sen. Hanger, Sen. Wagner, and Del. Hugo to exempt solar equipment from punishing local taxes, this year’s effort from Sen. Dance and Del. McClellan will continue to advance the state towards a clean energy future. Thanks to our patrons, friends in the solar industry, and the utilities and co-ops who have worked on this legislation, the bill has passed both the full House and full Senate, positioning us for a victory.
Withstanding the Attacks on the Clean Power Plan
Heading into session, we were on full-blown defense in fighting off attacks of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which mandates that Virginia cut its carbon pollution by 38% by 2030. The program is much needed and long overdue. Of course that didn’t stop big business, big coal, and its defenders in the legislature from pulling out all stops to delay Virginia’s implementation of policies to help us meet our emissions goals.
In all, there were several bills in each chamber designed to delay or prevent us from meeting our goals. Thankfully, due to your protests, calls, emails, letters to the editor, and many other actions, all of these bills have been killed in the first 29 days. The only surviving piece of legislation, SB 1365 from Sen. Watkins, merely requires the state to consult with the General Assembly and others instead of deferring action to the General Assembly so that lawmakers can press pause on implementing the plan. Chalk this up as an enormous win for the climate and a giant blow to opponents of the Clean Power Plan.
What About Dominion?
If you’re following the news on the Virginia legislative session, you’re probably plenty familiar with Sen. Wagner’s SB 1349, legislation that some consumer advocates are calling a massive ratepayer boondoggle. I’m only writing about this bill because Dominion cleverly decided to use the Clean Power Plan as a boogeyman to scare legislators into voting for it.
For more information on this bill and for some insight regarding how some of our friends feel about the jist of this legislation, see this Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed from Sierra Club Virginia Chapter Director Glen Besa.
The most important aspect of this very complicated bill and series of events is to note that Dominion, whose power and influence is unrivaled in Virginia, was boxed into a corner by the combination of the fierce, negative public reaction of this bill, the strong, growing momentum of the environmental community, and the leadership of climate champions in the Senate who demanded more clean energy from the utility giant.
SB 1349, which seeks to establish a freeze on base rates and prevent the State Corporation Commission from reviewing whether utilities made too much profit, was recently amended – for the better of the climate community. Although final details are still being worked out, the changes would secure more than 400 MW of new utility-scale solar in Virginia in addition to the creation of new energy efficiency programs from both utilities.
In years past, this controversial bill would’ve likely sailed through the legislature without the need to amend it to appeal to the environmental community. As we continue to build power on climate and clean energy in Virginia, we can secure more positive legislative breakthroughs.
That’s all for now. I’ll have more when the 2015 legislative session officially concludes.

Appalachian Power Company Targets Two Solar Customers

On September 16th, Appalachian Power Company will ask the State Corporation Commission for permission to tax residential customers whose solar systems exceed 10kw in size. Some of you might be wondering how many APCo customers would be affected by the new tax. The answer? Two. That’s right, there are TWO people in APCo’s service territory who have solar systems larger than 10kw on their homes and the utility wants them to pay.
Prepare yourself as you try to follow their train of thought:
 

  • Solar customers lower their utility bills by powering their homes with the sun
  • However, these customers are still using the utility’s services when the sun isn’t shining and the solar panels aren’t generating electricity
  • The burden to provide power to these customers on a part-time basis is onerous and forces them to pass costs to other customers
  • The rest of APCo’s customers are unfairly subsidizing the “free-riders” who rely on the utility for power
  • Thus, to be fair to everyone else, APCo must tax the “free-riders” to recover the costs

To put it another way: APCo is trying to make the argument that the only two customers with significant solar installations in their Virginia service territory are increasing the utility bills of APCo’s other 447,426 Virginia residential customers so much that the utility has no choice but to slap a tax on these two moochers in order to cover the cost.
Allow me to share a few facts. APCo’s rates have more than doubled since 2005 and it has nothing to do with solar energy. In fact, solar owners actually provide a benefit to utilities by providing excess grid power during times of high demand. And speaking of benefits, the CEO of APCo’s parent company, American Electric Power, earned more than $10 million in salary and benefits in 2013. And yet, APCo is spending an untold amount of money in staff time and legal fees to petition the SCC for the right to tax their two customers who have solar panels in excess of 10kw in size.
Head-scratching for sure.
Let’s take a dive into a few details of APCo’s request.

  • The standby charges would apply to residential customers with solar installations between 10kw and 20kw in size (state law restricts residential customers from installing solar systems larger than 20kw)
  • According to the filing, APCo will ask for distribution standby charges of $1.94/kw and transmission standby charges of $1.83/kw, totaling $3.77/kw
  • Thus, homeowners with solar systems of 10kw would be taxed $37.70/mo in new standby charges, or $452.40/yr, with the potential for homeowners with the maximum-allowed 20kw solar systems of being taxed $75.40/mo or $904.80/yr

It goes without saying that taxing the sun is a silly idea. However, APCo is simply following the playbook first-written by Virginia’s utility behemoth Dominion Virginia Power. They’ve already successfully convinced the SCC to apply distribution and transmission standby charges to its customers who have similar-sized systems. Seeing this opportunity, APCo is seizing its moment to take advantage of its climate-conscious customers by imposing punishing taxes upon them.
Standby charges aren’t just a matter of economic fairness. They set a dangerous precedent that have the intention of suppressing the solar market. The state of Virginia is creating an environment that encourages the development of only the smallest of customer-owned solar systems. Homeowners who may wish to install large systems on their homes or property may think twice about crossing the 10kw threshold out of fear of being hit with taxes.
Standby charges send the wrong message during a time when the state needs to aggressively ramp up its solar energy mix. Solar prices are falling dramatically across the nation and as more citizens are educated about the benefits of solar, they are more encouraged than ever to make the switch from fossil-fuels to clean energy. Utilities everywhere are in a full-blown panic about the growth of customer-owned solar and are pulling out all the stops in order to stagnate its growth as much as possible.
The public comment deadline for APCo’s rate case is September 9th and the hearing is September 16th. Hopefully you will join CCAN in urging the SCC to not tax the sun and reject APCo’s proposed new standby charges.

VIRGINIA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON EPA’S CARBON REDUCTION PLAN

Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has just wrapped up a series of listening sessions last week, eliciting public feedback on the EPA’s new draft rules for carbon reductions for existing power plants. These rules, known as the Clean Power Plan, or “111(d)” as policy wonks call them, are the signature components of the President’s Climate Action Plan and are designed to make America the leader in the fight against climate change by reducing the nation’s CO2 by 30% by 2030. (In case you’re wondering, 111(d) is the code section of the Clean Air Act which gives the EPA the authority to regulate CO2). Virginia’s specific carbon reduction target is 38% below 2012 levels by 2030.
The DEQ listening session took place in Henrico on Thursday night. Four speakers representing various co-operatives and the VA Chamber of Commerce spoke in opposition of the draft rules, a modest effort and fine showing if it were not dwarfed by the 24 citizens and environmental representatives speaking passionately about the need to support the rules and fight against climate change.
As expected, the dirty polluters spouted the familiar tired arguments: efforts designed to cut carbon pollution would increase rates, reduce jobs, and stymie economic productivity. These arguments fly in the face of numerous studies suggesting that smart investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency can actually provide a cool billion dollars in energy savings for Virginia customers, while adding 21st century jobs and providing a spark to the clean energy economy.
Further, reducing harmful carbon pollution from our environment has the added benefit of improving the public health of the commonwealth’s 8.2 million residents. While Virginia has much to be proud of, its capital city of Richmond winning the Asthma and Allergy Foundation’s “Asthma Capital” award not once but TWICE should be enough to give rule-makers pause.
If that weren’t enough, coal’s pollution has a well-documented disproportionate effect on many minority and other low-income communities. In fact, the NAACP recently released a stunning report highlighting that 68% of blacks in America live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. Our friends at Virginia New Majority provided much-needed and oft-overlooked testimony to this disparity during the Henrico hearing on Thursday.
And oh by the way, rising seas, devastating storms, punishing droughts, and other climate disruptions will be mitigated by reducing carbon pollution in the environment. Added all up and the benefits v. harms of the Clean Power Plan are as lopsided as the 24-4 representation DEQ witnessed at its listening session in Henrico.
DETAILS ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN
EPA outlined four “building blocks” for states to use in order to meet the carbon reduction goals. These four options are available for states to use and experiment with, allowing each state maximum flexibility in determining which mechanism, and to what extent, the state should use to achieve its goal. The building blocks are:
1)      Heat rate improvements at coal-fired power plants,
2)      Shifting dispatch from coal to natural gas,
3)      Increasing renewable and nuclear generation, and
4)      Increasing demand-side energy efficiency
Building block number two for the state’s consideration, swapping coal for natural gas, is akin to a Vicodin addict swapping the pills for a steady diet of Jack Daniels. Gone is the Vicodin addiction, as well as the pain temporarily, but the long-term effects of severe alcoholism can be equally as damaging, if not more-so, than the initial problem.
Our nation’s longtime dependence on coal has been a danger to climate stability. But a fast switch to natural gas as the solution to the coal dependency is not the answer. Methane leakage from the production, transport, and usage of natural gas accounts for nearly 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution, ranking 2nd behind CO2. Over a 100 year period, methane emissions are more than 20 times more potent of a climate change pollutant than CO2, which makes a switch from coal to gas seem more like a dodge than a direct attempt to solve the climate problem.
Virginia has incredible untapped potential for efficiency, solar, and particularly offshore wind. These resources need to be fully tapped before other options are considered.
TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The draft EPA rules were first announced on June 2, 2014 and made official on June 18, 2014. Since then, DEQ has organized listening sessions to provide feedback on the rules. EPA asks that all entities (citizens, businesses, government agencies like DEQ, etc.) to submit comments back to EPA by October 16, 2014.
Thereafter, EPA will develop its final and binding carbon reduction rules to be released in June of 2015. Virginia will have one year, until June 30, 2016, to provide EPA with a detailed State Implementation Plan, outlining how the commonwealth will achieve its carbon reduction goals.
Virginia has the option of achieving the goals on its own, or by joining a multi-state collaboration like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). If Virginia decides to join RGGI, a collaborative with proven success and one in which CCAN steadfastly urges the state to join, it will have until June 30, 2018 to do so and outline its intention to achieve the goals under the final rules proposed by EPA.
All states have until 2030 to achieve its state-specific carbon reduction goals – until 2032 to ensure the carbon reduction goals are met under three years averages for 2030, 2031, and 2032. CCAN will be there every step of the way to ensure Virginia makes the right decisions for our climate.

Weekly Climate Insider: Green Business, VA Hybrid Tax and Power Shift!

Welcome back to the Weekly Climate Insider!
In Maryland, fracking and the results of the Environment America study posted in last week’s Climate Insider are still making headlines. As a recap, the report found that our water supply is put at risk by the billions of gallons of dirty wastewater produced by fracking. See the coverage from Capital News Service.

This week, we’re profiling two Maryland businesses that are environmentally newsworthy.
A Maryland construction company called Hobbitat builds small houses made out of reclaimed materials. The 250 square foot houses, called “hobs,” are made almost exclusively from from salvaged or repurposed materials, nearly eliminating the adverse effects of new construction. In energy terms, “The hobs’ square footage is about 11 percent of the median U.S. house size, so much less energy is required to heat and cool them.” Check out some photos of these gorgeous little hobs!

Continue reading

Dominion's New Solar Program – Explained

Today, Dominion Power starts accepting applications for its pilot “Solar Purchase Program.” Under the program, homeowners and businesses with solar panels on their properties can sell both the power they generate and the associated renewable energy certificates (RECs) for a premium.
CCAN, along with other environmental organizations, was represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center in the case about the program before the Virginia State Corporation Comission. Environmental advocates saw some big flaws with Dominion’s design of the program. It has moved forward nonetheless, so here’s our guide to the program.
Continue reading

Day 4: residents of Hampton Roads join action at Dominion!

va icons_with_dom_office

What an excellent fourth day of the Week of Action at Dominion! Several Hampton Roads residents came out today, from as far as Chesapeake and Norfolk, Hampton and Newport News, to help shine a spotlight on Dominion’s $76 Million Rip-Off and all the consequences that the company’s continued dependence on eastern Virginia, including driving climate change and sea level rise. Check out the picture below of our mock-submerged Virginia landmarks, the Tangier Island water tower and the Neptune Statue, among the icons of Virginia at risk due to climate change.

Continue reading