Ask Dr. Riccardo Signorelli, CEO of clean-technology company FastCAP Systems, what role the government may have had in getting his business off the ground and his answer is brief.

 “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made FastCAP possible,” Signorelli said. “Simple as that.”

Signorelli and John Cooley, the co-founder of FastCAP, came into business following six years of research and development in the MIT Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems (LEES) Lab. At MIT, Signorelli and Cooley discovered they had come up with a revolutionary energy storage technology.

But one hurdle remained: transitioning the engineers’ idea into the marketplace. Signorelli and Cooley knew they needed some financial help, and they got it in 2009 in the form of a $5.5 million grant made possible by the Recovery Act.

“It created an avalanche,” Signorelli said. “We started to raise additional funding, to the point where we actually had to turn down investors.”

FastCAP – which creates durable green-friendly batteries that charge in seconds and deliver energy almost instantly, all at a price more than 50 percent less than today’s technologies – went from two employees to 20 today. If things continue at their pace, Signorelli said, FastCAP will double and hit 40 employees by the end of the year.

That hiring isn’t just salespeople and highly trained technical experts, but the all-important manufacturers as well. And this kind of employment explosion is only possible thanks to the kickstart provided by the ARRA, Signorelli said, noting that “the federal government has had and will continue to have a huge part in helping companies that innovate products.”

But it’s up to the private sector to do the actual hiring, which is why FastCAP is so committed to its internship program – especially because its work is so state-of-the-art.

“It’s not efficient to develop green technology without also developing the workforce,” Signorelli said. “Our internship program gets [young people] excited.”

“That’s how we make this revolution sustainable in the U.S.”

Article by Ari Matusiak, Executive Director of the White House Business Council

---

Related posts:

• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• Green Technology Job Hunt: Succeed With Clear Goals
• Top 6 Tips for Clean Tech Events and Renewable Energy Conferences
• Green Tech Job Hunt: Track the Trends
• Reader Feedback: The Biggest Clean Tech Story?

---

Copyright © 2008-2010 CleanTechies, Inc. and Partners
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
Written by The White House Blog. To the comments
(Digital Fingerprint: b008bf120fbd682ffd7ee5812c495c9a)

Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

]]> http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/08/02/little-help-goes-long-way-clean-tech-company/feed/ 0 http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/02/25/destiny-usa-and-green-bonds/ http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/02/25/destiny-usa-and-green-bonds/#comments Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:30:49 +0000 Shari Shapiro http://www.greenbuildinglawblog.com/2011/02/articles/regulations/good-intentions-gone-bad-the-cautionary-tale-of-destiny-usa-and-green-bonds/

Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

]]>

I covered the messy breakdown of the Carousel/Destiny USA project in Syracuse earlier this week.  In short, the Destiny USA project was selected as a green "demonstration" project under the 2004 Green Bonds program.  $255 million in tax exempt bonds were issued on behalf of the project, the revenue of which was supposed to be used to implement the green features of the project.  As of now, none of the green features have been implemented, and the developer has intimated that even if the project is fully built out, the green features will not be included.  The IRS will have to decide whether to rescind the tax exempt status of the bonds for failing to meet the green requirements.

I have written at length about creating effective green incentives and regulations (see my Regulating Green Series here).  For me, the most interesting part of this debacle is what it reveals about a major green incentive program.  The Green Bonds program was developed as a part of the America Jobs Creation Act of 2004.  In theory, the program was intended to: 

 finance environmentally friendly development. The objective is to reclaim contaminated industrial and commercial land (brown fields), and encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable energy sources.

Although the goals of the Green Bonds program were clearly noble, as I see it the program was doomed from the start. No market rate project in 2005 could have met all of these requirements.  Thus, the proponents of the projects had reason to overstate the green components of their projects to access $2 billion in tax free capital for the projects. 

According to the IRS Guidance (available here) $2 billion in AAA tax exempt bonds were authorized by the Federal government to be awarded to four demonstration projects.  To qualify for the bonds, the four projects in aggregate had to:

1. Reduce energy consumption by more that 150 megawatts annually compared to conventional generation;
2. Reduce daily sulfur dioxide emissions by at least 10 tons compared to coal generated power;
3. Expand by 75% the domestic solar PV market in the United States as compared to the expansion of that market from 2001-2002, which was 14.424 megawatts (which means an aggregate increase of approximately 11 megawatts, or an average of almost 4 megawatts of PV power per projects);
4. Use at least 25 megawatts of fuel cell energy generation.

In addition, each project had to be at least 1,000,000 square feet or 20 acres and: 

1. At least 75% of the square footage had to be LEED certified;
2. The wood had to be certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative or the American Farm Tree System;
3. Reclaim a brownfield site

Beyond the green features, the projects also had to create at least 1000 construction jobs and 1,500 full time equivalent jobs. 

In addition to the requirements of the Green Bonds, the Destiny USA project entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the EPA (available here and summary below from Syracuse.com) committing to: 

1. Using green building design, construction and operation principles to obtain the highest levels of certification from the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
   program;
2. Retrofitting more than 100 construction vehicles with diesel particulate filters and using clean fuel, which will reduce emissions by nearly 85 percent;
3. Implementing techniques to reduce idling of vehicles during construction
4. Becoming partners in EPA’s Energy Star and WaterSense programs,
   which require the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances;
5. Using over 3,000 tons of coal ash in place of using newly-manufactured Portland Cement, which will reduce greenhouse gases by over 3,000 tons.
    

As a policy measure, the green bonds were destined to be ineffective.  For a green incentive to be truly beneficial, it needs to set out goals that stretch its recipients to higher levels of sustainability, but not so pie-in-the-sky that they create an incentive to greenwash their projects.  This is a tough balance to strike.  Doing so requires that the regulatory bodies have a good understanding of the state of the green market that they are looking to incentivize. It is not enough to throw public money at any project claiming to be green.  The result is projects like Destiny USA, which give a bad name to green building and public financing of green projects. 

By contrast, good investment in green projects can bring real benefits.  I analyzed the investment of ARRA funds in green projects.  Per public dollar, these investments were among the most efficient ways of creating jobs of all of the ARRA money spent. (See my analysis here).  As Congress debates the value of continuing public investment in green projects and renewable energy, the debate must not only be about whether, but how, the support will be crafted and implemented.  The road to green is paved with good intentions. 

Related posts:

• Maybe We Should Rethink LEED Laws
• Could Solyndra Happen To Green Building Policy?
• Taken for a Ride on the Carousel: Failed Green Project Sets Stage for Suits
• Green Bond Project Failing To Meet Commitments
• Time to Pay the Piper: Evergreen Solar Must Repay (Some) Tax Incentives

The industry has been abuzz this past week over the announced acquisition (ahem – merger) of Progress Energy by Duke Energy. The combined entity will become the largest electric utility in the U.S. by revenue and generation capacity if approved by the various regulatory bodies, which is no sure thing. Like most mergers, the promised benefits, for shareholders and ratepayers alike, are to be derived from improved economies of scale. In this case, the focus has been on reduced risk associated with large generation projects, as well as better generation dispatch and fuels purchasing power. But as their employees are certainly wondering, such savings also come from reducing “redundancies”. Will their various smart grid programs be one of these redundancies?

Both Duke and Progress are smart grid innovators, and both were big-time recipients of ARRA Smart Grid Investment Program (SGIP) stimulus funds, to the tune of $200M each. Their approaches are different however. Progress has been a leading advocate of advanced distribution automation systems, even using dynamic Volt/VAR control as a demand response tool. They also have a successful and extensive pager-based residential direct load control program, with up to 25% of their Florida customers participating. Their SGIP grant is focused on accelerating and upgrading these programs, though it also includes a relatively small 160,000 unit smart meter rollout and some PEV infrastructure, which was likely included to make their SGIP application appear sexier to the Department of Energy.

Duke, on the other hand, has been a leading proponent of smart meters with an aggressive rollout ongoing in Ohio. Even so, they’ve bucked the trend in the U.S. by using PLC-based AMI systems from Echelon without HAN interfaces. These are aggregated at the distribution transformer level by generalized grid routers from the likes of Ambient, Echelon, and SmartSynch, opening the door to innovative distribution management applications.

Will the merger mean a merger of smart grids as well? Or does this portend an internal battle?

At this point it is hard to say, but with so many different state regulators involved, it is hard to imagine a smooth merger that could leverage any true economies of scale, despite the technical opportunities. Duke’s vision is already hampered by skeptical regulators in Indiana, who have dramatically slowed smart meter rollouts, and the Carolinas where relatively fresh AMR meters are still being paid for.

In this sense, this merger may be seen as a microcosm of the difficulties in achieving a consensus implementation of the U.S. smart grid. While there are certainly strengths that come from diversity, and one size does not fit all, the fragmentation of the industry and its regulators will likely continue to be an obstacle to harvesting the full benefits even within the same company. We are eager to see.

Article by Bob Gohn, appearing courtesy the Matter Network.

Related posts:

• Duke Energy Announces Wind Farm for Willacy County in Texas
• Smart Grid: Technology is the easy part
• Clean Tech Event: Smart Grid Bilateral Trade and Investment Opportunities
• Duke Energy Resolves Clean Air Act Violations
• Landis+Gyr+Toshiba: First Truly Global Smart Grid Company?

Pike Research recently published its free (!) white paper Smart Grid: 10 Trends to Watch in 2011 and Beyond and have received some interesting feedback. Since most of this has been expressed privately, I thought I would aggregate comments on each trend and share it here.

No. 1 – Security Will Become the Top Smart Grid Concern. There was universal agreement here, with a few saying “uh-oh, I better learn more about this”. Awareness is growing, as are some potentially game-changing solutions for securing embedded computing and communications environments.

No. 2 – Distribution Automation Will Rival AMI as the Most Visible Smart Grid Application. Judging by the high interest in a recent webinar on this subject, the benefits of emerging distribution automation technologies is not a big secret. Stimulus-assisted demonstration projects, both in the U.S. and Europe, will provide some useful metrics.

No. 3 – The “Bakersfield Effect” Will Continue, but Some Consumers Will Actually LIKE the Smart Grid. I had no idea there were already so many Bakersfield jokes, thanks mostly to Johnny Carson. Already famous for Coccidioidomycosism (aka “Valley Fever”), Bakersfield is also home to “smart-meter-itis”. Sorry folks, I’m sure Bakersfield is a lovely place….

No. 4 – Smart Meter and AMI Focus Will Shift Toward Europe and China. A minor correction: I mentioned that ERDF in France is running three pilots, of 100K meters each, using different vendors. In fact, they’re running 2 pilots, one of 200K meters (Lyon) and one of 100K meters (Tours). Three suppliers, Iskaemeco, Itron, and Landis+Gyr, are each supplying ~100K meters, which are fully mixed throughout each pilot. I was also remiss in not mentioning the leading role of Atos Origin, the international consulting and system integration firm, in the development of this project. However, all this only reinforces my major point highlighting the uniqueness and importance of the successful multi-vendor interoperability demonstrated by this project.

No. 5 – The “Year of the HAN” Will Not Arrive … Yet. I expected some vendor pushback on this assertion, but instead have received what amounts to a collective sigh of resignation. Certainly there are many interesting pilots and deployments underway. Interestingly, many are decoupled from the smart meters that had been seen as essential. The opportunity remains, but will require patience.

No. 6 – The Demand Response Business Transformation Will Accelerate. No arguments here, and more vendors and utilities are excited by the transformation than nervous.

No. 7 – The ARRA Smart Grid “Stimulus” Will Finally Have a Positive Impact. I would have thought that any assertion that the stimulus has thus far been less than stimulating would generate an argument, especially during the height of the mid-term election season. Not so.

No. 8 – The Standards “Horse” Will Begin to Catch the Deployment “Cart”. This generated requests for prognostication on which technology will “win”. It is climbing out on a limb to say “IP”. We do forecast over a dozen different technologies in our Smart Grid Networking and Communications report, but it is up to the reader to judge whether there are “winners” and “losers”.

No. 9 – Data Management Will Be the Next Bottleneck to Smart Grid Benefits. More and more vendors are promising means to obtain useful information from the mountain of data coming from the smart grid. Perhaps we should be more optimistic re: a bottleneck. However, we failed to mention how growing privacy concerns could muddy the waters for the more interesting profiling applications.

No. 10 – Existing Data and Telecom Vendors Will Get Serious About the Smart Grid. Several of these vendors assure me they already are serious. I guess we will have to see how many utilities agree.

Article by Bob Gohn, appearing courtesy Matter Network.

Related posts:

• The Networked Grid — A Greentech Media Conference on the Smart Grid
• Top Clean Tech Trends for 2010
• Siemens Promotes Smart Grid Technology Innovation Contest
• U.S. Unveils Programs to Modernize Electric Grid System
• China to Pass U.S. in Smart Grid Investment in 2010, Study Says

I don’t know if it is Obama or Al Gore but the US government is starting to understand the need for sustainability. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law by President Obama in February to stimulate the sagging US economy. By injecting $690 billion to improve infrastructure the authors hoped to create millions of jobs pulling the US out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Interspersed within this $690 billion is $60 billion for green projects of which $45 billion is going specifically towards energy related programs. Within this $45 billion most will go directly towards the green building industry with some additional monies going towards large scale renewable energy production.

Whether in the form of a tax credit, grant, or subsidy, federal money is becoming more available to offset costs of greening your home or building. The breakdown of the important areas is as follows:

• $300 million for the Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate program and the ENERGY STAR® program
• $6.3 billion from the US Department of Energy for energy-efficiency grant programs, including $3.2 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants and $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program
• $4.5 billion for greening federal buildings
• $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
• $4.5 billion for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to modernize and improve the electricity grid

Residential improvements

On the residential side, the stimulus bill has expanded existing tax credits and created new ones that cover a variety of upgrades to make your home more energy efficient. New doors, windows, insulation, boilers, air conditioners, and furnaces all qualify for a 30% tax credit that is capped at $1,500. This means that if you purchase and implement any of these materials or systems that meet energy efficient guidelines you can offset 30% of the cost by applying for a tax credit. In addition, renewable energy production that homeowners employ also qualifies for a 30% tax credit, but with no cap. Geothermal heat pumps, solar water heaters, wind energy production and solar panels are all included in this group. The $300 million for Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate program and ENERGY STAR program will go towards home appliances that have been certified efficient by ENERGY STAR. This money will come in the form of a cash rebate.

Commercial improvements

The commercial building industry will also see a large sum of money coming their way. This includes $3.2 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, which can be applied for by counties, cities and even Indian tribes to develop and implement projects to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions in their communities. The $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program will be sent directly to State energy offices to be used for similar purposes at the state level. California has already mandated that all its state buildings be LEED Silver Certified so a good chunk of the money that California will receive will likely go directly to that endeavor. The $4.5 billion allocated to greening Federal Government buildings will be focused on improving energy efficiency of all General Service Administration buildings.

Help low-income communities

The Weatherization Assistance Program is a less well known but equally effective and important aspect of the stimulus bill. The Program allocates money to improving building envelopes of low-income housing. This will not only improve the lives of tenants hit hardest by the economic downturn but also greatly improve the energy efficiency of this traditionally terrible building type. The Program seeks to lower energy costs for tenants and reduce energy drawn from the grid from low-income communities.

Improve public transportation

On top of these programs $22 billion has been allocated to the Department of Transportation to improve public transportation. The aim of this money is to not only improve public transportation but also expand it in hopes of increasing its popularity and thus reducing vehicle emissions. $6 billion have also gone to the EPA for cleanup of hazardous sites, revitalization of watersheds and a variety of other projects that are focused on improving destroyed natural features. The EPA is distributing this money to states based on proposals that the states have supplied on projects that are good candidates.

Confused? You are not alone.

If you are confused by all of this you are not alone. Unfortunately, like most federal government acts the stimulus bill is massive and very hard to follow. It takes an expert to figure out where money is going and how to get it. Beyond the confusion there are several negative aspects to the stimulus bill especially concerning how the money is allocated. Most of the grants are being funneled through state governments. While this is the easiest way to go about distributing the money it is definitely not the most accurate or efficient. When the states receive the money they are often spending it how they want and not for its intended purpose. Take for example a large chunk of money supposedly going towards a program to improve and “green” schools. The states are taking this money and then using it to pay teacher’s salaries. Now I am not saying this is a terrible thing but stimulus money slated to improve buildings should not be used to balance state budgets. Additionally another hefty sum from the bill is going towards nuclear and clean coal technology. Both of these industries are not considered renewable because both are riddled with environmental problems, and consequently should not be included in a bill focused on improving the environment. Lastly, the money is slow to come. Little by little dollars are trickling to states and communities and if the desired effect of this bill was to shock the economy back into a more healthy rhythm money is going to have to come faster.

A good start, but a bit lacking

On the positive side, this bill is a leap in the right direction. As the most comprehensive and lucrative sustainability bill in history, it sets a serious standard for the United States government and its people to follow. No longer can we be complacent of wasteful actions that are detrimental to the environment. Although no amount of money is enough to reverse the harm we have already done, $60 billion is a good start. Compared to the oil industry, which receives and estimated $15 to $35 billion a year, it is a bit lacking. This huge sum that supports one of the worst industries, in terms of its detrimental effect on the environment, shows the vast potential of capital which can and hopefully in the future will be steered toward the recently booming green industries. Already the amount of “green collar” jobs is on the rise, and the green building industry has become increasingly popular. When the economy improves and the stimulus money really starts flowing, green building will no longer be a fanciful option but a mandated norm.

Related posts:

• Near-term Stimulus vs. Long-term Green
• Mine the stimulus bill for CleanTech and Renewable Energy projects
• Where Are the Most Energy Efficient Buildings?
• It’s The Economy, Stupid
• High-Speed Rail: So Much Track, So Little Money

The fight for leadership in clean-tech is underway. The next decade will prove pivotal in determining where the Silicon Valley of clean-tech will reside. While the U.S. is now putting considerable resources into clean-tech, the strongest competitor has only just entered the contest.

Announced in July, China’s Golden Sun program will increase installed capacity of solar power by five times its 2008 level in the next 2-3 years. China also initiated a residential program to subsidize solar. The nation has quickly emerged as a major player in one of renewable energy’s key sectors. Furthermore, China earmarked nearly $100 billion of economic stimulus for projects related to climate change. This is not to mention the enormous growth of the wind power industry in China, which required Chinese lawmakers to double their wind power prediction for 2010. The country plans to add wind capacity to match the massive Three Gorges Dam within the next decade. All the while, China has strict protectionist rules limiting the beneficiaries to local companies. The likely best hope for foreign entities is to collaborate with their Chinese counterparts similar to the success of American automakers.

Meanwhile, the U.S. renewed its solar subsidy last year, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) through 2016, in hopes of stimulating demand growth. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act put aside a little over half China’s sum for energy-related projects. The U.S. hopes the greening of the economy will bring resurgence to the manufacturing sector and retain its leadership in technological innovation while simultaneously lowering greenhouse gas emissions in order to combat climate change. Reforming U.S. energy policy is one of the main pillars of the President Obama’s agenda. However, with healthcare reform dragging, Congress could delay cap-and-trade unless President Obama takes the lead.

The fundamental difference between China and the U.S. reveals itself in the push to stimulate clean-tech. With an open and vibrant democracy, the U.S. is stumbling its way through energy policy reform. The creation of market mechanisms like cap-and-trade or tax incentives is a typical solution from the American system. Until recently, the U.S. relied almost entirely on the states to act as incubators for new policy. The particular winners are unclear and the government will likely use the power of the consumer to drive renewable energy growth. On the contrary, China’s command-and-control methodology dumps heaps of money into clean-tech directly leading to marked growth in the country’s wind and solar industries. They spread the wealth through provisions such as the Golden Sun’s requirement that no province can get more than 20MW of new capacity from the program. Indeed, this new space race could prove to be the next ideological test for the United States.

Related posts:

• U.S.-China Green Tech Summit — A Conference Not to be Missed
• China Surges Ahead in Clean Energy Investment, Study Says
• Event: Explore Sustainable Innovation in Sweden and California
• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• Clean Tech’s 2010 Exit Strategies: Disagreeing With the Financial Times

In a move that will surely provide an additional boost for the alternative energy industry, and perhaps T. Boone Pickens‘ plan, the US Department of Treasury has finally released guidelines for claiming the grants instead of the federal tax credit. Applications will be submitted online. However, the Treasury will not be accepting applications at this time.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February allowed for business taxpayers to apply for direct payments instead of claiming a tax credit on their income tax return. This applied to the credit under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 45 (Energy Produced for Certain Renewable Resources) and IRC Section 48 (Energy Credit). Property that applies to this includes geothermal, biomass, micro wind turbines, and solar amongst others.

While the guidelines and terms and conditions are too numerous to mention, here are a few highlights:

The grants apply to property which is “placed in service” during 2009 and 2010. The grant is also available to property, which is placed in service after 2010 where construction began in 2009 of 2010 so long as the application is submitted before October 1, 2011.

Once the completed application is submitted to the IRS, the IRS will make a payment to qualified applicants within 60 days. However, the IRS will only make a final determination and payment if the property is placed into service. You can send an application in early, but you will have to provide supplemental information to the Treasury within 90 days after the property was placed into service.

Lessees of qualified property can also claim the grant, however the lessor must expressly disclaim any rights to the grant and the applicable federal tax credits.

Supporting documentation such as final engineering design documents stamped by a licensed professional engineer and other specified documentation is required. If the cost basis of the property exceeds $500,000, an independent accountant’s certification attesting the accuracy of all costs claimed as part of the basis must be submitted.

REIT’s are eligible to receive the grants as long as they meet other requirements set forth by the Department of Treasury.

In addition to the application procedures, those who ultimately qualify and obtain the grant monies must file an annual project performance report.

The full terms and conditions, guidance, and sample application are available at the Department of Treasury.

[photo credit: flickr]

Related posts:

• U.S. Wind Industry Poised for a Steep Decline?
• Alternative Financing Mechanisms For Green Projects
• Stimulus Update: Biofuel Funds Released
• Stimulus Update: Inching Towards Smart Grid Funding Guidelines
• Stimulus Update: Smart Grid Funding Guidelines Released

A new series of posts on this blog will feature the state of US high speed rail, covering the condition and plans for realizing the new American passenger rail network. A good place to start is with the fastest passenger train currently in service – the Northeast Corridor.

Most of this line is serviced by Amtrak’s Acela express which has the potential to reach 150 mph, but rarely does due to technological limitations concerning the track and the overhead electrical system used to power the train. The average speed of the Acela is a mere 86 mph.

This line has America’s highest ridership and serves the densely populated area from Washington D.C. all the way up to Boston. Along the route lie Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, Providence and number of other urban areas. The Acela has been in service for nearly nine years and experienced increased ridership in 2008 when gas prices spiked.  Although the Acela train on the Northeast Corridor is Amtrak’s flagship passenger train, when compared to the high speed trains of other countries, it does not measure up to its European and Asian counterparts.

First and foremost, the Acela does not even qualify to be a high speed train under the definition by the International Union of Railways which states: “services which regularly operate at or above 250 km/h (155 mph) on new track, or 200 km/h (124 mph) on existing track. The Acela can obtain a speed of 150 mph, but only briefly. The majority of the seven hour trip from Washington D.C. to Boston is less than ninety miles per hour.

Amenities are very important to passengers, especially business travelers who need to utilize their time on the journey by working. While a German businessman has the capability to connect to high speed internet on a German high speed InterCity Express Train (ICE), an American does not have that business necessity on the Acela yet. Comfort and quality on the train need to be improved to attract more ridership, be it more comfortable seats that include more personal space or better food in the dining car. The Acela needs to improve both inside and out.

The solution is clear: investment. $8 billion allocated for high speed rail in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act was the first money ever allocated for high speed rail in the US. A good first step but well short of the amount needed to seriously make a difference in the state of American passenger rail.

Amtrak President/CEO Joseph Boardman has stated for Acela to match up with its international opposites, an investment of $5 billion is needed to shore up the line between Washington D.C. and New York City. In an interview with NBC news, railroad consultant Joseph Vranich stated that most of the stimulus money should be invested in the Northeast Corridor to prove to the American people that high speed rail can be successful.

The Northeast Corridor is the best the country has to offer, but it still has a lot of improvements to make and a long way to go to reach its full potential.

This is the 2nd of a 13-part series on high speed rail in the USA. Read previous articles: High Speed Rail – 12 Corridors to be Stimulated

Related posts:

• US High Speed Rail: The Empire Corridor — Uplift For NYC Mass Transit
• Hypocritical Southern Politicians Fighting High Speed Rail & ARRA Money
• High Speed Rail Dreams For The Keystone Corridor
• High Speed Rail Line Gets Federal Funding: Los Angeles to Las Vegas
• (Anti-)High Speed Rail: Republicans & the Gulf Coast Corridor

Energy efficiency in transportation is now in the national spotlight. Washington is  acknowledging an “energy crisis,” and as part of a solution to this problem, passenger rail in the United States is set for an upgrade. With the inauguration of President Obama, new impetus has been given to constructing a nationwide high speed rail network intended to accelerate US ground travel to speeds upwards of 220 mph. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, eleven corridors have been earmarked for construction:

1. Northeast Corridor
2. The California Corridor
3. The Pacific Northwest Corridor
4. The South Central Corridor
5. Gulf Coast Corridor
6. Chicago Hub Corridor
7. Florida Corridor
8. Southeast Corridor
9. Keystone Corridor
10. Empire Corridor
11. Northern New England Corridor

These eleven corridors will be electrified with trains like those currently used by European passengers. The twelfth line proposed between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, the so-called Sin Line, is envisioned as a magnetic levitation (or MagLev for short) train.

When it comes to high speed rail, the United States is an emerging market. Billions of dollars are at stake for train manufacturers whose products are in the shop window for this massive infrastructure project.

Heavyweights in the arena of high speed rail are European and Japanese firms. The one with probably the most name recognition in America is the Bavarian conglomerate Siemens. The Munich based company has proved Deutsche Bahn, the federal German rail company, with high speed trains since the inception of the country’s high speed rail network in 1991. Siemens has also sold a number of trains to Spain and China, establishing it as a major player in the train manufacturing business. The French were pacesetters in Europe for high speed rail with their network, the TGV (Train a Grande Vitesse) and their national rail manufacturer Alstom. Japanese firms Mitsubishi and Kawasaki, who are better known in the States for making cars and electronics, also will be eager to get into the American high speed rail market.

One other option is being mulled over by some politicians and pundits. In an effort to keep America’s manufacturing base in tact and to create jobs, US industry could turn its attention to producing high speed trains. Auto manufacturing in America has been in decline for decades. Detroit is in unprecedented crisis with both GM and Chrysler going through bankruptcy, shuttering plants and shedding jobs in the process. A conversion from car manufacturing to high speed train production is an option worth considering.

High speed rail in America as part of a more sustainable transportation network is still in a very nascent stage. For now the project faces a number of problems. The one at the top of the list is a lack of funding.

The next series of posts will analyze each corridor’s progress, impediments to the corridor’s completion, technology debated for rail use and the businesses being considered to implement their vision on the network.

photo Credit: Flickr

Related posts:

• High Speed Rail at 90 mph?! ARRA & the Northeast Corridor
• Planning High Speed Rail Line For 17 Years: The Pacific Northwest
• Study Evaluates Markets for High-Speed Rail Systems in the U.S.
• High Speed Rail Line Gets Federal Funding: Los Angeles to Las Vegas
• (Anti-)High Speed Rail: Republicans & the Gulf Coast Corridor

This article is part of a series on the Stimulus Update. Previous posts:

– Smart Grid Funding Guidelines Released
- Inching Towards Smart Grid Funding Guidelines
- EE and Conservation Block Grant Funds Releases
- Next Generation Electric Vehicles Funds Released
- Energy Efficiency Funds Released
- Climate Change, the Stimulus Bill, and how CleanTech will benefit

As part of an ongoing effort to reduce US dependence on foreign oil and address the climate crisis by increasing the use of domestic renewable fuels, Secretary of Energy Chu announced Tuesday plans to provide $786.5 million in ARRA funding to accelerate advanced biofuels research and development, and to provide additional funding for commercial-scale biorefinery demonstration projects.

The funding is available through ARRA’s Research and Development program and will be awarded through competitive grants from the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).

By leveraging DOE’s national laboratories, universities, and the private sector, the goal is to create “third-generation biofuels like green gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels” (click for a PDF discussing third-generation biofuels).  This includes the use of algae and specially-designed oilier crops to reduce the cost of biofuel production while also producing a higher yield per acre.

Project funding opportunities include:

$480 million solicitation for integrated pilot- and demonstration-scale biorefineries

• PURPOSE: validate integrated biorefinery technologies that produce advanced biofuels, bioproducts, and heat and power in an integrated system
• GOAL: facilitate development of an “advanced biofuels” industry to meet federal RPS
• NUMBER OF AWARDS: 10 to 20
• AMOUNT PER AWARD: $25 million funding ceiling for pilot-scale projects; $50 million for demonstration scale projects

$176.5 million for commercial-scale biorefinery projects

• PURPOSE: increase federal funding ceiling for existing biorefinery projects
• GOAL: reduce the risk of development and deployment of these first-of-a-kind operations by expediting the construction phase of these projects and accelerate the timeline for start up and commissioning
• NUMBER OF AWARDS: 2 or more
• AMOUNT PER AWARD: at most, $88 million

$110 million for fundamental research in key program areas

• PURPOSE: support fundamental research in key program areas
• GOAL: develop cutting-edge conversion technologies, including generating more desirable catalysts, fuel-producing microbes, and feedstocks
• NUMBER OF AWARDS: unknown
• AMOUNT PER AWARD: $25 million for sustainability research; $35 million for advanced research consortium; $50 million for algal biofuels consortium

$20 million for ethanol research

• PURPOSE: competitive solicitations for ethanol research
• GOAL: optimize flex-fuel vehicles operating on high octane E85 fuel (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline blend); evaluate the impact of higher ethanol blends in conventional vehicles; and upgrade existing refueling infrastructure to be compatible with fuels up to E85
• NUMBER OF AWARDS: unknown
• AMOUNT PER AWARD: unknown

For the DOE announcement click here.  For more information read here.

Related posts:

• Stimulus Report: EE and Conservation Block Grant Funds Released
• Stimulus Update: Next Generation Electric Vehicles Funds Released
• Stimulus Update: Inching Towards Smart Grid Funding Guidelines
• Stimulus Update: Smart Grid Funding Guidelines Released
• Stimulus Report: Energy Efficiency Funds Released