Historic town changes mind about historic bottled water ban… in unhistoric fashion

One year after making international headlines as the first town in the United States—and possibly the world—to ban the sale of bottled water, voters at the annual Town Meeting in Concord, Massachusetts last week rejected the water bottle ban, passing instead a proposal educating Concord citizens about the environmental impacts of water bottles.

The initial ban, passed in April 2010, was set to go into effect on January 1, 2011, but the state attorney general’s office said it was written as a bylaw that could not be enforced. The measure voted on this week would have addressed that specific problem, but it would not have protected the town against probable lawsuits from industry groups.

“The cost of defending ourselves against such a lawsuit could be steep,” Jeff Wieand, chairman of the Concord Board of Selectmen, told the Boston Globe. “It’s possible we could get a law firm to defend us pro bono, but if that didn’t happen it would be a significant expense for the town.”

Known as the home of environmentalist Henry David Thoreau, it seemed fitting last spring when citizens of Concord approved the anti-establishment water bottle ban. But Concord is also known for being host to the first battle of the American Revolution. And ultimately it was not only the cost of likely litigation that won out over environmentalism, it was also the cause of liberty, or so said the bill’s opponents.

Whichever historical metaphor one applies to this story, it is safe to say that the protagonists in neither would be very impressed with the (small d) democratic tendencies in Concord, population 17,000, as evidenced by voter turnout at Town Meeting. A total of 537 residents voted on the measure at the Town Meeting; 272 opposed the ban and 265 supported it.

But in all fairness to Concordians, the bill came up for consideration late in the evening, around 11 p.m., after many residents had already gone home, according to Jean Hill, who filed the petition to ban the water bottles. Hill says the battle she’s fighting for the environment is not over yet.

“I’m coming back next year. I’m 83 and I’m tough. I don’t give up,” said Hill.

Maybe those historical metaphors are appropriate after all.

Article by Timothy Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Australians Start Banning Water Bottles – Is the G8 Next..?!
• Massachusetts Fires up Solar Hot Water Rebates
• New Water Bottles Entirely from Plants
• Water Filtration: Safe Drinking Water from Thin Air?
• Could an Arizona Town Become the Solar Capital of the World?

Massachusetts is one of the most active states, with forward-thinking policies and institutions to support renewable energy development and efficiency programs. Massachusetts is a leader in Cleantech research and VC investment, with many Cleantech startups located in Boston and along Route 128, the state’s “Technology Highway.” Policy goals and incentive programs are increasing demand for Cleantech in the Bay State, leading to new investments and high impact projects to make Massachusetts more energy efficient and more reliant on renewable energy sources.

1) Massachusetts #2 Clean-Energy State in the Country. In 2010 , Massachusetts was second in the nation (behind California) for its work in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and carbon footprint reduction. To deepen its Cleantech profile, Massachusetts has a bold vision for the future, including a center for energy efficiency innovation, further financial incentives for using clean energy, creating a “Green Bank” that would hasten funding for energy efficiency and clean energy projects and start ups, elevating commercialization of advances in clean energy, and strengthening building efficiency regulations and public education on different renewable energy technologies.

2) Investment in Cleantech. Massachusetts is also second only to California in new investment in Cleantech startups. In addition to dedicated Cleantech VCs and newcomers that cut their teeth in IT and biotech investing, major investment also comes from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust’s $15 million Industry Development Fund. Another foundation is in the works to assist companies that can reduce the reliance on the state electricity grid through off-grid renewable energy sources.

3) Solar Initiative. Massachusetts is a leader in solar power development. More than $68 million has been earmarked for an initiative to promote photovoltaic solar power throughout the entire state. Solar energy is a “key element in growing the clean energy sector of the Massachusetts economy,” says Governor Deval Patrick, whose administration is setting ambitious goals for the state. The solar initiative aims to increase solar power on the grid from 4 MW to 250 MW by the year 2017. The government offers solar renewable energy credits for developers that bridge the gap between production cost and the market price and rebates to businesses and residences that will install solar power during the years of the initiative. Many homes and business are now equipped with a solar power system, saving hundreds of dollars or more a month.

4) Green Jobs Act of 2008. The Green Jobs Act of 2008 was created to provide grant money that would stimulate clean energy businesses, create new employment opportunities in the green sector, as well as job training programs to guarantee anyone can have access to green jobs. The Act also conducts market research to identify any clean energy industry barriers and needs in job training. The Act also established the Alternative and Clean Energy Investment Trust Fund to provide money for three different types of projects: as grants to different clean energy institutions, companies, and nonprofit organizations;, as a grant program for universities, colleges, vocational schools, and community-based organizations with potential or existing workforce development programs in the sector of clean energy, and an initiative to assist in economic self-sufficiency with energy saving techniques.

5) Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Created as a separate institution in 2008, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, or MassCEC, serves as the main agency in support of the growing clean energy cluster, along the same lines as the state’s very successful Biotech cluster, MassCEC is responsible for promoting further development and installation of different clean energy technologies throughout the state. This impacts the Cleantech sector with its support for advancement in technologies, and benefits residents through job creation and workforce development.

6) Implementation of Policies. Aside from the Green Jobs Act and MassCEC, additional policies are strengthening Massachusetts’ Cleantech sector. The Global Warming Solutions Act is among the strongest legislation for the reduction of greenhouse gases in the United States. It calls for a ten to 25 percent reduction of greenhouse gas levels from the 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050. The Green Communities Act provides more than $2 billion in private and public investments into the Massachusetts cleantech sector. Massachusetts also joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a Northeast cap-and-trade system that has provided Massachusetts with more than $79 million in carbon credits.

7) Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (CEERE). To assist with the further promotion of Cleantech, CEERE offers economic and technological solutions for various environmental problems that are the result of energy production, land use practices, and industrial, commercial, and manufacturing activities. Their Building Energy Efficiency Program does research and development into building energy efficiency.

8 ) John Adams Innovation Institute. Through the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, the John Adams Innovation Institute assists the state in funding and sustaining the ongoing innovation flow necessary for the creation, attraction, and growth of companies in established and emerging industries. Because of its work with technology-related enterprises, the institute has been fundamental in providing funds to many Cleantech industries in the state. This assistance has allowed many renewable energy and energy efficient startups to develop, .

9) MIT Clean Energy Prize and Fraunhofer Institute. The MIT Clean Energy Prize is an innovation and venture creation competition encouraging innovation in clean energy. The aim is to offer learning opportunities and provide rewards to student ventures demonstrating ways in which to increase the affordability of clean energy, as well as make a good impact on the overall environment. The mission is to create the next generation of entrepreneurs in the cleantech sector. The Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy Systems at MIT is the next step in Massachusetts’ Cleantech Eco-system. Fraunhofer CSE independently vets new technological breakthroughs, then matches young scientists with start-up teams, business plan development, VC mentors and incubation space, before helping them raise capital.

10) NEXUS and International Green Technology Trade Center. As technology leaves the university lab, start-ups are formed, incubated then capitalized and finally come to market, Massachusetts is also a leader in commercialization of new green products and services. The NEXUS Green Building Resource Center is a non-profit dedicated to expanding education for professional contractors, interior designers and other practitioners, with a 9,000 square foot exhibit hall and learning center full of new technology demonstrations, LEED-AP training and a wide network of experts to make green advances more accessible to the community. The International Green Technology Trade Center, or “GreenTrade128,” aims to bring that concept to the next level, developing an innovative 60,000 square foot permanent trade show and conference facility, with office-showrooms for up to 250 emerging and established Cleantech companies to operate on-site and a high-profile marketing program built around specialist education, qualified sales and green networking events to bring technology to market.

Article by Shawn Lesser, president and founder of Atlanta-based Sustainable World Capital, which is focused on fund-raising for private equity cleantech/sustainable funds, as well as private cleantech companies and M&A. He is also a co- founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association, and can be reached at shawn.lesser@sworldcap.com

Related posts:

• Does a Bubble in Cleantech Lie on the Horizon?
• Top 10 Reasons Why Boston is a Cleantech City
• Massachusetts Fires up Solar Hot Water Rebates
• Massachusetts Offshore Renewable Energy Project Holds Promise
• Obama’s win: Bright future for CleanTech?

Massachusetts may seem like an unlikely state for solar power. When you look at its solar insolation value of only 4.0 kilowatt-hours (compared to California’s 6.0 and Florida’s 5.0), the New England state seems lacking in sunshine.

In spite of that, Massachusetts has shown a definite fondness for solar energy ever since passage of the Green Communities Act of 2007 – a move that put it in the running for a slot among the top ten best states for solar (where it won #5 in 2008, #10 in 2009, and #5 again in 2010).

Now, to put a little shine on that well-deserved reputation, Massachusetts is offering a rebate program for residential installations of solar hot water. Beginning in February of this year, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center will accept applications for a pilot program designed to test the waters (pun intended).

The application process is described as “non-competitive” (you have to meet standards, but not jump through 10,000 hoops), and the rebates begin at $12.50 per square foot of collector, or an average of $1,000. Each system (or its components) manufactured within the state also qualifies for an additional $200, which means that a solar hot water system can reportedly be had for less than half the cost when combined with other federal, state, and utility incentives.

The rebates make sense from both a resource standpoint (heating water is 11 percent of a household’s energy use) and a financial one (a typical homeowner spends about $500 per year to operate a 75-gallon hot water tank), and a typical passive solar water heating system, looking much like a series of solar photovoltaic panels, can provide up to three-fourths of a home’s total hot water needs.

Photo Credit: Wonderlane via Flickr CC

Related posts:

• Progress Energy Accepting Applications for Solar Power Rebates
• California Exhausts Rooftop Solar Incentive Fund
• Five Solar Rebates Every California Homeowner Should Know
• Florida Solar Rebate Funding Frozen; Homeowners Left in Debt
• With Incentives Cut, is Going Solar in Arizona Still Worth it?

The U.S. Department of Energy has granted a $43 million loan to a Massachusetts-based company to prove the value of a new technology in which spinning flywheels are used to improve the efficiency of the electric grid. Beacon Power Corp. will build a 20-megawatt flywheel plant in upstate New York in which flywheels spinning up to 16,000 times per minute will act as a sort of short-term power storage system for the state’s electrical distribution system, according to the Associated Press.

Essentially, the spinning flywheels would suck excess energy off the electric grid when supply is high, store it in the spinning cores, and return the energy to the grid when demand grows. Currently, fossil fuel generation feeds such demands on the electric grid, but Beacon officials predict using flywheels would cut carbon emissions in half. “It’s a lower (carbon dioxide) impact, much faster response for a growing market need, and so we get pretty excited about that,” said Matt Rogers, a senior adviser to Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• Clean Tech Event: Smart Grid Bilateral Trade and Investment Opportunities
• Solarthon 2009 — Want to Learn How to Install Solar?
• U.S.-China Green Tech Summit — A Conference Not to be Missed
• GE Pumps $23 Million Into SolarEdge
• High Tech Greens the Internet: Net Neutrality and the Smart Grid

Ken Salazar's solar array and cowboy hat combo should be more common under the plan announced yesterday for the Southwest

Yesterday’s big announcement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar heralded what may be a new era for solar power, as thousands of acres of federal land in six Southwestern states were set aside to become a special federal solar energy zone designed to facilitate siting, construction and deployment of as much as 70,000 MW of new solar capacity.

Today, it is wind’s turn in the sun. The front page of the Boston Globe and local broadcast reports are abuzz with the news that Governor Deval Patrick’s administration has released a new plan to re-zone state coastal waters to better balance the need for marine ecological protections with the hope that Massachusetts can harvest more of its offshore wind as useful electricity.

In the absence of all of the plan’s details (a full presser was scheduled for the afternoon of July 1 at the New England Aquarium in Boston), the media has already shifted to score-keeping. There is at least one clear loser, as the plan deals a death blow to a particular Buzzards Bay proposal for 300 MW of offshore wind. The wind farm would sit in what is now a restricted area.

The plan does set aside two specific areas for large-scale wind, and Jim O’Sullivan of the State House News Service quotes Ian Bowles, the state’s energy secretary, as telling reporters that “the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts] will want to put those areas out to bid and they would be, relatively speaking, on the fast track for development.” (sorry, SHNS is a subscription site – no link). Bowles allowed that the proponents of the Buzzards Bay project could bid to shift their 90+ turbines to one of the newly-designated areas, but added that he had no idea whether they intended to do so.

Bowles’ “fast-tracking” comment is direct, but not surprising. His own March Op-Ed in the NYT made reference to the administration’s perception of major offshore wind potential; and, those comments were strengthened considerably by the testimony Paul Hibbard, a state regulatory commissioner, gave before Congress in mid-June.

All the international investment, Washington clout and technological innovation in the world is for naught in a climate where a neighbor and ten friends can still get together and tie a project into a Gordian knot of appeals and reviews.

Until the full rule-making process is complete on both of these new policies, it is unclear what the real impact on siting will be. But, it seems obvious that neither policy will address all of the potential delays in getting turbines spinning. For example, the Massachusetts plan still grants local towns and regional planning agencies the authority to approve smaller wind projects in state coastal waters.

Taken together, yesterday’s federal announcement of a new plan for Southwestern solar zones and the Massachusetts offshore wind farm rezoning plan, demonstrate some interesting trends: first, a shift that brings policy more in line with rhetoric and second, a clear bias for executive action as against legislative enactment.

The two announcements are tangible steps toward aligning policy with the increasing rhetoric about the desire for greater renewable deployment. The major problem remains siting. Even in a fantasy scenario where there is no additional public opposition (which does NOT happen), the environmental and administrative processes at the local, regional, state and federal level are cumbersome.

Streamlined siting of generation assets is less meaningful without equivalent relief for building the transmission interconnections that are required to get wind off the high seas and solar rays out of the desert, and deliver usable energy to load centers.

The siting problem is a drag on development even as aggressive renewable portfolio standards have sent utilities out on the market for new renewable capacity (in spite of a year where they saw overall demand drop). It remains true even as huge sums of public money have been made available to subsidize renewable power and to spur development of new generation capacity.

Both of these announcements should – ostensibly – make siting, permitting and constructing a project easier. Both are still subject to public comment periods and possible amendment, but however the details emerge, it seems clear that what we will be left with is a more favorable climate for developers.

Both plans face at least one big additional question: even if they allow for streamlined siting of the generation asset, do they offer equivalent relief for building the transmission interconnections that will be required to get the wind off the high seas and the sun’s rays out of the desert, and deliver usable energy to load centers? Just ask Cape Wind, who was able to site their entire proposed farm in federal waters, whether relief from zoning and local/state court appeals for transmission infrastructure is needed.

The second trend is perhaps a little more wonkish and nuanced, but what does this spate of executive action mean for the future of energy infrastructure siting? Based on the blood bath that emerged in the House trying to get Waxman-Markey through, the measured bill that emerged, and the dim hopes of getting even that kind of bill through the Senate, it seems clear that if we are going to see swift, aggressive action on game-changing energy policy matters, it is likely to come from the executive corner of the government. While we can’t say how that trend might be greeted by the legislative bodies off in the other corner, we do have some indication of how the third member of the troika – the courts – will respond.

Swift, aggressive action on game-changing energy policy matters is likely to come from the executive corner of the government.

This spring, the Fourth Circuit rejected FERC’s attempts to grab a greater share of power under Federal Power Act amendments that were a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Piedmont decision interpreted FERC’s backstop authority as a sort of riding crop that allowed the executive agency to help spur movement in state siting decisions and prevent undue or bad faith delay. The court expressly rejected FERC’s claim that the EPAct 2005 amendments allowed it to overturn the decisions of state siting agencies.

We may soon have a similar indication of the expansiveness of executive agency authority in Massachusetts. After receiving a consolidated “super-permit” from the state’s Energy Facilities Siting Board, Cape Wind faces a new SJC appeal that is sure to allege that local zoning approvals should not have been preempted. Cape Wind already prevailed in a 2006 SJC decision that focused more on the question of administrative authority and practice than on the substantive issues around siting.

It will be interesting to see if the Massachusetts court follows the 4th Circuit in some sense by limiting executive authority over energy infrastructure. Either way, the fact remains that project developers will remain subject to a full panoply of potential legal remedies that opponents can use to delay construction. These policies themselves – in whatever form they ultimately take – will inevitably be tested and interpreted by the courts.

In spite of the new policies, a fundamental conflict in renewable energy generation siting remains: the resources are most often not collocated with load. In other words, the locals who are experiencing the hardships presented by the development are probably not the ones who need the increased capacity. Even if a developer can site a project in one of the Commonwealth’s new zones (say on the beaches south of Boston headed toward Cape Cod), they still face the fundamental question from locals: why should I allow 10 turbines on my beach so that you can generate more power for skyscrapers downtown? And that is to say nothing of the permits required to construct transmission lines, transformation facilities and other ancillary infrastructure needs.

It is a positive sign for developers when the leaders of our nation and our states decide to put some of their political capital where their rhetoric has been. But, none of these policies are a panacea. Developers need to focus on the whole project picture, but they must keep a wary eye at ground level. All the international investment, Washington clout and technological innovation in the world is for naught in a climate where a neighbor and ten friends can still get together and tie a project into a Gordian knot of appeals and reviews.

Related posts:

• Obama’s win: Bright future for CleanTech?
• Obama Rolls Out New Fuel Standards for Trucks
• EVs as Popular as iPhones?
• Pres. Obama Seeking 2012 Budget Increase For Green Energy
• Waxman-Markey’s Chevron Redux?