Orlando Energy Alternatives

Add a Comment

Comment by Faye on January 22, 2009 at 7:00pm

Please forward this to anyone you can / see fit! THANK YOU!

CONFERENCE IN TALLAHASSEE FEBRUARY 3rd, 2009!

The Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy (FARE), with support from the Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA) and the Alliance for Renewable Energy (ARE) are pleased to invite you to join us for a discussion on:

Effective Renewable Energy Policies: Stimulating Job Creation, Long Term Investments, and Improving Energy Security

Featuring discussions on Feed in Tariffs, Net Metering, Rebates, and Gainesville, FL., the first municipality in the United States to introduce a Feed in Tariff policy.

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009
12-7 pm in Tallahassee
Doubletree Hotel
101 South Adams Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 224-5000

The focus of the conference is the deployment of renewable energy in Florida resulting in jobs and energy security. Experts from around the world and participants from various stakeholder organizations will discuss policies to stimulate vast investment in renewable energy to increase energy security and job creation in Florida. Building on Governor Crist’s vision of 20% renewables by 2020, this event will provide first hand experiences from Florida, other states and European countries on what policies are most effective in achieving renewable targets.

Solar on every rooftop!

Panels will include:
· ‘Lessons from Europe and US States’ – Deployment of successful renewable policies.
· Costs vs. Benefits – The potential opportunity if policies are right.
· What energy policies will drive the market and bring jobs to Florida?
· Florida based implementation.
· Legislative Roundtable.

Key objectives:
· Explore green jobs and long term investments.
· Discuss Renewable Energy Payments, also known as Feed in Tariffs, regarding their significant potential to address climate change, create new jobs and support the renewable energy industry
· Further develop policies that have driven the clean technology markets.
· Update on the Renewable Portfolio Standard rules from the PSC.
· Strengthen and Support legislative initiatives in Florida.
· Explore various levels of initiatives adopted by utilities.
· Build coalitions and network.
· The Gainesville Solar Feed in Tariff.

Who will attend: State legislators, environmental and energy advocates, renewable energy industry representatives,local and state utilities, local government officials interested in green job economic development, nonprofits and foundations committed to a renewable energy future.

Speakers will include: leading environmental organizations, Florida State legislators, investors, renewable energy industry organizations and leading energy companies.

Featuring:
· Gainesville Mayor Pegeen Hanrahan
· Florida State Representative Keith Fitzgerald
· Paul Gipe, Alliance for Renewable Energy
· Toby Couture, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
· Dr. Murray Cameron, Phoenix Solar
· Jerry Karnas, Environmental Defense Fund
· Barry Moline, Florida Municipal Electric Association
· Ed Regan, Gainesville Regional Utilities
· Christy Herig, Solar Electric Power Association
· Jerome Guillet, Head of Energy, Dexia

For registration and hotel info on this event please contact Faye Roller at faye@FAREnergy.org or visit www.FAREnergy.org

Comment by Mark Hedtke on November 12, 2008 at 12:01pm

I recently posted on another forum http://push.pickensplan.com/group/floridiansforsolarreform
regarding a XPRIZE proposed project that your forum
members may be interested in. For some reason the
previous post site is monitoring (restricting) posts, so
although this is a green emphasis proposed project,
it will sadly not be seen by those forums members.

Comment by Michael, Houston on November 1, 2008 at 7:46am

JOBS UPDATE
Thousands of new GREEN JOBS are now posted on GREEN JOBS NOW! group page. Join the group today and we will keep you informed. http://push.pickensplan.com/group/greenjobsnowcom
Tell your friends looking for a job to sign up on the PickensPlan and upload their resume FREE at: www.green-jobs-now.com
Melissa
coordinator@green-jobs-now.com

Comment by Gary Munson on August 30, 2008 at 2:42am

Converting existing vehicles would be an exercise in futility. The switch to natural gas will be slow enough to allow normal attrition to remove enough gasoline vehicles from the road to accomplish our goal. Remember, we are only replacing a part of the fleet with CNG cars. Gasoline will be around for a long time.

Comment by Getulio Bastos on August 28, 2008 at 1:44pm

Gentlemen,

This is a letter I just sent to Congressman Ron Klein of West Palm Beach and Florida Senator Bill Nelson. I suggest that all of our members do something similar to provoke some reaction from our politicians.

Mr. Bill Nelson,

Florida is one of the worst hit states in the Real Estate crisis. Our tourism industry is being hit tremendously by the gasoline price hikes. And our state is one of the least served with alternative forms of energy. But we can do something about it and one of the things we can do is to facilitate the creation of an infrastructure to sell, install conversion kits in our cars and distribute natural gas within our region.

There are entrepreneurs interested in creating this infrastructure, but the major obstacle is EPA, which has no scientific reason to keep their antique regulations for the conversion of our cars to use natural gas in our roads. There are no technology barriers at all.

It would save our taxpayers a lot of money in the near future while providing for a new source of employment for thousands of Floridians in a brand new industry. In training of new mechanics, installation of conversion kits, installation of natural gas filling stations, distribution of natural gas across the state and maintenance of it all.

There’s a Bill going through Congress now, entitled “THE DRIVE AMERICA ON NATURAL GAS ACT OF 2008” introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

If you need to research more about it, please visit www.push.pickensplan.com. Please, click here if you want to see the reactions to my discussion Brazil is 100% oil independent. Why aren't we?.

While there you can also see several pictures and videos related to the usage of natural gas as a vehicle propulsion energy both in Brazil and the US.

As a citizen I urge you to support this Bill to pass and provide easier means for our people to expend less on their cars while creating a new industry for the state of Florida.

Your voter,

Getulio Bastos

Click here to send your message to Senator Bill Nelson
Click here to send your message to Congressman Ron Klein
...

Comment by Roy R on August 25, 2008 at 6:45am

Solar Monopolies in Florida! The REC Wrecking Ball – Coming to a State Near You


Florida’s electric utility system is a regulated monopoly. Now, with passage of the Florida Energy Bill this week, legislators in Tallahassee have set a course, that unless rectified, will most probably extend similar monopolies into the fastest growing energy markets – renewables and solar, and in doing so decimate the existing Florida solar industry in favor of larger Wall Street backed multinationals. It seems inconceivable that once policymakers and legislators fully comprehend the implications of the direction that they are heading in, that any true Floridian will actually support this – but stranger things have happened. Now is the time to speak out.

Buried in the Florida House and Senate Energy bill is language that would allow the state electricity Regulator, the Public Service Commission, to introduce policies known as renewable energy credits (or RECs) as a way to stimulate solar and other renewable energy electricity production. RECs are basically bought by utilities from renewable producers and certify that the utilities have acquired a unit of renewable energy, and as such can be used as a mechanism to force utilities to meet certain renewable targets. The problem is that there is growing evidence from other states that have introduced RECs, that these policies are radioactive. Maryland, introduced RECs earlier this year. Even before the policy was signed by the Governor, the largest utility announced it had signed a multi-year transaction to buy solar RECs from SunEdison, a major international solar company. That deal gave the 2 companies a 30% share of the market for 2008 and 60% for 2009 – a quasi monopoly. This crowds out the existing local solar industry since it leaves them with only 40% of the market to participate in. Job losses will follow.

New Jersey has an ill thought out solar RECs policy as well. Smaller residential solar companies are in decline and shedding people. Says Lyle Rawlings, CEO of a large NJ solar integrator “the market is in collapse right now, with projects being canceled and many of the solar businesses that grew under the rebate program now hanging on by their fingernails. The REC market literally is not working, except for a handful of companies who have been able to get long-term REC contracts - we know that the market concentration is very unhealthy, and we think it’s an improper way to deliver a solar incentive program”. Furthermore NJ will be missing its RPS target primarily because of these issues. So based on recent market evidence RECs are a wrecking ball for local renewable companies.

The problem stems from the fact that utilities retain the power to decide who they buy RECs from, and utilities quite naturally won’t want the hassle of buying small quantities of RECs bilaterally from household solar systems or small commercial providers – they would much prefer to deal with one or 2 large aggregators of the RECs doing the largest commercial renewable projects, so they arrange bilateral deals direct with them. Whats wrong with this?

Since the utilities prefer to buy in bulk they will pay more for these aggregated RECs – typically up to 80-90c in the $, whereas for residential or small commercial RECs the value is 50c or less (this is the figure the State of Maryland has proposed should they become the default residential aggregator). Consequently while the RECs incentive covers 70% or so of the build out cost of the larger commercial projects, thus providing a massive contribution to the companies least in need of it, they only provide 30% of the cost of the small systems that are the life blood to the local solar integrators. This leads to a curtain call for the local industry all done with rate payer and tax payer money that has effectively been laundered to the benefit of the larger commercial REC suppliers. And funnily enough who is supplying the policy language for the legislatures and PUCs? The answer is the very same solar companies that will benefit from them!

There are already strong indications in Florida that these same out of state large solar companies are lining up multi year contracts with Florida utilities in excess of 100MW that could sop up a majority of the RECs that would become available to the solar industry – leaving next to nothing for the local solar integrators to compete for.

As Ted Middleton, Managing Member of a Maryland solar company explained, “The ratepayer base thus foots the highest bill possible to fund Wal-Mart installations, and the little guys (houses) get a much lower cash benefit relative to each REC produced because they have little market leverage with remaining REC purchasers”

Florida legislators have just voted to approve renewable policies such as these – thankfully the energy bill both requires the PSC in Florida to fine tune these policies and then seek reaffirmation from the legislature in 2009. Maybe in the intervening months, the Governor’s office and Florida policy makers including the PSC should ask smaller NJ and Maryland solar companies as well as the Florida SEIA companies if they think these REC policies are working. They will likely hear a resounding NO!

“Unfortunately, the language that passed through the legislatures favors a REC based policy. Without any change, for the foreseeable future anyway, Florida could end up with renewable energy policy primarily designed for only one or two large companies, just like what has happened in Maryland and New Jersey,” comments Pete DeNapoli, FlaSEIA Director. “Sure, the state of Florida will meet the RPS goals, but the bottom line is that the Governor’s goal of creating a vibrant renewable energy industry with thousands of new, high paying jobs will not be realized,” Pete adds. “With Production Based Incentive or Feed-In Tariffs, you get it all.”

What legislators and policy makers instead need to do is look at the highly successful renewable policies that have been in place in Europe for years and resulted in both the rapid deployment of renewable electricity projects, a massive expansion in local jobs from it, all done with no taxpayer expense and minimal increases in electricity prices. Germany has 250,000 employed in renewables generating $30BN in sales. At the very least Florida policy makers and legislators should do what the utility solar association SEPA is doing, and undertake a trip to Germany to review first hand how Germany has a vibrant solar and renewable industry with ~ 4000MW of solar at the cost for ratepayers of “the price of a loaf of bread”. Both the Florida Solar Energy Industry Association (FlaSEIA), the Maryland, District of Columbia and Virginia SEIA, Environmental Defense Fund as well as several high profile manufacturers and solar integrators have publicly advocated introducing these feed in policies as the best public policy incentives for solar and renewables.

So for the sake of those desiring a vibrant renewables job market in Florida, I ask legislators and policymakers to reconsider these ill advised REC policies. Thanks to the efforts of the Governor, and his energy team, Florida has the opportunity to develop a clear energy policy that can get the state to 20% of electricity from renewable sources, create robust new industries employing thousands of people and improve the states energy security. However the state must be careful in what policy incentive mechanisms are introduced to get us there and avoid replicating ill conceived and dangerous policies that are already failing in other states. Other State SEIAs, such as in New York and Pennsylvania, need also to proactively participate in this growing debate and understand the full ramifications of what often is being foisted on them by other so called national industry mouthpieces with vested interests inconsistent with the local industry.

Comment by Leslie F. Watson on August 4, 2008 at 7:14am

Started today by sitting in OBTDB meeting want to thank, Randall E. Grief Executive director for his information.
Orange Blossom Trail Development Board

Comment by Ed Rubiera on July 29, 2008 at 10:45am

Folks,

Try this NPR page http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92931988

You can read/listen to a report broadcast this morning regarding steps to save energy at home.

Comment by Gary Munson on July 23, 2008 at 1:53am

We all need to realize the best thing we can all do to help the energy situation is to take individual action. Rather than waiting around for the government to do something we can each cut our electric usage dramatically. Here are several sites worth visiting that aren't selling anything but tell it like it is. Plenty of simple and painless techniques to cut your power bill.

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/

http://www.builditsolar.com/index.htm

The current situation has people grasping at all sorts of non-cost effective solutions that sound great on paper but don't hold up to scrutiny in the real world. Solar electricity is one of those as would be wind power in cent. Florida. Solar PV just costs too much at the present. Hopefully ongoing research will change that in the future but it's not ready for prime time yet. Plenty of outright scams getting too much press also. The 'run your car on water' crowd is one I can think of (apparently many people didn't pay attention in high school physics). A good site explaining the physics that negates that scheme is here along with other interesting info about some of those behind the current revival.

http://www.alternative-energy-resources.net/browns-gas-the-reality....

Another scam that's been revived is the 'phase controller' that supposedly saves electricity by making motors run more efficiently. Home show demonstrations with an electric motor show it's electricity usage dropping dramatically when the motor is plugged into the device rather than straight into the incoming power. These devices actually do work in the applications they are designed for...this has the unfortunate effect of helping the scammers (or to give them the benefit of the doubt, uneducated-in-electricity folk) sell these things. An industrial application that produces savings would be a big table saw in a woodworking shop that runs constantly. When it's not cutting wood, the motor is under no load and at that moment, a phase controller will save energy. The goal of electrical engineers is to make sure anything with a motor runs that motor at rated capacity at all times...that's the point a motor is most efficient. Their striving for this is what has made ACs and refrigerators much more efficient lately. The point here is motors in your home all run at rated load all the time. There is no 'off load' time like with the big table saw. A 'phase controller' saves nothing in this situation.

In hot climates a proven strategy that works well is a heat recovery unit attached to your AC unit. It provides free hot water and also increases the efficiency of the AC a couple of SEER points. Adding one of these to an older AC unit that still runs well is a good way to cut $30-$50 off your monthly power bill during AC season (which here in cent Fl can be about 9 months). Here is a manufacturer's site for one on these.

http://www.trevormartin.com/about.asp

Please use due diligence when deciding on ways to save energy. The internet is a great source of info and you can easily see both points of view on any energy saving strategy. Just simple conservation by time-tested means is still the best way to approach our dilemma. If we all cut our power bill in half, we'd all have much more money in our pocket and our nation would be much more secure.

Comment by Bill Hinegardner on July 20, 2008 at 8:44am

I am trying to get a bill sponsored to allow a new type of electric vehicle, a medium speed electric vehicle. A medium speed electric vehicle is similar to the low speed electric vehicle already allowed by federal law except they can go between 30 and 35 MPH and can travel on roads with speed limits posted 45 MPH and lower.

I feel that this vehicle would provide an exceptional alternate mode of transportation for many people, especially senior citizens living in urban areas. With the current high gas prices and more increase to come we all need relief; I felt this was a good option. It's also an eco friendly choice. I am trying to reach out to gain support having others contact their representatives about this issue.

Please note that I am not a lobbyist nor do I have a vested interest in the electric vehicle industry. I am just a private citizen trying to make a difference.

Draft Bill for Florida:

Current
320.01 Definitions, general.--As used in the Florida Statutes, except as otherwise provided, the term:
(42) "Low-speed vehicle" means any four-wheeled electric vehicle whose top speed is greater than 20 miles per hour but not greater than 25 miles per hour, including neighborhood electric vehicles. Low-speed vehicles must comply with the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. s. 571.500 and s. 316.2122.
Proposed
(XX) "Medium-speed vehicle" means any four-wheeled electric vehicle whose top speed is greater than 30 miles per hour but not greater than 35 miles per hour, including neighborhood electric vehicles. Medium-speed vehicles must comply with the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. s. 571.500 and s. 316.2122.

Current
316.2122 Operation of a low-speed vehicle on certain roadways.--The operation of a low-speed vehicle, as defined in s. 320.01(42), on any road as defined in s. 334.03(15) or (33), is authorized with the following restrictions:
(1) A low-speed vehicle may be operated only on streets where the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour or less. This does not prohibit a low-speed vehicle from crossing a road or street at an intersection where the road or street has a posted speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour.
(2) A low-speed vehicle must be equipped with headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps, reflex reflectors, parking brakes, rearview mirrors, windshields, seat belts, and vehicle identification numbers.
(3) A low-speed vehicle must be registered and insured in accordance with s. 320.02.
(4) Any person operating a low-speed vehicle must have in his or her possession a valid driver's license.
(5) A county or municipality may prohibit the operation of low-speed vehicles on any road under its jurisdiction if the governing body of the county or municipality determines that such prohibition is necessary in the interest of safety.
(6) The Department of Transportation may prohibit the operation of low-speed vehicles on any road under its jurisdiction if it determines that such prohibition is necessary in the interest of safety.

Proposed
316.XXXX Operation of a medium-speed vehicle on certain roadways.--The operation of a medium-speed vehicle, as defined in s. 320.01(xx), on any road as defined in s. 334.03(15) or (33), is authorized with the following restrictions:
(1) A medium-speed vehicle may be operated only on streets where the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour or less. This does not prohibit a medium-speed vehicle from crossing a road or street at an intersection where the road or street has a posted speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour.
(2) A medium-speed vehicle must be equipped with headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, tail lamps, reflex reflectors, parking brakes, rearview mirrors, windshields, seat belts, and vehicle identification numbers.
(3) A medium-speed vehicle must be registered and insured in accordance with s. 320.02.
(4) Any person operating a medium-speed vehicle must have in his or her possession a valid driver's license.
(5) A county or municipality may prohibit the operation of medium-speed vehicles on any road under its jurisdiction if the governing body of the county or municipality determines that such prohibition is necessary in the interest of safety.
(6) The Department of Transportation may prohibit the operation of medium-speed vehicles on any road under its jurisdiction if it determines that such prohibition is necessary in the interest of safety.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last