*Submitted as a Federal Public Comment in support of PACE – see line at bottom of Post
To Whom it May Concern,
On behalf of Environmental Building Strategies we would like to show our support for PACE as a creative financing mechanism that would greatly enhance our ability to affect a more positive impact on the built environment through the commercial and residential real estate clients we serve. One of our greatest strengths is proving financial viability of sustainability initiatives – we do so with the use of other creative financing mechanisms such as Commercial Local PACE districts, On-Bill Financing, Off-Bill Financing and PPAs.
We believe there are reasonable ways to mitigate the financial risks associated with tiers of debt instruments and the loan organizations who issue those instruments. That said, governmental effort, support, creativity, and collaboration are needed to help shape a program of this magnitude and even more importantly we’ll need the gall to work with those who oppose it for strictly monetarily motivated reasons. The PACE program and ideal it creates is too strong and the environment too important to let it fail again.
The Southeastern region of the United States is an energy conundrum, comprising about one third of the demand in the country, yet having the lowest capacity for renewable energy (about 6%). This discrepancy is an incredible obstacle to any proposed Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPS) aimed at substantially reducing the nation’s carbon emissions. To reach a goal of 15-20% of our power to be produced by renewable energy, we would need roughly 174 TWhrs of energy from various renewable sources. Among the problems with such a suggestion, are the lack of viable renewable energy technologies, outdated transmission lines, and the finances associated with overcoming these obstacles. Renewable energy is the future; unfortunately, our wind and solar technologies are not yet competitive with fossil fuel based alternatives, biomass technology would require a significant shift in our country’s farming focus, and hydroelectric options have been almost completely exhausted.
Wind energy seems quite promising with the only problems being that it is incredibly unreliable, many consider windmills an eye sore, but most importantly, it can only account for a maximum of 11% of the renewable energy demand in the region. Solutions range from building large hydro-storage facilities (using energy produced during low demand to pump water uphill into a reservoir and the producing hydro electric power during peak load hours) and locating wind farms on America’s uninhabited plains or offshore sites. Unfortunately, these all of these technologies will be a moot point unless a complete overhaul of the electrical grid in the southeast occurs with substantial improvements and additions to the transmission lines in order for the Southeast to import renewable energy from neighboring regions of the United States.
Solar technologies are incredibly expensive to produce, yield low efficiency returns, and have not proven to be a viable solution on a large scale without considerable government subsidies. Although there have been recent advancements in multi-layered thin-film solar technologies, it will be decades before solar options become competitive if it happens at all. This is the least cost-effective solution for an RPS demand. By covering every rooftop in the Southeast with solar panels, solar energy can produce a whopping 1.1% of the renewable energy demand.
Biomass may have the most potential out of any of the renewable energy sources. In a perfect scenario where maximum efficiency for electrical production is reached, none of the farmed biomass is used for biofuels, and all farming is directed towards the production of biomass fuels (none of these propositions is remotely likely) the Southeast could provide 27% of its renewable energy needs through biomass. This is a significant amount; however, realistically, it would only reach a fraction of that. The problem that makes this irrelevant is that burning biomass for electricity also produces CO2 pollution and does not qualify for any of the recently proposed RPS’s.
Although hydroelectricity seems like a magic solution to our problems, there may not be a single natural waterway in North America which has not already been exploited. Almost all the rivers have already been dammed for hydroelectric power and flooding controls, in many cases, multiple times. We can continue this process in the Southeast, but there are significant environmental repercussions of such actions. Not only does this disrupt the migration and birthing pattern of many species of fish, but, more importantly, it disrupts the natural flow and movement of nutrient rich sediment (dirt). This may not seem important until one looks at the bigger picture and chain of events in which this sediment fails to reach the deltas of our rivers, fails to fill in the coastlines of our country, then fails to feed the marshes and wetlands in the Southeast. Still not getting the picture? That’s OK, there’s more. Marshes and wetlands are our natural defenses against floods, hurricanes, and storms. The damming of our rivers and disruption of the flow of sediment is THE reason that our country experienced a disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. Further expansion of hydropower through dams seems like a much less viable solution after this is taken into account. However, if it were decided that the dangers and consequences were worth braving, hydroelectric power has the capacity to provide a significant 26% of the renewable demand.
The sum of all these renewable percentages only equates to 65% of the 174TWhrs needed to fulfill an RPS of 15-20% renewable energy supply for the nation. Now, where would the remaining 35% come from? The Southeast Region would have to import that from neighboring states, requiring a massive overhaul of the electrical grid and the construction of high-efficiency, long distance transmission lines on a massive scale. The cost of such a gigantic infrastructure project alone would be staggering, however, the constant and never-ending importation of that much energy would cripple the states’ economies in the region. Even if trade-able carbon emissions were a part of the RPS and transmission lines were not necessary, this would still have a devastating effect on the local economy. Options for the Southeast Region of the United States to produce more than 10% renewable energy are significantly inadequate, so an all-encompassing RPS does not seem feasible with our current technology.
EBS had the pleasure of working on this project over the past year and are very happy with the results we’ve seen. This project isn’t using greenwashing like some and while some of the stats are a bit skewed in terms of actual energy offset, the first year’s data will tell all.
They have a robust Measurement & Verification process in place to ensure they meet their targeted Power Usage Effectiveness (“PUE”) which I believe to be below 1.05 – impressive to say the least!
EBS services included energy modeling for LEED and for the Oregon Energy Trust Rebate program. We’ve experience great success working with Gensler and Logicalis on this most impressive Data Center – kudos to the team!
With the 2009 Biopolymer Symposium Event in Chicago around the corner in September, it is important we address the impact these technologies have on our global quest to achieve sustainability.
For a friendly reminder, sustainability is defined as, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability for future generations to meet their own needs.”
Biopolymers play an important role in this quest. That is because biopolymers are renewable, sustainable, and can be carbon neutral.
Biopolymers (also called renewable polymers) are produced from biomass for use in the packaging industry. Biomass comes from crops such as sugar beet, potatoes or wheat: when used to produce biopolymers, these are classified as non food crops.
In terms of biomass, biopolymers can be converted using the following process
Recent Comments