Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Friday, January 20, 2012
Thursday, November 10, 2011
This could be the beginning of significant renewable energy development in the US. EPA wants solar/wind projects developed on contaminated sites (Superfund sites and Brownfields). Something to watch going forward
Bob Willes
Vice President
ArcStar Energy Limited
rwilles@arcstarenergy.com
CONTACT:
Stacy Kika
kika.stacy@epa.gov
202-564-0906
202-564-4355
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 4, 2011
EPA, DOE Partner to Develop Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Sites
Clean energy project aims to benefit local economies and create jobs
WASHINGTON –The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are evaluating the feasibility of developing renewable energy production on Superfund, brownfields, and former landfill or mining sites. As part of the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative, EPA is investing approximately $1 million for projects across the United States aiming to revitalize abandoned sites while protecting people’s health, the environment and providing economic benefits to local communities, including job creation.
“The RE-Powering America's Land Initiative is not just about using these sites for energy production but using these sites to re-energize communities,” said Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “These studies are the first step to transforming these sites from eyesores today to community assets tomorrow.”
Projects will analyze the potential development of wind, solar, biomass, or geothermal at 26 sites. The analysis will determine the best renewable energy technology for the site, the optimal location for placement of the renewable energy technology on the site, potential energy generating capacity, the return on the investment, and the economic feasibility of the renewable energy projects. The 26 sites are located in Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Georgia, Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, California, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington.
Renewable energy projects of this nature have been successful in the past. There have been over 20 renewable energy projects built on contaminated sites and more are currently underway. For example, in 2010, a six megawatt solar array was constructed on the Aerojet General Corporation Superfund site in Sacramento County, Calif. This solar farm is being used to power the cleanup. Also in 2010, the 10 megawatt Exelon City Solar installation, which is the largest urban solar power plant in the United States, was built on a brownfield site in Chicago.
Some of the sites under consideration for renewable energy projects have completed cleanup activities, while others may be in various stages of assessment or cleanup. Renewable energy projects on the sites will be designed to accommodate the site conditions.
Superfund sites are the most complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified by EPA for cleanup. Brownfields are properties at which expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence of contaminants. Contaminated lands can be ideal locations for developing renewable energy projects because they often can leverage existing utility infrastructure, and this redevelopment may be allowed under existing zoning.
In September 2008, EPA launched the RE-Powering America’s Land initiative to encourage development of renewable energy on potentially contaminated land and mining sites. EPA partnered with NREL to do an initial screening to determine sites that may be used for renewable energy projects.
More information on the RE-Powering America’s Land initiative:
http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/
More information on NREL: http://www.nrel.gov/
R328
Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.
View all news releases related to Superfund and Brownfields
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Questions and implications of proposed changes to the FIT program
Dear OPA:
Your delays in handling FIT applications to date and proposed treatment of applications already in the queue published on the OPA website this week has and will have unexpected and highly significant negative impacts on investors, developers, manufacturers and landowners in the Province who have invested large amounts of time and capital over the last two years based on rules and expectations set by OPA. I request answers to the following questions regarding considerations that should be taken before you announce new rules and rates.
1. In the review process are you going to consider the increased operating expenses that stakeholders have incurred because of the failure of OPA to process applications within the published time intervals?
2. Are you going to factor into the calculation that site control expenses including roof and land rents, options purchase offers and site acquisition payments to agents and employees have all been based on the original tariff? And that none of these can be adjusted downward as they have already been expended or are contractually bound obligations?
3. Are you going to consider that equity investments and debt commitments have been made by domestic and foreign investors based on the confidence they were given that FIT applications would be processed in a timely manner and that it was reasonable to expect that the tariff rate would be honored?
4. Is there going to be consideration given to the additional expense that will be incurred re-negotiating financial terms and agreements as a result of a rate and rule change to already-filed applications?
5. In your calculations of the decline cost of equipment cost since the program was initiated are you going to use only Ontario content as your metric? The Ontario cost curve does not match the rest of the North American industry because of OPAs content rules, so cost outside of Ontario should not be used.
6. If you are going to apply a new tariff rate to all projects in the queue prior to October 31, 2011, how do we give our financing sources, vendors, landowners and employees any assurances that the new rate will be in place when these existing applications get to FIT contract offer?
7. What assurances can you provide that existing, and especially new applications will be processed before yet another rate reduction?
8. The assumption of cost reduction relies on volumes of equipment orders increasing. Are you calculating the benefits the industry will not receive if you don’t get applications moving in realistic intervals?
9. Your process of releasing approvals in batches is increasing delay and uncertainty across the market. What practical non-political rationale exists for holding approved projects back from award when they meet the required criteria?
10. Will you consider a rate structure that recognizes that costs have already been incurred and committed in already-filed applications and provides some relief from the damages a retroactive tariff will cause?
11. OPAs out-of-the-rulebook offer to refund security deposits is an acknowledgement of the impact of your actions, but does not begin to cover the real cost of your actions and the damages of a project withdrawal. Are you considering the ripple effect this will have on all parties such as investors, lenders, manufacturers, contractors and landowners?
Monty Bannerman
CEO
ArcStar Energy
161 Bay St. Floor 27
Toronto, ON M5J 2S1
646.402.5076
OPA FIT Program Review
The Ontario Green Energy Act (2009) is the legislation that formed the back-drop for the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Program by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA). The primary aim of the FIT Program was (is) to stimulate the investment of capital from non-governmental sources to enable the implementation of existing renewable energy technologies such as Solar PV, Wind, Biomass and Landfill Gas. The concept was (is) to stimulate the growth of the renewable energy industry in Ontario to provide Ontarians with sustainable sources of energy in the future that minimize potential impacts of energy generation on climate. The premise for "stimulation" of growth was to encourage capital investment by providing a premium (or Tariff) on the price that the OPA would pay the contractor for the electrical energy generated and sent onto the Ontario electrical grid.
To date it appears that the program has achieved a good start resulting in literally thousands of applications for FIT Contracts (see http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/what-feed-tariff-program). However, as the large discrepancy between FIT Contract Applications submitted and FIT Contracts awarded demonstrates, there are serious problems in translating FIT Contract Applications into Contracts that will enable the construction of the renewable energy systems to generate the electricity. These problems can be solved.
At the launch of the FIT Program in October, 2009, one of the stipulations from the OPA was that the program would be reviewed every two years. Ergo, on October 31, 2011 the FIT Program review was announced (see http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/fit-program-review-underway). Scary things happen on October 31, and part of the OPA's FIT Program review announcement was (is) indeed scary!!!! The renewable energy industry has been expecting (justifiably) that the FIT Program pricing for electricity will be decreased because of lower costs for renewable energy components and their installation -- soooo that's not the scary part. What is scary is that the OPA's FIT Review proposes the retroactively apply the outcome of the review back to December, 2010, rather than sticking with the rules established in 2009 for the operation of the program to date!!!!!
If followed through, this approach will cause havoc in renewable energy development in Ontario. Renewable energy developers have invested very large amounts of capital (the actual amount needs to be calculated) into finding and securing the locations for their projects, conducting due diligence studies, identifying and validating the technical information required by the OPA FIT Applications, and providing the significant dollars required by the OPA for Application Security Deposits that must accompany FIT Contract Applications. Now the OPA proposes to change the rules RETROACTIVELY, resulting in the wastage of capital and effort by developers for projects in the FIT Contract queue between December 2010 and October, 2011!!!!!
The launch of the FIT Program on October 1, 2009 followed an exhaustive (and exhausting!) series of Stakeholder Consultations that provided information that the OPA used in establishing the FIT Rules. One of the fundamental components of the FIT Program important towards ensuring a "level playing field) for the participation of energy producers was (is?) a fair and equitable "Time Stamp" approach. Time Stamps were to be (and the have been) assigned to each FIT Contract Application to identify the order of the Application in the queue for awarding FIT Contracts, AND the pricing for the electricity to be paid through the FIT Contract once the renewable energy system(s) is in operation. This Time Stamp process secures the queue position and pricing, security required for the investment of capital into the renewable energy systems.
I implore that the OPA not retroactively change the Rules established in 2009. Rule changes going forward from a date to be established through the FIT Program review are expected and needed. Investors can react accordingly to the rule changes going forward; going backward with retroactive changes will reek havoc with investor confidence.
What is your opinion? Get your opinion out there through Ontario Solar Advocates!!! Go Solar!!! Go Renewables!!!!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Welcome to Ontario Solar Advocates
Thanks for joining us. We believe that aggregating people with the common interest of supporting the widespread deployment of solar energy in Ontario will make us all more informed and effective in reaching that goal. Please contribute your interests, issues and ideas freely as this intended as a fully open forum that leads to focused action.
Go Solar!
Monty Bannerman
ArcStar Energy
646.402.5076