GOOD ENERGY IN STINSON BEACH

GOOD ENERGY FOR STINSON BEACH
A conversation with Author & Renewable Energy Expert Peter Asmus

Imagine producing clean, silent, renewable electricity right here in Stinson Beach - that's exactly what a community-based solar power plant has the potential to do!

Peter Asmus is a member of the SBSC. He is also a friend, author, colleague and respected renewable energy activist. I spoke with him recently about the realities - technical, political and legislative - of such a community solar project. Peter's decades as a renewable energy researcher uiniquely qualify him to shed light on this and other critical 21st century energy issues.
********************************

IN June, 2006, StinsonSolarTimes Editor Sandy LeonVest had a long conversation with Peter Asmus about the possibilities and challenges of transforming Stinson Beach and its sister city Bolinas into truly energy-independent and sustainable communities. Due to the critical nature of that conversation, SST chose to publish it in three parts as opposed to editing out vital information in order to accommodate our tiny newsletter! The entire conversation is published on Sandy's blog at http://www.relocalize.net/blog/3484, her website at http://www.leonvest.com and http://www.indybay.org.

June, 2006 - A Conversation with Peter Asmus - Part One:

SLV: Peter, will you talk about what thee Stinson Beach Solar Committee (SBSC) is currently up to - especially with respect to a commumnity-based solar production facility?

PA: SBSC is following up on the great response we received from the Stinson Solar Sunday event held here last February. On June 8th, we had Dana Armanino from Marin County speak at the Stinson Library about the various services and rebates the county offers to local residents and businesses. For example, most people here in the county might not realize that they can get a free site assessment from the county to determine whether they have a good solar site on their property. One of our challenges is that renters like me for example currently have few options to go solar or switch to any other form of renewable energy.

This idea of cooperating at a community level spurred on my investigation of the concept of “community solar.” What we are hoping to accomplish is to find a way to create a larger solar project that could serve several residents, as well as businesses.

SLV: As you know, Peter, some of us have big dreams for Stinson Beach...the vision being that a community solar power project would provide power for residents in Stinson who, for instance, do not have a good location (southern exposure) for a solar array...Assuming the SBSC was able to purchase the land, get through any legislative and political hurdles and actually construct say a 100kW array, how exactly would this work? My understanding is that such an array, while theoretically capable of producing enough power for 20-30 homes, in reality, would not be capable of physically transporting solar power to a specific site...

PA: The physical transport of energy over the electricity grid is hardly straightforward. If one is off the grid and depending upon a remote solar photovoltaic array or small wind turbine to generate electricity, then there is no doubt where one is getting their power from. When one is connected to the grid, the situation is more like a giant battery, that all kinds of power sources – both dirty and clean – contribute to in order to keep the lights on. The grid needs to stay in balance, hence the armies of technical folks who must keep supply in check with demand, or we get the rolling blackouts. I think it's safe to say that tracking electricity is much more a financial transaction than an actual physical delivery of electricity, yet building a community solar project is technically feasible. The prime obstacles are political. Existing regulations and rules focus on individuals or businesses installing solar projects. Ironically enough, there are all kinds of regulatory obstacles to constructing a solar project that could actually serve various parts of a community. In Denmark, by way of contrast, farmers pool their resources together and build decentralized wind projects that are then owned by a cooperative. The only state in the US that has tried a similar approach is Minnesota, which of course of a state with a rich European background.

SLV: OK - so much for the reality check. Let's talk about what may be one of the most important yet underplayed aspects of 'going solar.' I often wonder if 'consumers' understand what a really powerful statement 'going solar' is...that once a consumer owns a solar-producing array, that he/she has actually transformed his/herself from an energy consumer into an energy producer...talk about why such a concept is no longer simply an "alternative," but a 21st century imperative...


PA: Well, I think that in light of global climate change, the terrorist threat, record oil industry profits, and the personal satisfaction of being responsible for the size of one’s environmental footprint, going solar is one of the most meaningful acts one can take to solve the world’s problems. And if one can’t go solar, switching to other renewable energy sources is also admirable. The Strauss Dairy out near Marshall is now completely powered by cow herds whose waste is a major contributor to global climate change. Now that waste is being harnessed to fuel this organic dairy. Then there is the Stubbs Winery, the first winery to go organic in Marin County, and an off-grid enterprise completely powered by the sun and the wind.

But for most of us, solar is the way to go. There are no moving parts, and once placed on your rooftop or other site, the solar PV systems quietly churn out clean electrons for 20-40 years. Here’s one way to look at it: would you rather own or rent your power supply? Not only that, would you rather be sending your dollars to help support the maintenance of nuclear or coal plants, or would you rather take personal responsibility for own power usage and invest in a system whose negative environmental impact is essentially zero?

SLV: One of the most frustrating aspects for home solar producers, esp out here in West Marin, is PG&E's grid; as you know, West Marin has more than its share of power outages. This means when PG&E's grid goes down, solar power goes down right along with it...backup systems like generators or even batteries are not only very expensive, but they produce 'dirty energy,' which is what we're trying to avoid. Can you talk a little about this particular challenge...?

PA: Well, solar PV owners are not required to be connected to the grid, it is just that virtually all of the government goodies being handed out by the state and federal government are earmarked for systems connected to the grid. One of the main drivers behind solar right now is the policy of “net metering” wherein a solar system owner sends back unused power to the grid from their system and get credited for that clean power at the retail price. It is policies such as net metering that have driven solar into the mainstream and the grid then becomes an ally as it serves as a battery for your solar system. But you are right, the solar system owner is relying upon the grid – with all of its dirty power sources – to keep things humming at your home. Going off-grid is quite appealing, but obviously even more expensive. Many people who live in remote areas, as in Mendocino County, live off-grid and love it! They are willing to deal with the occasional inconvenience of not being able to wash their clothes at night, or not being able to run every appliance in their homes when their solar fuel is low. In the developing world, off-grid systems are a godsend for millions of people. Indeed, remote off-grid solar systems are allowing tribal villages to keep their families intact, allowing them to connect to the outside world via laptop computers, but stay true to their rural lifestyles without the whole family having to migrate to crowded and polluted urban centers to make a living.

Here in the US, the current solar movement is being driven by grid-connected systems. Of course, with policies such as California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, the overall mix of resources powering the grid will be getting cleaner and cleaner over time. The latest version of the RPS has California obtaining 33 percent of our total electricity from renewable resources by 2020. Here in Marin County, a law called “Community Choice Aggregation” allows our local elected officials to choose the power content of electricity. The proposal on the table is for Marin to go 51 percent renewable energy. So, if this plan goes forward, those connected to the grid in Marin County will have a power supply fives times cleaner than our current generic grid mix!

PART TWO - THE POWERS THAT BE

SLV: One problem is that PG&E's grid infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating, yet you seem to say that we're stuck with that infrastructure...Should that policy be changed...? Can it be changed over the long term?

PA: Oh, I think we are entering a time when renewable energy is going to have to become a larger part of all of our lives. The private utilities such as Pacific Gas & Electric are among the most powerful special interests on the planet, and the last thing they want to see happening is for folks to go off-grid. Perhaps that fear can be used as leverage for PG&E to change its current stance of not allowing more consumers to take advantage of net metering. Right now, PG&E and other private utilities limit the amount of folks that can barter their solar electricity. Even though the state has now committed to $3 billion to add 3,000 megawatts of solar power to the grid by 2017 – that’s enough to power about 3 million homes – most of those systems will not be able to take advantage of net metering unless current artificial caps on grid-connected solar power are lifted. There is currently a bill – AB 2993 by Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – that would lift that cap, more than doubling the amount of solar systems that could connect to PG&E’s grid and still be eligible for the benefits of net metering.

SLV: Have you ever walked around Stinson Beach and noticed how non-sensically our energy/telecom infrastructure seems - just in appearance? In a book I once read, one renewable energy advocate said that PG&E's wires reminded him of "silly string insouciantly tossed across an otherwise pristeen and pastoral setting..." Something like that.

PA: Yes, our electricity infrastructure leaves something to be desired, that’s for sure. In Europe – and in some parts of the US – poles and wires are all placed underground, which addresses the visual problems, but of course does not take care of lingering concerns about the impacts of electromagnetic fields on public health. Having lived through many power outages here in Stinson, there have been many times I thought about how nice it would be to be off-grid with my own clean power supply. Of course, the challenge is that we need both on-site renewable energy system such as solar, but we also need to develop larger renewable energy projects if we really want to address global climate change. Many renewables – such as wind and geothermal steam – tend to be located in remote regions far from power consumers. Somehow that power has to be transmitted. There are a lot of trade-offs to consider as one takes a systems view of our electricity system. Just how far can we change the status quo? That remains an open question.

SLV: How does PG&E fit into the pictue - politically and institutionally speaking? Talk a little more about where their interests lie...is the utility invested in keeping solar producers tied to their grid...

PA: PG&E will say they have more solar connected to their grid than any other utility in the US – and that’s true. But that hardly means they are supportive of solar power. Just look at their resistance to more consumers adding more solar to their grid via net metering.

PG&E actually was a pioneer on solar when folks like Carl Weinberg worked in their R&D office and began touting solar PV projects as a way to increase the reliability of the grid over 25 years ago. Of course, the grid doesn’t have to be our enemy. The only two community solar projects that I am aware of are grid-connected; they just happen to be owned by public power entities. I’ve always liked the notion of public power, having learned about energy in Sacramento. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District has had the most successful solar program in the country. So I like the notion of local control. But some public power entities are very, very regressive. They tend to reflect the culture of the region they serve.

PG&E was the most gung ho among California utilities on deregulation. Of course, they basically went bankrupt when our “deregulated” electricity system collapsed due to the antics of Enron and others. They are more progressive than some utilities, particularly the Neanderthals such as the Southern Company – which still extols the virtues of coal – but they obviously have a vested interest in keeping their customers, not losing them. Solar has always been perceived as a threat to private utilities, but given that even Wall Street players such as Goldman Sachs are now touting renewable energy, it might be time for them to wake up and see the light. Solar and other renewable energy sources are the wave of the future. Sometimes off-grid solar will make much more sense from a societal point-of-view; sometimes grid-connected systems make more sense. In the perfect world, we would be able to make these decisions without considering the power and influence various players within the power supply business typically exert on our lawmakers and regulators.

SLV: I think it's safe to assume that in the 21st century, renewable sources of energy are no longer merely an option - they are an imperative. In that respect, it seems that the term "alternative energy" has become a 21st century anachronism. Today, are we not talking about an energy imperative...an essential model...? Toward that end, what kind of legislation would need to happen to change (dare I say) the existing paradigm? And who, if anyone, is addressing this, politically?

PA: Right now, I’m still investigating the obstacles to “community solar” projects, such as the idea of installing a solar carport on the south Stinson Beach State Park parking lot, which then could power local community structures, as well as residents that lack a good site, or who could not afford the high up-front costs.

Changing the existing paradigm is quite a challenge, but there is more going on to move forward with renewable energy than ever before. It has gone mainstream, but of course, that also means compromises. Is it good that General Electric now builds wind turbines and is installing solar roofs for schools in San Diego County? On one hand, this is good; on the other, one might complain that it is GE that owns the systems and thereby derives the greatest financial benefits. On the other hand, the schools now have a clean source of electricity and can enjoy fixed-price solar electricity.

No politicians seem to be taking on the powerful special interests that comprise the energy industry. Instead, we see a lot of Johnny-Come-Lately conversions to renewable energy. I think we need the radicals to keep pushing for way to democratize our energy economy. But we also need Wall Street financial folks to recognize that solar and other renewable to reduce risks, do offer a better way to address global climate change than nuclear power plants or “clean” coal. We are in such a dire predicament when it comes to global climate change, that we need help from wherever we can get it.

PART THREE - THE FUTURE

SLV: As you know, I'm one who believes the longterm vision will necessarily include getting off the grid completely. And the more I learn about PG&E's crumbling infrastructure and outsourcing practices, the more that seems inevitable. Seems
like we may need to deal with PG&E for now and perhaps work toward a longterm vision of true energy-independence and sustainable community...

PA: Going off the grid is a great vision. But the thing we then have to figure out is how to back-up our intermittent renewables. Battery systems are expensive, and carry their own waste disposal liabilities. I don’t necessarily see one model working everywhere. Where there currently is no grid – such as parts of the developing world – I think that’s where the most innovation can be done. And wouldn’t that be grand, to have the developing world teach us in the so-called industrialized world, the best way to supply power?

Is the grid the enemy? Yes and no. If the grid became dominated by renewable fuels, then the issue of backing up solar with dirty sources starts to go away. Of course, there is talk of micro-grids, little islands where clean, premium power could be provided to people and companies that cannot afford any power outages at all. Then there is the idea espoused by Amory Lovins about our eco-cars becoming mini-power plants. Instead of just plugging our electric/hydrogen cars into the socket to get charged up, they could also become the power providers for our homes and small businesses.

Here in an isolated community such as Stinson Beach, creating an off-grid island could certainly be an appealing prospect for many. Perhaps advances in non-toxic batteries and other forms of energy storage will help make that real. The prime challenge right now for the off-grid all renewable vision is storage of energy when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind is not blowing. But that’s where modular biomass sources could come in, since they could provide power round-the-clock.

There are no silver bullet. The answer is the whole family of renewable resources, and a much more intelligent, nimble and less intrusive grid. In the end, I see the future energy supply like the Interent: a decentralized system where each of us has on-site sources, but also a way to share resources we cannot use ourselves. How we get there is still being figured out.

SLV: You probably remember the May 23 blackout...? I was home on my laptop researching among other things PG&E's infrastructure issues and the lights began to flicker, which I didn't even notice until the phone line went down and I was knocked off the internet. It lasted late into the night...I remember being grateful that my laptop had a battery backup b/c I was able to document the event - and my own feelings about it - in the moment. What is your visceral response when Stinson Beach experiences these all-too-frequent power outages?

PA: Oh, I get upset, but sometimes it becomes a relief, too. It makes us notice just how dependent we have become on all of our gadgets and gizmos. In an odd way, I’ve enjoyed some of the blackouts, because they forced me to let go of all of these deadlines and tasks I wanted to accomplish, and instead, had a great excuse to just go for a hike or to the beach. Of course, an extended blackout then creates problems for communication, food storage, etc. What upsets me is when it took PG&E so long to restore service to isolated rural communities such as Stinson because they cut back on their service personal due to deregulation and efforts to profit at the expense of providing good customer service. That’s the part that galled me!

SLV: Since going completely off the grid is clearly a long term vision, what steps do we need to take as citizens, as a community to begin that process...? Would that not necessitate tearing down a lot of institutional walls - along with the old grid?

PA: If we change the power content, then some of the problems with the grid go away. If the ownership changes, that takes care of some of those issues. What we need to do is bring our energy infrastructure into the 21st century. We need to look at the negative impacts of the transmission towers and distribution lines scattered over the landscape like spaghetti, and see if there is a better way.

My main concern with going off-grid is this: How will that encourage community solar projects? How can we share power if we are not connected somehow? Going off the grid has long been the vision driving hard core renewable advocates, and recent trends instead highlight that the grid is providing benefits for those installing solar systems. If one is a purist – and Sandy I get the feeling you fall in that category – the ideal world would be one where each one of us could power our own homes with an on-site renewable source, whether that be the sun, wind or waste such as methane from a dairy operation or wastewater treatment plant, etc. Can we each afford such a system? How can we best democratize the energy economy by distributing our energy dollars more locally and to someone besides an oil company or a private utility?

It may be that your vision of an off-grid energy world becomes true in developing nations. And wouldn’t that be ironic! We here in the US and in Europe would be living with the outdated systems, while people in Africa, Asia and South America could be enjoying the state-of-the-art!

Whatever we do, we need to figure out ways to cooperate at a local level, at a regional level, and ultimately, at the global level –if we have any chance for long-term survival.

SLV: Will you talk a little about communities that have actually negotiated with their power companies to buy up the existing grid within their area? There is precedent for communities buying up the existing power grid?

PA: Well, SMUD in Sacramento did just that, but it took them over 25 years to get it done. The nice thing about the Community Choice Aggregation plan is that we can change our power supply content, without having to drag in all of the lawyers and spend all of this money to take over the PG&E grid. But obviously owning your own power infrastructure allows one to make more dramatic changes. A community in the San Joaquin Valley just announced it is doing just that, but it is a community that already owns some hydroelectric power plants to provide its own electricity.

Right now, about 25 percent of California consumers are served by public power entities. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is the largest municipal utility in the country. Ironically enough, it actually has been the dirtiest utility in the state – because it has been buying power from a coal plant in Arizona that has been employing – and killing – large numbers of Native Americans. But to its credit, it recently has launched major solar and renewable energy programs, and is contemplating phasing out its reliance upon coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels.

SMUD was considered one of the worst utilities in the country before it closed the Rancho Seco nuclear reactor, the only nuke ever shut down by a local initiative, and I was heavily involved in that successful campaign. But since then, SMUD became one of the most progressive public power utilities in the world.

SLV: What can SST readers do to effect the kinds of changes in local energy policy that will get us closer to this 21st century imperative?

PA: We need to identify the obstacles to moving forward with community solar projects that can serve our community assets, such as the Fire Station, Community Center, etc. We are holding a series of workshops to help educate local citizens about these issues. The next workshop will be held at the local library on Wednesday, July 12th. I was also recently approached by NorCal Solar, a statewide solar advocacy group, which is focusing on Marin County as a model solar community. I am helping them organize what they are billing as a “Marin Solar Financing Summit” to address some of the issues that have arisen among non-profits and local agencies seeking to switch to solar power.

Recently, Fetzer Vineyards announced they are installing the wine industry’s largest solar array, over 900 kilowatts! The company MMA Renewable Ventures LLC is underwriting the project through its proprietary third-party financing model. They will be at this summit to discuss how they bring in outside money to help install projects. Under this approach, Fetzer did not have to put a dime up-front!

So, local citizens just need to stay in touch and share what they learn. This effort to solarize Stinson is a five-year process, and we are just at the beginning. The good news is that California now has the most aggressive solar energy program in the world, and there are efforts to extend some federal tax incentives. There really hasn’t been a better time to invest in solar. That said, there are many of us – yours truly included – that do not own their homes and cannot afford a solar system today, even with all of the subsidies. And that’s why we need to figure out a way to develop a community solar project that could provide power to those of limited income, who do not have a good solar site, but who support the critical transition we need to make to a renewable and sustainable energy future.

SLV: And now, my final question - and it's...kind of personal but if you'll humor me, I think your response may reflect what so many of us (renewable energy activists) feel, esp since the turn of the century, the merciful death of the global warming "debate," 911, Iraq...Please, will you talk a little about your visceral response to those who don't or won't get it...people with two SUVs in the driveway or sitting on million dollar properties who still insist they "can't
afford to go solar?"

PA: Sandy, you certainly do like to stir things up, don’t you! I think it is easy to become disillusioned here in Marin, where there is so much wealth and natural beauty, but also so many people preoccupied with status and shallow concerns that epitomize what is wrong with this country – even here in allegedly liberal and progressive Marin County. Perhaps Marin County should require any home valued over $1 million to install a solar system! If I were governor, I would mandate that all new subdivisions require new solar systems, so they could be rolled into mortgages, and just be viewed as a standard part of a new home. Yes, after one visits a place like Texas, it is comforting to see all of the bumper stickers criticizing the war in Iraq and other noble causes. But many of these bumper stickers are on gas guzzling SUVs!

Really, energy is no longer a Republican or a Democratic issue. People finally understand that the Bush Administration’s propaganda about having to choose between the economy and the environment is bogus. Renewable energy is the answer to virtually all of our problems. But renewable energy can also be corrupted by the powers that be. We have to be careful to develop renewable energy in a way that respects people and planet. If we can’t do it right in Marin County – with the wealth, visionary thinkers and environmental values so evident – how can we expect any other place to follow through on making the dream of a sustainable energy future a reality.

SLV: Thanks, Peter!

***************************************


Peter Asmus has served as an energy power consultant for, among others, Common Cause and Consumers Union. In 1984 Asmus wrote a series of stories on money-and-politics for The Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News and other leading California newspapers. Today he is not only an active member of the SBSC, but he continues to write hard-hitting journalistic exposes, commentaries and op-eds. He also writes in-depth policy-oriented think pieces for leading journals and magazines.

Peter Asmus has published several books on the topic of renewable energy.

Among them: Patriot Test (Patriotic Press, 2004), Reaping the Wind: How Mechanical Wizards, Visionaries and Profiteers Helped Shape our Energy Future (Island Press, 2001), Reinventing Electric Utilities: Competition, Citizen Action and Clean Power (Island Press, 1997)and In Search of Environmental Excellence (Simon & Schuster, 1990).


Contact Info:
Peter Asmus,
PO Box 436
Stinson Beach, CA 94970
tel: (415) 868-9866
fax: (415) 868-9566 pthfind [at] earthlink.net





Side Bar:

The East Bay's 'mystery' outage of May 23 and the Stinson brownout on May 25, 2006, illustrate all too graphically the ever-deepening energy crisis here in California. The May 23 event impacted 21,000 customers at its peak according to PG&E. Although investigators have yet to establish the cause, PG&E's decaying infrastructure and its growing reliance outsourcing are both likely suspects in these non-weather related events.

Today the SBSC's vision is only a concept, and an ambitious one at that. Like any vision, it is a process of turning over stones. It will need a long-range plan to transform it into a reality. Like any vision, the path will present its hurdles and challenges. But one thing is self-evident. Today as never before, such a vision is not only possible, it is essential. (See SST, P.3, 'Are We There Yet?) The technology for such a project is rapidly evolving, the political will is showing signs of bending to public pressure and private interests are beginning to reflect very public environmental and
economic realities.

slv