SJC BLOG

Food Waste - What are you doing about it ?

The extreme issue of Food Waste has been in the news quite a bit lately, including NYC's new initiative being proposed by Mayor Bloomberg; won't be easy but we all have to address this problem http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/09/19/nyc-mulls-food-waste-ban/ Today, colleague Andy Velwest shared another article which is worth a read and is also an opportunity to let folks know what Sustainable JC is up to on this topic - http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2013/09/16/carbon-footprint-food-waste-bigger-most-countries

FoodRpng_700pxwSJC's Community Composting Project has recently gained the recognition of the EPA who will be rolling out a major consumer education campaign in 2014 in an attempt to reduce household food waste by 25%. SJC was selected as the only east coast group to pilot their educational materials before that launch.

More on our Community Composting Pilot can be found here (Bokashi + Community Garden Exchange) here http://sustainablejc.org/.../projects/community-composting/

And check out these strategies to reduce food waste for your household - Top Five Ways to Waste Less Food

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Streamlined Approach to Implementing More Solar in Jersey City

Am wondering if any of the findings / recommendations about improving business practices related to construction activities here in Jersey City, as outlined in the Mayor's Transition Report (ref starting on page 104  http://sustainablejc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Transition-Report.pdf ), have been implemented ?  Seems a number of these are easy fixes. If we marry those fixes to more teeth aka mandates in the 'it would be nice if you feel like building green'  recently released Redevelopment Agency's Green Guide For Developers, maybe we would see some transformational activities begin to happen across Jersey City's neighborhoods.  More specifically, what incentives can be offered to activate more green building, green infrastructure and clean energy options across the City ?  Thumb through this document if you have a chance and you'll see what I mean http://sustainablejc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/JCRA-Green-Guide.pdf

My colleagues over at Sungevity have been hard at work on the west coast clearing obstacles like "permitting issues" to all for massive implementation of residential solar and a recent announcement detailing a tool they developed may be just what we need here to get things going http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23807366/east-bay-cities-announce-streamlined-process-solar-permits

Sharing information like this is what SJC does a lot of.  With our focus on best practices, innovative demonstration projects and NOT reinventing the wheel, the opportunity to learn from those who have gone before us abounds !  Especially in the sustainability arena where Jersey City has been a slow starter.

Other cities are implementing coordinated sustainability initiatives like crazy - why aren't we ?  We need to launch a Sustainability Office inside of City Hall - not through some autonomous agency - and put together a Jersey City Sustainability Task Force that is inclusive of community stakeholders, the school district, business interests and municipal officials, and work together to formulate a Sustainability Action Plan that can be implemented over time.  No better time than right now to do this.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

SJC Green Drinks + ART 08-15-2013

Phoenix. Phoenix.
With Beverly, about to demonstrate the Suminagashi paper marbling technique. With Beverly, about to demonstrate the Suminagashi paper marbling technique.
Tabling for Green Map® System and The Art Garden Shed. Tabling for Green Map® System and The Art Garden Shed.
Drummer Phoenix. Drummer Phoenix.
Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Promoting Residential Weatherization Programs

New Jersey households have among the highest rates of energy consumption and average household energy expenditure ($3,065 per year) in the country.   So we have a big financial stake (in addition to our concerns about climate change) in the success of public efforts to help us weatherize our homes.  In many cases, particularly in the case of older homes, investing in weatherization pays for itself[i] within 10 years (a better investment than long-run average stock return).  The challenge is that the costs are upfront while the savings come in the future.  Many people don’t have the have the financial flexibility to make the initial outlay (usually several thousand dollars) for home improvement or can’t obtain a low cost, long term loan that makes weatherization financially viable. Successful weatherization programs help homeowners overcome the upfront costs by issuing homeowners loans that have a repayment schedule with a monthly payment that is lower than the projected energy bill savings.  Programs that facilitate weatherization also help the local economy by creating jobs and providing local residents with more purchasing power to support local businesses.  The most successful residential weatherization programs are PACE programs (Property Assessed Clean Energy programs).  Under PACE programs, local governments lend the money to pay for weatherization and the borrower repays the loan through a special assessment that is added to her property tax bill.  Local governments may even do this with little or no cost to their budget by selling bonds to finance the loans and then using the proceeds of the special assessment revenue to service the bonds.  PACE programs typically include a home energy audit and other consumer protections to ensure that the borrower will achieve enough energy cost savings to cover the property tax assessment—providing confidence both to the borrower and lender.  Because PACE programs show such great promise, the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) disappointed many people when it recently announced that it would not modify a directive that has obstructed the operation of residential PACE programs across the country.   But, New Jersey public officials and citizens cannot let this setback stand in the way of implementing other programs that can successfully promote residential energy efficiency projects in a self-sustaining manner.

PACE programs raised the concern of the FHFA because they effectively make the weatherization loan superior to the existing mortgage in any potential foreclosure process.[ii]  For example, if a home with $5,000 left in delinquent weatherization debt were to be foreclosed, then that $5,000 might be repaid before the mortgage loan during a foreclosure (with variations depending on the details of the specific program).  In 2011, the FHFA directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refrain from purchasing home loans where a PACE program lien is superior to the mortgage because those liens “raise safety and soundness concerns.”  Simply put, PACE loans would decrease the value of loans purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which are both government-owned).  Due to the important role of Fannie and Freddie in the home mortgage market and because most PACE programs make the special assessment superior to mortgage repayment, many local governments have ended or decreased their PACE activity.  The FHFA had been scheduled to announce a final rule this September in which it could have articulated conditions under which the purchase of mortgages subject to PACE assessments would be permissible.  But, late last month, the FHFA announced that it would not be issuing a new rule, though it would continue to consider alternatives.

It should be noted that the FHFA directive does not impact commercial mortgages.  As such, PACE programs that finance commercial property energy efficiency improvements, solar power generation, and other clean energy projects are not affected.   Additionally, local authorities, if authorized to do so under state law, may adjust their PACE programs to make them consistent with FHFA requirements.  Vermont, for example, has passed a law making PACE special assessments subordinate to mortgages and any other liens created prior to the PACE assessments, thus addressing FHFA concerns.  But, it makes sense to consider other financing options as well.

One potential alternative mechanism to PACE is On-Bill Repayment (OBR).  OBR is similar conceptually to the PACE method, but loan repayment is made as a part of the utility bill instead of the property tax bill.  Since local governments don’t generally issue utility bills, state legislatures or utility regulators may need to authorize or require utilities to enable the on-bill payment mechanism and to engage in lending.  Utilities might also work with traditional lenders to provide financing and expertise on certain lending issues.  Perhaps more importantly, legislation or regulations will need to be enacted that allow the transfer of OBR obligations when a new customer (who will benefit from lower energy bills and should receive disclosure beforehand) takes over an account (or the meter).  The assurance that OBR obligations run with the utility bill should inspire lender and investor confidence that the loan will be repaid, and thus maximize the availability of financing and economies of scale.

In addition to not being impacted by the FHFA directive noted above, one advantage of OBR is that it will facilitate weatherization under scenarios where the individual who pays the property taxes is not the same as the person who pays the utility bill, i.e. rental property.  In theory, it better aligns incentives and would be accessible to more property owners and energy users than PACE.  Like PACE programs, a smart OBR program will require professional energy audits, consumer protections, and quality assurance.  The disadvantage of OBR is that fewer states and localities have developed experience with OBR programs.   But, last year the New York in cooperation with several utilities implemented an on-bill repayment program that enables residential customers of those utilities to finance weatherization projects through OBR.   In New Jersey, New Jersey Natural Gas (NJNG) eligible customers may participate in the NJNG OBR program. New Jersey also offers Energystar Home Performance loans for weatherization to eligible participants.  But, the program expires on June 30, 2014 or when funds are used up, whichever comes first. New Jersey leaders should establish new mechanisms to finance residential weatherization before then.


[i] Participants in the Weatherization Assistance Program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy achieved 35% reductions in their energy costs. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/library/pdfs/48098_weatherization_assisprog_fsr4.pdf

[ii] (either explicitly or, depending on the program, by virtue of property tax debts being considered superior to mortgage debt)

1 Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Net Metering for Solar Power Generation: Will it Set in the West?

Battles over California public utility regulations might not seem like they would impact us here in New Jersey.  But, if you care about promoting solar power generation or happen to prefer stable weather patterns, then a push by California electricity utilities to end incentives for rooftop solar power installation concerns you.  California leads all other states in the country when it comes to the total number of rooftop solar installations.  This is attributable to natural advantages like total population and climate, but also a number of state policies that incentivize solar power installation – the most important of which are installation subsidies and net metering.   Net metering enables utility customers that generate electricity through solar power (or other sources in some cases) to sell the portion of electricity that they don’t use to the utility for use by other customers.  In California (and New Jersey, actually), individuals or businesses who sell electricity back into the grid are credited at retail rates, though some other net metering states credit customers who sell back into the grid at the much lower wholesale rate. The New York Times reports that California utilities are lobbying “to reduce the credits and limit the number of people who can participate” in net metering.  They argue that without these changes, their business model will be threatened and customers not generating solar power will pay increasingly higher bills:

[U]tility executives say that when solar customers no longer pay for electricity, they also stop paying for the grid, shifting those costs to other customers. Utilities generally make their profits by making investments in infrastructure and designing customer rates to earn that money back with a guaranteed return, set on average at about 10 percent.

If the costs to maintain the grid are not being borne by some customers, then other customers have to bear a bigger and bigger portion,” said Steve Malnight, a vice president at Pacific Gas and Electric. “As those costs get shifted, that leads to higher and higher rates for customers who don’t take advantage of solar.”

As is stated in the Times piece, critics of the Utilities’ stance argue that solar power generators add value by creating dispersed power within the grid system and should be rewarded for that.  But, even if one takes the utility representatives at face value, it raises serious questions about how the utility model will evolve in coming years.  Regulators set utility rates at levels that are designed to maintain a level of profit that is high enough for utilities to cover overhead and attract investment.  The overhead costs of establishing and maintaining the system that delivers energy to an individual customer don’t change very much based on the individual customer’s level of energy usage.  Consequently, if a customer becomes more energy efficient, that has the effect of raising the cost per kw of energy delivered by the utility company.  If efforts to achieve more efficiency are successful, then rates have to increase or be passed on to others in order for utilities to be profitable, the very issue – though perhaps not to the same degree – that concerns California utilities with regards to net metering.

Even without incentives for ordinary citizens, moves by companies like Verizon and Walmart to develop their own renewable power sources show that distributed energy generation will challenge the traditional public utility model.  Utilities have developed expertise in many areas – customer usage patterns, the intricacies of electricity delivery, billing practices, grid maintenance and expansion - that should allow them to adapt to a changing landscape.  But, adaptation requires innovation, in strategy, regulatory approach, and perhaps other areas. Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu thinks that utilities should model themselves after the old AT&T.  In an interview on NPR early last month, Mr. Chu said utilities should approach customers and say,

“ . . .allow us to use your roof, allow us to use a little corner of your garage, and we will equip you with solar power. We own it. We maintain it. We're responsible for it. You don't have any out-of-pocket expenses. You just buy electricity at the same rate, or maybe even a lower rate. In addition to that, you have, you know, like five kilowatts of energy storage in your home. And five kilowatts - when you're in a blackout situation and you want to keep your refrigerator going, you want to keep a couple of energy-efficient light bulbs lit at night - that goes a long way.”

This would address the net metering problem and provide utilities with more grid flexibility.  Obviously, this will not address all the challenges that utilities face.  Of course, nobody knows for certain that this is the correct model for all, or even any, utilities to pursue.  But, one thing is certain.  Maintaining the status quo when it comes to energy use is not acceptable.  Curtailing efforts to achieve energy efficiency or to increase clean energy generation cannot be the answer.  So, it is important that we keep our eye on what is happening in California.  The Times article concludes:

“The next six to 12 months are the watershed moment for distributed energy in this country,” said Edward Fenster, a chief executive of Sunrun, adding that if their side prevailed in California and Arizona, it would dissuade utilities with net metering programs elsewhere from undoing them. “If we don’t succeed, the opposite will be the case and in two years we’ll be fighting 41 of these battles.”

Including right here in New Jersey.

1 Comment
Print Friendly and PDF