Texas Senate approves solar energy incentive program

By Terrence Stutz, The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN: Legislation that would create a $100 million-a-year state program to encourage use of solar energy and require homebuilders in new subdivisions to offer solar energy to home buyers won approval from the Senate on Tuesday.

The measure, which would also set up a loan program for public schools to install solar systems, would be funded through a fee on all energy bills in the state. Homeowners would pay a fee of 20 cents a month, while large businesses would pay $20 a month.

"We take pride in the fact that Texas is recognized as the national leader in renewable energy, especially wind generation," said Sen. Troy Frasier, R-Horseshoe Bay, author of the bill.

"This legislation allows our state to become more energy dependent and meet our renewable energy goals through the installation of solar generation."

Senators voted 26-4 to approve the measure, which now goes to the House.

Fraser said the $100 million-a-year incentive program, which would operate for at least five years, would provide a "jump start" for the use of solar energy in homes and businesses.

The Public Utility Commission will decide how to distribute the incentive money, which will be used to pay for up to one-third the cost of installation of solar panels and related technologies.

When combined with existing federal tax credits of up to 30 percent, the legislation would make solar energy more feasible for thousands of Texas families, according to experts.

"This bill would put Texas on the map when it comes to solar power," said Environment Texas Director Luke Metzger. "We have the sun, we have the technological know-how. Now we'll have a market that that can make Texas a world leader in solar power."

Besides requiring that home buyers in new subdivisions be offered the option of solar energy, the bill also would prohibit homeowners associations from having policies that ban the installation of solar panels on residences.

The bill also would provide rebates for solar products manufactured in Texas and establish net metering policies that require customers to receive real-time market price for energy that is exported from them by a retail electric provider.

Metzger said with Texas' tremendous amount of sunlight, the state could become a world solar leader, creating thousands of manufacturing, engineering and installation jobs, and attracting billions of dollars of investment to the state.

"Texas can have a great deal of control over how rapidly solar power becomes cost competitive," he said. "By getting in on the ground floor of this new market, Texas can also benefit economically."

Source: Dallas Morning News

stimulus money for austin

There have been a number of posts on the blog talking about the stimulus package that is making its way around the Capitol. Emily has a great post on the breakdown of what's in the stimulus package relating to energy. I mean, $900 B is a lot of money, it's good to know what's in it, right? I've been wondering what the stimulus package has in store for Austin though.

Almost by chance, I came across this post from a blog here in Austin, Downtown Austin. Of interest is money to expand the commuter rail line in Austin. It's good to see Austin taking steps to implement better public transportation to reduce fuel consumption, traffic delays and emissions. The neat thing is you can go on to the site and vote for different stimulus items you like. The full website lists the other stimulus items requested for Austin.

What do you think of some of these requests? Is there anything you think Austin could benefit from?

How CO2 Regulations Will Affect the Texas Electric Grid

I was interested in quantifying some of the effects that CO2 emissions regulations would have on Texas's electric grid, specifically in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region. I look at some of the features of command and control regulations, a CO2 tax. or a cap and trade system, then I show results of a model I created to add a CO2 cost to each generation facility in ERCOT and look at how the CO2 cost affects plant dispatch, CO2 emissions, and electricity cost.

I have a lot of results in graphical form that would take too much space to explain here, but the gist is that at relatively low CO2 prices, the price of natural gas for fuel will keep coal-fired plants cheaper to operate, so coal-fired facilities will remain running all the time as base load generation, albeit with much smaller profit margins. It takes a very high CO2 price to result in switching from coal to efficient natural gas for base load generation, and this threshold CO2 price is pushed higher by high natural gas prices. So if CO2 regulations cause a shift towards natural gas-fired generation, and this increased natural gas demand drives up natural gas prices, then electricity costs go up from both the added CO2 cost and the increased natural gas costs. Of course we would also be switching to more renewables, but until these sources make up a large percent of total generation (they were 3% of generation in 2006), the effect on electricity prices will be minimal.

There isn't enough room to explain the assumptions behind the specific values I calculated, so if you are interested, I hope that you take a look at my report. It's relatively long, so if you're short on time, the results section is the best part.

One point that I omitted from my report for conciseness is how the supply chain location where a CO2 tax is applied will affect its impacts on the electricity industry. If the CO2 tax is levied upstream at fossil fuel suppliers, fossil fuel based electricity generators will see this cost as increased fuel prices, which are a market traded commodities. Thus, upstream application of a CO2 tax would affect electricity generators similarly to a regime where CO2 is traded on its own commodity market (i.e. cap and trade). I read some economics oriented reports arguing that upstream application should more cost-effectively reduce emissions, but this approach could reduce the economic viability of technologies such as carbon dioxide capture and sequestration (CCS) that significantly reduce emissions rates without decreasing fuel use. Do we regulate at the source of the carbon, or the source of the emissions? I think the source of emissions makes more sense, but one could argue either way.

How "Dallas" Won the Cold War

Being from Dallas, I thought that this recent Washington Post story was particularly interesting, though the article is about the TV show, not the city (in fact, the television show was actually filmed at Southfork Ranch, not technically Dallas proper).

The article describes how the "cowboy capitalism" of the Texas oil economy, exemplified by the show, had worldwide implications for the spread of capitalism during the Cold War. It is an interesting testament to the impact Texas had, and still has, on the world. Although the Texas Railroad Commission had long since lost its control over world oil prices by the 1980s, the ethos of the Texas oil economy still had a large cultural effect. Hey, "what starts here changes the world," right?

Texas Solar Forum held a few surprises

On Thursday and Friday, the Texas Solar Forum was held at the Capital Auditorium here in Austin. The event targeted a policy-maker audience, and its venue 1 level below the state's capital underscored the important role that policymakers can play in creating the environment needed for the solar industry in Texas to thrive.

There were many speakers and I encourage you to check out any transcripts, presentations, or video that they will eventually put up on the website (http://www.texassolarforum.com/).

Since I work for a wind developer, I was most interested in the final panel discussion, which featured representatives from Austin Energy, CPS (San Antonio's municipal utility), and executives from major solar manufacturers and developers including industry major First Solar and trailblazing concentrated solar startup Ausra.

I wasn't the only one to raise my eyebrows at hearing that Ausra is now able to offer long-term PPAs for electricity priced at 9 cents/kWh!!! That's on par with peak natural gas prices here in Texas and actually beats Arizona Public Service's peaker prices by a factor of 2...

Key takeaway: solar still has a long way to go, but grid parity is right around the corner for some technologies. And where better to launch a revolution in the U.S. than in the only state that can legally suceed from the union any time it chooses!

Texas wanting exemption from biofuels mandate

Saw this today on the Wall Street Journal's site. We're (Texas) trying to be exempted from the Federal mandates of producing 36 B gallons of biofuels in the next decade and a half. The problem, and yes it really is a problem, is that first generation biofuels compete with too many precious resources, namely: food, water, and land.

In particular, the competition with food has been making headlines lately, and we're not immune to this in Texas. The price of feed is going up, which translates to higher costs down the line. Creating fuel from food isn't a smart practice. While the mandate to increase biofuels production is nice, at it's current state, it's not working out.

This is not to say biofuels are a bad idea. I wholeheartedly believe that 2nd and 3rd (yes, we're already talking about those) biofuels will be the interim solution for transportation. Feedstocks such as cellulose for ethanol and algae for pretty much everything (biodiesel, ethanol, JP8, hydrogen,..) will be important in the next few years.

Contrary to what Mr. Dickerson of EERE said yesterday, I believe that food vs. fuel is a real problem, and I laud Gov. Perry for taking this on. This may be one of the few times where I actually agree with Gov. Rick Perry. Go ahead and quote me on that. He was Ag. Commissioner at one time, so it would make sense for him to be on this.

For once it's not California raising a big stink about Federal programs.

the other march madness

It’s finally Tuesday March 4. Who knew that anyone would be paying attention to Texas for the Democratic Primary? The great thing is that now the rest of the country is reminded that there is a Democratic party in Texas and it has the opportunity to shape the national election. It’s particularly refreshing to hear about other states other than the standard caucus and primary states (Iowa, New Hampshire, S. Carolina etc…).

Its not that being a Democrat in Texas was ever irrelevant, it’s just that the race is so close now that people are actually paying attention to us. Texas usually gets written off as a completely conservative state minus maybe Austin, but this isn’t completely true. People easily forget the powerful Democratic leaders that have come out of Texas such as President Johnson, Barbara Jordan and many others. We even had Ann Richards as our Governor before George W. Bush was put into power over a decade ago. How quickly we forget.

As we watch the results tonight, it will be interesting to see how the candidates performed in terms of gender, age and other issues. A lot can change between now and November, but I would assume the platform will be built around who can work with those on the other side of the aisle and who can help rebuild this country (both domestically and in our relations with the rest of the world). There is growing urgency that we must change the way our country is run, and electing someone who can bring cooperation within both parties is critical for us to move forward.

Hopefully the influence Texas has on this Presidential election will be a positive one for the country and world, unlike last time around. But hey, he’s not even from Texas, so you can’t blame us too much.

Learning from our Past: J.R. Parten

First, I must comment that the Bullock oil exhibit was a let down. After reading Daniel Yergin's The Prize, the coverage on Texas's oil history in the museum exhibit read like a kid's book.


If you happened to sit and watch the short film--narrated by UT Austin's own Walter Cronkite--you may have noticed the very quick reference to Texas's prominent role in the War (WWII) effort. Cronkite said something like, "... Texas was thrust to the forefront of global politics during the war....". If you happened to stroll through the neighboring exhibit, you may have notced a small placard discussing "Big Inch" and "Little Big Inch", the War Emergency Pipelines constructed during WWII that delivered 350 MMB of petroleum to the Allied war effort. The exhibit gives credit to Jubal R. Parten for managing the construction of the War Emergency Pipelines.


The Prize provides an amazing perspective on the history of WWII and the importance of oil in determining the strategies and outcome of the war. This book, and the museum exhibit, discuss how German submarines threatened shipments of oil moving from Texas to the East Coast, inspiring the construction of "Big Inch" and "Little Big Inch". Without the secure supply of oil from Texas--the world's largest producer of oil at that time--the US and Allies would not have been capable of defeating the Germans and Axis powers.


J. R. Parten's life is quite fasicnating and I recommend browsing the brief bibliography provided by The Center for American History. The most intersting aspect of his life came in his later, wiser years: after serving in the Army and playing instrumental roles in both WWII and the Korean War, Mr. Parten became a peace advocate. The following is an excerpt from The Center for American History's A Guide to the J.R. Parten Papers:

Parten spent much time and effort in his last years encouraging and supporting work aimed at fostering world peace, serving as an advisor and financial contributor to the American Committee on East-West Accord and the Center for Defense Information.

I believe that Mr. Parten was well aware of the fragile postion that the U.S. is in when reflecting on his life's work. He constructed the vein that fueled the Allies' victory, and realized that should the US be in such a position again, the nation will not be so fortunate. We should learn from men like Mr. Parten, and work to "foster world peace", rather than work to secure oil supplies with military power.

Solar is slowly making its way into Texas

I read an article on the plane this weekend about Heliovolt's new solar manufacturing plant in Austin. The Austin-born thin-film photovoltaic company is going to be the first manufacturer to produce photovoltaics in Texas.

In another sign that solar is making it's way eastward its stronghold in silicon valley, startup solar-thermal company Ausra is starting an office in Texas, and looking to hire an executive, according to a job posting on the Berkeley Institute of the Environment webpage (find it here).

With the cost of solar electricity dropping each year, growing demand for electricity, and a public/regulatory environment that makes development of coal-powered plants less desireable than alternatives, Texas is in a great place to soak up a lot of solar business in the next few years.

And with the ERCOT North and West transmission zones congested almost to capacity with wind power, solar is looking better every day.

My prediction: Look for a boom in Texas solar, starting in late 2009 (right around when a lot of you will be graduating). My recommendation: start tailoring your resume to take advantage of the next energy boom, right here in Texas...

Texas to Blame for High US CO2 Emissions? Not So Fast

This AP article blasts Texas as a hopelessly unenvironmental state whose "everything's bigger" mentality has led it to being the state with staggeringly more CO2 emissions than the rest of the US. It goes on to point out that if TX were a country (as I believe some believe it is...), it would rank 7th in the world in CO2 emissions! It does go on to point out that Texas's CO2 emissions are so high because of the state's sheer size, population, and industrial density, but my interpretation is that the article clearly intends to paint TX as a complacent entity that should learn a lesson or two from the emissions reduction initiatives in Cal. or NY.

Well, we already acknowledged that Texas's size may be a good reason for its emissions, so maybe there is a better way to compare states - how about carbon intensity! Carbon intensity is defined by the EIA as the ratio of CO2 emissions to gross domestic product and by the IPCC as the ratio of CO2 emissions to primary fuel use. One could argue that absolute emissions are all that matters, but carbon intensity is probably a better way to make basic emissions comparisons. I mean seriously, can we really compare Delaware to TX when it comes to total emissions? We're talking apples and oranges here.

So where does Texas stack up? Using the most recent 2004 data (I guess it takes a while to inventory a country's emissions), in emissions per primary fuel use, TX is #27. Per GDP? #16. So not great, but certainly not the worst of the bunch by these metrics. In case you're curious, top 3 in both measures are Wyoming, West Virginia, and North Dakota.

So my point is, cherry picking statistics to frame an article is certainly not uncommon, and we need to be aware that this practice helps shape more than just energy related policy and public opinion (seen any US article on China's energy use lately?). As the state with the 3rd highest GDP and highest fuel use, TX can certainly learn from other economically similar states like CA and NY, but care should be taken and all facts researched before we start labeling any US emissions scapegoat.

Deep Water Wind in Scotland is a good sign for Texas

The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting story today about the installation of the world's two largest wind turbines in deep water off the east coast of Scotland. The United Kingdom has rapidly declining oil and gas production in the North Sea, requirements to generate 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2020, and excellent off-shore wind. Because they are concerned about unemployed energy sector workers from the loss of oil and gas production, the idea is to convert them into wind energy workers, which also allows industry to take advantages of its deep-water assets (that is, its platforms), while making progress towards their renewable targets. Seems promsing.

I often joke that the wind is where the people are not, because no one wants to live where it's windy. Except for the Scots. And now they can turn their hardy indifference to wind into a money maker.

Sounds like a great idea, and Texas can do something similar. We have extensive expertise in offshore construction, excellent wind in the Gulf of Mexico, and declining oil and gas production. Maybe it's time for us to accelerate our offshore wind farm construction? The only thing we lack are similarly aggresive renewable power targets for 2020...

....oh, and a whole lot of money. Deep water wind capacity is almost a factor of ten more expensive per kilowatt than wind-fueled capacity in the West Texas flatlands. But, at least it doesn't ruin any rachers' views.