Articles by Adam Browning

New Jersey proposes major expansion of renewable energy mandate

The words "New Jersey" rarely conjure thoughts of environmental leadership. In fact, the state's reputation gives rise to visions better described by "industrial wasteland" or "toxic miasma."

Think again. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) has recently proposed a major expansion of its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a regulation requiring utilities to buy renewable energy.

The proposed rule would require that 20% of the electricity provided by the state's utilities come from new renewable energy sources by 2020, up from the current standard of 4% by 2008. This is a major expansion that puts the state in the upper echelon of renewable-energy leaders.

And make no mistake -- the environmental impacts would be enormous. Emissions from electricity generation are not only the single largest cause of global warming, but also toxic to human health, killing over 30,000 Americans a year, according to a recent study by Abt Associates. By 2020, this proposal would prevent annual emissions of 15.3 billion pounds of carbon dioxide, 29.1 million pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 44.4 million pounds of sulfur dioxide.

In addition, the proposed rule would require that 2% come from solar-electric resources -- a development that would result in about 1,500 MW of solar electricity. To put this in perspective, in 2004 the world market for solar photovoltaics was 927 MW. New Jersey's effort would be the most ambitious solar program currently on the books in the U.S. (take that, California!), and would go far in building the economies of scale necessary to bring solar into the mainstream.

Traditionally hostile interests are working to squelch this bold proposal. If you are into it, take a moment to tell the BPU Commissioners that their leadership is appreciated, and the proposed expansion of the RPS should be adopted.

Mostly promise, some peril

Every year, approximately 2 million new houses are built in the U.S. Should these homes be built so as to generate their own electricity cleanly and renewably? Or should these homes require new grid and dirty-power plant investments, paid for by all ratepayers?

Installing solar systems when homes are built makes sense for several reasons:

• Installation is cheaper when building a new home than retrofitting an old one;
• the cost can be wrapped into the mortgage -- the best kind of financing;
• it's easier to integrate into building components -- with the potential for better aesthetics;
• if solar were incorporated at a large scale, utilities could make the appropriate adjustments to the grid, saving all ratepayers some money.

Which is why the announcement that the City of Roseville is requiring solar on 10-20% of new housing starts is such good news.

China announces Renewable Portfolio Standard

Everyone needs a China strategy. Even China.

With a burgeoning population rapidly growing in number and affluence, and a manufacturing sector serving the world as well as driving infrastructure development at home, China's sheer mass demands that it be accounted for in every field. Of special concern are energy and the environment: What will be the impacts of all the new energy resources required?

That's why China's new commitment to a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard is such good news. Fifteen percent by 2020 may not offset the new carbon emissions produced by its spectacular growth, but it's sure better than the U.S. federal RPS (0% by never). And the investment -- estimated to be U.S. $184 billion -- will help build the economies of scale key to bringing down costs in renewable industries.

Here's hoping China's investment means the same for renewables as it has for t-shirts, tchotchkes, and damn near everything: What was once expensive now made dirt cheap and plentiful.