Can small-scale replace large-scale? With 100,000 mini gas-fired generators in homes, the answer is yes.
Viewing all content from John Farrell Page 50 of 72
About John Farrell
John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. More
Cap-and-trade puts our carbon mitigation hopes in the hands of financial speculators. Could we do worse? Not by much. Continue reading
Small-scale renewables will get a boost in a new feed-in tariff proposal by Reps. Jay Inslee of Washington and Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts. The authors tout its better record than renewable standards in encouraging renewable energy production, and the more secure electricity system from distributed renewables. Continue reading
A reliance on tax-based incentives for renewable energy industry has led to boom-and-bust cycles for years, the Atlantic explains. The New Rules Project has several suggestions for solving this system of Byzantine incentives. Continue reading
Although not as comprehensive as a feed-in tariff, Washington State provides incentive payments for solar PV systems made in-state and now, for systems that are community owned on local government property. Continue reading
In the last 12 months a new and very promising strategy for local energy self-reliance has emerged, and it spreading like a prairie fire: direct public financing of energy efficiency and renewable energy investments by private businesses and households. ILSR has been closely tracking these developments and has brought together information about individual programs and the laws and ordinances that have enabled them (view our Map and see the various Municipal Energy Financing rules).
A 10-slide presentation by feed-in tariff expert John Farrell lays out the case for a feed-in tariff in the United States. Continue reading
On May 4th, 2009, Governors from 10 East Coast states sent a sign-on letter opposing the current House & Senate bills to expedite transmission line planning and siting. The states that signed onwere Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. Theletter argued against a greater federal subsidy for long-distance transmission, stating that the focus should be on more local renewable generation, such as off-shore wind along the East Coast.
In a nutshell: On paper, California could meet its targets, provided it can afford and build $12 billion in new transmission lines and higher electricity costs. In reality, the state probably won’t make the target, concludes the California Public Utilities Commission in its latest analysis of the state’s clean-energy quest…