Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

How Local Governments Are Standing in the Way of Clean Energy

By Kyle Rabin, AlterNet. Posted October 7, 2008.


Too often people who want to install clean, efficient solar and wind systems can find themselves drowning in a sea of red tape.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

With the federal government's failure to address climate change, close to 900 U.S. cities and towns have agreed to reduce greenhouse gases in their communities by at least 7 percent by 2012. Support for small-scale solar and wind electricity generators would go a long way toward meeting those goals, especially as large-scale systems continue to get bogged down by opposition in many communities.

States nationwide are implementing or expanding programs that serve as an important economic incentive; people who generate their own clean energy can send the excess to the grid, dramatically lowering their electric bills, while also reducing demand on non-renewable, over-stressed electric systems. However, many towns, counties and cities are still making it difficult and expensive for people who want to generate their own renewable energy.

Small-scale solar and wind generation systems can promote green jobs at this time of economic turmoil, skyrocketing energy costs, widespread desire for energy independence, and increasing public concern about air quality and climate change. Local officials must do their part by removing unnecessary barriers to installation of these systems that exist in local building codes and permit and inspection requirements.

In Virginia, renewable energy contractor Jim Madden calls local permit and planning processes a major obstacle. "The biggest problems," he said, "are the length of time required and lack of knowledge about renewable energy systems at the county government level." In New York, solar contractor Steve Englemann says that local permit requirements cause "by far the greatest delay in the industry, requiring so much time and energy, and delaying jobs to the extent that we have a hard time financially with our business because of it. Every town and village has very different requirements from one another, which is a huge burden on our business."

According to Curt Bradley in California, "Contra Costa County will issue a permit for a small wind generator if the site is zoned for agricultural use, but not if it is zoned commercial or industrial." Recently, a church that is ideally located in the San Francisco Bay wind corridor asked Bradley to install two small wind turbines, 10 kilowatts or less, to provide energy for their sanctuary, school and offices. Because the church is located on property that is zoned commercial, the county planning department would not entertain their proposal.

It is particularly striking that this is happening in California, which has some of the nation's strongest laws and policies to encourage the adoption of small-scale solar and wind, but stories like these are repeated from state to state. In Arizona, where the state is upgrading its net metering program, solar and wind contractors cite barriers that include local government disorganization, inconsistent permit requirements and wide variations in fees.

The more than 40 states that have adopted net metering should take the next step by mandating that towns adopt consistent and appropriate permit requirements and uniform standards. For example, New Hampshire's legislature recently passed a law that prevents local governments in the state from applying building height limits to wind turbines and sets a statewide standard for how much sound they can emit. The states could also smooth the process by educating building and electrical inspectors about the proper installation of common renewable systems.

Solar Sonoma County (SSC), in California, is one group working to address local permitting concerns. SSC arose from residents' desire to increase the installation of solar systems in their community and has set an ambitious goal of facilitating the installation of 25 megawatts of solar generating capacity in Sonoma County within three years -- the equivalent of at least 3,500 home systems and 50 larger-scale commercial installations. To do that, city managers from Sonoma's nine cities and the county realize they will have to do things differently, so they are meeting to devise a standard, county-wide permitting process.

People who want to install these clean, efficient solar and wind systems can find themselves drowning in a sea of red tape. And this goes way beyond a few frustrated individuals -- it affects the whole community.

While the electricity generated may be used primarily by a single home or business, the benefits of these small-scale renewable systems extend to everyone, including economic growth, reduced pollution, increased local energy independence, and reduced pressure on the local electricity grid.

Streamlining the permit process will also give predictability to the private sector, and lay clear ground rules for small-scale renewable energy systems. But failure to streamline the process takes the wind out of towns' efforts to create a green economy and prevents those who want these systems from saving energy and money.

Photovoltaic solar and small wind turbine generators are well established technologies, with proven, off-the-shelf systems that come ready to install. While the upfront costs of these systems are high, in today's energy marketplace they also pay for themselves more rapidly than ever before, making them an increasingly attractive way to confront rising energy costs. Rebates and tax incentives are also increasing the systems' affordability for many customers.

Specific steps local governments should take include removing barriers to photovoltaic solar systems from building codes and simplifying the permit application process. For example, they can exempt solar and wind energy devices from building codes' standard height limits. Further, there's no reason to require a building permit for the installation of small-scale rooftop solar systems. If a town does require a permit however, it should be a simple matter where a contractor or homeowner fills out a brief form and gets a permit on the spot. Additional details and recommendations are available in Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power, which provides a roadmap for local officials nationwide who want to streamline their towns' regulations.

 
 






Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: renewable energy, wind, clean energy, green energy, solar

Kyle Rabin directs the Network for New Energy Choices, a New York City based nonprofit that promotes policies to ensure safe, clean, and environmentally responsible energy options.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Glendale, California
Posted by: ScottP on Oct 7, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Glendale Water and Power supports my solar system plans for my home, and has granted approval and intends to give me a substantial rebate for it. Bravo to them! However, Glendale City planning is opposed to it, in defiance of state laws that prohibit them from blocking my plans. And so I continue to battle them to attempt to get my system up and running. The clock is now at about a year in this process, incredible!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simi Valley, CA Thousand Oaks, CA
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 7, 2008 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both cities officially say they are supportive. The planning boards however behave otherwise.

In Simi Valley a local contractor says, you need $55K-$125K on top of the cost of the install to hire legal representation to get the permits through. A friend of mine spent $75K on top of his install and then he spent $35K fighting Edison to get the net inter-tie system they allegedly "support" actually hooked up. It took him two years to get his house on the PV's that took eight months in permit and court time to get onto his roof. In T.O., Edison has a special seat on the city council. Sure, the cover is that it's an advisory seat, but it's still a seat.

When million rooftops campaign came through, the city fell all over itself to claim they were already planning to do it themselves... then after the campaign left town they promptly claimed that "solar power is a great thing but the technology just isn't there yet" and stopped all active supportive talk (there was never any actual effort or action taken). In the meantime Edison has become best friends with the big three on our city council with one most recently claiming that our city will be Edison's "home ground" for the foreseeable future.

And if it's not the city, if you're one of the misfortunate who live in an HOA or a condo HOA, you can just forget it without a mammoth legal battle with the HOA (which you'll lose despite CA law making such defeats illegal).

Ironically, come petrocollapse, it'll be your neighborhood, your town, the county that will matter more. But so far, local government, local communities do NOT believe or behave like communities who cooperate to survive a crisis. They behave instead like corporate hacks and lackeys. Big surprise in a state where running a winning campaign for city council demands upwards of $750K minimum AND corporate sponsorship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I told you so; and you will never recoup your cost unless subsidized.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 7, 2008 5:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by
Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear
power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 249: "The manufacture of photovoltaic panels requires highly
toxic heavy metals, gasses, and solvents that are carcinogenic. ........
If a residential fire burns a solar panel, people would be at risk for
exposure to toxic vapors and smoke, ... . If modules are dumped
into municipal landfills, then heavy metals such as arsenic and lead
can leach into the soil and water table. Hundreds of thousands of
years from now, some of those substances will still not have
decayed: their life spans are essentially eternal."

Page 250: "Solar farms big enough to supply 1,000 megawatts per
year [sic] or more would cover over fifty square miles and produce
a quantity of toxic waste that would be significant."
"For the 70 to 80 percent of the time when nature isn't cooperating
[with your solar power scheme], you need the grid or a fossil-fuel
generator."
"The largest systems of unsubsidized solar energy in a sunny place
range from 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour, in other words, solar
is the costliest alternative energy of all."

Page 251: Solar power requires cutting down trees to keep the
trees from shading your solar panels.
"Wind tends to fail during heat waves. ... Wind power turned out
to be highly unreliable, with capacity plunging from its usual 33
percent to 4 percent during the time of peak demand."

Page 257: World CO2 emissions from electricity generation come
to 9,500 million metric tons a year. Using a small footprint,
hundreds of nuclear plants in more than thirty countries cut carbon
emissions by 600 million metric tons every year."

Page 269: "[E]very day the collective households and industries of
America throw away nearly a million tons of garbage containing
toxic heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, as well as plastics that
will never break down. That garbage will be our culture's real
legacy, enduring for millions of years after all the present nuclear
waste has decayed."

Page 290: There is a mistake: She says that the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant in New Mexico is the only nuclear waste repository in
operation. France has one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neither wind nor solar nor geothermal are available locally everywhere.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 7, 2008 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NOwhere are wind or solar available all the time. Reference:
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by
Gwyneth Cravens, 2007. Finally a truthful book about nuclear
power.
Page 211: "In 2005, the production cost of electricity from nuclear
power on average cost 1.72cents per kilowatt-hour; from coal-fired
plants 2.21; from natural gas 7.5, and from oil 8.09. American
nuclear power reactors operated that year around the clock at about
90 percent capacity, whereas coal-fired plants operated at about 73
percent, hydroelectric plants at 29 percent, natural gas from 16 to
38 percent, wind at 27 percent, solar at 19 percent, and geothermal
at 75 percent." [The costs per kilowatt hour for solar and wind are
600 or more times the cost for coal, and that is in sunny and windy
places, respectively.
I agree that we need to stop burning fossil fuels. It is literally a
matter of life and breath.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your big troubles will start when your gizmo falls off of whatever and kills somebody.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 7, 2008 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/?page=5

"Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power
installations How Close is Too Close?
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD*
March 1, 2005
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons
atop a 265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a
significant hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic
within a radius equal to the height of the structure (400 ft)
and beyond. In Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the
brakes on a wind turbine failed and the blades spun out of
control. A blade struck the tower and the entire nacelle flew
off the tower. The blades and other parts landed as far as
1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of the tower (Note that all
turbines discussed in this article are "upwind," three-bladed,
industrial-sized turbines. "Downwind" turbines have not
been built since the 1980's.) Given the date, this turbine
was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current
construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This
distance is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from
turbines with 100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute
(1680 ft)"

And the above is only the so-called tip of the iceberg. If
interested, just google "dangers of wind turbines" - there's
plenty of sites to choose from to learn about the dangers.
The noise alone is inescapable - like water torture."

[No source of energy is risk free, but the poverty caused
by not having energy is a really big killer.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Know Your Energy
Posted by: alank on Oct 8, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People need to really know the effects of the so called 'clean energy' before jumping into them because there are a lot of issues to be considered. I recommend reading http://www.poweredgenerators.com and learning more on some of the problems with clean fuels like wind and solar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement