I'm not sure how many of you are aware, but there is currently a bill (House Bill 298) that has been proposed which will eliminate the NC Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (REPS). REPS was created under Senate Bill 3 in 2007 and garnered a near unanimous vote. The standard legislated a certain percentage of our states total energy production which must be created by renewable sources i.e. photovoltaic panels, geothermal, solar thermal, hydro electric, wind turbines, biomass, wave/current energy etc. Eventually, investor-owned utility companies in NC will be required to produce 12.5% of their electricity from renewable sources. Private utility companies will need to eventually produce 10%.

Currently the required levels are set at 3%, but will increase annually until 2018. North Carolina is the only Southeastern state to have a REPS Plan and since its creation have become the fifth leading solar state in the country and generated $1.4 billion in the industry. Community College programs have been created to train a new and growing work force and the renewable energy industry has begun moving to our state to take advantage of this growing market. It has also been of great benefit to the agricultural community who has been able to convert land into solar farms.

House Bill 298, will stop all of this. It will put people out of business. It will establish Duke Power as the reigning energy monopoly and prevent new renewable technologies from being developed and implemented. I am a builder and know several contractors who this will directly impact. I also know a number of soon to graduate college students who are being told that hiring freezes have been implemented until this all shakes out. This is a huge step backwards for our state, but it is getting very little media coverage.

Opponents of REPS claim that it is a subsidy for renewable energies which should be eliminated and claim that it only increases the utility bills of NC residents.

I wanted to post this here to inform everyone and also to encourage conversation on both sides of the argument.

http://www.wral.com/renewables-rollb...ouse/12300092/
http://energync.org/blog/ncsea-news/...ergy-industry/

4/18/2013 7:45:38 PM

Call me when you need help with the recall or the revolution.

4/18/2013 8:14:58 PM

Jesus, how is it possible that a corrupt Democratic administration for decades was still SO MUCH BETTER than these Republicans? WTF? Really? It's like all they spend their time on is undoing things, and dragging us backwards thirty years.

This is fucking embarrassing.

4/18/2013 8:53:12 PM

Links are dead

4/18/2013 10:07:42 PM

I thought it was interesting when I heard the Duke spokesman asked about it on NPR he was like "we really didn't ask for this and we are meeting our targets..." and I believed him. Why would a company build a 5-10 year plan (since the original bill was 2007) on a bet that this bill would pass?

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ^^ i think the democrats had to at least be sneaky with their bullshit not "you take it & like it"]

4/18/2013 10:13:54 PM

Quote :

"North Carolina is the only Southeastern state to have a REPS Plan and since its creation have become the fifth leading solar state in the country and generated $1.4 billion in the industry."

If it's generated $1.4 billion in the industry why has Duke/Progress Energy informed us that our energy costs are increasing, as a result of having to meet this renewable energy law? Seems to me that if this bill was really generating money our energy costs would go down, not up.

Everything the OP mentioned sounds good, but people are hurting financially so that part of the equation is important to them.

4/19/2013 9:08:01 AM

Agreed, this was a good, bipartisan idea at the time it passed and it still is.

Quote :

"It has also been of great benefit to the agricultural community who has been able to convert land into solar farms."

Don't forget Hog farms converting their waste to methane. I read that this was one of the only things causing some legislators to hesitate. NC is def rich in the renewable resource of hog waste

What I believe is driving this repeal is just an irrational hate for an idea that is commonly associated with your alleged "enemy." Words like renewable, sustainable, alternative energy, etc are just immediately lumped in with librul or socialism. This is considered revenge by the troglodytes in our GA (note: not all conservatives support the repeal of this legislation nor are they stupid)


^the other thing to keep in mind with businesses planning their future is the uncertainty that the constant changes/repeals/slow march backwards that the current GA has been implementing. I believe that the industries that are booming right now are attracted to "somewhat progressive" rules when they are looking for the next place to station their business. Industries see the writing on the wall that sustainability is going to be a factor in their business plans in the future, there is no way around it, so they have to start planning for it. Simple, straightforward rules that lightly push a state in that direction can actually be very attractive.

I think these rules are an example of that. They set us apart from the rest of the Southeast and were a consideration for any forward looking business. They were creating jobs from the engineers designing new installations right down to the guy turning the wrenches to install them. It is helping to move NC to the forefront of an industry that is still growing in the US (one of the few).

why would we want to miss out on that?



^Duke has a lot of reasons they try to pin an increase in rates on. The one I've heard is they closed down several (two I think) REALLY REALLY old coal fired plants and opened new Nat gas plants to replace them. That has more to do with the efficiency standards that are about to come down from the EPA (if Obama would ever stop delaying them)

The amount of money Duke spends on renewable installations is miniscule, but it has a long-term positive that I'm sure they realize. In the near to medium term future, renewables WILL BE MANDATED. By the Feds, by the State, who knows, but it should be pretty plain that these rules are coming down the pipe. By getting their hands dirty now they are building expertise and learning how to do this cheaper and better, which will ultimately make them more competitive. It's why Duke didn't really fight the standards when they were implemented and doesn't want them repealed now. its also why Duke has been given a seat at the table for negotiations on renewables and carbon trading at the federal level.

[Edited on April 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM. Reason : ^]

4/19/2013 9:13:49 AM

Quote :

"If it's generated $1.4 billion in the industry why has Duke/Progress Energy informed us that our energy costs are increasing, as a result of having to meet this renewable energy law? Seems to me that if this bill was really generating money our energy costs would go down, not up."

that logic doesn't work

4/19/2013 9:16:18 AM

Quote :

"^the other thing to keep in mind with businesses planning their future is the uncertainty that the constant changes/repeals/slow march backwards that the current GA has been implementing. I believe that the industries that are booming right now are attracted to "somewhat progressive" rules when they are looking for the next place to station their business. Industries see the writing on the wall that sustainability is going to be a factor in their business plans in the future, there is no way around it, so they have to start planning for it. Simple, straightforward rules that lightly push a state in that direction can actually be very attractive."

Very good point. And a slight nudge is less painful, no doubt.

But let's not pretend this helps lower energy costs. (not saying you specifically are)

4/19/2013 9:21:42 AM

^exactly, you can craft rules that eventually become too onerous, and suddenly industry is fleeing as fast as possible. But if the rules are simple and relatively easy to meet, and if businesses realize they need to head that direction regardless, then suddenly it is an attractor. At least until we actually get a more meaningful federal policy.




not that I'm happy about it. I'd much prefer us throwing as much weight as possible behind renewables. But still, baby steps count and are MUCH MUCH better than going backwards.





Also its questionable that coal is cheaper than renewables after you factor in the effects of coal ash, carbon, mercury etc that coal power is leaving us with. If we could factor in those externalities, suddenly coal isn't looking so appetizing.

[Edited on April 19, 2013 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

4/19/2013 9:28:32 AM

Quote :

"If it's generated $1.4 billion in the industry why has Duke/Progress Energy informed us that our energy costs are increasing, as a result of having to meet this renewable energy law? Seems to me that if this bill was really generating money our energy costs would go down, not up. "

There's an average cost of $0.42 cents added to each NC residents electricity bill each month which covers this. It's negligible when compared to all other monthly bills, not to mention that it allows our state the capital to become a leader in renewable energy.

The Republicans biggest talking point is that REPS is really just a subsidy for renewable energy and anything funded by the government should be cut out....As if carbon fuels are not subsidized and were never given government help to boost the technology 100 years ago

If anything, the REPS plan provides NC the capital it needs to get the renewable energy industry on its feet and rolling. The industry is so close to taking off, it's a shame that they want to kill it now.

[Edited on April 19, 2013 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2013 4:06:05 PM

This is a post about RPS from an industry lobbying group blog. I think they're oil focused, but honestly I don't remember.

http://energytomorrow.org/blog/fact-vs-fiction-on-the-renewable-fuel-standard1/#/type/all

Quote :

"The RFS is simply broken, its mandates are not based in reality and its potential impacts loom large for U.S. consumers. Let’s repeal it."

They say RPS ain't no good, why should I believe a bunch of hoodlums on TWW instead?

4/19/2013 7:47:41 PM

Republicans are great.

4/20/2013 7:21:26 AM

As an ex-Republican, I agree

4/20/2013 12:03:54 PM

^^ that article is about ethanol vs gasoline which has nothing to do with REPS

REPS concerns using sustainable technologies for electricity production
I. E. geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaics, combined heat and power (CHP), hydro etc.

4/20/2013 6:45:57 PM

Quote :

"There's an average cost of $0.42 cents added to each NC residents electricity bill each month which covers this. It's negligible when compared to all other monthly bills, not to mention that it allows our state the capital to become a leader in renewable energy."

Could you provide a link to back up that statement? I'm not accusing you of lying; I just want more info. Mainly b/c I'm curious to know how the average cost increase could be so low. Progress Energy asking NC's energy board for a rate hike would imply to me higher costs than an extra $0.42/month.

4/22/2013 9:54:18 AM

I don't know where the $0.42 figure comes from but I do have this:

an RTI study on NC REPS:
http://energync.org/assets/files/RTI%20Study%202013.pdf
http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/02/study-details-economic-benefits-of-north-carolinas-threatened-clean-energy-program.html

Looks like its a pretty good return on investment, IMO

Quote :

"* Despite claims from opponents that clean energy is more expensive than polluting sources, North Carolina's clean energy policies are actually leading to lower costs for consumers by avoiding the construction of costly new power plants. By 2026, the state's clean energy program will have resulted in a total of $173 million in cost savings for electricity customers (see following graph from RTI/La Capra study). * While North Carolina's economy lost more than 100,000 jobs from 2007 to 2012, clean energy development led to a net gain in employment of 21,162 "job years" over the same period. (A "job year" is a measure of one job that lasts one year; if it continues for another 12 months, that counts as two "job years.") * Tax credits used by renewable energy projects developed in North Carolina between 2007 and 2012 generated $1.87 in state or local revenue for every $1 of incentive. Since 2007, the state’s clean energy policies have netted the state $113 million in revenue. * Between 2007 and 2012, clean energy investment in North Carolina increased 13-fold and generated or saved an estimated 8.2 million megawatt-hours of energy through a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. At the same time, state government energy efficiency programs saved an estimated $427 million in taxpayer money. * Over that same five-year period, the total economic benefit of clean energy development in North Carolina was $1.7 billion and generated $2.56 billion in associated spending in the state's economy."

as for the progress rate hike, they have a lot more going on than just building their renewables portfolio, like closing down several old coal plants and opening newer, cleaner nat. gas plants. I imagine this is how they are trying to justify a majority of the rate hike
https://www.progress-energy.com/commitment/corporate-responsibility-report/customers/powersystem.page

4/22/2013 11:23:13 AM

^sounds like a successful program.

Yeah I hear ya, they mentioned closing plants.

Sounds like a successful program, thanks for the info!

4/22/2013 1:19:30 PM

And dead!

4/24/2013 3:15:10 PM

4/24/2013 3:30:51 PM

So, to be clear, the bill is dead...not the REPS program, right?

4/24/2013 4:43:20 PM

The bill is dead.

4/24/2013 4:46:08 PM

Sweet. So how many of these bills have the Republicans put forth that are ass backwards only to be shut down after public outcry brought the idiocy to their attention?

4/24/2013 4:49:19 PM

Who knows? Some chucklehead yesterday said that they will try and bring back the "nipple bill" at some point....

4/24/2013 4:52:22 PM

Just got word from one who was at the legislative building today. The vote passed 18 to 13 in favor of the REPS bill. The Renewable Energy Plan shall remain in effect.

4/24/2013 4:53:14 PM

Good. I'm fairly conservative (not a registered republican), however I do NOT agree with a lot of the shit coming out of the NC legislature lately. I don't care who you are... it is in everyone's best interest to phase in renewable energy and other domestic resources so our collective nuts won't remain in OPEC's vice grip. (this includes domestic fossil fuel as well)

4/25/2013 9:31:04 AM

^

4/25/2013 9:52:00 AM

it's a shame this got shut down. When Duke joins PJM, we'd be able to sell our solar RECs to New Jersey and Maryland at highe rates instead of having to squander them here.

The only good part of the NC REPS program is the energy efficiency credits. It's about time we started giving incentives to commercial and industrial facilities that use CHP technologies to reduce fuel consumption. The specific requirements for solar and animal waste incinerators are bullshit and need to be done away with.

4/28/2013 8:26:22 PM

^CHP is included under the REPS plan and also qualifies for NC tax rebates for both commercial and residential

4/30/2013 12:36:15 PM

and Europe was giving incentives on CHP and biogas installations 20+ years ago. Meanwhile, we chased wind and solar boondoggles.

4/30/2013 5:12:32 PM

Looks like Rep. Hagar somehow managed to keep this bill afloat for one more vote
http://energync.org/blog/ncsea-news/2013/04/29/reps-repeal-bill-falters-and-fails-but-hager-drags-it-back

Quote :

"After a tumultuous and, at times, breakneck legislative journey, House Bill 298, otherwise known as the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (REPS) repeal bill, reached what appeared to be its final destination – the ‘circular file’ in the Committee of its sponsor, Rep. Mike Hager. Drawing upon his full privileges as Chairman, however, Rep. Hager has just scheduled the bill to come before his committee once again on Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 12:00 noon in Room 643 of the Legislative Office Building. In an earlier attempt to breathe new life into his bill whose momentum had diminished from a sprint to a limp, Rep. Hager arranged for the North Carolina General Assembly’s Public Utilities and Energy Committee that he chairs to jump the queue and hear the bill before the House Committees on Environment and Regulatory Reform as had originally been planned. That move proved to be the bill’s undoing (at least temporarily) when, instead of finding safe harbor and new momentum, the bill was subjected to tough questioning, put to a vote, and ultimately defeated in dramatic fashion by a strong bipartisan vote of 18 - 13. Refusing to accept either the verdict of his colleagues or the math proving the economic virtues of the REPS, Rep. Hager is now attempting another ‘Hail Mary’ with his bill."

[Edited on April 30, 2013 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/30/2013 8:20:51 PM