Solar: The Solution to America's Energy and Economic Crisis
Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), praised the rise of the solar energy sector while attempting to galvanize its stakeholders at the three-day Solar Power International 2013 event in Chicago.
Resch welcomed visitors to the gathering, which began Monday, with the following address:
"Since 2006, when the solar Investment Tax Credit first went into effect, we’ve gone from being an “upstart industry”—one that our critics predicted would fail miserably—to one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States, today employing 120,000 Americans at more than 6,000 companies from coast to coast and pumping billions of dollars in the U.S. economy.
When it’s all said and done, 2013 will go down as a record-shattering year for America’s solar energy industry. And if we’re smart—and we keep working together as a team in the future, speaking with one powerful voice—the best is yet to come.
You know it. I know it. And a lot of people in Washington, D.C. know it, too, including the President of the U.S.
This year, America heard us roar. By the end of this year, we expect to have 13 GW of cumulative solar electric capacity installed in the U.S.—enough to power more than 2 million American homes, including the White House!
But we are just beginning. Next year, it’s estimated that an additional 5.5 GW of PV and 700 MW of CSP will be installed, which is enough to power another 1 million homes across the nation. All totaled, we’re talking about the capacity very soon to power more than 3 million American homes.
To put that in some perspective, our industry—by the end of 2014—will be cranking out enough electricity to effectively power every home Delaware, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming combined.
Like I said, welcome to the Big Leagues!
But to be a true champion, you need to have “staying power.” Any way you look at it, that’s the real challenge for our industry moving forward. Our federal tax credit is set to expire at the end of 2016. And that’s why we need to work together, every single one of us, to extend the solar ITC past 2016—work that has to begin now, not six months before the law expires!
How many people in this room benefit either directly or indirectly from the solar ITC? That's right, everyone. Every single person in this industry benefits from the ITC. That's why we all need to step up and get involved.
We also need to pass commence construction language in Congress, expand Net Energy Metering, protect and expand Renewable Portfolio Standards in states all across the country and collectively promote the enormous societal benefits of using solar energy to the U.S. economy and to our world’s increasingly fragile environment.
You can be sure of one thing: If you don’t get involved and we as an industry don’t participate in a committed and shared effort, we will only make it that much easier for our critics and enemies to silence our roar.
Earlier this year, the Edison Electric Institute, which represents about 200 investor-owned electric companies, issued a white paper called “Disruptive Challenges.” Well, guess what was singled out as the biggest threat to electric utilities nationwide? Cybersecurity and terrorism? Nope. EPA Carbon Pollution Standards? Wrong again. How about rising energy prices? Not even mentioned.
Instead, EEI’s report singles out distributed generation and solar energy as its number one long-term threat. And since that report was published, utility CEOs around the country have been singing from the same song sheet—roll back net metering, institute fixed monthly charges for solar customers, protect us from consumer choice. They are aligned in their approach to dismantle net metering laws in this country.
Fortunately, we’re not in this fight alone. Today, 90 percent of Americans want to see an expanded use of solar. That’s right, 90 percent of utility customers want more solar. It’s time for utilities to start listening to their customers rather than their shareholders.
From the Heartland Institute—funded in large part by the Koch Brothers—to the ultra-conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, groups all across the U.S. are lined up to oppose an expansion of solar energy.
Simply put, our critics will do everything they can to make sure solar becomes nothing more than a footnote in history. We cannot let that happen. So buckle up and tighten your chin straps folks, we’ve got a lot of big challenges ahead of us.
Working together, we can—and we will—keep solar strong and growing.
So to the Climate Change Deniers out there and the card-carrying members of the Flat Earth Society, I’ll simply say this: Go ahead. See what happens when you grab the tail of a tiger!
And that’s one reason why SEIA and its member companies will soon be launching a new, nationwide “America Supports Solar” campaign. You can learn more by going to Americasupportssolar.org.
A key part of this exciting, multi-dimensional campaign is to reach out and educate our core audiences—Members of Congress and the White House, state legislators and governors, regulators and commissioners and our allies and advocates.
Think about it—nine out of 10 Americans support solar. We need to be shouting this from the rooftops and from every street corner.
To Main Street America, it’s easy to understand why solar energy is so important to our future. It’s a no-brainer.
Solar is clean, safe, affordable, reliable and abundant. It creates jobs, grows our economy, fosters U.S. innovation and powers our homes, schools and businesses. But, just as importantly, solar also offers freedom and security—the freedom to choose your own energy source based on your own individual needs, while at the same time, enhancing America’s national security by reducing our risky dependence on dirty sources of energy.
These are just a few reasons why America Supports Solar overwhelmingly. We need your help to make this campaign a huge success.
Another way we can come together is through our sister organization, The Solar Foundation, which also needs your help. Right now, The Solar Foundation is collecting data for the fourth Annual National Solar Jobs Census. Please make sure you complete the survey so we can compile the most up-to-date U.S. jobs numbers. This is critically important information to have as part of our argument when we’re talking to Members of Congress, regulators and state legislators around the country.
There’s some other good news that I want to share with you today. The annual Solar Means Business Report, which identifies major commercial solar projects and ranks America’s top corporate solar users, was just released by SEIA and Vote Solar.
And for the second year in a row, Walmart is America’s commercial solar leader with 89 MW installed at 215 locations.
Today, the list of companies moving to clean, affordable solar energy reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of the most successful corporations in America. Simply put, these iconic brands—from Apple to General Motors—are leading the way when it comes to efforts to transition to clean, renewable energy. By doing so, they’re helping to create thousands of American jobs, boost the U.S. economy and improve our environment. At the same time, they’re also reducing operating expenses, which benefits both their customers and shareholders.
Combined, these Top 25 companies have deployed 445 MW of solar capacity—a whopping 48 percent increase from one year ago.
And the growth of solar in the United States isn’t limited to commercial businesses – it’s spread across all sectors. For example, today there are nearly 40 utility-scale, clean energy solar projects under construction in the U.S.—utilizing both PV and CSP technologies—putting thousands of electricians, steelworkers and laborers to work, while also helping to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
In addition, innovative solar heating and cooling systems are offering American consumers cost-efficient, effective options for meeting their energy needs, while lowering their utility bills. In fact, in the Solar Heating and Cooling Roadmap, prepared by SEIA, we outline an aggressive plan to install 100 million SHC panels in the United States by 2050. That action alone would create over 50,000 new American jobs and save more than $60 billion in future energy costs.
Meanwhile, the Solar Market Insight Report, produced by SEIA and GTM Research shows the U.S. installed 832 MW of new PV capacity in the second quarter of this year—with the U.S. residential solar market growing by almost 50 percent over Q2 2012.
What’s spurring this growth? For one thing, solar energy is now more affordable than ever. Average PV system prices have declined by more than 40 percent since the beginning of 2011, while average module prices have declined by more than 60 percent over the same time period.
So you can imagine our excitement when we learned that solar energy is once again helping to power the White House. Clearly, installing solar panels on the First Family’s official residence, arguably the most famous building in America, underscores the growing popularity of solar energy nationwide. There’s no billboard in the world better for your industry than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In some ways, this is like getting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. SEIA put a bug in President Obama’s ear about installing solar panels on the White House when he first took office in 2009, and we’ve worked with a coalition to bring it up in every meeting since then. To see this finally happen is not only gratifying, but it also helps to highlight solar as a mainstream source of clean, abundant and affordable energy.
For years, there was only one real argument against solar: It was too expensive. That’s no longer the case. When President Carter was in office solar thermal applications dominated, and PV solar panels were, in fact, very costly and used primarily for off-grid and space applications. Since then, the cost of PV has plummeted by more than 97 percent and the industry has become one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial sectors of our economy.
This is what happens when we work together. Today, we’re creating thousands of new jobs, growing the U.S. economy, strengthening our nation’s long-term energy security and fighting climate change.
So in closing, thanks for everything you do to make clean, affordable solar energy an important part of our future—both for America, and the world.
But remember, for us to be successful over the long haul, it will take enhanced collaboration, dedication and teamwork. And as President Obama told us in his remarks—we need to fight for a brighter future.
The most important step you can take is to join this fight. Join us, become part of your industry’s trade association— join SEIA. If you’re not a member of national SEIA already, join now. We need your help and support if we’re going to have the resources necessary to win these important battles, which will determine the future of your business and the future of solar in America.
I’m reminded of something the legendary industrialist Henry Ford once said:
“Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.”
A rare yellow penguin has been photographed for what is believed to be the first time.
- World-Renowned Photographer Documents Most Remote ... ›
- This Penguin Colony Has Fallen by 77% on Antarctic Islands ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Stuart Braun
We spend 90% of our time in the buildings where we live and work, shop and conduct business, in the structures that keep us warm in winter and cool in summer.
But immense energy is required to source and manufacture building materials, to power construction sites, to maintain and renew the built environment. In 2019, building operations and construction activities together accounted for 38% of global energy-related CO2 emissions, the highest level ever recorded.
- Could IKEA's New Tiny House Help Fight the Climate Crisis ... ›
- Los Angeles City-Owned Buildings to Go 100% Carbon Free ... ›
- New Jersey Will Be First State to Require Building Permits to ... ›
By Eric Tate and Christopher Emrich
Disasters stemming from hazards like floods, wildfires, and disease often garner attention because of their extreme conditions and heavy societal impacts. Although the nature of the damage may vary, major disasters are alike in that socially vulnerable populations often experience the worst repercussions. For example, we saw this following Hurricanes Katrina and Harvey, each of which generated widespread physical damage and outsized impacts to low-income and minority survivors.
Mapping Social Vulnerability<p>Figure 1a is a typical map of social vulnerability across the United States at the census tract level based on the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) algorithm of <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002" target="_blank"><em>Cutter et al.</em></a> . Spatial representation of the index depicts high social vulnerability regionally in the Southwest, upper Great Plains, eastern Oklahoma, southern Texas, and southern Appalachia, among other places. With such a map, users can focus attention on select places and identify population characteristics associated with elevated vulnerabilities.</p>
Fig. 1. (a) Social vulnerability across the United States at the census tract scale is mapped here following the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI). Red and pink hues indicate high social vulnerability. (b) This bivariate map depicts social vulnerability (blue hues) and annualized per capita hazard losses (pink hues) for U.S. counties from 2010 to 2019.<p>Many current indexes in the United States and abroad are direct or conceptual offshoots of SoVI, which has been widely replicated [e.g., <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-016-0090-9" target="_blank"><em>de Loyola Hummell et al.</em></a>, 2016]. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/index.html" target="_blank">has also developed</a> a commonly used social vulnerability index intended to help local officials identify communities that may need support before, during, and after disasters.</p><p>The first modeling and mapping efforts, starting around the mid-2000s, largely focused on describing spatial distributions of social vulnerability at varying geographic scales. Over time, research in this area came to emphasize spatial comparisons between social vulnerability and physical hazards [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9376-1" target="_blank"><em>Wood et al.</em></a>, 2010], modeling population dynamics following disasters [<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11111-008-0072-y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Myers et al.</em></a>, 2008], and quantifying the robustness of social vulnerability measures [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0152-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Tate</em></a>, 2012].</p><p>More recent work is beginning to dissolve barriers between social vulnerability and environmental justice scholarship [<a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304846" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Chakraborty et al.</em></a>, 2019], which has traditionally focused on root causes of exposure to pollution hazards. Another prominent new research direction involves deeper interrogation of social vulnerability drivers in specific hazard contexts and disaster phases (e.g., before, during, after). Such work has revealed that interactions among drivers are important, but existing case studies are ill suited to guiding development of new indicators [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.013" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Rufat et al.</em></a>, 2015].</p><p>Advances in geostatistical analyses have enabled researchers to characterize interactions more accurately among social vulnerability and hazard outcomes. Figure 1b depicts social vulnerability and annualized per capita hazard losses for U.S. counties from 2010 to 2019, facilitating visualization of the spatial coincidence of pre‑event susceptibilities and hazard impacts. Places ranked high in both dimensions may be priority locations for management interventions. Further, such analysis provides invaluable comparisons between places as well as information summarizing state and regional conditions.</p><p>In Figure 2, we take the analysis of interactions a step further, dividing counties into two categories: those experiencing annual per capita losses above or below the national average from 2010 to 2019. The differences among individual race, ethnicity, and poverty variables between the two county groups are small. But expressing race together with poverty (poverty attenuated by race) produces quite different results: Counties with high hazard losses have higher percentages of both impoverished Black populations and impoverished white populations than counties with low hazard losses. These county differences are most pronounced for impoverished Black populations.</p>
Fig. 2. Differences in population percentages between counties experiencing annual per capita losses above or below the national average from 2010 to 2019 for individual and compound social vulnerability indicators (race and poverty).<p>Our current work focuses on social vulnerability to floods using geostatistical modeling and mapping. The research directions are twofold. The first is to develop hazard-specific indicators of social vulnerability to aid in mitigation planning [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04470-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Tate et al.</em></a>, 2021]. Because natural hazards differ in their innate characteristics (e.g., rate of onset, spatial extent), causal processes (e.g., urbanization, meteorology), and programmatic responses by government, manifestations of social vulnerability vary across hazards.</p><p>The second is to assess the degree to which socially vulnerable populations benefit from the leading disaster recovery programs [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Emrich et al.</em></a>, 2020], such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) <a href="https://www.fema.gov/individual-disaster-assistance" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Individual Assistance</a> program and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) <a href="https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg-dr/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Disaster Recovery</a> program. Both research directions posit social vulnerability indicators as potential measures of social equity.</p>
Social Vulnerability as a Measure of Equity<p>Given their focus on social marginalization and economic barriers, social vulnerability indicators are attracting growing scientific interest as measures of inequity resulting from disasters. Indeed, social vulnerability and inequity are related concepts. Social vulnerability research explores the differential susceptibilities and capacities of disaster-affected populations, whereas social equity analyses tend to focus on population disparities in the allocation of resources for hazard mitigation and disaster recovery. Interventions with an equity focus emphasize full and equal resource access for all people with unmet disaster needs.</p><p>Yet newer studies of inequity in disaster programs have documented troubling disparities in income, race, and home ownership among those who <a href="https://eos.org/articles/equity-concerns-raised-in-federal-flood-property-buyouts" target="_blank">participate in flood buyout programs</a>, are <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063477407" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">eligible for postdisaster loans</a>, receive short-term recovery assistance [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.102010" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Drakes et al.</em></a>, 2021], and have <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/25/texas-natural-disasters--mental-health/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">access to mental health services</a>. For example, a recent analysis of federal flood buyouts found racial privilege to be infused at multiple program stages and geographic scales, resulting in resources that disproportionately benefit whiter and more urban counties and neighborhoods [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120905439" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Elliott et al.</em></a>, 2020].</p><p>Investments in disaster risk reduction are largely prioritized on the basis of hazard modeling, historical impacts, and economic risk. Social equity, meanwhile, has been far less integrated into the considerations of public agencies for hazard and disaster management. But this situation may be beginning to shift. Following the adage of "what gets measured gets managed," social equity metrics are increasingly being inserted into disaster management.</p><p>At the national level, FEMA has <a href="https://www.fema.gov/news-release/20200220/fema-releases-affordability-framework-national-flood-insurance-program" target="_blank">developed options</a> to increase the affordability of flood insurance [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018]. At the subnational scale, Puerto Rico has integrated social vulnerability into its CDBG Mitigation Action Plan, expanding its considerations of risk beyond only economic factors. At the local level, Harris County, Texas, has begun using social vulnerability indicators alongside traditional measures of flood risk to introduce equity into the prioritization of flood mitigation projects [<a href="https://www.hcfcd.org/Portals/62/Resilience/Bond-Program/Prioritization-Framework/final_prioritization-framework-report_20190827.pdf?ver=2019-09-19-092535-743" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Harris County Flood Control District</em></a>, 2019].</p><p>Unfortunately, many existing measures of disaster equity fall short. They may be unidimensional, using single indicators such as income in places where underlying vulnerability processes suggest that a multidimensional measure like racialized poverty (Figure 2) would be more valid. And criteria presumed to be objective and neutral for determining resource allocation, such as economic loss and cost-benefit ratios, prioritize asset value over social equity. For example, following the <a href="http://www.cedar-rapids.org/discover_cedar_rapids/flood_of_2008/2008_flood_facts.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2008 flooding</a> in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, cost-benefit criteria supported new flood protections for the city's central business district on the east side of the Cedar River but not for vulnerable populations and workforce housing on the west side.</p><p>Furthermore, many equity measures are aspatial or ahistorical, even though the roots of marginalization may lie in systemic and spatially explicit processes that originated long ago like redlining and urban renewal. More research is thus needed to understand which measures are most suitable for which social equity analyses.</p>
Challenges for Disaster Equity Analysis<p>Across studies that quantify, map, and analyze social vulnerability to natural hazards, modelers have faced recurrent measurement challenges, many of which also apply in measuring disaster equity (Table 1). The first is clearly establishing the purpose of an equity analysis by defining characteristics such as the end user and intended use, the type of hazard, and the disaster stage (i.e., mitigation, response, or recovery). Analyses using generalized indicators like the CDC Social Vulnerability Index may be appropriate for identifying broad areas of concern, whereas more detailed analyses are ideal for high-stakes decisions about budget allocations and project prioritization.</p>
By Jessica Corbett
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday was the lone progressive to vote against Tom Vilsack reprising his role as secretary of agriculture, citing concerns that progressive advocacy groups have been raising since even before President Joe Biden officially nominated the former Obama administration appointee.