Cherrytree Group LLC Blog

...by Warren Kirshenbaum

The top state energy official in Massachusetts marked Earth Day this week by announcing a new solar power initiative. The pilot program is aimed at bringing the power of the sun to the masses.

A grassroots marketing effort will attempt to sell solar power house by house and business by business and through volume discount pricing attempting to overcome a chief drawback, the high cost of installing solar power systems. Richard Sullivan, Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs says the program called “Solarize Massachusetts” introduces a new business model for small scale solar projects for homes and businesses.

It is a way to aggregate and drive down the cost of installation.

Proponents of the program hope it will take solar energy in Massachusetts beyond the early adopters and reduce the need for substantial government rebates for solar. Sullivan says Massachusetts has one of the most ambitious clean energy programs in the country, but 80 percent of the roughly 22 billion dollars spent on energy annually in Massachusetts goes out of the state, most of it out of the country.

Since 2006, incentive programs have helped increase solar power by 20 fold in Massachusetts. The state has 45 megawatts of solar power installed and another 40 megawatts under contract for installation. By statute, 250 megawatts of solar power is to be installed by 2017.

The effort to increase adoption of solar power will begin this year in four pilot communities Hatfield, Harvard, Scituate and Winchester. These were selected at random from geographic regions and each meets certain criteria under the state's Green Communities Program.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, partnering with the state to run the pilot program, is seeking bids from companies willing to provide homeowners and businesses with a turnkey solar power system on a tiered price schedule that lowers the costs for multiple installations. Existing state and federal renewable energy credits would also be available for purchasing the solar power systems.

The director for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center says funding is available for up to 400 projects.

Funding for the solarization pilot project comes from a clean energy surcharge on Massachusetts utility bills and from the sale of renewable energy credits.

Original news story can be seen and heard WAMC Northeast Public Radio - Paul Tuthill

...by Warren Kirshenbaum


There are numerous cities across the United States which can be considered "cleantech capitals." With a large array of renewable resources, a dedication by businesses and homeowners to become more energy efficient, and a large hub for research and development, a lot can be accomplished when it comes to creating new, efficient and sustainable clean technologies. There are many factors that make up a "capital for cleantech," and although there are more than ten cities around the nation that are involved in clean technologies, here are six of the top cities.

1) Boston, Massachusetts. Boston is said to enjoy some of the most supportive policies in the United States for energy efficiency and renewable energy. After California, Boston is second in clean technology venture capital investments. With an environment that is ripe for cleantech startups, numerous companies are moving their business to Boston. The MIT Clean Energy Prize is a venture and innovation creation competition that encourages clean energy innovation. Its objective is to provide educational opportunities and supply incentives to ventures demonstrating the clean energy affordability. As well, the development of MIT's cleantech incubator will provide Boston with more access to cleantech flow, increasing the demands for all future building to be constructed in accordance to LEED standards set up by the U.S. Green Building Council.

2) San Jose, California. San Jose, part of California's Silicon Valley, has been very productive in clean technologies. The city has expanded a number of clean technology investments and because of the research and development institutions in the area, many cleantech companies are coming to make their home in San Jose. San Jose's, "Long-time leadership in engineering know-how, combined with semi-conductor, nanotechnology and optics R&D gives it a leg up in renewable energy development, particularly in solar energy applications." San Jose is also home to the Environmental Business Cluster, a non-profit technology commercialization center assisting startup cleantech companies developing goods and services to positively impact the environment.

3) Austin, Texas. Austin has long been Texas' hub for solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass power, as well as fuel cell technologies. Its commitment to the environment and sustainability has made it not only a national cleantech player, but a global one as well. Austin is home to some of the largest cleantech companies on a global level. A large research and development hub, the University of Texas at Austin has created several research expenditures to elevate research into energy efficiency and renewable energy. This includes a project by the College of Natural Sciences to create biofuel from blue-green algae and hybrid-electric automobile programs developed by The Center for Electromechanics.

4) San Francisco, California. California is one of the top cleantech states in the United States and it is cities like San Francisco that makes it happen. Currently, San Francisco is well on its way to becoming the first city to be completely run by renewable energy by the year 2020. With projects like Sunset Reservoir Solar Project, which is the largest municipal solar facility in the state, and a new $250,000 grant to increase renewable energy capabilities.
 
5) Seattle, Washington. Seattle has been leaving its mark in cleantech society by increasing the need for green standards. The Green Building Sustainable Communities Program, for example, creates city projects that meet sustainable outcomes. Tax breaks and loans are provided to businesses and residences that utilize green practices. Seattle has been a leader in using their garbage to get electricity. They have invested into electricity from garbage landfills.
 
6) Chicago, Illinois. Over 20 percent of total power in Chicago is coming from renewable sources. Due to the increase in the need for renewable energy and energy efficiency, Chicago has been able to create numerous job opportunities while, at the same time, increasing solar power and saving on CO2 emissions. Chicago is also becoming one of the major investment locations for international businesses. Chicago also has a number of green initiatives, including the Chicago Green Office Challenge.

Kirshenbaum Law and Cherrytree Group LLC can help you structure your tax credit transaction. Let us guide you through the process of applying for and securing renewable energy tax credits. These transactions typically require a lawyer, a consultant, and a syndicator, and Cherrytree Group and Kirshenbaum law can act in all three capacities, saving you time and money on your transaction.

The original article was written by Shawn Lesser, and can be seen at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03 /28/idUS317857292020110328

... By Warren Kirshenbaum

In order to jump-start the economy and defuse some of the economic hardship caused by the recession, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Act”) attempted to infuse financial benefits and incentives into the economy. One of the sections of the Act benefits supporters and investors of renewable energy. The US is determined to be in the fore front of the renewable energy industry, and the government hopes that the industry continues to prosper despite the volatile economic times. Specifically, Section 1603 of the Act (the “grant” or “grants”) provides grants from the federal government to eligible “persons” (a legal construct including entities) who develop renewable energy systems during the recessionary period. The Federal government already provides tax credits that benefit the renewable energy industry that is credit that reduces dollar for dollar an eligible tax payer’s tax liability, if the taxpayer engaged in a qualifying renewable energy program. However, fearing that investors in renewable energy will not be able to successfully monetize tax credits, Section 1603 provides grants in lieu of the tax credits to interested investors. The purpose of Section 1603 is to temporarily fill the gap that was created by a lack of demand for tax credits from investors and simultaneously decrease American’s dependency on non-renewable energy sources while creating or retaining jobs.

The grant is for qualifying persons who install specified energy system on property during 2009 or 2010. The Treasury will provide grants up to 10% or 30% (depending on the energy system) of qualifying expenses. Persons eligible for the grant include government agencies, 501(c) organizations (non-profits), entities as qualified under IRC sec 54(j) paragraph 4, and partnerships or other pass-thru entities, or any direct or indirect partner of such entities.

Specified energy systems include large wind, closed-loop and open-loop biomass facilities, geothermal, landfill gas facility, trash facility, qualified hydropower facility, marine & hydrokinetic, solar, fuel cells, microturbines, combined heat & power, small wind, and geothermal heat pumps. Qualifying persons will continue to be eligible for the grant even when the renewable energy project is completed after 2010, for so long as the qualifying project began in 2009 or 2010. Beginning a qualifying project is defined as conducting physical work of significant nature either on or off site, costing at least 5% of the total cost of the project. Furthermore, the original use of the energy system must begin with an applicant. Accordingly, a person will not be eligible for the grant by simply purchasing an already installed renewable energy system. The applicant, however, may use pre-owned parts in the facility, but their costs may not exceed 20% of the total cost of the facility.

If less than 5% of the total cost is incurred during the 2009 or 2010 period or only preliminary work was completed during that time, the persons seeking the grant will be disqualified. Preliminary work includes planning or designing, securing financing, exploring, researching, clearing a site, test drilling, or excavation to change the contour of the land. On the other hand, excavation for the foundation or the pouring of the concrete pads of the foundation will be considered as the start of construction. The start of construction also includes the start of manufacturing components, even though the manufacturing is completed off-site.

The Act includes a powerful tool for businesses and individuals who support and are involved in the development of the renewable energy industry. The grant, although currently offered for a temporary period of time, offers an incentive to continue to build renewable energy systems in one’s community. For those who began constructing a renewable energy facility in 2009-2010 period, applying for the Section 1603 grant should be a priority. Although the application for the grant is complicated and often confusing, obtaining up to 30% of the eligible expenses offers a significant resource to assist in making your project a success. Cherrytree Group LLC and Kirshenbaum Law Offices can provide to you the expertise needed to decipher whether you qualify for the renewable energy grant and assist you in applying for and obtaining the grant as well as assist you in monetizing your tax credits.

...By Warren Kirshenbaum

Renewable energy is not yet able to be produced in quantities that will satisfy global energy demand, and renewable energy is more expensive than energy produced from fossil fuels, but great strides have been made in recent years in these areas. Furthermore, the costs that the production of fossil fuels are imposing, both on our environment, and financially on the companies producing oil and gas are not factored into the cost per gallon or kilowatt hour of energy production, and perhaps this is a line item that we should start to factor into the cost of the production of energy from fossil fuels if we are going to make a push toward serving the world’s energy needs with renewable resources.

This year, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (which was both the biggest oil spill in U.S. history and the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry) released 185 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico for about three months and has inflicted devastating environmental and psychological damage on the coastal communities in the Gulf, affecting tourism, fishing and drilling, as well as subjecting residents to ongoing restrictions on fishing and shrimping that have affected the livelihoods of thousands of people. BP’s Gulf Oil Spill resulted in the deaths of 11 workers on the rig and injuries to 17 others. BP’s financial expenditures from the oil spill have so far reached $3.12 billion, excluding the $20 billion compensation fund they have set up to reimburse residents and businesses for their losses. Also this year we endured the Copiapo mining accident in Chile, which occurred when the copper/gold mine owned by San Esteban Mining Company collapsed and 33 men were trapped 2,300 ft below ground for 69 days. Fortunately, all of the 33 men were rescued with only one man suffering from pneumonia, and a few others experiencing dental problems. The cost to rescue the men was $20 million. The San Esteban Mining Company has allegedly violated mining regulations previously, and 8 of its employees have died at the mine in 12 years. Adding to the year’s disasters at fossil fuel production sites is the Pike River Mine accident in New Zealand where an explosion at the coal mine has left 29 miners trapped 4,900 feet from the mine’s entrance. The miners are still trapped in the mine and may not be alive. Gas sampling is being tested to ensure that any accidental spark will not ignite the mine when search and rescue operations are undertaken. The Gulf Oil Spill, Copiapo mining accident, and Pike River Mine accident were stark reminders that our pursuit of energy derived from fossil fuels is causing an irreversible deterioration of our planet, its natural resources, our environmental balance, and is subjecting us to unacceptable losses in human life.

There are a multitude of renewable resources, but this post will focus on solar and hydro energy production, as these methods of renewable energy production are, in my opinion, poised to experience significant growth in the next few years.

Solar energy production is significantly more expensive than hydro, due to the cost of the solar panels themselves. Hydro has languished for decades as a method of creating renewable energy, mainly due to the environmental objections that a hydro project creates, and the expensive federal regulatory requirements of such projects. However, both forms of renewable energy are attractive. Solar projects, unlike wind projects do not create a danger to birds, cattle, and other animals, solar fields are not large and aesthetically displeasing, and do not generate loud whirring sounds that intrude on people’s quality of life. Consequently, as solar installations have very little negative environmental effect, they are generally easy to permit. Solar energy is, however, expensive to produce, as the technology that underpins the solar panels have traditionally made the installation of solar fields expensive enough to impede their development as a commercial enterprise. As with all technology, as solar technology develops, its cost has begun to decline, which should make solar projects more viable. Hydro, is very clean and unobtrusive to the environment, and is relatively safe to produce, but it can affect the migratory pathways of fish, and a dam breach could be detrimental to downstream human habitats. Consequently, new dams have not been constructed in many years. In fact, the stock of dams has decreased over the decades. Moreover, the prospect of new dams being built is relatively slim (due to the environmental challenges and the time period involved in getting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval). Inorder for hydro production to increase, the capacity of existing facilities would need to be expanded. Legislative changes that limit environmental objections to the process of FERC approval, renewal, and re-licensing would need to be implemented to help to stimulate hydro production, this will require intensive lobbying, but it can be done.

Nevertheless, the point being made here is that, despite the higher cost of producing renewable energy, the cost of energy production from fossil fuels is enormous,not only the monetary cost, but the environmental cost as well as the cost of human life. This is more of an IOU being tagged to the planet than a current cost, which leads to the conclusion that we have no choice but to pay the higher monetary price for renewable energy now and retire the bigger IOU that future generations will inherit.