<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	 xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>KQED&#039;s Climate Watch &#187; subsidies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/tag/subsidies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch</link>
	<description>KQED&#039;s multimedia series providing in-depth coverage of climate-related science and policy issues from a California perspective.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:37:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://kqed.superfeedr.com"/>		<item>
		<title>Can Clean-Tech Survive the Coming Funding Drought?</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/04/20/can-clean-tech-survive-the-coming-funding-drought/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/04/20/can-clean-tech-survive-the-coming-funding-drought/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Molly Samuel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Government & Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clean-tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subsidies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/?p=21299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By 2014, federal clean-tech investment may tumble by 75% from its peak in 2009. <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/04/20/can-clean-tech-survive-the-coming-funding-drought/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>By 2014, federal clean-tech investment may tumble by 75% from its peak in 2009</strong></p>
<div id="attachment_21323"  class="wp-caption module image right" style="width: 285px;"><img class="size-medium wp-image-21323" title="cccoe2_070311" src="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2012/04/cccoe2_070311-300x225.jpg" alt="" width="285" height="213" /><p class="wp-media-credit">Craig Miller/KQED</p><p class="wp-caption-text"> </p></div>
<p>Government policies and subsidies that support clean-tech are phasing out over the next two years. That could be disastrous for the industry, though it doesn&#8217;t have to be, according to a new report from the <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/metro.aspx">Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program</a>. In 2009 when federal support was peaking, the industry received $44.3 billion. But the report, entitled <em><a href="www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Files/rc/papers/2012/0418_clean_investments/0418_clean_investments_final%20paper_PDF.pdf">Beyond Boom and Bust: Putting Clean Tech On a Path To Subsidy Independence</a> </em>[PDF], projects that by 2014, federal subsidies will have dropped to $11 billion.</p>
<p>&#8220;Undeniably, there&#8217;s a massive reset before us,&#8221; <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/murom.aspx">Mark Muro</a>, a senior fellow at Brookings and one of the report&#8217;s authors, said this morning on KQED&#8217;s <a href="http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201204200900"><em>Forum </em>radio program</a>. Muro and the other authors examined 92 programs that provide policy or financial support to the clean-tech industry. Of those, 61 have pre-set expiration dates and, unless extended, will no longer be in place by the end of 2014.</p>
<p>Muro and Jesse Jenkins, director of energy and climate policy at <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/index.shtml">The Breakthrough Institute</a>, highlighted the need for both the federal government and the states to continue to support innovation in clean-tech.</p>
<p>&#8220;The challenge we face now is how do we get (clean-tech companies) from adolescence to full adulthood,&#8221; Jenkins said. &#8220;We are at this key inflection point both in the industry&#8217;s growth, and in the direction of federal funding.&#8221;</p>
<p>And the path forward won&#8217;t be easy.<strong> &#8220;</strong>The unfortunate thing is it comes at a time of substantial green backlash,&#8221; Muro said. &#8220;And an absolutely grinding fiscal circumstance that is real and is going to require massive belt-tightening in Washington.&#8221;</p>
<p>Two examples in California underscore the issues. Fremont-based solar firm <a href="http://www.kqed.org/a/kqednews/RN201108311004/a">Solyndra went bankrupt last year</a>, after receiving a federal loan guarantee. And just last week, Oakland-based BrightSource Energy <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/12/business/la-fi-brightsource-shelves-ipo-20120412">postponed becoming a publicly-held company</a>.</p>
<p>Joseph Desmond, senior vice president of government affairs and communications for BrightSource, and also a guest on <em>Forum</em> this morning<em>, </em>played down any connection with the industry&#8217;s murky future.</p>
<p>&#8220;With respect to the IPO withdrawal, that was really a function of where the market was at the time,&#8221; he said, explaining the Dow Jones and S&amp;P had fallen, and the volatility index was up. &#8220;All of these factors come to where you have to make a decision. The good news is, we&#8217;re able to make that withdrawal from a position of strength.&#8221; Desmond said BrightSource still has strong investors and other financing options.</p>
<p>Jenkins said the best thing for the industry would be for the government to agree on a &#8220;managed approach&#8221; to drawing down funding &#8212; one that would allow the new companies and technologies &#8220;time and support, and really demands from them that they continue to drive down the price and improve the performance of their products to compete on price with fossil fuel.&#8221;</p>
<p><em>To listen to</em><em> the hour-long show on the topic, visit the </em><a href="http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201204200900">Forum </a><em><a href="http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201204200900">website</a>.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/04/20/can-clean-tech-survive-the-coming-funding-drought/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2012/04/cccoe2_070311.jpg" medium="image" height="3000" width="4000"><media:thumbnail url="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2012/04/cccoe2_070311-60x60.jpg" height="60" width="60" /></media:content>
		<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2012/04/cccoe2_070311-300x225.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">cccoe2_070311</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solar Realities for the Rest of Us</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2008/09/22/solar-realities-for-the-rest-of-us/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2008/09/22/solar-realities-for-the-rest-of-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rachael Myrow</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Government & Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PUC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renewable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subsidies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2008/09/22/solar-realities-for-the-rest-of-us/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tuesday morning on The California Report, we continue our series on "solar realities" with a look at one of the obstacles to more rapid expansion of rooftop solar systems. Not that solar isn't already going gangbusters in the Golden State. <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2008/09/22/solar-realities-for-the-rest-of-us/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These are Gold Rush days for solar advocates in the US.  Molly Sterkel, who supervises the <a title="CA Solar Initiative" href="http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/solar/">California Solar Initiative</a> for the Public Utilities Commission, jokes that she lives in fear that private industry is looking to poach her staff:</p>
<blockquote><p>There&#8217;s a lot of people going to solar companies to work because it&#8217;s a really exciting industry. It&#8217;s growing so much in California, so it&#8217;s attracting some of the best and brightest. I&#8217;ve told all of my staff that they have to sign 10-year contracts to work for me but so far most of them have stayed because it&#8217;s a really exciting time to be in government, to be able to run the largest solar program in the country.</p></blockquote>
<p>In 2002, California established its <a title="CA Renewables" href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html">Renewable Portfolio Standard Program</a> &#8220;&#8230;with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state&#8217;s electricity mix to 20 percent by 2017.&#8221; Then the Energy Commission bumped the deadline up to 2010, and the 2004 Energy Report Update further recommended increasing the target to 33 percent by 2020.</p>
<p>Whatever the deadline, numerous <a title="Go Solar" href="http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov">incentives and rebate programs</a> funded by the state and utility ratepayers are fueling an explosion of solar.  Sterkel says it&#8217;s growing at a rate of 40-50% a year.</p>
<p>But installing solar is still not cheap. Even now, <a title="CPUC Solar Growth" href="http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/324066F8-F449-4ECD-AEEF-8DC6A5263459/0/Final_CSI_Jul_08_Progress_Report.pdf">all the solar in California</a> adds up to 350 MW (one big power plant generates about 500 MW).</p>
<p>In part, that&#8217;s because most of the people taking advantage of the subsidies are residential utility customers, and most of those are installing systems of 4 KWs. That&#8217;s not a bad thing, per se.  Any kilowatt that home doesn&#8217;t siphon off of the grid is a kilowatt that can be used elsewhere. But slow and steady is a little too slow and a little to steady for some. Never mind that <a title="SEIA Year-in-Review" href="http://seia.org/galleries/pdf/Year_in_Review_2007_sm.pdf">California is way ahead</a> of other US states.  That just makes it easier to compare us to <a title="German farmers" href="http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/08/21/in-germany-ruddy-cheeked-farmers-achieve-green-energy-independence/">other countries</a>, like Germany and Spain, that have invested even more in solar.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no argument it takes subsidies to make solar financial feasible.  The question for advocates and regulators alike is how much subsidy helps solar thrive without spurring a ratepayer revolt? And how long should those subsidies last?  A report from <a title="McKinsey &amp; Co." href="http://www.mckinsey.com/">McKinsey &amp; Co.</a> concludes:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;&#8230;regulators must adjust incentive structures over time and phase them out when grid parity is reached.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Grid parity is the point at which there&#8217;s no difference between the price of solar and the market price for (less environmentally preferable) &#8220;brown power.&#8221;<br />
Sterkel says:</p>
<blockquote><p>(That) is the point at which everybody gets solar. Just like there was a moment when everyone got a cell phone and everyone got a car. And this year, we&#8217;ve already installed more megawatts than we did in all of 2007, and we&#8217;re not even all the way through the year. The policies are all pushing towards solar. The businesses are growing. The venture capital is here. You know, all signs point to &#8220;yes&#8221; for solar here in California.</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s even though incentive levels in California have been dropping.<br />
<a title="Solar Trends" href="http://irecusa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/NationalOutreachPubs/IREC%20Solar%20Market%20Trends%20August%202008_2.pdf">Where&#8217;s it all going?</a>  Some say we could see a repeat of the 1980s, when oil prices tanked after spiking and green energy projects went &#8220;poof.&#8221;  It took them well over a decade to begin the long, slow climb back to economic and political viability.  Oil prices appeared to be sliding after a long, hot summer in 2008&#8211;until yesterday, anyway.  But green advocates say they won&#8217;t be caught out in the cold this time around. That&#8217;s because renewable energy advocates can point public attention to something that goes well beyond consumer price protection: climate change.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.kqed.org/radio/about/staff/rachael-myrow.jsp"><em>Rachael Myrow</em></a><em> hosts </em><a href="http://www.californiareport.org/index.jsp"><em>The California Report</em></a><em>. She reported on rooftop solar installations for </em><a href="http://www.kqed.org/news/specialcoverage/climatewatch/"><em>Climate Watch</em></a><em> on September 23, 2008. Listen to her story </em><a href="http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R809230850"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2008/09/22/solar-realities-for-the-rest-of-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
