Incentives

Subscribe to Incentives via RSS

In a March 15, 2011, decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated in part the Environmental Proection Agency’s (“EPA”) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (“CAFO”) rules, which we analyzed in a previous blog entry.  The Fifth Circuit struck down the requirement that CAFOs which “propose to discharge”—that is, which are “designed, constructed, operated, or maintained such that a discharge would occur”—must obtain NPDES permits.  Under EPA’s “propose to discharge” standard, a CAFO could be required to obtain an…

Clean energy projects have tremendous potential to create jobs and grow the economy and help the nation meet its energy needs in a more sustainable way, but regulatory and legal barriers to energy projects have substantially reduced job creation and economic growth while impeding efforts to bring new energy generation facilities on line, according to a recent economic study commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce as part of its Project No Project.  The report, entitled, “Progress Denied: A Study on the Potential Economic Impact of Permitting Challenges Facing Proposed Energy Projects,” (PDF) found that legal challenges, threats of legal challenge, and regulatory hurdles caused the delay or cancellation of 333 energy projects which, if constructed and operated for twenty years, would have potential economic and employment benefits of  a projected $3.4 trillion.  These estimated benefits would include $1.4 trillion in employment earnings and one million or more jobs per year.

A recent brief by the Center for American Progress (CAP) –“Invest in America’s Clean Energy Future”–advocating against substantial cuts in funding for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives provides interesting and heretofore not publicly known details about the pipeline for projects seeking guarantees under Section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, for which Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)…

The California Department of Finance has released proposed trailer bill language (PDF) to implement Governor Jerry Brown’s proposal with respect to the elimination of redevelopment agencies.  The proposed legislation sets forth what the Governor proposed in terms of the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the formation of successor agencies.  According to the proposed legislation, all redevelopment agencies would be dissolved as of July 1, 2011, at which time successor agencies would step in to wind down the existing obligations of the…

Clean energy development and deployment was one of the central themes of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.  The President urged Americans “to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world” and stressed that, with respect to clean energy, “this is our generation’s Sputnik moment.”    President Obama emphasized two clean energy-related goals for the United States in his address: (a) to become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and (b) to have 80 percent of the country’s electricity be generated from clean energy sources.

Following the State of the Union address, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted to Congress (PDF) the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request of $29.5 billion, a $3.1 billion (11.8 percent) increase from the DOE’s FY 2010 budget.  Included in the proposed budget are (a) an additional $200 million to pay the credit subsidy costs for loan guarantees for innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy projects under Section 1703 of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PDF), which the DOE estimates should support an additional $1 billion to $2 billion in loan guarantees, (b) up to $36 billion in additional loan guarantee authority for nuclear power projects, and (c) $650 million (including $100 million from the Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative) for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), to support early-stage clean energy research projects.

The “green building” trend—which includes everything from designing development projects to include onsite solar panels, minimizing energy use, siting projects to use existing infrastructure, and a host of other “environmentally friendly” techniques—is gaining momentum.  According to McGraw-Hill, green building is expected to triple by 2015, ultimately representing 40–48 percent of the nonresidential construction market.  While there are clear advantages to building “green,” along with opportunity comes the potential for risk.  As the number of green buildings increase, so too does…

Eight Years.  That’s how long it took what will likely be the nation’s first offshore wind farm to obtain a federal lease.  It is little wonder, in light of Cape Wind’s struggle, that wind advocates have been pushing for greater federal support.  Earlier this week, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of the Interior continued efforts to answer that call, jointly announcing the release of “A National Offshore Wind Strategy” aimed at developing the tremendous wind resources off the nation’s coastlines.  This interagency effort is backed by 50.5 million dollars in DOE funding to support research and development of offshore wind installations.

The nation’s potential for offshore wind power is impressive: according to DOE, wind resources off the U.S. coastline (including the Great Lakes) could theoretically produce an estimated 4,150 gigawatts (GW) of energy—more than four times the current generating capacity of nation’s electrical system.   As the new strategy recognizes, however, the difference between theory and reality is significant.  Currently, offshore wind farms have considerably higher capital costs than land-based installations, due in part to increased equipment, installation, interconnection, and infrastructure costs.  For example, existing installation and maintenance procedures involve the use of specialized vessels that simply do not exist in the U.S.

Further, as a new industry, offshore wind faces unique and novel permitting challenges.  Multiple state and federal agencies have jurisdiction over the development of offshore wind farms.  In the case of the Great Lakes, for example, DOE notes that eight states and a Canadian province claim jurisdiction—with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers serving as the “lead agency” for purposes of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).  Adding to the complexity is the relative lack of data regarding the environmental and social effects of offshore wind installations.