Out-of-state solar companies are using aggressive marketing tactics in Kentucky to lure potential customers, and experts say anyone interested in having solar panels installed should do their homework.
People should never end up with solar panels installed in the shade, for instance, or with overpriced systems lacking basic safety requirements or proper permits.
Rachel Norton, energy specialist for the Mountain Association, said one major red flag is an installer who promises a government check or offers to lower their price based on a federal tax credit.
"And you're never going to receive that federal tax credit as a check. That operates differently. You shouldn't be expecting to receive a check in the mail," Norton explained. "Anything that seems strange around how you may receive money in the form of your tax credit, that's shady."
She pointed to the Kentucky Solar Energy Society's website as a good resource. The Mountain Association also provides business owners, local governments, and nonprofits with third-party energy audits, which can help determine which energy changes could save the most money.
Ben Tatum, owner of Appalachian Energy Works, a solar installer and energy efficiency company, encouraged people to avoid any business providing an estimate without visiting the property in person.
"I would want to make sure that someone actually visits me onsite before I ever sign a contract or do a deal," Tatum advised. "Because there's so many more things they can figure out onsite."
Norton added public education about solar power is critical to ensuring panels are installed at a fair price by reputable installers, and the buyer receives realistic savings estimates.
"It really hinders a lot of the things that we've worked on," Norton pointed out. "Like creating this community and ecosystem around how powerful energy efficacy and clean energy and renewables can be, for Kentucky and specifically, the Appalachian region."
People also can report questionable bids or suspicious activity to law enforcement and the Better Business Bureau.
Disclosure: The Mountain Association contributes to our fund for reporting on Community Issues and Volunteering, Environment, Philanthropy, and Rural/Farming Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
California lawmakers hold a hearing in Sacramento today on a bill to hold oil companies and gasoline refiners accountable for alleged price gouging.
According to the Office of Gov. Gavin Newsom, gas prices in California hit an average of $6.42 per gallon last fall, which was $2.61 more than the national average. And it happened even as crude oil prices dropped and state taxes and fees remained unchanged.
Farrah Khan, mayor of Irvine, said she supports Senate Bill 2, which would establish an independent watchdog within the California Energy Commission.
"It's going to establish a new division to provide independent oversight and analysis of the market," Khan explained. "This new division would have the power to subpoena information deemed necessary to root out and address any of the abuses of market power."
The Western States Petroleum Association said in a statement, "This new windfall penalty in this proposal is actually worse than the original bill. The Legislature would be giving away all its authority to a group of unelected bureaucrats who will have the power to set gasoline prices and impact fuels markets. [This] will likely lead to the same unintended consequences as his initial proposal - less investment, less supply, and higher gasoline prices for Californians."
Steven Hernandez, mayor of Coachella, said it is a matter of fairness to the families who live paycheck to paycheck.
"People struggle to afford gas and rent, and to pay medical expenses," Hernandez pointed out. "When we're mindful of the working class, I think we're better off as a society."
The California Energy Commission watchdog would analyze data to look for patterns of misconduct or price manipulation. The bill would also start a rule-making process at the Commission, to set a reasonable profit margin and impose a penalty for price-gouging above the margin. Any fines would be returned to taxpayers.
get more stories like this via email
A new report found forced power outages in this winter's extreme weather only added to "unreliability" in the fossil-fuel sector.
The PJM Interconnection is the electricity market including Pennsylvania and a dozen other states. Coal and gas plant owners' failure to honor their reliability commitments may cost them as much as $2 billion in penalties.
Dennis Wamsted, energy analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and the report's author, said some states saw rolling blackouts, and PJM used emergency measures to keep the lights on in Pennsylvania. Wamsted argued it all makes the case for renewable energy as an alternative.
"We are an organization that favors the transition to renewables," Wamsted explained. "We think renewable energies like solar, wind, battery storage, are here today. They are reliable today, they are cheaper than fossil fuels, and they also don't pollute the air, and solve, you know, a lot of our climate change problems."
The report noted in the PJM system, with more than 32,000 megawatts of gas and 7,600 megawatts of coal capacity, were offline at the height of the cold, despite substantial capacity payments PJM pays generators to be available at critical times.
Wamsted pointed out hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses were left without power because of the severe storm, and customers in the Carolinas and the seven states in the Tennessee Valley Authority service territory saw outages. He noted there were no rolling blackouts in the Keystone State, but notifications were sent to customers to prepare for the possibility of an outage.
"And so they didn't get to the point where they actually had to turn people's lights off," Wamsted recounted. "They were getting close to that in the sort of a warning structure, and they were appealing to customers to, you know, cooperate and help reduce demand. And that actually does work. "
The report showed the problems associated with the outages prompted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation to launch a joint inquiry into the events surrounding the December freeze and the performance of the nation's bulk power system.
Disclosure: The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Energy Policy, Environment, and Urban Planning/Transportation. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Overseas markets could be harming forests in the U.S. Demand for wood pellets for biomass energy has increased dramatically around the world, especially in Europe where burning wood is treated as renewable energy and heavily subsidized.
The UK-based company Drax Group plans to build a 450,000 ton per year wood pellet plant in Longview.
Peter Riggs, director of the Washington state-based nonprofit Pivot Point, said the region has a productive wood sector.
"This new wood pellet plant proposed for Longview is very different," Riggs pointed out. "First of all, it's not for the domestic market, it's not making pellets for home stoves. It represents a substantial and entirely new source of wood fiber demand for export."
Riggs said much of the biomass would be bound for Asia. His organization signed a letter, along with more than 100 others in the U.S. and Canada, calling for the European Union to stop incentivizing wood burning as renewable energy.
Laura Haight, U.S. policy director for the Partnership for Policy Integrity, said despite its label as renewable energy, burning wood from forests one of the worst activities for the environment. It releases emissions when burned and removes trees that store carbon. Haight's organization also signed the letter to the European Union, urging it to no longer classify forest biomass as renewable.
"It's the money that's driving this system," Haight asserted. "If they change that policy, then this will no longer be subsidized, and we can see a better future for our forests and for our climate."
Riggs noted solar and wind energy were subsidized, and the costs have gone down dramatically. However, the same is not true for forest biomass. He emphasized plant operators have struggled to reduce the costs involved in sourcing, transporting and burning biomass fuels.
"If they're going to subsidize it, you kind of got to subsidize it forever," Riggs contended. "But with wind and solar, those are already cost-competitive."
Disclosure: The Partnership for Policy Integrity contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email