Tax Abatement Resolution

LWVO League Leaders Update
May 27 2009
ADVOCACY & EDUCATION
**NEW** Action Resolution on Energy Calls for Local League Action.
Resolving the energy crisis requires citizen participation to demonstrate to elected officials that there is a strong constituency for conservation. Otherwise government officials may focus only on providing the incentives required to ensure that the developer selects their jurisdiction without regard to energy conservation requirements, many of which may be cost effective. It is time that citizens act together to insure that energy conservation becomes an integral part of civic planning and urge local community officials to impose a modest and cost-effective restraint on incentives.
The Delegates to the 2009 State convention passed action resolution # 3 to encourage local Leagues to advocate in their communities for specific energy-conservation requirements to be incorporated into financial incentives offered by all state and local government entities. Local Leagues seeking assistance in this goal should contact LWVO Energy Specialist Al Rosenfield at alandpeg@alum.mit.edu . You can also view each of the Action Resolutions passed at the Convention on the LWVO website at www.lwvohio.org.
-----------------------------------------------------
LWVO Action Resolution # 3 - Energy Conservation

Lobby Corps proposing the resolution: Al Rosenfield, LWVO Alternative Energy Specialist

Specific League Position(s) the resolution supports: National positions -- “actions by appropriate levels of government to encourage.... energy conservation through...financial incentives...and mandatory standards”.

Background Information: Resolving the energy crisis requires citizen participation to demonstrate to elected officials that there is a strong constituency for conservation. Otherwise government officials may focus only on providing the incentives required to ensure that the developer selects their jurisdiction without regard to energy conservation requirements, many of which may be cost effective. It is time that citizens act together to insure that energy conservation becomes an integral part of civic planning. The action proposed in this resolution seeks to advance this goal by imposing a modest and cost-effective restraint on incentives.

Body of Resolution :

Whereas, the League of Women Voters supports “action by appropriate levels of government to encourage … energy conservation through … financial incentives … and mandatory standards”;

Whereas, State Government and municipalities in Ohio have been awarding incentives, such as tax abatements and Tax Increment Funding, to private concerns, often without regard to energy conservation; and

Whereas, energy-conservation technology for buildings has become inexpensive and widespread, be it therefore

Resolved, that the League of Women Voters of Ohio meeting in Dublin, Ohio in State Convention on May 2, 2009, encourage local Leagues to advocate in their communities for specific energy-conservation requirements to be incorporated into financial incentives offered by all state and local government entities.

National Electricity Predictions

The Energy Information Administration of DOE collects data and makes predictions. Here are some recent results:

Percentage of Electricity Production:

2008, 2030

Coal 49,47
Natural Gas 21, 20
Nulcear 20 18,
Renewables 8, 14

The percentage of renewables breaks down as follows approx.)

Wind 1, 2.5
Biomass 1, 4.5
Hydro 6, 7
Solar tiny, tiny

Basically a slow decline in traditional sources anda rapid rise in renewables. However, they predict that toal usage will rise from 16 to 36 %. In other words, we lose badly to global warming.

Ohio Electricity Goals

Ohio now uses about 90% coal, 10% nuclear, and <1% renewables. The goal for 2024 from 127-SB221 is 12.5% renewables and 12.5% 'advanced', which means coal, e.g. sequestration. So we will be left with over 3/4 coal assuming the two operating nuclear plants are still on line.(New nuclear counts as 'advanced', but there are no plans for an additional plant in Ohio).

Assuming that we hold down consumption, we will need to build about 4 million kW of capacity, costing at least $10 billion, assuming >$2,500/kW construction costs.

Solar Goals for Ohio

Ohio now has 33.8 GW of electric power. 127-SB221 specifies 0.06% solar by the end of 2012. This amounts to about 20 MW of solar. The minimum goal for solar in HB113 is 1000 schools with 50 kW = 50MW. So the bill requires 2.5X the goal for 2012. Actually, it would satisfy the 2015 goal for solar (50 MW = 0.15% of total). The ultimate solar goal is 0.5% = 169 MW by the end of 2024.

Wind Economics

I have tried to make some estimates of the costs of wind power.

1. To make Ohio entirely dependent on wind, would require adding 50-60 GW to replace the current 34 GW capacity, provided about 20-30 GW of conventional (probably gas) is used as a supplement when the wind isn't blowing. Assuming $2/W construction costs for both technologies, we get $140-180 billion.

2. Since each MW has about $2 million construction cost, a 2MW tower (plus gas supplement) would cost maybe $5-6 million.

3. Illinois has roughly the same population as Ohio. It has 915 MW wind making 1.06 percent of its electricity. Adjusting for the population difference, Ohio would require almost 400 towers to get one percent.

Solar Costs

On 31 March 2009, the Columbus Dispatch printed an article by Mary Beth Lane extolling solar power. Their prime example was a US Forestry Service project to provide solar panels to the Wayne National Forest HQ. Cost = $398,000; estimated electricity savings = $10,000 - $ 16,000 annually. This amounts to a 10 to 40 year payback time. Of course, the Forestry Service gets the money via an appropriation, so that they are not paying interest. But it's a cost that adds to the National debt, so that the interest cost does not affect the Forestry Service.

More bothersome is the statement by the head of Green Energy Ohio (GEO) that solar panels pay for themselves in ten years. This does not jibe with the example above or with Ann's experience. Perhaps there is a large subsidy implied in the GEO which I haven't accounted for.

Conservation Saves Money and Energy

In the New York Times for March 29, Thomas L. Friedman cited Hal Harvey of 'Climate Works'. Harvey's five proven policies to fight climate change are:

1. energy-efficient building and appliance codes
2. better vehicle fuel-efficiency standards
3. utilities to produce 15-20% energy from renewables by 2020
4. decoupling (utilities make money by helping homeowners save energy, rather than use it)
5. carbon tax

Clearly nos. 1,2,4, and 5 are conservation. Only 3 is alternative energy. Since a conference reported in MIT Energy Weekly noted that conservation is cheaper than alternative energy, Harvey seems to be making sense.