Clean Energy Future by Arno Harris

Powering Up in Ontario

Yesterday was a big day for Recurrent Energy. We spent the evening in Ontario, Canada with Premier Kathleen Wynne and Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli celebrating the completion of our first six solar power plants in the province. These six plants will provide a total of 52 MWac (70 MWp) of clean solar power for Waubaushene and Smith Falls in Ontario.

In 2009, the Ontario government committed to transition much of the province’s electricity supply to clean, renewable resources harnessing the power of the sun. This transition has already made a major positive impact on both the environment and the economy. Recurrent Energy was selected to build a total of 20 solar power plants, providing 159 MWac (220 MWp) of clean solar power across southern Ontario as part of the province’s commitment to clean energy.

An incredible team came together to bring these projects all the way to operation, including the dedication and commitment of our Ontario and San Francisco staffs, our partners Mitsubishi Corporation and Osaka Gas, and of course the Ontario government, in particular the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of the Environment, the Ontario Power Authority and Hydro One. It’s gratifying to see years of work put in by hundreds of dedicated people finally come to fruition.

MLP Parity Act - Leveling the Playing Field for Renewables

This was originally posted on National Journal's Energy Expert's Blog in response to the question "How Can Congress Boost Renewable-Energy Investments?"

Renewables, particularly wind and solar, have made tremendous strides in recent years. Massive cost reductions are enabling them to play an increasingly mainstream role in conventional power markets. These industries now stand ready with the manufacturing capacity necessary to deliver hundreds of gigawatts of clean power plants.
 
Delivering that kind of scale in electric power requires significant investment. So it is important to note that renewables have already begun earning the trust of private investors. Of the $269B that Bloomberg reports was invested in renewables last year, the largest portion came from conventional project finance sources.
 
While this demonstrates that renewable projects are now an accepted asset class, it also highlights their disadvantage. Project finance is a considerably more expensive source of capital compared to the kind of low-cost, tax-advantaged financing sources that oil and gas enjoy.
 
Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) are a perfect example. They allow oil and gas projects to tap public capital markets in a way that avoids an additional layer of taxation. This gives them access to lower cost capital than wind and solar get from project investors. Restrictions embedded in the MLP code prevent these structures from being used for renewables, thus conferring an arbitrary advantage to fossil resources.
 
Senator Coons is to be commended for his thoughtful and determined leadership on the MLP Parity Act. If passed, the bill would remove anti-renewable restrictions and enable access to low-cost capital via MLPs. It’s another common sense step we can take towards leveling the playing field and putting renewables on equal footing with fossil fuels.
 
My only concern with passing the MLP Parity Act is the risk it creates for confusion in Washington. Some may erroneously conclude that expanding MLPs can serve as a substitute for other federal renewable incentives. This would be a big mistake.
 
Some of this confusion is being sown intentionally by renewable foes. This was highlighted recently when Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute gave renewable MLPs a proverbial “bear hug” by expressing his support for the Act while sniping that it “might help renewables transition off of subsidies sooner.”
 
It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that oil and gas continue to enjoy numerous subsidies and access to MLPs. A century’s worth of subsidy have helped the fossil fuel sectors to build a massive head start that continues to enhance their market position. It’s only fair to extend the same combination of incentives to renewables.
 
Bottom line, the Coons bill is a positive step towards giving renewables parity with fossil fuels in one corner of the tax code. But true parity will require a sustained, stable policy environment to sustain positive momentum in our nation¹s development of renewable resources. The benefits should be obvious: economic development and jobs combined with a path to a secure, clean, and affordable energy future.

Gridlock Doesn't Mean Stalemate on Climate Policy

This was originally posted on National Journal's Energy Expert's Blog in response to the question "What's Holding Back Energy & Climate Policy?"

As the recent failure on gun control showed, favorable public opinion does not translate into legislative success in a divided Congress. Despite the fact that study after study demonstrates large majorities of Americans favor action on climate change and they want more clean energy, we’re unlikely to see energy or climate legislation pass anytime soon.
 
We won’t get comprehensive climate change legislation until a majority of House members and a supermajority of Senators not only see it in their political interest to take action, but also come to general agreement on what the shape of action should look like.
 
However, I take issue with the premise that climate and energy policy are therefore dead in the water. In the absence of congressional action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rightly exercised its court-ordered authority to control greenhouse gas emissions. With the White House’s blessing, EPA pursued an aggressive regulatory agenda during the President’s first term, and with the prospect of carbon rules for existing plants in the offing, EPA action is poised to become the centerpiece of President Obama’s environmental legacy.

To that end, the “sea change” moment may have already occurred. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) gave EPA the legal mandate to regulate carbon and other greenhouse gases as pollutants. Given the urgency of climate change and what is at stake, it would be more satisfying to launch a grand piece of legislation memorializing our nation’s resolve on this issue. However, this is a situation where it may be wiser to focus on playing the cards in hand rather than wishing for cards that don’t exist.

The other positive factor in the mix is the tremendous reduction in cost achieved by mainstream renewables like wind and solar. Just as shale gas has transformed our view of our nation’s fossil resources—the achievements in wind and solar have transformed our view of renewables from “expensive” to “affordable and plentiful.” As long as policymakers don’t undo the policies supporting their expansion, market momentum will propel wind and solar to an ever-increasing role in electric power.
 
While there are clearly risks and potential setbacks ahead, the combination of increased regulatory pressure on carbon and industry cost reductions will likely keep our public policy headed in the right direction. Will that be enough to get us off the course we’re on to a 6-degree shift in global temperature? Probably not, but progress today will form the basis for making the changes necessary when the factors that drive legislative success are better aligned.

A Pivotal Year Ahead for Solar

On the heels of a successful 2012, here at Recurrent Energy we are looking forward to some major milestones in 2013 as we continue to build out our utility-scale portfolio. It’s not just a big year for our company, the solar industry as a whole is putting some big numbers on the board. We are
clearly seeing solar’s transition to playing a mainstream role in energy markets.

Our 2012 activity brought Recurrent Energy’s total completed projects to 138MW now in operation. Operating results were above plan, as we completed our second year with solid profits. On the capital raising front, we’ve secured well over $2B in cumulative project finance commitments to support our build-out. Last year was also a good year in terms of new development successes. Our team added another 114MW of new utility contracts, pushing our total portfolio to just over 700MW.

In 2013, we have over 300MW of projects lined up for completion—more than 200% of what we’ve built to date as a company. This includes the first two waves of our 220MW of Ontario projects, another major milestone for the company. We’re firing on all cylinders across the organization as we execute a historic push to get these projects out the door successfully. I have to say it’s gratifying to finally see years of development work come to fruition.

What’s even more exciting is that our results are just one example of the growth and success we’re seeing across the solar industry as it transitions to the mainstream. Today, SEIA and GTM Research released their U.S.Solar Market Insight Report: 2012 Year In Review.

Here are just a few of the highlights for 2012:

• US solar installations came in at over 3.3
  gigawatts (GW), a 76% improvement over the previous year
• The U.S. accounted for 11% of all global PV
  installations, its highest market share in at least fifteen years
• Cumulative PV capacity operating in the U.S. stood
  at 7.2GW at the end of the year

Despite the magnitude of these numbers, they fail to express just how exciting and dramatic of a transition the industry is going through. I’ve heard stories from natural gas insiders about how hard it was to get people in the outside to see the revolution that was occurring with shale gas in the early 2000s. I think solar is reaching a similar inflection point, and we are only scratching the surface of what solar can offer our country. 

Over the last several years, massive cost reductions drove solar to competitive parity with other wholesale power sources. As a result, solar – once the most expensive source of electric power – is now one of the three least expensive sources of power (solar, wind, and natural gas).  This remarkable
transformation has all but guaranteed solar will have a mainstream role in our energy future. And it means our country can ‘get clean’ without breaking the bank.

2013 will be the year this transformation becomes apparent to the outside world. This is the year solar will exceed all but gas in terms of new power plants put into operation. GTM is forecasting the industry will deliver 4.3 GW of new generation—the first year solar will deliver more than new wind or coal. And I have a feeling that number may actually be a bit conservative.

This will also be the year Americans start to realize just how affordable solar has become. Rooftop solar can now be installed for under $4 per Watt, making it competitive with retail electric rates in many regions. Meanwhile, utility solar costs have broken through the $2 per Watt barrier. As a result, the price utilities pay for solar electricity from new plants has declined to $60-$70 per MWh ($0.06-$0.07 per kWh). In fact First Solar just announced a contract with El Paso Electric Co. just below that at $57.9 per MWh.  

Pricing in this range makes solar just about competitive with existing gas-fired power and arguably competitive with a new-build gas plant, once you figure permitting and operating costs into the equation. Even more profound, a solar plant has low operating costs and zero fuel costs. It will generate power at that low fixed price for the entire 25-year plus lifetime of the plant. Yet in that same period of time, the cost of natural gas-fired power is forecast to rise to well above $90 per MWh.

All signs point to 2013 being a watershed year for solar. What lies behind us is the history of solar’s maturation from an expensive technology to affordable power.  What lies ahead is a future in which solar plays a mainstream role in generating the power we use every day. In fact, the latest forecast from IHS indicates that by 2030, solar and renewables will deliver as much power in the U.S. as the nuclear sector does today. 

I have one problem with this tremendous progress – it is not enough. Status quo projections do not come close to tapping the potential of solar and other renewables. So while I am excited about how far solar has come, I know we have a long way to go to realize the full benefit renewables offer our nation. Getting there will require a frank discussion about what to do with our natural gas bounty, putting a real and meaningful price on carbon, and redesigning our energy grid to manage a high penetration of intermittent clean resources.

More on that in later posts.

 

 

CERAWeek: Transformation & Change

I spent last week in Houston for CERAWeek, one of the premier conferences for the global energy industry put on by IHS. This was the first year they had a panel on renewables and I was honored to participate as a speaker. CERAWeek convenes senior business and government leaders to assess the current state of oil, natural gas, coal, renewables, and nuclear power. It’s all about energy on a vast scale.

I found the conference humbling and inspiring at the same time. Humbling because the vastness of our global energy needs is difficult to grasp. Humbling because the immensity of activities going on to extract fossils from some of the most inhospitable places in the world to meet that need is also hard to visualize. Humbling because on that scale renewables today are still so small. I’ll get to the inspiring bit in a moment. 

The theme of CERAWeek this year was “transformation and change.” The main focus of this theme was clearly the upheaval wrought by fracking and other unconventional fossil recovery methods. Driven by new technologies and new drilling techniques, the global assessment of recoverable resources has been turned upside down.  

In short, the US—once thought to face a bleak future of endless oil and natural gas imports—now sits on an abundance of oil and gas that could make us energy independent by 2020. And a world which not so long ago was thought to be at “peak oil” is now at the beginning of a multi-decade (if not a century’s) upswing in production.  

So radical is the transformation that an oil economist like Philip Verleger Jr. can ask quite reasonably whether the U.S. ought “to consider joining with other energy-exporting countries, like those in OPEC, to sustain high oil prices.” Wrap your head around that. 

This wasn’t supposed to happen this way. The last decade was supposed to be about dwindling fossil resources. It was supposed to be about the transition to an innovation-led effort to supplant fossils with new renewable technologies. If there is one constant in energy, it is that surprises are the norm.

Now to the inspiration. The other focus of CERAWeek’s “transformation and change” was the revolution that’s occurring in renewables, particularly solar and wind. For decades considered expensive and impractical, solar and wind have leapfrogged their way into the top three least expensive sources of electric generation. And they’re now the fastest growing segment of energy overall.

As you might expect, this means wind and solar are going to be a big part of the future of electric power. In fact, IHS’s own analysts forecast that by 2030 solar and wind will generate as much solar power as the nuclear sector does today. That’s the status quo scenario and that's almost as hard to wrap your head around as what's happened with oil and gas.

Here's the thing. I think we can do even better. And we have to if we’re going to make real progress on climate change. After all while it’s wonderful to have lots of cheap oil and gas, they’re still part of the carbon problem. Even ‘clean’ natural gas is only preferable when compared to its dirty cousin coal.

I left Houston inspired by the progress renewables have made and fired up about the road ahead. We have to focus now on building an upside to the status quo. The new conversation is now longer how to afford renewables, it’s about how to integrate as much of affordable solar and gas as our grid and our nation can take. Hopefully five year's from now that's the status quo we'll be talking about.

California Seeks a More Flexible Power Grid

Carl Zichella over at NRDC provides a compelling and thorough examination of what's really needed to address reliability challenges ahead for California's grid. Here's an excerpt and link:

At an extremely rare joint meeting this week, the entire membership of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Independent System Operator (CAISO) explored ways to make the state’s electricity grid operate more smoothly as new resources come into the system and displace older, dirtier and less-efficient types of fuel.

Complete article here...

Chicken Little and the "Crisis" of Grid Reliability

The Wall Street Journal published an alarmist piece yesterday  depicting California’s electrical grid as the victim of a ‘looming crisis’ brought on by the state’s ‘growing reliance’ on wind and solar. While the success of wind and solar certainly raises new issues in terms of how to plan and operate the future electrical grid, the article overstated the severity of the problem California currently faces. Worse it sensationalized an issue in a way that offers little real insight into the challenges or potential solutions.

Before we get into that, let’s first just look at the facts in California. What better resource to turn to than the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) website. Here we find a snapshot of the state’s electrical load and resources for yesterday (27 Feb 2013): 

What does this tell us? California’s daytime load today peaked at just over 27 gigawatts, followed by the evening load peak of around 29.5 gigawatts. Minimum load never went lower than 20 gigawatts. Meanwhile CAISO had between 32-38 gigawatts of generating resources available during that period to meet that demand.  

Now let’s look at what role renewables played in the state during the same period:

Solar was the highest contributor from the renewables camp today, contributing just over 1.5 gigawatts of peak output. Altogether if you add up the other renewable resources, they maxed out at just under 3.5 gigawatts. But that includes 920 MW of geothermal which you can see is almost rock steady—plus 300 MW of hydro which is 100% dispatchable.

 So the real ‘intermittent’ supply today maxed out at about 2.3 gigawatts. That’s less than 10% of peak daytime load and less than 8% of the maximum load. Note that the intermittent supply barely crosses over 10% of minimum demand of 20 gigawatts and CAISO had way more resources available than it needed to meet the peak.  

Clearly California is not ‘overly reliant’ on wind and solar and this is clearly not a situation ‘out of control.’ In fact it looks very much in control—and it looks very much like there’s more capacity to absorb intermittent resources. 

Just for perspective, let’s compare California to Germany where they really do have high penetration of solar and wind relative to load. Below are graphs showing various power sources contribution to meet load for two different weeks in 2012. The upper graph shows a period in January when wind supplied over 40% of Germany’s power needs. The lower graph shows a period in May when solar provided about 40% of Germany’s power needs. Guess what. Germany didn’t fall of the map and didn’t experience major blackouts.

How does Germany make it work? By combining intermittent and dispatchable resources in a way
that reflects their features and strengths.  

They use baseload resources like nuclear and large gas- or coal-fired turbines to meet the predictable and consistent load at the bottom of the chart. Next they let wind and solar generate whatever they can as the wind blows and the sun shines—both of which are lot more reliable than they sound and can be accurately forecasted a day or two in advance. They then fill the remaining ups and downs with highly
dispatchable load-following resources like hydro and gas-fired peakers. And they maintain a prudent amount of dispatchable capacity in reserve in case load rises or intermittent resources fall off.

It’s not magic -  it’s actually pretty logical and straightforward. And the benefit Germany gets is tremendous: a high proportion of 100% clean electricity with solid reliability.

To be fair, California’s grid and operating topology are a lot different than Germany’s. A more complete analysis has to look at operating issues year round. And the issues can get highly complex when you look at isolated segments of the grid. Currently there are big issues in the western Los Angeles basin as a result of the loss of the San Onofrio Nuclear Generating Station and legal issues related to contracting existing gas resources to fill the gap.

However, what is clear both from the California and Germany examples above is that there's strong evidence the technical capabilities exist to enable California can absorb a lot more renewables without threateaning overall reliability.

The Conversation About Reliability We Should Be Having

The last thing we need is an alarmist, sensationalized ‘chicken little’ conversation about the reliability issue. What we do need to have is a pragmatic, constructive conversation about grid reliability in California and the implications for the rest of the nation.

An increasing number of experts believe that the state is actually overbuilding the amount of gas-fired resources it needs in an attempt to ‘over-insure’ against the issue of intermittency as it approaches its 33% RPS goals. The risk of over-insurance of course is that state ratepayers will end up footing the bill for an overbuilt system—and ratepayers will blame rising rates on renewables rather than bad grid
architecture or poor integration planning.  

The problem lies in the way California regulates its power industry. As a recent report from the Hoover Institution points out, “No single state entity is in charge of integrating initiatives and addressing gaps, decision making is slow and siloed, and—most importantly—there is no consolidated roadmap and decision-making schedule.” In California, the CPUC oversees procurement and the CAISO oversees reliability. And while they are increasingly trying to coordinate, there is no systematic technical or economic optimization in place to balance cost, reliability, and growth.  

That’s a problem worth fixing. The state’s 33% goal is just the beginning. Complying with California’s landmark carbon regulation (AB32) will require the state to reach 80% renewables by 2050.

No one’s saying it will be easy, but it is important enough that we shouldn't just throw up our hands. The technical and regulatory issues that have to be resolved are complex and entangled in energy politics. We should not allow the alarmists to tell us that something that is hard is not worth doing. California is a state that has solved big problems before and the U.S. is a place where we pride ourselves on our exceptional place. Surely a matter this important can be solved with a little ingenuity, grit, and determination.

Another California Record Utility-Scale Solar Day

KCET's REWIRE blog records yet another record utility-scale solar day in California. Utility solar generation peaked at 1.45 gigawatts, exceeding wind and all other renewables for the day. What's more the blog notes that with sunnier days ahead and tons more utility solar coming online, those numbers have only one way to go from here--up!

Twenty Beautiful Megwatts!

Couldn't resist posting this amazing aerial shot (click on the picture to see it full size) of our McKenzie solar farm which was completed late 2012. Located just south of Sacramento, McKenzie is one of 88MW of now-operating solar power projects Recurrent Energy developed for SMUD.

I love how beautiful the project looks against the green fields of California's central valley in spring. It visually conveys how compatible medium-scale utility solar can be with the environment and farming communities.

With 109MW currently in construction and 315MW planned for the year ahead, we're going to have a lot more projects like McKenzie to look at in the near future!

Embracing Our Nation's Clean Energy Future

“We are finally in a position to control our own energy future” – strong words from the president during his State of the Union address. His remarks reflect how deep changes in our nation's energy picture have profoundly changed our expectations for the future. These changes have brought us much closer to a secure, clean, and affordable energy future than most people realize. 

We have heard the astounding story of  how newly abundant natural gas has driven down cost in a remarkably short period, creating thousands of jobs and knocking coal plants offline. But we also heard how economies of scale and maturing industries are also pushing down cost and driving renewable energy forward in much the same way. Indeed, despite gridlock in Washington, we're witnessing the dawn of a new era of mainstream clean energy.

You don’t have to look far to find the evidence of this transformation. A report recently published by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) highlights that renewable energy, including wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower represented the largest single source of new energy capacity in 2012, with more than 17 gigawatts added.

President Obama noted the incredible progress the solar industry has made in recent years bringing down cost. The same BCSE report mentioned above reveals that the cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of solar has fallen 55 percent since 2009, even while excluding tax credits and incentives, and is well within the range of traditional energy. The impact of this price drop can be seen already, as El
Paso Electric Co. signed a twenty year agreement at the end of January to purchase solar power at half the average rate of new coal.  

The president called attention to the remarkable fact that wind made up 45% of all new generation brought online last year, exceeding additions from all other fuel sources, including natural gas. Not to be outdone, the solar industry was on pace to install more than 3,200MW of new generation at the end of 2012. Duke Energy, one of the nation’s largest utilities, is projecting that continued explosive growth will
move solar into second place behind natural gas for new capacity in 2013—exceeding new generation additions of both wind and coal this year.

Looking ahead, the rise of mainstream renewables is driving such a significant transformation that the EIA is projecting renewable energy to make up a majority of all new capacity additions through 2015.

Let’s be clear about what a continued and successful energy transformation will look like. Our country is preparing to replace an aging fleet of dirty coal plants in a world where solar, wind and natural gas are all at historically low prices. And as the president rightly pointed out, these now abundant and affordable resources give us new chioces and a new level of control over our energy future.

Clearly natural gas is a critical part of the picture. In fact natural gas enables more renewable generation to be brought onto the grid, because of the reality of renewables and how the power grid works. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that simply replacing coal with natural gas is enough.

We need as much cost-competitive renewables as we can get if we’re going to make the most of our resources and take on climate change. If we get the formula right, we’ll end up with an optimal combination of solar, wind and gas that can deliver the trifecta of low emissions, reliability, and affordability.

There is still much work to be done, as wind and solar, even though rising fast, still only add up to less than 6 percent of all electric power capacity in the U.S. Meanwhile, the glut of cheap natural gas may tempt regulators and utilities to overbuild gas-fired power plants in the short term. It’s imperative we plot a thoughtful course now towards an energy future in which this ideal energy trifecta is a reality. 

We are just beginning the mainstream clean energy era, but the facts show the transformation of our energy economy is already underway. To ensure we make the right use of the resources available to us, we need predictable and market-based policies that increasingly put a price on carbon – whether through legislation or emissions regulation.

I urge the president to  deliver on the promise he made last night to take bold action on climate change – specifically to exert his executive authority to guide our nation's energy choices – and seize the opportunity of our newfound control of our energy future.

CNN Money: Natural gas is just what clean energy needs

Exporting natural gas would be more likely to displace coal both at home and abroad, resulting in a lower net carbon emissions overall. 

By Arno Harris, contributor

FORTUNE -- America is awash in natural gas. Prices are low and by some estimates we have a 100-year supply of it. Today we produce more than we use so why not export it? By doing so, natural gas could act as the driver of a comprehensive U.S. energy plan that would make sense in terms of our economy, national security and public health. Better yet, it could rally support from interest groups previously at odds. How? Embracing natural gas exports would not only take the slack out of the U.S. natural gas market, which would help producers, but also would enable renewable energy to replace natural gas as the backbone of America's power-generation infrastructure. In other words, there is a clear alignment between renewable energy supporters and the oil and gas industry based on a shared interest in seeing natural gas prices rise a notch or two...

Link to rest of article on CNNMoney site...

Export Natural Gas to Accelerate Our Clean Energy Future

Advances in drilling and fracturing underground rock (a.k.a. "fracking") have unlocked massive supplies of natural gas previously trapped deep under the United States, positioning the U.S. to become the world’s largest producer of natural gas by 2015. Ironically, this gas is now trapped within the geographic boundaries of North America because we don't have the facilities to export gas to markets in Europe and Asia.

The oversupply trapped in the U.S. has caused the domestic price to collapse to by more than 50% to $2-$3 per thousand-cubic-feet (Mcf). That's a fraction of prices in Europe where gas goes for $10-$11 per Mcf or those in post-Fukushima Japan which are over $17 per Mcf.

The severity of oversupply in the U.S. relative to global markets offers an opportunity for the United States to achieve something it has never had: a comprehensive energy plan that makes sense in terms of our economy, national security and public health. Better yet, it could rally support from interest groups previously at odds. How? By embracing natural gas exports. This would not only  take the slack out of the natural gas market , but by doing so enable renewable energy to become the backbone of our power generation infrastructure.

In today’s energy conversation, much has been made of the benefits cheap natural gas confers on Americans. Today's cheap gas can be burned to generate electricity at a cost of about $30-$50/MWh (3¢ - 5¢ per kWh). Compare that to utility solar power at $70-$80/MWh and wind power at $40-$60/MWh, both of which are cheap by historical standards but higher than the apparent price of gas-fired power. For consumers and businesses, that looks like a windfall (at least for now) in the form of lower electricity rates. However it's increasingly apparent that cheap gas has some downsides because it is actually distorting power markets.

The siren song of cheap gas is tempting regulators and utilities to pursue a disproportionate build out of gas-fired power plants. The danger with this trend is that a gas-dependent infrastructure is vulnerable to future gas price shocks. Whereas stability can be found in a portfolio of both renewables and gas offering more predictable prices and greater energy security. The bottom line is that artificially low gas prices are distorting energy markets and complicating our nation's progress towards a truly secure, clean and affordable energy future.

Promoting a gas export policy will provide an important shift in our national energy debate. This as an opportunity for groups that typically find themselves on opposite sides of energy issues to come together. There is clear alignment between climate advocates and renewable energy industry with the oil and gas industry based on a shared interest in seeing natural gas prices rise a notch or two.

Gas producers clearly stand to benefit from export. One of the lesser known realities of the gas fields is that today's prices are not sustainable as they don't offer producers enough value to drill profitably. Even accounting for the cost of gas liquifaction and shipment, the spread between U.S. prices and global prices ensures them a better profit from export than they currently get at home.

Gas power plant developers also stand to benefit from higher prices. Another hidden effect of low gas prices is that it inhibits development of new gas-fired power plants, because the spread between the cost of gas and the price of electricity is tight when gas prices are low. And few developers want to build a plant today that locks in at today's low electricity prices. Rising gas prices would increase spreads and make new-build gas plants more attractive.

The renewable energy industry should absolutely get behind the idea of exporting natural gas. If gas prices were still at the levels they were three years ago, wind and solar would be solidly competitive with fossil-fired power. And the utility-scale renewable industry wouldn't be fighting the headwinds it is today. Exporting gas would increase demand and raise gas-fired power prices to a level that would help wind and solar by improving their competitiveness.

But why should climate advocates get behind exporting natural gas? Wouldn't that just increase the amount of carbon we're putting into the atmosphere? One of the big downsides of our gas glut in the U.S. is that we're now exporting our coal to Europe. Cheap domestic gas is replacing coal at home but that coal is simply being burned elsewhere. Thus the result of low gas prices is to increase global carbon emissions because total fossil fuel consumption is exploding.

Exporting natural gas would be more likely to displace coal both at home and abroad, resulting in a lower net carbon emissions overall. This alone gives climate advocates a reason to support the export of natural gas. Beyond that, any economist will tell you that raising the price of a commodity should increase rationing of that product. In other words, raising the price of gas should result in burning less of it and lead to more selective consumption.

The biggest objection to gas export is likely to come from domestic industries and utilities that expect to benefit from cheap gas. Chemical and fertilizer companies that use gas as a feedstock benefit from today's gas prices, as do industries that use gas for industrial heating. Utilities and ratepayer advocates are also likely to clamor against export in order to keep cheap gas to generate electricity.

It's important to see these arguments for what they are: industries clamoring for the government to assign them a share of the windfall from our nation's gas glut. Cheap gas means higher profits for them, but those excess profits simply come out of the pockets of producers who can't get their product to global markets. These claims are increasingly being cloaked in the political kryptonite known as "saving jobs."

The fallacy of the jobs argument is made clear in a recent report on the macroeconomics of gas export from NERA Economic Research. A key finding of their report was that "the U.S. was projected to gain net economic benefits from allowing LNG exports." And "LNG exports [would] have net economic benefits in spite of higher domestic natural gas prices." Furthermore, the study points out that the industries likely to be impacted by export are extremely narrow and represent only "about one-half of one percent of total U.S. employment." And as the report states clearly, "LNG exports are not likely to affect the overall level of employment in the U.S."

The NERA study also addresses alarmist projections that export would result in disastrous price increases for natural gas at home. The report puts this fallacy to bed quickly by pointing out export would only occur when the foreign price was greater than the cost of extracting, liquefying, and shipping gas overseas. That means domestic prices will always be significantly lower than prices in either Europe or Asia--and thus domestic industries would still retain a competitively priced gas supply in the U.S. relative to their global rivals.

A gas export initiative is clearly the best policy for dealing with the current gas glut and provides the least offensive role for government to play in restoring balance to power markets. This initiative has significant potential to garner broad political support by aligning the interest of historical adversaries on energy issues. This latter point is exciting. It suggests a potential political opening for the kind of comprehensive energy plan our nation needs to move forward.

Beyond Oil: IEA Report Confirms Leading Role for Renewables

IEA's World Energy Outlook 2012 generated a flurry of stories about the prediction the U.S. will emerge as the world's leading oil producer by 2020. While it is important news, it is only one of several profound shifts occuring in global energy markets.

Equally profound, though less reported, was the fundemental shift in the role of renewables in electricity generation. Here are just a few of the highlights:

• Renewables (mostly wind and solar) account for almost half (47%) of the global increase in power generation between now and 2035.
• By 2025 renewables will be the second largest source of electricity worldwide, providing 27% of all electricity compared to coal at 36%.
• In the U.S. by 2025, renewables will provide 18% of total electricity, third behind coal and natural gas. However, renewables will surpass coal to become second only to natural gas in terms of total U.S. generating capacity.

There's no doubt about it when you look at the data. We've entered the era of mainstream renewable energy--an era when renewables play a leading role in generating the electric power we use every day.

Just as there is a fundamental shift in production of oil and gas, a fundamental change has also occured in the last few years for renewables. It is no longer appropriate to call renewables 'alternative' or 'new' because they're solidly in the middle of the conventional energy mix.

Tuning Up the President's Message on Climate Change

Was it just me or did President Obama sound unprepared for a question on climate change at his press conference on Wednesday? Considering climate change is a top national issue, I was expecting a much stronger response from the President. Here's a breakdown of the three things he flubbed and my perspective on how to tune up the President's message on the issue.

1. "We can't attribute any particular weather event to climate change." - The President's opening line was a major missed opportunity. While technically true, it's politically tone deaf. 
   
   What we should have heard: "Hurricane Sandy showed the nation what the real cost of extreme weather can be. Scientists agree that with climate change we can expect a rise in the number and severity of these kinds of events."
    
2. "I am a firm believer that climate change is real" - This sentence commits two classic communications errors that play right into the hands of climate deniers. First, the sentence establishes the idea that belief in climate change is a personal choice. Second, making the assertion that climate change is "real" suggests that the opposite is also a possibility. Think about it. Would you assert your belief that gravity is real? Of course not.
   
   A better approach reminds listeners that climate change is no longer in question: "The evidence is clear and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that our planet's climate is changing, it's caused by an increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and that increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels."
    
3. "I think the American people right now have been so focused...on our economy and jobs and growth that...if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that." - The President again commits the mistake of accepting the opposition's framework that the cost of addressing climate change is bad for the economy and jobs.
   
   As today's industrial outlook report showed, the cost of extreme weather is a risk to our economy with Hurricane Sandy reducing our performance by almost 1%. And as the recent National Solar Jobs Census shows, solar industry jobs have grown 13% over the last year to employ 119,000 Americans.
   
   Here's what the president should have said , "Hurricane Sandy has shown us just how costly climate change can be. Failing to take action on climate change exposes our economy and jobs to unacceptable risk. We have an obligation to protect our children's future by taking concrete steps now to address it. Furthermore putting the right policies in place will position our nation's industries for leadership in clean business and technologies globally."

Overall, I think the President's answer reflected an 'inside the beltway' assessment of the political landscape. His approach understimates the will of the American people to do something about climate change. The public opinion numbers are clear. Since 2010, the number of Americans who believe in climate change has increased by 13%. And that correlates with the 88% of registered voters who support government action on global warming even it had a negative impact on our economy (Yale & George Mason University).

Mr. President, Americans want leadership on climate change and the political conditions are lining up to support action. Rather than rehashing the debates of the past, it's time to engage the country in a constructive and aspirational discussion of our responsibility to future generations and to embrace our historic passion for meeting big challenges with American ingenuity.

 

 

A Mandate for Clean Energy

With President Obama’s victory tonight, the renewable energy industry keeps an important ally in the White House. The win comes at a time when energy is rising in national importance. Given the extent to which the opposition made renewable energy an issue, I think the President’s win gives him a mandate to make clean energy a key part of the agenda for his second term. Now is the time to rally industry around a comprehensive plan to make our nation’s energy supply more secure, clean and affordable.

Over the last four years, our nation’s energy situation has changed for the better in two important ways:

1. Wind and solar have proven they can play a significant role in mainstream energy markets as an affordable source of clean electricity.  That’s thanks in part to President Obama’s leadership on the ARRA stimulus programs that bridged the industry through the global financial crisis.
2. The boom in U.S. shale gas production has fundamentally altered our domestic energy options, edging out coal as the fossil fuel of choice.

These developments open new doors in terms of how we think about our energy future. With abundant and cheap solar, wind, and natural gas we can effectively have it all—a secure and stable mix of domestically-sourced clean energy at no additional cost over the status quo.

But there are pitfalls in our new found abundance as well. If we’re not careful we could end up overly dependent on gas, leaving us exposed to future price shocks. Leadership is required to define our national energy goals and keep the country on the right path.

The attacks during the campaign on solar and renewables--and climate change for that matter--were as fierce and they were well-funded. Despite those attacks, public opinion about renewables proved to be resilient. Solar and wind remain the top two most positively viewed energy sources with bipartisan favorability ratings in excess of 80%. Americans clearly understand the benefit of renewables and I think the President can rightfully claim a mandate to pursue a clean energy agenda.

The solar industry and SEIA stand ready to do our part. We’re continuing to drive out cost, accelerating solar’s transition to competitive markets and reduced dependency on government incentives. What we need in return is a stable policy environment that enables our industry to plan with confidence and ensures the flow of capital to good projects and companies.

Congratulations President Obama on your win today. Here’s to four more years of making renewable energy part of our mainstream energy mix!

One America When It Comes to Solar

Once in a while during election season you see information that cuts through the campaign noise and provides clarity about what voters really want.

After a year of political attacks, you might think the only remaining solar supporters would be left-leaning Democrats. A recent poll released today by Hart Research and SEIA indicates just how wrong that assumption turns out to be.

Here are just a few of what I think are the most important conclusions that reflect the strong bipartisan appeal of solar (infographic here):

• Almost all voters (92%) think it is important for the U.S. to develop and use solar power, including 84% of Republicans.
• Translating that sentiment into policy, 78% of all voters (63% of Republicans) think solar deserves federal government support via tax credits or financial incentives.
• Solar enjoys the highest favorability of any energy source deserving government support, with 64% of all voters ranking solar top of the list.

So what do the numbers tell us? First, the attacks aren't working. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize the value of solar energy and still overwhelmingly favor government support to help solar gain a foothold.

Second, it suggests a strategy based on bashing solar may shore up the right-base but won't win moderate votes. In fact, the survey found that swing voters in general were slightly more inclined to view solar favorably than all voters combined.

The most interesting thing about the survey to me was that resposdents gave solar top marks even though the majority still believe solar was "too expensive" (66%) and "not practical" (54%). Just think what those favorability rankings will look like when we get the word out that solar is increasingly affordable and mainstream.

Solar Better Under Romney or Obama?

One of the anecdotes I've been hearing a lot about in the halls at Solar Power International in Orlando this week came from the opening day CEO Panel addressing Change in an Uncertain Market. The  moderator asked the CEOs whether they thought the solar industry would be better under a Romney or Obama administration. The surprise?  Everyone ran for safety, answering that it wouldn't matter for them or the industry who wins in November.

As a CEO, I know why no one wanted to answer the question. At the end of the day, CEOs have to hold the interests of their companies and shareholders paramount. That means they have to be prepared to work with whomever is occupying the White House. And there's no value to politicizing the industry by taking sides if you make enemies in places where you need friends. So when in doubt the safe answer wins.

But there's a downside of giving a safe answer in a situation where the audience knows there are clear differences. It hurts credibility because it leaves the audience questioning whether the answer is authentic.

Here's how I would have answered the question had I been on the panel.

First, solar is going to play a part in mainstream energy markets no matter who is in the White House next spring. Ask any energy expert what our future holds and the answer is always some combination of "solar, wind, and gas." Why? Solar is increasingly cost competitive, the need for renewables is increasingly popular with voters, and once our economy recovers we're going to need a lot more generation.

But that's a long ways from saying there's no impact of one choice over another. There are many ways our nation can reach a clean energy future, but some are longer and harder than others. Reading the Romney and Obama energy plans, you'd be hard pressed not to notice the difference in the roles solar and renewables play. In Romney's plan, solar and wind are graciously allowed to sit at the table. Whereas for Obama, clean energy is a clear priority. For Romney, wind and solar are nice to haves; for Obama they're must haves.

This is a big difference. Once we get past all the election cycle hype, both parties essentially agree that our energy future is "all of the above", "solar, wind, gas", "energy independence" or somesuch portfolio approach. However, within that formulation is a range of very different outcomes for our country depending on how you decide to focus energy policy. Does 'all of the above' mean mostly-gas-with-a-little-green or as-much-renewables-as-possible-supported-by-gas?

The most important thing a President does is set the agenda for our nation by sending a clear signal about legislative priorities. In this case, it's clear that the candidates put very different emphasis on the components that go into "all of the above." Under Obama, solar and wind are likely to be a centerpiece of energy policy with strong support. Under Romney, renewables will participate in achieving energy independence but they're unlikely to be essential.

To anyone who cares about what the next few years look like for renewables, those are important differences. Solar will be a part of our future no matter what the outcome but it's the "how" and "to what degree" that will matter.

RNC: Crocodile Tears for Coal Country

In tonight's acceptance speech at the RNC, Romney is widely expected to blame the Obama administration for an overzealous attack on coal. Along the way he'll probably shed a tear or two for the hardship this has imposed on coal country. Smart energy observers won't buy it and neither should you.

The reality is that what is killing coal right now is low cost natural gas. Coal can't compete with the abundant shale gas our nation now enjoys. Due to new drilling techniques gas is so cheap that gas-fired electricity is roughly half the cost of coal-fired electricity.

If anything it is the huge increase in drilling and access to public lands that has occured under the Obama administration that is killing coal--not over-regulation.

The irony of this fact is that a key part of Romney's energy plan is to further relax the rules and expand access to drillers. This would have the effect of reducing gas prices and thereby driving coal usage down even more. So Romney's energy plan would actually worsen the situation for the very people he claims to be helping.

Whatever you hear tonight, don't buy the story that regulation is killing coal. It's not the rules that are killing coal--it's the economics of abundant natural gas that are doing it. And Romney's bid to win coal country votes with his energy plan will actually have the exact opposite effect!

Reading Romney's Energy Plan

The Romney Energy Plan hit my desk last week and I've been thinking about it since. The reality is that the plan is a political document, heavy on grand principles and light on specifics. It sets a goal of achieving energy independence by 2020 through tapping our abundant natural resources, giving states more power over permitting and regulation, and opening public lands and offshore regions to to energy development.

The plan is clearly constructed to endear Romney to the oil and gas industry. It notes the now obvious fact that new drilling techniques have enriched the U.S. with accessible fossil resources. The text is salted with "drill, baby drill" crowd pleasers such as removing barriers to drilling on public lands, approving the XL pipeline, and opening offshore regions for more exploration. It's hard to feign surprise about this stance from a political perspective. These positions enable Romney to appeal to the right wing of the Republican party and simultaneously open the wallets of a deep-pocketed lobby.

But in an election year that has seen heavy politicization of energy issues, I was anticipating more of an outright attack on renewables. With their need to energize the right (and considering some of both Romney's and Ryan's previous statements), I expected something that looked like the campaign outsourced the energy plan to Haliburton. But it doesn't read that way.

There are a few links to media stories about solar under the "Did You Know?" sections following each policy principle statement. But none of the links are to the typical screeds against solar. And there is no mention of renewables being 'imaginary' as Romney seemed to believe several weeks ago while on the stump.

Instead there are a handful of links to media stories about the challenges of permitting solar that support Romney's case that the energy industry is overregulated. A couple links note that solar and wind power are now competitive in some markets (perhaps to question why solar and wind need support?). And perhaps most surprising, there are only two passing mentions of Solyndra in the entire document.  

Something I found interesting was how at key turns, where the plan could have focused only on the needs of oil and gas, the plan is careful to be inclusive of wind and solar. It's odd because it undermines Romney's differentiation from Obama who has staked out a "all of the above" position on energy. Here are a couple of examples from Romney's plan:

• As part of "empowering states" (p.8), the plan says, "from oil and gas and coal to wind and solar and biofuels, states are far better able to develop, adopt, and enforce regulations based on their unique resources, geology, and local concerns."
• Under the theme of "fair and transparent permitting" (p.16) the play claims "Overregulation, permitting delays, endless reviews, and senseless litigation interfere with all forms of energy production, from oil and gas drilling to nuclear and coal power generation to the construction of wind farms and solar plants."
• With a nod to "leveling the playing field" (p.19) the plan advocates, "The same policies that will open access to land for oil, gas, and coal development can also open access for the construction of wind, solar, and hydropower facilities."

A similar writing technique is evident in the pains the document goes to use generic terms such as "energy", "natural resources", and "industry" that can be read to refer to both fossil and renewable energy. In that sense, the plan can be interpreted as a kind of cipher that can mean different things to different audiences--the hallmark of a well-crafted political message.

One might conclude that Romney's advisors are trying to avoid running afoul of the political reality that a large number of voters favor renewable policies. Or perhaps it reflects their experience in a swing-state like Iowa where Romney's strong anti-wind production tax credit stance has become a liability with thousands of Iowans who work in the wind industry. Does reading between the lines reveals an aknowledgment by the campaign that an anti-renewable stance hurts Romney with moderate voters?

The skeptics will say I'm being too generous. The document is a clear 'wink and a nod' to the oil and gas industry and I'm grasping at a few morsels in the plan that seem renewable-friendly. 

So let me be clear. It would be a mistake to read the plan naively and conclude Romney supports renewable energy. The plan is a political document that commits a Romney administration to almost nothing concrete and preserves an awful lot of flexibility to construct policy after the election. It hits the hot buttons of the oil and gas industry while avoiding head on conflict with the majority of Americans who believe in renewables.

Romney's inclusiveness of solar and wind are welcome surprises. However, it's clear the campaign does not believe that climate change is an important issue (never mentioned). Nor does it make a case for why (and how easily) our nation could achieve a clean energy future (in addition to an independent energy future). Both of these principles are critically important if you believe in a strong case for renewable energy policy.

Bottom line: No one reading the plan should come away believing that a Romney administration would provide the kind of support for renewables that the Obama adminstration has. At best, it's interesting to note that while doing the politically necessary things, Romney has left the door open to renewables in his energy policy should he win the trust of the American public.

RNC: Governor Chris Christie Forgets to Mention Solar and Wind!

I sat through the entire Chris Christie keynote at the RNC opener hoping he would talk about wind and solar. Boy was I disappointed! Oh well, at least we have YouTube to remind us how his support for renewables has been key to NJ job creation and economic growth.

The opening quote says it all. "There's no doubt that renewable energy is the future here in New Jersey and there is really no better time than for us the begin the discussion of not only how it will lead us to energy independence, but also how it will help create more good paying, middle class jobs for New Jerseyans. It's a change that President Obama stands firmly behind. I couldn't agree more."

Tell it like it is, Governor!

Survey Says: Americans Favor Pro-Climate Candidates

Since the defeat of US carbon legislation in 2010, conventional political wisdom has held that climate was a losing issue. Politicians left and right have sought to distance themselves or even reverse their positions on climate change. And emboldened "deniers" have ramped up their anti-science agenda.

The reality is that the trend in public opinion is going the other way and candidates in the current election cycle would do well to pay attention. A report from Yale and George Mason University summarizing recent voter polls indicates just how wrong the conventional wisdom is. It concludes that "at the national level and among ten key swing states – taking a proclimate stand appears to benefit candidates more than hurt them with registered voters."

Even more intriguing for those looking for votes are the following conclusions:

• A majority of all registered voters (55%) say they will consider candidates' views on global warming when deciding how to vote.
• Among these climate change issue voters, large majorities believe global warming is happening and support action by the U.S. to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs.
• Independents lean toward “climate action” and look more like Democrats than Republicans on the issue.
• A pro-climate action position wins votes among Democrats and Independents, and has little negative impact with Republican voters.
• Policies to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels and promote renewable energy are favored by a majority of registered voters across party lines.
• These patterns are found nationally and among ten swing states.

Politicians should heed the numbers and reconsider where they stand on climate change. As the remaining skeptics fall away, I think we'll see a resurgence of interest in the issue and increasing support for leaders who are willing to take a realistic look at our energy policy and its impact on the globe.

Solar and Renewables Under Attack

I'm not usually one to go in for conspiracy theories, but there's no doubt that solar and renewables are under political attack right now.

A recent study by Kantar Media concluded that 81% of political attack ads focused on solar and renewable energy. Here's a video from SEIA summarizing the challenges we face.

Here's a disappointing example of the mistruths and distortions being repeated in an example ad by none other than the Romney campaign.

Now the Sierra Club has added an important additional piece of information in a report titled Clean Energy Under Siege (.pdf) that documents the systematic and cynical nature of the attacks. The report provides clear documentation of the concentrated flow of funding behind the efforts from conservative activists. The report is definitely worth a close read by anyone following current political trends.

The reality is that wind and solar are have made historic progress in reducing costs and increasing penetration to the point where both are making real contributions to conventional energy markets. And most experts agree that despite the attacks, our energy future will involve a lot more of both (along with natural gas, of course).

Community Scale Solar: No Roof Required

One of the unique features of solar power is that it can be installed almost anywhere at almost any scale. And yet by some estimates 75% of homeowners and businesses are frustrated in their pursuit of solar power because they don't have the necessary space on their home or office to install it. This on-site requirement is the largest barrier for people who want to generate their own power, whether for cost savings today or protection from rising energy bills.

That restriction may go away if SB 843, the "Community-Scale Solar Bill" that recently passed the California Senate, can get through the Assembly and make its way to Governor Brown's desk. Authored by Senator Wolk of Davis, SB 843 would allow any customer of California's big IOUs to invest in offsite "community-scale" clean solar power and see the result directly on their energy bill. Schools, business, churches, renters — all would have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of solar power.

Here's how it would work. Under SB 843, utility customers could contract directly with the owner of a large solar power project to buy as much clean electricity as they need. The electricity generated by the solar power project would be delivered to the grid at no cost to the utility. The utility in turn would credit the customer's bill for the amount of electricity they purchased from the project owner.

The beauty of SB 843 is that it not only provides a clever solution to a market barrier but it introduces some important customer benefits as well. Because larger solar systems typically cost less to install than rooftop systems, electricity from community-scale solar will actually cost less than electricity from an onsite system. Plus community-scale customers will be able to choose from multiple suppliers, further ensuring they get a competitive rate.

For developers of large solar projects (like my company Recurrent Energy), SB 843 would open up new markets by enabling access to customers who have previously been difficult to serve. The bill anticipates creating up to 2 gigawatts of new demand for solar, providing a welcome complement to California's RPS program. For rooftop solar companies it provides an alternative product to offer when prospective customers don’t have the right real estate.

Bottom line, there are a lot of things to like about this approach to solar. It allows customers who otherwise have no option the freedom to go solar. It delivers solar to retail customers at competitive prices. It increases the demand for clean energy generation in California without any state subsidy. And it only requires those who benefit to pay; there's no cost-shift burden on non-participating utility customers.

I'm hopeful the leaders in the Assembly will get in gear and schedule the bill for a vote. With the governor's signature SB 843 can go from a great idea to another great California policy driving the future of solar power in our state.

Picking Up the Gavel at SEIA

On Tuesday this week, I officially began my term as Board Chair for the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA). Established in 1974, SEIA represents the entire solar industry in the U.S. with over 1000 members that span manufacturing, installation, development, finance, service providers, and suppliers. As the voice of the solar industry, SEIA's goal is to make solar a mainstream energy source by expanding markets, removing barriers, and educating the public. 

With over 10 years in solar, I felt my time had come to give back to the industry. I've built successful businesses in a range of solar markets--rooftop solar sales and installation, solar technology development, project finance, and utility scale project development--in California, Arizona, New Jersey, Ontario, Germany, Spain, and Australia. During that time, I've advocated for federal and state policies including the ITC, 1603 Grant Program, CA RPS, CA RAM, and Net Metering. 

Bottom line, through my business and advocacy activities I have gained a breadth of experience across the industry that I hope will serve SEIA’s membership well. And the success I've had affords me the platform and time to address broader industry issues.

The industry is in need of strong leadership in the years ahead. Despite a decade of tremendous cost breakthroughs and the continued support of the majority of Americans, solar is under attack in the current election cycle. Meanwhile the industry is going through some difficult growing pains as we wrestle with the transition to grid parity in an environment of financial crisis and economic malaise. 

Hidden in these challenges are the seeds of opportunity. Continued cost reductions will make solar an ever more competitive source of clean power, thereby stoking demand and stimulating the next era of growth. Through SEIA, the industry has to promote a compelling vision to policymakers and the public of a future in which solar plays a large role in making our grid more clean, secure, robust, and affordable. 

We have a strong team at SEIA. I spent the day with them yesterday going over plans and getting their input. I hope to solidify our base and focus the support of our members to help them succeed in their mission. The industry and, more importantly, the health of our planet depend on it.