The Minneapolis & D.C. based Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) recently launched the website Energy Self-Reliant States. The website hopes to “provide the tools and rules for states and communities to maximize their returns from renewable energy.” We spoke with primary author and ILSR senior researcher John Farrell to learn more.
Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs): Why did you decide to start the Energy Self-Reliant States website separate from the already-excellent Institute for Local Self-Reliance website?
John Farrell (JF): Two reasons. One, our website is configured to highlight the rules and policies we’ve identified to help encourage local self-reliance, and not to present information in the kind of format we envisioned for Energy Self-Reliant States. Second, we needed something to fill the gap between our larger policy briefs and reports, and to be able to comment more quickly on current events.
CERTs: How has your response been so far?
JF: The response has been tremendous. Everyone I’ve talked to really likes the content and the focus on analysis.
CERTs: It looks like you are primarily focusing on dispersed solar photovoltaic. Will you be posting about other dispersed clean energy solutions?
JF: Absolutely. Solar lends itself to a DG discussion more easily that just about any other technology, but we’ll be discussion geothermal, energy storage, electric vehicles, and many other components of a distributed generation grid.
CERTs: What do you see as primary barriers to dispersed community clean energy?
JF: As you might expect, we find policy to be the largest barrier. Clean energy incentives based on tax credits (the federal Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit) favor large, institutional investors rather than community-based organizations, whether cooperatives, cities, or nonprofits that cannot use tax credits.
CERTs: What models are you most hopeful about?
JF: Community solar as done by the Clean Energy Collective in Colorado and group buying models for solar PV like we’ve seen in Los Angeles and Washington, DC, make me very hopeful. So do innovative public-private partnership models like we’re seeing Hennepin County, Minnesota, consider for its wind project.
I’m most hopeful for a policy change from tax-based incentives to cash-based incentives or feed-in tariffs, because they would remove the barriers and the need to be so creative with models for distributed generation.
CERTs: Here in Minnesota, do you see specific models or projects that could be replicated easily by other communities?
JF: The Hennepin County wind turbine public-private partnership could be replicated, but I don’t know that easy is the term that comes to mind. Most models for local ownership of distributed generation, unfortunately, depend either on the availability of an institutional equity partner (e.g. an investment bank) to soak up federal tax credits or additional incentives from the state or local utility. Even the leasing models – where individuals get a rooftop solar PV system at little to no upfront cost – only operate in states with additional state or utility-level incentives for solar.
That’s why a policy shift is so important.
CERTs: Are there models for energy self-reliance that you are surprised haven’t gained further traction in Minnesota?
JF: No.
CERTs: Finally, any last thoughts or suggestions to those communities striving for energy self-reliance?
JF: As seen in our Community Solar Power report, it is possible to develop locally owned distributed generation solutions for energy self-reliance. All it takes is a little organizing. But the Mt. Pleasant Solar Cooperative in Washington, DC, provides a good lesson. They didn’t just organize to get group solar discounts, they also organized politically to get more incentives for solar power.
