progressillinois.com/quick-hits/content/2012/01/09/argument-chicago-waterway-changes-strengthened-study-findings

—

An Army Corps of Engineers study finds a steady decline in commercial shipping on Chicago-area waterways in recent years. The study has stoked the contentious Asian carp argument and the debate over the future of Lake Michigan, the Chicago River, and the series of canals and rivers connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River.

The Asian carp is an invasive species that threatens the health of Lake Michigan. The fish voraciously consumes nutrients that other species depend on for survival, and reproduces multiple times per year. Once Asian carp overrun an ecosystem, they are essentially impossible to displace. Groups working to protect the ecosystem support closing locks or installing barriers to prevent the fish from entering the lake, but the shipping industry claims that such measures will damage commerce.

A 2010 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council illustrates the tremendous challenges and opportunities the Asian carp crisis represents. As of 2009, Asian carp had moved past electric barriers along the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) meant to keep them from entering Lake Michigan. In June 2010, a live Asian carp was captured in Lake Calumet – just six miles from Lake Michigan and beyond all barriers between protecting the Great Lakes. The standard response to such findings has been to apply toxic chemicals that kill Asian carp along with many other kinds of fish.

The Asian carp debate illustrates weaknesses in the region’s water infrastructure and raises the larger issue of hydrological or ecological separation – the technical term for severing the connection between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River basin. Artificial barriers and chemical treatments are temporary fixes to multiple problems requiring permanent solutions. The Asian carp is just one of several invasive species that could move between the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes. The ecological and economic costs resulting from these invasions will mount until a permanent solution is implemented.

The reversal of the Chicago River was a monumental engineering feat that, along with the construction of the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, linked the Great Lakes to North America’s largest river system and established Chicago as a national shipping hub. In addition to the ships moving people and goods, municipal and industrial waste traveled downstream rather than into Lake Michigan. Chicago was able to move its effluent to the Des Plaines, Illinois, and Mississippi Rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico instead of polluting the city’s water supply.

A 2009 study by the United States Geological Survey identified Illinois, the Chicago area in particular, as the single biggest contributor to the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone. Nitrogen- and phosphorus-rich runoff from municipal and agricultural sources depletes oxygen and kills aquatic life in Gulf waters, thus creating a hypoxic or “dead” zone. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that the Dead Zone costs U.S. seafood and tourism industries $82 million a year. Over the past five years, the average area of the Dead Zone has been 6,688 square miles, or roughly the size of the state of New Jersey.

Chicago’s antiquated water infrastructure does not separate stormwater from wastewater. Rainfall exceeding .67 inches can cause combined sewer overflows (CSOs), when untreated sewage and rainwater flood basements and enters local waterways. Storms producing over 1.5 inches of rain not only cause CSOs, but also can discharge sewage directly into Lake Michigan. Such events pose an obvious threat to public health and contribute to the flow of pollution wreaking havoc on downstream ecosystems.

The Army Corps of Engineers study shows that commercial traffic on the CAWS has declined steadily since peaking in 1994. Used primarily to transport coal, stone, iron and steel, and petroleum fuels, CAWS commodity traffic dropped from nearly 25 million tons in 1994 to about 16 millions tons in 2008, a four percent annual decrease and 36 percent overall drop. Opponents of lock closures claim doing so would harm the Great Lakes shipping industry, but advocates for separating the waterways, including officials from several Midwestern states, say the study supports their argument.

This trend is likely to continue. Trucking dominates freight transportation in the United States, particularly of distances under 500 miles, while most long-distance shipments move by rail. The vast majority of coal is transported by rail, and the scheduled closure of coal-fired power plants in the region should reduce local demand in the coming years.

Declining commercial traffic and invasive species create the opportunity to construct a regional network of waterways that meets the demands of the twenty-first century. Perhaps first among these is the protection of vital ecosystems upon which the regional economy depends, and an acknowledgement that simply transferring problems downstream is no longer acceptable.

http://progressillinois.com/posts/content/2012/01/04/whats-next-illinois-power-agency

—

The agency that procures power on behalf of millions of Illinois residents needs a new leader. The Illinois Power Agency (IPA) procures power for all Illinois utilities serving over 100,000 customers. In other words, the IPA brokers deals for ComEd and Ameren, which in turn sell the power to over five million customers. The agency is also responsible for achieving the state’s energy efficiency and renewable energy goals.

The General Assembly created the IPA after a bungled reverse auction that was intended to increase competition in the state’s electricity market. The auction was structured in a way that gave the two utilities a marked advantage in the bidding process and lead to increased residential rates of 21 percent for ComEd customers and 36 percent to 53 percent for Ameren customers. These higher rates created larger profits for the utilities, and the ensuing backlash lead Attorney General Lisa Madigan to file a formal complaint with federal regulators accusing Ameren, Exelon (ComEd’s parent company) and 13 power marketers of price manipulation. The Illinois Commerce Commission intervened and negotiated a $1 billion dollar payout to Ameren and ComEd customers, and the General Assembly began work on the Illinois Power Agency Act of 2007, which created the Illinois Power Agency.

Mark Pruitt became the IPA’s first Director upon his appointment by then-governor Rod Blagojevich. His experience with power procurement for municipal utilities and power purchasing for the University of Illinois campuses made him an ideal candidate for the position. Pruitt, however, opposed Governor Pat Quinn’s preferred method for meeting the state’s renewable energy targets and criticized the governor’s office for “sweeping” IPA funds to fill budget gaps. Quinn elected to choose a new director in October 2011. Pruitt’s successor, Arlene Juracek, worked for ComEd/Exelon for nearly 35 years and was part of the negotiating team that designed the reverse auction process and the deregulation of the electricity industry in Illinois. Quinn’s appointment of Juracek raised eyebrows in the General Assembly and in the office of the Attorney General.

The job description for IPA Director requires 15 years of experience in the electric industry and an advanced degree in a related field. It also states that the director could not have, “for two years prior to appointment or for two years after he or she leaves his or her position, be employed by an electric utility, independent power producer, power marketer, or alternative retail electric supplier.” Juracek left Exelon in 2007, but her coziness with the energy giant smacked of the revolving door politics that afflicts every level of government.

Quinn’s appointment requires approval by the State Senate, which hasn’t happened. Juracek is officially the Acting Director, and the commission that oversees the IPA has commenced a nationwide search for a new director who, if approved, would receive a two-year appointment. The governor was responsible for overseeing the IPA until November 2011, when the General Assembly voted to strip Quinn of those duties and place the agency within the purview of the Executive Ethics Commission, a nine-member commission that “promotes ethics in public service and ensures that the State’s business is conducted with efficiency, transparency, fairness, and integrity.” The nine commissioners are selected as follows: the governor appoints five, and the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller, and Treasurer each appoint one. No more than five commissioners may be of the same political party.

Whether this change will benefit Illinoisans or is merely superficial remains to be seen. The agency is charged with meeting the renewable energy goals established by state legislation. The General Assembly and the utilities, and not the IPA, set these goals. For example, the Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act aka the Smart Grid Bill gives ComEd and Ameren the power to raise electricity rates to recoup investment in grid infrastructure. The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) determines the size of the state’s renewable energy procurement plan and consumers ability to sell electricity back to utilities through net metering.

Politics and politicking notwithstanding, the IPA continues to wield enormous influence. A one-person outfit before Pruitt hired a chief financial officer in January 2011, the agency operates on behalf of over five million utility customers. In the same week his tenured ended, Pruitt released a report stating his agency saved consumers $1.64 billion since 2009. Currently the IPA is working with municipalities seeking to aggregate their electricity consumption. Community municipal aggregation allows municipal and county governments to purchase electricity on behalf of residential and small business customers, and negotiate a price with an alternative electric supplier rather than the utility that serves the area. The ICC website includes a list of communities pursuing municipal utility aggregation on the March 2012 ballot, and of those communities that have already elected to opt-out of the utility program.

http://progressillinois.com/posts/content/2011/12/09/futuregen-20-moving-forward-outlook-remains-uncertain

—

Billed as a “first-of-its-kind, near-zero emissions coal-fueled power plant,” FutureGen 2.0 is intended to prove that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is a feasible means for cutting CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. In November 2011, Ameren Corp. decided to pull out of the project, but will sell its stake to FutureGen Alliance, the consortium of international energy utilities and mining firms providing private funding for the project. The upgraded power plant is schedule to be operational in 2016.

Nearly a decade after the Bush Administration announced the original FutureGen plan that would have constructed a new facility in Mattoon, the current project will retrofit part of the Meredosia Energy Center at a cost, so far, of $1.65 billion. The U.S. Department of Energy pledged $1 billion in Recovery Act funds to spur private investment in the project. U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said FutureGen 2.0 “will help ensure the US.. remains competitive in a carbon constrained economy, creating jobs while reducing greenhouse gas pollution.” CCS technology aims to capture and sequester carbon emissions in storage wells drilled into rock formations more than three-quarters of a mile below the surface. Additionally, the new system will use an “oxy-combustion” process that reduces other greenhouses gases, particulate matter and mercury emissions to “near-zero levels.”

Initially slated to cost $1.3 billion, the most recent cost estimates call for $1.1 billion to upgrade the Meredosia generating unit and $550 million for construction of the CO2 pipeline and storage site. The Alliance, however, claims to have identified potential cost savings that could reduce the price by several hundred million dollars. Once operational, the new system will capture at least 90 percent, or approximately 1.3 million metric tons, of the power plant’s annual CO2 emissions. This technology, however, requires additional energy and can increase a power plant’s energy use by 40 percent. In other words, a CCS facility will burn more coal in order to reduce the carbon footprint of coal, if the technology works at all.

The federal government, electric utilities, and mining companies are eager to prove CCS can be adopted on a wide enough scale to continue burning coal at prodigious rates as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tightens regulations on emissions, and especially if Washington can put a national cap on CO2. The commercial viability of facilities like FutureGen 2.0 would allow coal-fired power plants to maintain output while mitigating the impact of CO2 on the climate. The US.. possesses the world’s largest coal reserves.

Despite rapid deployment of wind turbines and solar panels, renewable energy generation accounts for only a small fraction of total generation in Illinois and the U.S. At present, coal provides about half of Illinois’ electricity, and the state’s coal reserves are among the nation’s highest. Assuming that no additional nuclear power plants are constructed and that Illinois doesn’t strengthen its commitment to renewable energy, coal will generate a major portion of electricity for the foreseeable future.

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin played a key role in bringing the project to Illinois. In 2008, the Bush administration pulled the plug on FutureGen as the costs escalated, but President Barack Obama and Secretary Chu used stimulus funds to revive the plan as FutureGen 2.0. Durbin has called it “the most dramatic federal investment in any county downstate”, and voiced approval over the Alliance’s decision to buy out Ameren’s share.

“The FutureGen 2.0 project can move more directly toward its goal of making Illinois and the United States a world leader in cutting-edge technology that will improve the environment and create good-paying jobs,” Durbin said.

FutureGen 2.0 is moving forward, but much uncertainty and risk remains. First, the very nature of the project is speculative. CCS is being used at refineries and to recover additional oil and natural gas by injecting CO2 into wells, but its effectiveness for reducing emissions from power plants remains unproven. Second, construction and operations costs are extremely high, perhaps prohibitively so. As the price continues to grow, the project’s prospects shrink. Expensive CCS technology stands to increase the price of electricity from coal by a significant margin, just when solar and wind energy are becoming cost competitive with coal. Lastly, even if carbon capture and storage does work on a commercial scale, the need for additional energy means more coal will be mined and transported to the power plant. The technology does nothing to mitigate the large environmental footprint of coal mining.

For FutureGen 2.0 to be operational by 2016, the current group of developers must remain intact, which means costs must be contained. If this can be done, then, and only then, will it be known whether the project achieves its stated goals or is a billion-dollar boondoggle.

http://progressillinois.com/posts/content/2011/11/23/two-illinois-cities-applauded-green-infrastructure

—-

A report by Natural Resources Defense Council recognizes two Illinois cities for leadership in implementing green infrastructure strategies to deal with stormwater challenges. Chicago and Aurora are among the list of 14 U.S. communities highlighted in the Rooftops to Rivers II report(PDF). Green infrastructure helps to eliminate runoff pollution by capturing rain where it falls and using it to replenish plants and groundwater supplies rather than allowing it to enter underground pipes and pollute the water supply.

Green infrastructure includes green roofs, street trees, green space, rain barrels, rain gardens, and permeable pavement. These strategies mitigate flooding, clean water, improve air quality, decrease urban temperatures, and reduce associated energy costs. In addition to their environmental benefits, green infrastructure is more cost-effective than traditional “grey” infrastructure like concrete pipes and water treatment facilities.

Chicago’s water infrastructure was built to address 19th century problems that polluted the city’s water supply and created serious public health problems. Like many older U.S. cities, Chicago has a combined sewer system, which means that sewage and stormwater are not separated. Particularly during heavy storms, but even during rainfalls as small as .67 inches, combined sewer overflow sends waste water into the Chicago River. This water makes its way to downstream communities, and eventually to the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico, where pollutants have created a “Dead Zone” that grows larger every year.

Chicago is lauded for covering the rooftops of its public buildings with native plants. The city has nearly 500 green roofs totaling about 5.5 million square feet constructed or in-progress, and provides incentives such as expedited building permits for private building owners who install green roofs. This commitment to green roofs has helped to drive down the cost of installation and establish the city as a world leader in urban sustainability. The city’s green roof program receives the most press, but there’s much more going on to address the great environmental challenges of the day. Chicago is a leader in urban forestry, and spends $8 million to 10 million to plant 4,000 to 6,000 trees each year. The city’s Urban Forest Agenda places the maintenance and planting of street trees at the center of its stormwater management strategy, with the goal of 20 percent citywide tree canopy coverage by 2020. Another initiative, Greening Chicago’s Alleys, aims to line the city’s 13,000 alleys with permeable pavement, which improves water infiltration and reduces runoff. As of 2010, the Chicago Department of Transportation has installed more than 215,000 square feet of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, parking lanes, bike lanes, and plazas.

These efforts, however, are spread across various city agencies, and Chicago does not have a comprehensive plan to integrate its green infrastructure programs. Furthermore, the city lacks a dedicated funding source and does not require private property owners to use green infrastructure to reduce impervious surface, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District has been slow to embrace green infrastructure in its stormwater management strategy. Karen Hobbs, co-author of the report, says that although the city “lacks a comprehensive vision”, “Chicago is poised to do important work around green infrastructure.”

Aurora, however, has successfully integrated green infrastructure across all city departments. This comprehensive approach to stormwater management stems from the city’s dependence on the Fox River both as its water supply and as its economic core. Aurora adheres to a Kane County ordinance requiring rainfall events up to .75 inches to be retained on-site; this water cannot come into contact with downstream areas. Green infrastructure is a key element in the city’s strategy to reduce pollution in the Fox River. As it replaces the combined sewer system with two separate pipes, three green infrastructure pilot projects aim to reduce pollution and stormwater overflow.

Large-scale, expensive capital projects like the reversal of the Chicago River eliminated the flow of industrial waste into Lake Michigan but does nothing to address current issues like flooding and overflow. The $4 billion dollar Deep Tunnel project has reduced the occurrence of overflow events, but still sent nearly 19 million gallons of polluted water into Lake Michigan between 2007 and 2010. And the project’s current phase – the construction of a flood-control reservoir – won’t be completed until at least 2029, more than fifty years after construction began.

The 2012 Chicago budget allocates $147 million for improvements to the city’s aging water infrastructure, including 900 miles of new pipes and upgrades to water pumping stations. Increased water and sewer fees will pay for these improvements. While the century-old network of pipes do require significant upgrades, green infrastructure provides a more cost-effective and environmentally sustainable method of dealing with stormwater and sewer overflow.

“Chicago’s green infrastructure investment is an example for the region about how communities can literally make their waterways cleaner, reduce pollution on our beaches, and reduce the risk of basement flooding – and with a much greater return than with conventional solutions,” said Hobbs.

A number of innovative and potentially transformational clean energy projects may change the way we generate and finance energy. Community supported energy is inherently democratic and provides the counterpoint to the centralized system currently in place. Locally owned, distributed renewable energy generation transforms the average person from a passive consumer into an active and engaged investor. Community-owned energy creates much larger economic benefits than utility-scale generation. According to John Farrell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, ”locally owned renewable energy projects have an economic impact 1.5 to 3.4 times higher than absentee owned projects.” In this era of extreme market volatility and minuscule interest rates, community supported energy can provide a better and more reliable rate of return than stocks and savings accounts. Perhaps most importantly, community and/or crowd funding creates new means of financing for energy models that may not fit the bill for traditional methods like venture capital or bank loans . Here are several examples of community supported energy:

• In California, Solar Mosaic uses a platform much like Kickstarter to channel crowdfunding into community solar energy projects. People purchase solar panels that are installed on the roofs of community center, nonprofits, places of worship, and small businesses. The building owner signs a 20-year lease to buy the energy with the option to purchase the panels after seven years. The revenue pays back investors, with any additional money applied to other community solar projects.
• In Washington State, Tangerine Power offers several options for people to invest in solar panels on their homes or other buildings in the community. This service focuses on group buying and simplified solar installation for homeowners. Community projects require a $1,000 investment that is repaid after ten years. After that, investors elect to keep the array, sell it to the local utility, or dismantle it.
• In England, Ovesco constructed a 98kw solar power station atop Harveys Brewery in the town of Lewes. Community funding paid for the entire £307,000 project, which offers a 4% return on investment. Unfortunately, current securities laws prevent this model from coming to the US.
• In Ontario, Canada, the SolarShare community bond program provides a 5% return over 5 years on a $1,000 investment. The funds pay for community solar energy projects throughout the province. Again, quoting John Farrell, “The SolarShare cooperative already operates 18 solar projects with a combined capacity of 600 kilowatts (enough power for about 130 homes).  The program could grow rapidly, once the bond program gets its regulatory approval and removes the $1,000 cap on investments.” Again, this model isn’t possible in the United States.

These models share some similarities but also differ in fundamental ways. All have the potential to revolutionize energy, though only time will tell which, if any, are successful. Much of the excitement comes from the fact that communities and entrepreneurs are inventing and perfecting locally owned energy as they go, and that everyone involved, from the person who creates the scheme to the individual looking to invest in their community and the clean energy industry, has a say in creating a democratized renewable energy infrastructure. This is uncharted territory: never has so much been at stake, and never have so many been able to shape the future.

The Illinois Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandates that 25 percent of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2025, but did not include any requirements for electricity from small-scale producers. Under the Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act, distributed generation must supply one percent of the state’s renewable energy by 2015. One percent of 25 percent of the state’s electricity consumption may not seem like a huge amount of energy, but it establishes incentives for homeowners and communities to invest in renewable energy technologies. It may prove to be a major step forward in transitioning Illinois away from fossil fuels and toward the post-carbon future.

Edward Glaeser, Alex Steffen, and Geoffrey West are ardent supporters of high-density cities. Glaeser, a Harvard economist, argues for constructing skyscrapers (anathema to many environmentalists) to increase the amount of residential and commercial space in a city’s central business district. The contrast between costs of living in Chicago and New York supports this thesis. Steffen, co-founder of Worldchanging, compares high-rise buildings to tent poles that boost a city’s overall density and sustainability. He about “reweaving the urban fabric” through infill development, retrofitting, and sharable services and spaces as means of reducing the carbon intensity of the city. And West, the physicist in search of a grand unifying urban theory, offers data that shows cities create economies of scale that suburbs and small towns cannot match: city dwellers use fewer natural resources and require less infrastructure investment than their suburban and rural counterparts, and this return to scale increases as the city becomes larger. On a per capita basis, New Yorkers consume fewer resources than Chicagoans, who consume few resources than Houstonians or Cincinnatians. Furthermore, he contends that access to culture, ideas, and other people make cities natural hubs of creativity and innovation; it’s this role that make cities the linchpins of a sustainable society.

Despite the low per capita carbon footprint of city dwellers, cities consume vast amounts of resources. Sure, the world would be better off if everyone lived in Chicago-style density as opposed to, say, Atlanta-style sprawl, but the sheer size and level of activity necessarily means that cities, as a whole, will consume a large portion of the planet’s energy, water, food, and other resources. Sustainability is a word that eludes a fixed meaning, but those who think about the future of cities (whether their visions are utopian or dystopian) agree that people will need to live closer to the resources that make modern civilization possible.  The post-carbon future will not allow any more places like Las Vegas or Dubai.

Not until the last century did cities manage to grow without a major body of water nearby. Desert cities in the United States, Middle East, and Asia couldn’t bloom without a major investment in infrastructure and/or desalination technology. Providing water for cities, whether you’re diverting it from a river or removing its salt content, uses a lot of energy. Coal and nuclear provide much of the world’s electricity, but coal-fired power plants and nuclear reactors cannot be in close proximity to dense urban centers. Renewable energy production, however, can and should become a common part of the urban fabric. Buildings and communities that generate their own energy, grow (at least some) of their own food, and purify their own water must become standard operating procedure if the magnificent urban future of Glaeser, Steffen, and West is to become reality.

The sustainable society is urban, and the post-carbon cities that constitute this future scenario are dense, walkable, efficient, and provide access to mass transit. But that’s not enough. In addition to being hubs of culture and innovation, these cities must also become hubs of energy production. The era of cheap and easy fossil energy is ending, but the future need not be one of downgraded technology and diminished expectation. Solar energy will be available to meet society’s needs long beyond the scope of even the most forward-looking urban plan or energy forecast. The transition to a post-carbon society will be difficult, but it’s far from impossible. Perhaps the key is to eradicate the disconnect between the places we live in and the places that make our lifestyles possible. Just as the locavore movement reconnects people to their food and the land it grows on, a local energy movement will create a connection between people and the resources upon which they depend. It’s easy to take for granted the carbon-spewing power plant or wind farm located a hundred miles outside of the city, but a neighborhood solar energy generation center would be unforgettable. It would become entrenched in the urban fabric, and it would transform the ways we think about energy and the city.

• Developing and submitting annual electricity procurement plans to the Illinois Commerce Commission that ensure adequate, reliable, affordable, efficient, and environmentally sustainable electric service at the lowest total cost over time, taking into account any benefits of price stability for Commonwealth Edison and the Ameren Illinois Utilities.  The plans are to include electricity generated from renewable as well as clean coal resources.
• Conducting competitive procurement processes according to the procurement plans as approved by the ICC.
• Developing electric generation and co-generation facilities that use indigenous coal or renewable resources, or both, financed with bonds issued by the Illinois Finance Authority.
• Supply electricity from the Agency’s facilities at cost to municipal electric systems, governmental aggregators, or rural electric cooperatives in Illinois.

Less than a month after Juracek’s appointment, the Illinois General Assembly voted to strip Gov. Quinn of his control over IPA. Oversight duties now belong to the Executive Ethics Commission, a “nine member commission that promotes ethics in public service. Its purpose is to help ensure that State business is conducted with fairness and integrity.” The governor responded by calling the General Assembly’s decision “extremely short-sighted” and saying:

“This unfortunate action will mean that an agency that is responsible for brokering enormous energy contracts each and every year will be overseen by a commission that has absolutely no background in the complex process of electricity procurement and planning. Additionally, the Executive Ethics Commission does not have the experience needed to effectively manage the operations of a state agency, which it never was intended to do.”

Politicking aside, Illinoisans can only hope that Quinn’s statement is incorrect. IPA’s mandate is to “ensure adequate, reliable, affordable, efficient, and environmentally sustainable electric service”, and to develop renewable resources in Illinois. It is vitally important to the renewable energy industry that the state’s energy broker functions as intended. The General Assembly’s decision ostensibly aims to correct what’s seen as mismanagement by the governor’s office. Already, Juracek testified against long-term contracts for wind energy, in opposition to Quinn and energy developers. Yes, IPA must balance the imperatives of providing low rates for consumers and adequate incentives for developers, but if renewable energy credits (RECs) are the most cost-effective option then the long-term health of the Illinois clean energy industry may be sacrificed for short-term savings.

The sun strikes every square meter of our planet with more than 1,360 watts of power.
Half that energy is absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected back into space.
700 watts of power, on average, reaches Earth’s surface.
Summed across the half of the earth that the sun is shining on, that is 89 petawatts of power.
By comparison, all of human civilization uses around 15 terrawatts of power or one six-thousandth as much.
In 14 and a half seconds, the sun provides as much energy to Earth as humanity uses in a day. 

Now, plants and animals use some of that energy, and a huge portion of available solar power falls on oceans, deserts, forests, and other places where humans do not live in significant numbers. Despite unplanned growth and new highway construction, urban areas cover a relatively small land area. According to the USDA, urban areas cover nearly 60 million acres, or 3 percent of the approximately 1.9 billion acres of land in the contiguous 48 states (note that this amount doesn’t include certain roads and government facilities) . Approximately 80 percent of Americans live on that 3 percent of the nation’s land area.

When it comes to siting energy generation, we should focus on the 60 million acres of land already covered with buildings, streets, alleys, and sidewalks. Coal cannot be burned just anywhere, and nuclear reactors must remain far from urban centers. Energy from the sun, however, reaches every city and suburb. It only makes sense that electricity gets produced where it’s consumed. In Illinois, about 2.3 million acres, or 6 percent of total land, is paved or otherwise developed, and the vast majority is situated in the state’s northeastern corner, extending outward from the urban core of Chicago and the shores of Lake Michigan. Chicagoland is the nation’s third largest metropolitan area and is home to about 9.5 million people, while the city of Chicago is home to about 2.8 million people.

Chicago, like all cities, uses vast amounts of electricity. The residential and industrial sectors consume the bulk of this power, but as electric vehicles enter the market, the transportation sector’s consumption of electrical energy will increase. Despite energy efficiency gains, Illinois’ electricity consumption is projected to remain approximately constant until 2020. The Illinois Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) stipulates that renewables account for 16 percent of total electricity generation in 2020, with solar energy providing about 7 percent of that amount. In its current form, the Illinois RPS relies entirely on utility-scale renewable energy production and does not include an allocation specifically for distributed generation.

Coal and nuclear generation plants create massive environmental impacts and generally are sited far from densely populated areas. There are two coal-fired power plants in or near Chicago, but most of the city’s energy supply comes from plants located many miles away from the urban core. This model of electrical generation, while effective, is incredibly expensive and increasingly antiquated. Economies of scale dictate that utility-scale plants generate energy from coal and nuclear. These same economic drivers, however, show that solar and wind energy are best produced through small-scale, distributed generation. Widespread adoption of distributed generation and smart grid technology will create a democratized electricity system in the United States.

In Democratizing the Electricity System – A Vision for the 21st Century Grid, the New Rules Project lays out the economic, environmental, and political benefits of distributed generation:

A 21st century technological dynamic offers the possibility of a dramatically different electricity future: millions of widely dispersed renewable energy plants and storage systems tied into a smart grid. It’s a more democratic and participatory paradigm, with homes and businesses and communities becoming energy producers as well as consumers actively involved in designing the rules for the new electricity system…Most importantly, this vision represents a transformation in the ownership and control of the electricity system. Instead of a 20th century grid dominated by large, centralized utilities, the 21st century grid would be a democratized network of independently owned and widely dispersed renewable energy generators, with the economic benefits of electricity generation as widely dispersed as the ownership.

This is a decidedly post-industrial vision. Distributed production is replacing centralized production in many sectors, including food, art, and information, and the economics of renewable energy indicate that distributed generation is more efficient and dependable than centralized solar and wind generation. The report identifies four primary benefits of a distributed electricity system.

1. Vast potential and deployment speed. Nearly every state could meet 20 percent of its electricity needs with rooftop solar PV alone. Two-thirds of states have sufficient wind, solar and geothermal power to get 100 percent of their electricity from in-state (and distributed) sources.

2. Favorable economics. Some renewable energy technologies (with federal subsidies) already compete toe-to-toe with fossil fuel generation, and others – like solar – are rapidly becoming less expensive. Furthermore, the vast majority of economies of scale for renewable energy technologies are captured at a modest size, well within accepted size definitions of distributed generation.

3. Local ownership and political support. The economic impact of locally owned renewable energy projects can be several times greater than absentee owned ones, and distributed generation lends itself to ownership. Such local ownership also dramatically increases local acceptance of more renewable energy production. And because it’s a more efficient use of the electricity grid, distributed generation reduces the number of political fights over new high-voltage transmission lines.

4. Value to the grid. Distributed generation is more resilient to disruption, with power generation spread over thousands of generators and over a wide geographic area. This makes it harder for a large area to be without power and easier to maintain grid stability.

The report estimates that Illinois could meet 17 percent of electrical demand through rooftop solar generation alone. This doesn’t eliminate the need for utility-scale wind and solar generation, but the favorable economics (including decreasing cost of solar technologies), combined with potential savings from transmission and distribution infrastructure and energy loss, demand that distributed solar and wind provide a significant share of electrical generation in Illinois and the United States. It is entirely possible, given the correct regulatory framework, that distributed generation, particularly solar energy, could meet or exceed the target established by the RPS. This will come about through innovative financing sources, incentives for residential and small commercial consumers, and community supported generation facilities. The demands of life in the 21st century require a new electricity infrastructure. At this moment, as renewable energy technologies begin to challenge and replace fossil fuels, we are creating a new American power grid, and along with it the future source of American prosperity and stability.