Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Global boom for upgrading wastewaster treatment

Global boom for upgrading wastewaster treatment
Print This Post
Research on a “green” solution for wastewater treatment is underway at Siemens’ global R&D center in Singapore. Image: Siemens.com
Governments and water utilities across the world will be investing some $28 billion this year to improve their existing wastewater treatment infrastructure, a new report by Lux Research has found.
The report published last week by the Boston-based independent research house estimated that water managers globally will spend aboout USD$27.8 billion for advanced wastewater treatment technologies in 2012.
That spend will provide an additional global wastewater treatment capacity of 16.3 million cubic metres (m3) per day.
The report noted that wastewater technologies most commonly used by cities today “gobble enormous amounts of energy, send megatons of toxic sludge to landfills and incinerators, and throw away valuable water that many communities could reuse”.
Using specialised filters and other techniques, advanced wastewater treatments can clean wastewater such that the water and other byproducts can by recycled, and in some cases used for energy production.
The investments into new technologies are aimed at taking advantage of these opportunities. More than half of the money – 55 per cent – will be spent on upgrading or replacing old treatment plants in urban areas, many of which are in developing countries.
Of the potential advanced wastewater projects identified across the globe by Lux Research, 15 per cent were new facilities, while the rest of the projects involved upgrading or expanding existing plants.
China and the United States are the largest markets for advanced wastewater treatment technology, with Japan, Brazil, Germany and India completing the list of top investment opportunities.
While the wastewater treatment projects identifed were distributed evenly between developing and developed countries, the bulk of the investment – $22.3 billion – will be in developed countries. The costs for such projects are four times higher in developed countries, according to the report.
But even though the costs in building and upgrading plants are significantly smaller in developing countries, they are still a barrier, noted report author and senior analyst Brent Giles in a statement.
“Solving the most pressing problems in wastewater treatment will require technologies that are not just effective, but also affordable to the rapidly growing market in the developing world,” he said.
Research manager Melvin Leong of advisory firm Frost & Sullivan’s Asia Pacific environment and building technologies division told Eco-Business that governments in Asia’s developing countries usually cite ‘lack of financial means’ as the reason for delaying the use of advanced water treatment technologies.
The use of such technologies may become more viable in this region if the technology companies are able to offer business models that defray the up-front costs, he said.
Such business models include design, build, own and operate (DBOO) and or design, build, operate and transfer (DBOT). Under those schemes, the technology provider pays for the plant and recoups the costs over time through its operation.
One company that has enjoyed success with this model is Singapore-listed Hyflux, which has been selling water treatment systems in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia since 1989. The firm now provides advanced membrane technology for desalination, water purification and wastewater treatment across Southeast Asia, China, India, the Middle East and North Africa.
Many of its projects in China are being developed through a joint venture with Japanese investor Mitsui & Co. The partnership will fund and manage an initial 22 water and wastewater treatment plants under the name of Galaxy NewSpring.
Hyflux had proposed a ‘build-own-transfer’ arrangement for a RMB 200 million wastewater treatment plant announced last year for Zunyi City in China’s Guizhou province. Under this model, a Hyflux subsidiary would design, develop and then manage the 150,000 m3 plant for 30 years. After that period, ownership would be transferred to the local water authority.
But government-driven funding is also on the rise – particularly in China, where planners are increasingly concerned about the lack of clean water. Government data released recently showed that 40 per cent of rivers were seriously polluted after 75 billion tonnes of sewage and waste water were discharged in 2010.
As a result, the government said recently in a report by Chinese wire agency Xinhua that it will commit 4 trillion yuan (USD$634.9 billion) to clean water projects over the next 10 years.
Elsewhere in Asia, water technology companies are finding countries receptive to research and development (R&D) for new wastewater treatments.
Frost & Sullivan’s Mr Leong said that Singapore, Japan and South Korea have been active in adopting new technologies, and many developing countries in the region have agencies or educational institutes undertaking R&D projects.
But turning pilot projects into commercially viable systems remains a challenge due to the high costs involved, he added.
Developing new technologies
Currently, the dominant wastewater technology used in municipal or city sewage treatment plants is traditional activated sludge, which involves introducing biological organisms to break down organic waste.
The purpose of the system is to reduce the harmful environmental impacts of the resulting water and sludge, or left-over solids, as much as possible before releasing them into water systems or disposing of them.
Advanced technologies, which include various forms of filtration and biological or chemical processes, were developed to not only improve on this cleaning function, but also to make use of the natural resources that wastewater contains, such as water, nutrients and energy-filled organic matter.
Much of the R&D taking place in the region is focused on ways to capture the resources within wastewater; and while such R&D projects are sporadic, it is not entirely true to say that it is still far off, said Mr Leong.
Singapore’s NEWater, which was originally developed using Hyflux technology, is an example of a regional R&D project that has been successfully commercialised. NEWater is water that has been recycled from wastewater using a process similar to desalination, and was developed to supplement Singapore’s fresh water sources.
Another R&D project in the works is one by environmental technology firm Siemens, which is creating a wastewater treatment process that is energy self-sufficient.
After initial trials, Siemens said it had found a way to convert the energy contained in municipal wastewater into methane that can be used for power generation.
Municipal wastewater treatment using conventional technologies can consume up to 3 per cent of all electricity production, but according to Siemens, the wastewater contains enough energy to produce 10 times that amount of power.
Siemens said at the time of the announcement it would set up a pilot plant in Singapore that would treat wastewater from about 2,000 residents using methane produced from the water to power the facility.
Such a technology might prove useful for an industry that Lux Research’s Brent Giles said was ‘crying out for radical solutions’.
“In theory, the industry could be a safe source of both net energy production and useful byproducts,” noted Mr Giles

Monday, February 27, 2012

Pike Research: Building Energy Management Systems to Reach $6B by 2020

Pike Research: Building Energy Management Systems to Reach $6B by 2020

Energy Star-certified building, Smithsonian headquarters, image courtesy Smithsonian.com
Pike Research, a global consulting firm, has issued a new report noting that global revenues from building energy management systems are expected to rise almost 14 percent, year over year, through the end of the decade.
The term building energy management systems, or BEMS, refers to computer hardware or software systems which connect to, monitor, and regulate mechanicals like heating, air-conditioning, lighting and mainframes, or other operations that use energy. Building energy management systems can also be used to monitor water and other resource uses.
According to Pike, this means that actual revenues from BEMS are expected to reach slightly less than $6 billion by 2020 – a hefty sum even in what economists have predicted will be a “shrinking” economy. The information, available at no cost from a press release (and in-depth from a very costly report), highlights the expanding building energy management vertical within the building energy efficiency/LEED/EnergyStar marketplace.
LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is one metric construction engineers and building efficiency retrofit firms use to certify their structures. These certifications are based on different parameters whether the building is new or old, but come in four categories: Platinum, Gold, Silver and Certified.
Operated under the auspices of the U.S. Green Building Council, or USGBC, LEED ratings represent what some feel is the “best of the best” in terms of building sustainability, since they measure across a broad spectrum: site sustainability and feasibility, water use, energy use, sustainable materials use, indoor air quality, and innovation in design, and encourage both awareness of and education regarding “green” building initiatives.
Energy Star, a building energy efficiency rating program operating under the guidance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, and the U.S. Department of Energy, or DOE – and representing an offshoot of the Energy Star appliance energy efficiency certification program – is another system which builders and remodelers use to achieve “green” building status; that is, Energy Star-certified buildings use less energy, produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and are less expensive to operate.
Building efficiency and sustainability are gaining increasing exposure as a perfect storm of rising energy costs, reduced energy supplies, U.S. energy security and the environmental movement all converge, with the help of Information Technology (IT), to address issues never before so completely under the control of building managers.
Also known as Smart Grid innovations, or building automation, these IT innovations are helping to curb the vast amount of energy (18 percent of U.S. totals, according to the DOE) used by commercial buildings – an energy expenditure which was highlighted by President Obama in his 2011 budget proposal, which provided $28.4 billion for DOE policies, including mitigating environmental (climate) risk and maintaining national security.
Elsewhere, wireless sensor networks and software building energy management tools, being developed both in government laboratories and in private companies like Scientific Conservation, Inc. are also saving cash and energy in U.S. buildings, and this perfect storm couldn’t be happening at a more perfect time, given a decision by Obama to boost energy efficiency in government buildings by nearly $4 billion between 2012 and 2014.
Jeanne Roberts is a freelance writer on environment and sustainability issues. In her previous life, she worked as both a reporter and a communications specialist for a major public utility. Her most recent book, Green Your Home, approaches environmentalism from a consumer’s perspective.
Any opinion contained in this article is solely that of the writers, and does not necessarily shapes or reflect the editorial opinions of Energy Boom.
Energy Boom content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be advice regarding the investment merits of, or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of, any security identified on, or linked through, this site

Clean Energy Investment Has Record Breaking Third Quarter

Clean Energy Investment Has Record Breaking Third Quarter

Global investment in clean energy jumped 16% to $45.4 billion in the third quarter of 2011 from Q3 2010 according to research released by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
This investment spike was driven by a record breaking $41.8 billion asset financing of utility-scale renewable energy projects. BNEF highlighted that over $6 billion of the asset financing went to three offshore wind developments in the North Sea that are expected to generate 1 GW of clean, renewable energy. In the US, the $1.6 billion financing of the High Plains Ranch II and III PV represents the largest solar financing of the last three months.
Q3 2011 also produced record breaking clean energy merger and acquisition numbers. Led by EDF’s purchase of the remaining shares it did not own of its subsidiary EDF Energies Nouvelles, for $7.9 billion, M&A activity was up 59% over last year's third quarter reaching $25.9 billion.
The company's Q3 2011 clean energy findings did not all reflect a boom. Public market investment in clean energy companies was down 71% from the same period in 2010.
In the wake of the Solyndra bankruptcy the market place is reflecting the unease surrounding government backed clean energy projects. The bankruptcy "hasn’t helped clean energy share prices," noted Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. He added that, with the steady falls in the prices of clean energy equipment, like solar panels and wind turbines, there is not enough demand to use the over supply which is "crushing" manufacturers share prices.
Liebriech says in the current market, "You would love to be a developer with access to funding, but not a supplier."
In the US solar manufacturers feel that subsidies which support low-cost solar products imported from China are contributing declining share prices. Last week a collective of solar manufacturers announced intentions to file a formal trade complaint against China with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission.
With the U.S. Treasury cash grant program dubbed “Section 1603″ expiring at the end of the year US developers may find it more difficult to fund project development. As a provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 1603 provides a cash grant to renewable energy developers equal to 30% of initial investment in lieu of a tax credit. The loss of 1603 combined with higher scrutiny surrounding Department of Energy loan guarantees finding funding could prove challenging in 2012.
Image Credit: C. G. P. Grey via Flickr.
Joseph Baker is a freelance writer living in Vancouver BC. His areas of focus include renewable energy, sustainability and climate change.

Any opinion contained in this article is solely that of the writers, and does not necessarily shapes or reflect the editorial opinions of Energy Boom.
Energy Boom content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be advice regarding the investment merits of, or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of, any security identified on, or linked through, this site

Deduction for Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings

Internal Revenue Bulletin:  2008-14  
April 7, 2008  
Notice 2008-40
Amplification of Notice 2006-52; Deduction for Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND
SECTION 3. SPECIAL RULE FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED BUILDINGS
SECTION 4. LIST OF APPROVED SOFTWARE PROGRAMS
SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIM LIGHTING RULE
SECTION 6. APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM LIGHTING RULE TO UNCONDITIONED GARAGE SPACE
SECTION 7. CHANGES RELATING TO PARTIALLY QUALIFYING PROPERTY
SECTION 8. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
SECTION 9. DRAFTING INFORMATION
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This notice clarifies and amplifies Notice 2006-52, 2006-1 C.B. 1175. Notice 2006-52 provides a process that allows a taxpayer who owns a commercial building and installs property as part of the commercial building’s interior lighting systems, heating, cooling, ventilation, and hot water systems, or building envelope to obtain a certification that the property satisfies the energy efficiency requirements of § 179D(c)(1) and (d) of the Internal Revenue Code. Notice 2006-52 also provides for a public list of software programs that may be used in calculating energy and power consumption for purposes of § 179D.
This notice sets forth additional guidance relating to the deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings under § 179D and is intended to be used with Notice 2006-52. Any reference in this notice to Standard 90.1-2001 should be treated as a reference to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2001, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, developed for the American National Standards Institute by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (as in effect on April 2, 2003, including addenda 90.1a-2003, 90.1b-2002, 90.1c-2002, 90.1d-2002, and 90.1k-2002 as in effect on that date).
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND
Section 1331 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005), enacted § 179D of the Code, which provides a deduction with respect to energy efficient commercial buildings. Section 204 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922 (2006), extends the § 179D deduction through December 31, 2008.
Section 179D(a) allows a deduction to a taxpayer for part or all of the cost of energy efficient commercial building property that the taxpayer places in service after December 31, 2005, and before January 1, 2009. Sections 179D(d)(1) and 179D(f) allow a deduction to a taxpayer for part or all of the cost of certain partially qualifying commercial building property that the taxpayer places in service after December 31, 2005, and before January 1, 2009. Partially qualifying commercial building property is property that would be energy efficient commercial building property but for the failure to achieve the 50-percent reduction in energy and power costs required under § 179D(c)(1)(D).
SECTION 3. SPECIAL RULE FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED BUILDINGS
.01 In General. In the case of energy efficient commercial building property (or partially qualifying commercial building property for which a deduction is allowed under § 179D) that is installed on or in property owned by a Federal, State, or local government or a political subdivision thereof, the owner of the property may allocate the § 179D deduction to the person primarily responsible for designing the property (the designer). If the allocation of a § 179D deduction to a designer satisfies the requirements of this section, the deduction will be allowed only to that designer. The deduction will be allowed to the designer for the taxable year that includes the date on which the property is placed in service.
.02 Designer of Government-Owned Buildings. A designer is a person that creates the technical specifications for installation of energy efficient commercial building property (or partially qualifying commercial building property for which a deduction is allowed under § 179D). A designer may include, for example, an architect, engineer, contractor, environmental consultant or energy services provider who creates the technical specifications for a new building or an addition to an existing building that incorporates energy efficient commercial building property (or partially qualifying commercial building property for which a deduction is allowed under § 179D). A person that merely installs, repairs, or maintains the property is not a designer.
.03 Allocation of the Deduction. If more than one designer is responsible for creating the technical specifications for installation of energy efficient commercial building property (or partially qualifying commercial building property for which a deduction is allowed under § 179D) on or in a government-owned building, the owner of the building shall—
(1) determine which designer is primarily responsible and allocate the full deduction to that designer, or
(2) at the owner’s discretion, allocate the deduction among several designers.
.04 Form of Allocation. An allocation of the § 179D deduction to the designer of a government-owned building must be in writing and will be treated as satisfying the requirements of this section with respect to energy efficient commercial building property (or partially qualifying commercial building property for which a deduction is allowed under § 179D) if the allocation contains all of the following:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of an authorized representative of the owner of the government-owned building;
(2) The name, address, and telephone number of an authorized representative of the designer receiving the allocation of the § 179D deduction;
(3) The address of the government-owned building on or in which the property is installed;
(4) The cost of the property;
(5) The date the property is placed in service;
(6) The amount of the § 179D deduction allocated to the designer;
(7) The signatures of the authorized representatives of both the owner of the government-owned building and the designer or the designer’s authorized representative; and
(8) A declaration, applicable to the allocation and any accompanying documents, signed by the authorized representative of the owner of the government-owned building, in the following form:
“Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this allocation, including accompanying documents, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the facts presented in support of this allocation are true, correct, and complete.”
.05 Obligations of Designer. Before a designer may claim the § 179D deduction with respect to property installed on or in a government-owned building, the designer must obtain the written allocation described in section 3.04. A designer is not required to attach the allocation to the return on which the deduction is taken. However, § 1.6001-1(a) of the Income Tax Regulations requires that taxpayers maintain such books and records as are sufficient to establish the entitlement to, and amount of, any deduction claimed by the taxpayer. Accordingly, a designer claiming a deduction under § 179D should retain the allocation as part of the taxpayer’s records for purposes of§ 1.6001-1(a) of the Income Tax Regulations.
.06 Tax Consequences to Designer of Government-Owned Buildings. The maximum amount of the § 179D deduction to be allocated to the designer is the amount of the costs incurred by the owner of the government-owned building to place the energy efficient commercial building property in service. A partial deduction may be allocated and computed in accordance with the procedures set forth in sections 2 and 3 of Notice 2006-52. The designer does not include any amount in income on account of the § 179D deduction allocated to the designer. In addition, the designer is not required to reduce future deductions by an amount equal to the § 179D deduction allocated to the designer. Although reducing future deductions in this manner would provide equivalent treatment for designers that are allocated a § 179D deduction and building owners that are required to reduce the basis of their energy efficient commercial building property by the amount of the § 179D deduction they claim, § 179D does not provide for any reductions other than reductions to the basis of the energy efficient commercial building property.
.07 Tax Consequences to Owner of Public Building. The owner of the public building is not required to include any amount in income on account of the § 179D deduction allocated to the designer. The owner of the public building is, however, required to reduce the basis of the energy efficient commercial building property (or partially qualifying commercial building property) by the amount of the § 179D deduction allocated.
SECTION 4. LIST OF APPROVED SOFTWARE PROGRAMS
.01 In General. The Department of Energy creates and maintains a public list of software that may be used to calculate energy and power consumption and costs for purposes of providing a certification under section 4 of Notice 2006-52. This public list appears at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/tax_incentives.html. Soft- ware will be included on the list if the software developer submits the following information to the Department of Energy:
(1) The name, address, and (if applicable) web site of the software developer;
(2) The name, email address, and telephone number of the person to contact for further information regarding the software;
(3) The name, version, or other identifier of the software as it will appear on the list;
(4) All test results, input files, output files, weather data, modeler reports, and the executable version of the software with which the tests were conducted; and
(5) A declaration by the developer of the software made under penalties of perjury and containing all of the following information:
(a) A statement that the software has been tested according to the American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 140-2007 Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs.
(b) A statement that the software can model explicitly—
(i) 8,760 hours per year;
(ii) Calculation methodologies for the building components being modeled;
(iii) Hourly variations in occupancy, lighting power, miscellaneous equipment power, thermostat setpoints, and HVAC system operation, defined separately for each day of the week and holidays;
(iv) Thermal mass effects;
(v) Ten or more thermal zones;
(vi) Part-load performance curves for mechanical equipment;
(vii) Capacity and efficiency correction curves for mechanical heating and cooling equipment; and
(viii) Air-side and water-side economizers with integrated control.
(c) A statement that the software can explicitly model each of the following HVAC systems listed in Appendix G of Standard 90.1-2004:
(i) Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC) (air source), single-zone package (through the wall), multi-zone hydronic loop, air-to-air DX coil cooling, central boiler, hot water coil.
(ii) Packaged Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP) (air source), single-zone package (through the wall), air-to-air DX coil heat/cool.
(iii) Packaged Single Zone Air Conditioner (PSZ-AC), single-zone air, air-to-air DX coil cool, gas coil, constant-speed fan.
(iv) Packaged Single Zone Heat Pump (PSZ-HP), single-zone air, air-to-air DX coil cool/heat, constant-speed fan.
(v) Packaged Variable-Air-Volume (PVAV) with reheat, multi-zone air; multi-zone hydronic loop, air-to-air DX coil, VAV fan, boiler, hot water VAV terminal boxes.
(vi) Packaged Variable-Air-Volume with parallel fan powered boxes (PVAV with PFP boxes), multi-zone air, DX coil, VAV fan, fan-powered induction boxes, electric reheat.
(vii) Variable-Air-Volume (VAV) with reheat, multi-zone air, multi-zone hydronic loop, air-handling unit, chilled water coil, hot water coil, VAV fan, chiller, boiler, hot water VAV boxes.
(viii) Variable-Air-Volume with parallel fan powered boxes (VAV with PFP boxes), multi-zone air, air-handling unit, chilled water coil, hot water coil, VAV fan, chiller, fan-powered induction boxes, electric reheat.
(d) A statement that the software can—
(i) Either directly determine energy and power costs or produce hourly reports of energy use by energy source suitable for determining energy and power costs separately; and
(ii) Design load calculations to determine required HVAC equipment capacities and air and water flow rates.
(e) A statement describing which, if any, of the following the software can explicitly model:
(i) Natural ventilation.
(ii) Mixed mode (natural and mechanical) ventilation.
(iii) Earth tempering of outdoor air.
(iv) Displacement ventilation.
(v) Evaporative cooling.
(vi) Water use by occupants for cooking, cleaning or other domestic uses.
(vii) Water use by heating, cooling, or other equipment, or for on-site landscaping.
(viii) Automatic interior or exterior lighting controls (such as occupancy, photocells, or time clocks).
(viii) Daylighting (sidelighting, skylights, or tubular daylight devices).
(ix) Improved fan system efficiency through static pressure reset.
(x) Radiant heating or cooling (low or high temperature).
(xi) Multiple or variable speed control for fans, cooling equipment, or cooling towers.
(xii) On-site energy systems (such as combined heat and power systems, fuel cells, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, or wind).
.02 Addresses. Submissions under this section must be addressed as follows:
Commercial Software List
Department of Energy
Office of Building Technologies,
EE-2J
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585-0121
.03 Updated Lists. The software list at http://www.eere.energy.gov/ buildings/info/tax_incentives.html will be updated as necessary to reflect submissions received under this section.
.04 Removal from Published List. The Department of Energy may, upon examination, determine that software is not sufficiently accurate to justify its use in calculating energy and power consumption and costs for purposes of providing a certification under section 4 of Notice 2006-52 and remove the software from the published list. The Department of Energy may undertake such an examination on its own initiative or in response to a public request supported by appropriate analysis of the software’s deficiencies.
.05 Effect of Removal from Published List. Software may not be used to calculate energy and power consumption and costs for purposes of providing a certification with respect to property placed in service after the date on which the software is removed from the published list. The removal will not affect the validity of any certification with respect to property placed in service on or before the date on which the software is removed from the published list.
.06 Public Availability of Information. The Department of Energy may make all information provided under paragraph .01 of this section available for public review.
.07 Applicability. The procedures in this section supersede the procedures set forth in section 6 of Notice 2006-52 for periods after March 31, 2008. Any software that is included on the public list on March 31, 2008, will remain on the public list unless and until removed under the procedures set forth in this section.
SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIM LIGHTING RULE
.01 In General. Section 2.03(1)(b) of Notice 2006-52 provides an interim rule under which partially qualifying property is treated as energy efficient lighting property (the Interim Lighting Rule). Before a taxpayer may claim the § 179D deduction under the Interim Lighting Rule with respect to energy efficient lighting property installed on or in a commercial building, the taxpayer must obtain a certification with respect to the property. The certification must be provided by a qualified individual. Section 4 of Notice 2006-52 provides that the certification must include a statement that qualified computer software was used to calculate energy and power consumption and costs. That section also provides that the certification must include a statement that the building owner has received an explanation of projected annual energy costs. These requirements are appropriate only in the case of certifications that involve calculations of energy and power consumption and cost. The Interim Lighting Rule is satisfied by a reduction in lighting power density and such a reduction may be computed using a spreadsheet or other similar software. This computation does not require qualified computer software to model the entire building system or a determination of projected annual energy costs. Accordingly, the requirements of section 4 of Notice 2006-52 do not apply to certifications under the Interim Lighting Rule.
.02 Applicable Requirements. A taxpayer is not required to attach the certification to the return on which the deduction is taken. However, § 1.6001-1(a) of the Income Tax Regulations requires that taxpayers maintain such books and records as are sufficient to establish the entitlement to, and amount of, any deduction claimed by the taxpayer. Accordingly, a taxpayer claiming a deduction under § 179D should retain the certification as part of the taxpayer’s records for purposes of § 1.6001-1(a) of the Income Tax Regulations. The qualified individual providing a certification under the interim rule must document a reduction in lighting power density in a thorough and consistent manner. A certification under the Interim Lighting Rule will be treated as satisfying the requirements of § 179D(c)(1) if the certification contains all of the following:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the qualified individual;
(2) The address of the building to which the certification applies;
(3) A statement by the qualified individual that the interior lighting systems that have been, or are planned to be, incorporated into the building—
(a) Achieve a reduction in lighting power density of at least 25 percent (50 percent in the case of a warehouse) of the minimum requirements in Table 9.3.1.1 or Table 9.3.1.2 (not including additional interior lighting power allowances) of Standard 90.1-2001;
(b) Have controls and circuiting that comply fully with the mandatory and prescriptive requirements of Standard 90.1-2001;
(c) Include provision for bi-level switching in all occupancies except hotel and motel guest rooms, store rooms, restrooms, public lobbies, and garages; and
(d) Meet the minimum requirements for calculated lighting levels as set forth in the IESNA Lighting Handbook, Performance and Application, Ninth Edition, 2000;
(4) A statement by the qualified individual that—
(a) Field inspections of the building were performed by a qualified individual after the energy efficient lighting property has been placed in service;
(b) The field inspections confirmed that the building has met, or will meet, the reduction in lighting power density required by the design plans and specifications; and
(c) The field inspections were performed in accordance with inspection and testing procedures that—
(i) Have been prescribed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) as Energy Savings Modeling and Inspection Guidelines for Commercial Building Federal Tax Deduction; and
(ii) Are in effect at the time the certification is given;
(5) A list identifying the components of the energy efficient lighting property installed on or in the building, the energy efficiency features of the building, and its projected lighting power density;
(6) A statement that the building owner has received an explanation of the energy efficiency features of the building and its projected lighting power density;
(7) A declaration, applicable to the certification and any accompanying documents, signed by the qualified individual, in the following form:
“Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this certification, including accompanying documents, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the facts presented in support of this certification are true, correct, and complete.”
SECTION 6. APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM LIGHTING RULE TO UNCONDITIONED GARAGE SPACE
For purposes of the Interim Lighting Rule, the definition of a Building within the Scope of Standard 90.1-2001 (found in Section 5.01 of Notice 2006-52) is expanded to include a structure that—
(1) Encloses space affording shelter to persons, animals, or property within exterior walls (or within exterior and party walls) and a roof;
(2) Is not a single-family house, a multi-family structure of three stories or fewer above grade, a manufactured house (mobile home), or a manufactured house (modular); and
(3) Is unconditioned attached or detached garage space as referenced by Tables 9.3.1.1 and 9.3.1.2 of Standard 90.1-2001.
SECTION 7. CHANGES RELATING TO PARTIALLY QUALIFYING PROPERTY
.01 Energy Savings Percentages. A taxpayer may apply section 2.05 of Notice 2006-52 by substituting “10” for “162/3” in section 2.05(1) of such notice. If a taxpayer makes this substitution, the taxpayer must apply sections 2.03 and 2.04 of Notice 2006-52 by substituting “20” for “162/3” in sections 2.03(1)(a) and 2.04(1) of such notice. If § 179D is extended beyond December 31, 2008, the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department expect, in the absence of other changes to § 179D, that the substitute percentages set forth in this section will be the only percentages used in determining whether property placed in service after December 31, 2008, is partially qualifying property.
.02 Limitation on Deduction for Partially Qualifying Property.
(1) In General. If property installed on or in a building is treated as partially qualifying property under sections 2.03, 2.04, and 2.05 of Notice 2006-52, the deduction for the cost of such property shall not exceed the greatest of the following amounts:
(a) The sum of the deductions allowable under sections 2.03 and 2.04 of such notice;
(b) The sum of the deductions allowable under sections 2.04 and 2.05 of such notice; or
(c) The sum of the deductions allowable under sections 2.03 and 2.05 of such notice.
(2) Application to Multiple Taxpayers. If two or more taxpayers install property on or in the same building and the deduction for the cost of the property is subject to the limitation in section 7.02(1) of this notice, the aggregate amount of the § 179D deductions allowed to all such taxpayers with respect to the building shall not exceed the amount determined under section 7.02(1) of this notice.
SECTION 8. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
The collections of information contained in this notice have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1545-2004.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
The collections of information are in sections 4 and 6 of Notice 2006-52 and sections 4 and 5 of this notice. This information is required to be collected and retained in order to ensure that energy efficient commercial building property meets the requirements for the deduction under § 179D. This information will be used to determine whether commercial building property for which certifications are provided is property that qualifies for the deduction.
The collection of information is required to obtain a benefit.
The likely respondents are two groups: qualified individuals providing a certification under § 179D (section 4 of Notice 2006-52 and section 5 of this notice) and software developers seeking to have software included on the public list created by the Department of Energy (section 6 of Notice 2006-52 and section 4 of this notice).
For qualified individuals providing a certification under § 179D, the likely respondents are individuals. The likely number of certifications is 20,000. The estimated burden per certification ranges from 15 to 30 minutes with an estimated average burden of 22.5 minutes. The estimated total annual reporting burden is 7,500 hours.
For software developers seeking to have software included on the public list created by the Department of Energy, the likely respondents are individuals, corporations and partnerships. The estimated total annual reporting burden is 75 hours. The estimated annual burden per respondent varies from 1 to 2 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average burden of 11/2 hours to complete the submission required to have the software added to the public list. The estimated number of respondents is 50. The estimated frequency of responses is once.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
SECTION 9. DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal author of this notice is Jennifer C. Bernardini of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Industries). For further information regarding this notice, contact Jennifer C. Bernardini at (202) 622-3110 (not a toll-free call).
Prev   Up  Next
  Home  

 More Internal Revenue Bulletins

Thursday, February 23, 2012

PACE Financing on the Rebound

Federal regulators consider unblocking the billion-dollar PACE residential market. Meanwhile, can commercial and industrial PACE take off?

Jeff St. John: February 10, 2012
Property-assessed clean energy, or PACE, financing has had a rough ride over the past few years, but it’s poised for a comeback. On the home front, we’ve got federal regulators considering ways to unblock a financing model that could spur billions of dollars in residential energy retrofits. And on the commercial side, we’ve got some showcase projects that could unlock a market even bigger in scope.
That’s not bad, considering the death many analysts were predicting for the PACE model in 2010. That’s when the Federal Housing Finance Agency told mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they couldn't underwrite mortgages for homes that sought to pay back home energy efficiency upgrades, solar panels and other projects through property taxes.
Residential PACE programs underway in 27 states were cut short. Sure, you could still fund your home improvement project through PACE programs. But you couldn’t pass the tax burden on to someone else when you sold or refinanced, which was PACE’s big selling point.
But now the FHFA is being court-ordered to reconsider whether its rules on PACE financing should be “maintained, changed or eliminated” (PDF). The agency has opened the matter for public comment through March 26, 2012. PACE backers from the industry and the nonprofit world are promising to make their views known. On the other hand, FHFA has appealed the case to U.S. District Court, where it may win a more favorable ruling.
In the meantime, FHFA’s ruling doesn’t apply to commercial mortgages. That’s allowed cities and counties to form special districts that promise building owners the key benefit of PACE: tying investments to the property, not the owner. That way, it costs them nothing. In fact, if the energy savings outpace the quarterly tax payments, it’s actually making them money.
Last fall, one of the largest such projects launched in Miami-Dade County and Sacramento, Calif., with the promise of drawing in $650 million in efficiency investments over the next few years.
Ygrene Energy Fund, a Sonoma, Calif.-based pioneer in residential PACE programs, has taken a lead role in the project, which seeks to convert PACE-backed efficiency projects into bonds for sale to institutional investors like pension funds.
Here’s how it works: First, Ygrene markets the program to building owners within the newly created tax districts, asking them to commit to an off-balance-sheet, no-upfront-cost investment in their building. A deep-pocketed contractor (in this case, Lockheed Martin) takes on the biggest efficiency measures. To back the promised energy savings on their way to being packaged as a financial product, Energi Insurance Services underwrites an insurance policy backed by Hanover Re. Barclays Capital offers low-interest, short-term project finance loans to do the work, and backs those loans by bundling them into long-term bonds.
It’s a complicated structure, and we can expect months, if not years, to pass before Barclay’s PACE-backed bonds start appearing on the market. But there’s plenty of reason to believe the capital behind them will grow, Ygrene Chairman Dennis Hunter told me in an interview last week.
For example, the Miami-Sacramento projects’ $650 million target is based on participation of only 3.5 percent of all properties in the special districts, Hunter said. If only 10 percent join in, that number could rise into the billions of dollars. Ygrene has about $30 million in applications already, though the project hasn’t officially launched yet, he said. After all, green building retrofits are known to increase property values.
Meanwhile, Ygrene and Sacramento have pledged to spend $100 million on their PACE program to back the White House’s Better Buildings Challenge, which is asking the private sector to pony up $4 billion in efficiency projects over the next two years. The Clinton Foundation has estimated the potential for commercial energy efficiency projects at $88 billion to $180 billion nationwide, providing plenty of room for growth in a market that is largely self-financed today.
Of course, there are other financing methods being applied to the opportunity as well. Startups like Serious Energy, Transcend Equity and Metrus Energy are putting together new financing models that allow them to pay for and own building improvements for the value of the energy savings they create. That’s a bit like the energy services contracts that giants like Honeywell, Johnson Control, Siemens and Schneider Electric provide for the government and institutional buildings sector.
On the residential side, California regulators are considering “on-bill payment” plans to boost investment at the residential level. North American utilities spend about $6 billion per year on energy efficiency programs, but could unlock additional investments by letting people fold their monthly interest payments into a utility bill that’s also going down as the building gets more efficient.
The key to most of these programs is the promise that they will be virtually free to the building owners -- which means that the financing parties are taking on a big risk. But then, efficiency investments are some of the fastest and lowest-cost green investments around, which could give reassurance to whatever market ends up developing for them.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Wave and tidal power need support, say (UK) MPs



Artist's impression of proposed Skerries Tidal Stream Array Schemes such as the Skerries Tidal Stream Array off Anglesey give the UK "a global lead"

The government should increase support for wave and tidal power to preserve the UK's global leadership, say MPs.

The Energy and Climate Change Committee says the UK had in the past lost its early lead on wind power through lack of support, and must not make the same mistake again on marine energy.

Its report recommends increasing funding and improving links between UK and Scottish programmes.

The Carbon Trust recently said marine power could create 10,000 jobs by 2020.

By 2050, it said, the global market could be worth £340bn, with the UK claiming about one-fifth of the business.

And with the UK possessing seven out of the eight large-scale prototypes deployed anywhere in the world, it was well-placed to lead the global race, the MPs said.

 
"In the 1980s the UK squandered the lead it had in wind power development, and now Denmark has a large share of the worldwide market in turbine manufacturing," said Tim Yeo MP, the committee's chairman.

"It should be a priority for the government to ensure that the UK remains at the cutting edge of developments in this technology and does not allow our lead to slip."
Electricity demand
The committee's report, The Future of Marine Renewables in the UK, included an examination of tidal stream generators, where devices such as big rotors are turned by the incoming and outgoing tides, but excluded barrage technologies such as the mooted Severn Barrage, which tend to be much more expensive and can cause big ecological problems.

It has been estimated that wave and tidal technologies could supply about one-fifth of the UK's current electricity demand, and many other nations are becoming interested, in particular the Nordic countries, South Korea and China.

But currently they are expensive - about five times the price of onshore wind, for example.

As with other new technologies, the government expects costs to fall dramatically once devices and installation become standardised.

La Rance tidal barrage La Rance barrage, opened in 1966, was until recently the world's biggest tidal power facility

But there is little chance of marine power making a major contribution by 2020.

The government recently reduced its estimate of the 2020 contribution from 1-2 gigawatts (GW) to 200-300 MW, and the committee says that should be looked at again, as several industry experts have said the new target can be met easily.

The size of the UK funding pot for marine renewables, at £20m, should also be re-examined, they say. And deployment of that money should be co-ordinated better with the Scottish government, which has a separate £18m budget.

The level of subsidy companies receive up to 2017 is secure, the MPs say - but longer-term clarity is needed in order to give investors confidence.

David Clarke, chief executive of the Energy Technologies Institute, a government-industry collaboration, said time was of the essence.

"The marine renewables industry must demonstrate its ability to be cost-competitive, compared with other low-carbon technologies, in the next 5-8 years if it is to engage commercial investors," he said.

"If it doesn't, other technologies will be built as alternatives; investors will feel more assurance in them and see more opportunity for return."

With projects such as Marine Current Turbines' tidal generator in Strangford Lough showing the technologies can work with no discernible impact on local ecology, the next step will be to build arrays of several connected devices; but each array would cost around £40-50m, the committee heard, meaning current levels of support could be inadequate.

Another recommendation from the committee is that with many of the best sites in remote locations around northern and western Scotland and in the Orkneys and Shetlands, finance for grid connection needs ramping up.
'Fully committed'
Environment groups who have long bemoaned the slow pace of development on wave and tidal power endorsed the committee's recommendations.

"This report is a great reminder of the massive potential of marine renewables in the UK," said Nick Molho, head of energy policy at WWF-UK.

"Investment certainty holds the key to reducing the costs of marine renewable and creating jobs; the government would be mad to miss this boat."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said the government welcomed the report and was studying its recommendations.

"We are fully committed to spurring on the growth of this industry and have already taken great strides to make this happen," she said.

Follow Richard on Twitter


More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • +2

    Comment number 210.

    Wind turbines are useless - the manufacturers overstate their output and base figures on optimal wind conditions - in Britain it has been shown they produce less than 40% of the energy they are suppposed to.

    Tidal and wave power however, is brilliant, It never changes - the tide is as regular as clockwork and as an island we should make use of this massive force to generate our power needs.
  • +34

    Comment number 121.

    We seem to be used, as a country, to looking only at short-termism. Here's a suggestion. Why do we not do something to stop the criminal waste of energy? Offices are far too warm, shops only seem to heat the surrounding pavements, street lights too bright, advertising signs advertising the unnecessary, too many single person car journeys and no incentive to reduce usage. This can start tomorrow.
  • +54

    Comment number 91.

    I've never understood why tidal power has always been so far down the list of alternative power generation in the UK. We have massive energy potential all around the coast and it's guaranteed & regular.
  • +35

    Comment number 77.

    The power of the tides flowing around the uk is constant and we are very
    stupid if we do not use it. the time of oil,coal,gas etc.is running out and is
    controled by other people who just make money out of us.
    If our own government would only wake up ,stop scoring of each other and GET ON WITH IT,we could regain our independance and have cheap energy.Perhaps even pay our bills
  • +9

    Comment number 36.

    People who have little expertise in renewable energy don't realise that for the extensive amount of capital investment in wind, tidal and solar farms, there is little output (unless on massive scales). To scientists, it is blindingly obvious that nuclear power is still the most viable option for the UK in the long-term. It IS safe and remains the best option given the foreseeable economic climate.
Comments 5 of 7