Solar Crowdfunding Startup Lets Ordinary Investors Own A Piece Of The Sun

Future so bright Mosaic founders Billy Parish and Daniel Rosen gotta wear shades. Photo: Eric Millette

Don’t hold your breath, but the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission could finalize regulations this year to implement the JOBS Act, the 2012 law that lets startups raise funds directly from mom-and-pop investors.

Mosaic isn’t waiting. The two-year-old Oakland, Calif. firm already won approval in California and New York to allow individuals to invest directly via its website. The twist is that the investments are loans, not equity, and the money goes (for now) only to new solar power developments. In the past ordinary investors have been shut out of the solar boom, as most projects obtain equity or debt financing from banks and corporations, which lately are not so eager to lend for solar projects.

“Anything that introduces new sources of cost-effective capital is valuable,” says Reyad Fezzani, a former BP executive who is now chairman and managing partner of Energy Finance Company in Manhattan Beach, Calif. In late December he raised $350,000 from accredited investors through Mosaic’s website for a 470-kilowatt photovoltaic array that his company installed on a New Jersey convention center. He says he’s saving 200 to 300 basis points over banks with Mosaic.

Even not particularly green-minded investors might be tempted by Mosaic’s returns of 4.5% to 6.5%, well above CD rates. Residential solar projects tend to have default rates as low as 0.2%.

“One of the fastest ways to build the clean energy economy is to allow more people to benefit from it,” says Billy Parish, Mosaic’s 31-year-old cofounder and president.

Similar to peer-to-peer financing site Lending Club, Mosaic puts the burden on investors to assess the risks in project prospectuses. If they like a deal, they can get in for as little as $25. No money is transferred if a deal isn’t fully financed. The developer pays back the loan with interest from income generated by the sale of electricity to its customers. Mosaic takes 100 basis points of the interest rate (along with an origination fee and annual platform fees) and passes the rest to investors.

Mosaic is far too small to scare any investment banks, but it can get deals done quickly. Within the first 24 hours of going live in January, Mosaic’s new website raised more than $300,000, including $227,875 for three loans for solar arrays on three affordable-housing complexes that offered returns of 4.5%. Mosaic has now raised a total of $1.1 million for all projects. Parish says profitability is “within sight.”

Anthony Kim, a solar analyst with research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance, questions whether Mosaic can attract a big enough pipeline of investors to fund large solar projects. “For now, I think it’s a relatively niche product,” he says.

The startup hopes to build on its current 7,000 potential investors via social media referrals and by targeting foundations, financial advisors and corporations.

Mosaic board member Marco Krapels, a renewable energy financier with the Dutch bank Rabobank, has his eye on the $17 trillion that sits in U.S. retirement accounts. “If you could put a Mosaic note in an IRA, I think the opportunity is just massive,” he says.

Fezzani says he’s investing his own money in Mosaic’s offerings. “I know many people who say they want to invest in solar, but there’s just been no option before.”

Taller Wind Turbines Boost State Energy Self-Reliance

By John Farrell
January 22, 2013 |

A story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune highlights the increasingly common use of 100-meter wind turbines for new wind power projects, up from the previous 80-meter standard. The technological change grabs more wind energy, with consistently higher wind speeds at higher altitudes, meaning states can get even more power from a similar number of turbines.
In our 2010 report Energy Self-Reliant States, we illustrated the potential for state self-reliance on wind power with the following map, using NREL data that assumed turbine heights of 80 meters (and a minimum capacity factor of 35%, to be conservative). The following two maps show the potential state self-reliance on wind power at the previous 80-meter turbine height and at the new 100-meter turbine height (with a minimum capacity factor of 30 percent or greater). See the original article for a handy mouseover option.
The taller turbines mean that five more states are able to get 100 percent or more of their electricity from wind power (for a total of 27) and 30 states could get at least half their electricity from in-state wind power alone.

This post originally appeared on ILSR’s Energy Self-Reliant States blog.

Lead image: Wind turbines via Shutterstock

Wind Power

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

Offshore Wind “Backbone” Project Moves Ahead

 

The Atlantic Wind Connection project to lay undersea cables and transfer offshore wind to the eastern U.S. plans its first phase.

An offshore wind farm in Portugal. Despite having a large resource, the U.S. does not have any offshore wind installed. Will a transmission network speed development? Credit: Principle Power.

An ambitious power transmission line project to tap the offshore wind resource off the east coast U.S. is taking steps toward actual construction.
A consortium of companies called the Atlantic Wind Connection this week said it intends to lay transmission lines about 12 miles off the coast of New Jersey as the first phase of a multi-year plan. Today it said Bechtel was chosen as the engineering and design contractor and Alstom as technical advisor.
The ten-year project would bring an undersea high-voltage direct current network for transferring power from offshore wind turbines located from Maryland to New Jersey to the on-shore transmission network. Having transmission lines in place will provide the infrastructure to attract offshore wind developers and allow New Jersey to take advantage of its offshore wind resource at a lower cost, Atlantic Wind Connection says.
The New Jersey link project will use high-voltage direct current technology, which is considered essential to exploiting renewable energy sources at large scale. Direct current transmission lines are a more economic way to carry power over long distances, such transferring solar power from the desert or offshore wind, to cities and other load centers. (See, ABB Advance Makes Renewable-Energy Supergrids Practical.)
Alstom will supply the equipment to convert between alternating current, which is used through most of the electricity grid, and direct current. Most wind turbines today connect to the AC grid at 34.5 kV, an Atlantic Wind representative explained. In this projet, there will be a series of offshore converter stations to convert the alternating current from turbines into DC and step the voltage up to 320 kV for transmission to the onshore grid, where it will be converted back to AC.
The announcements are a sign that the offshore wind “backbone” project, first announced in 2010, is moving beyond initial planning stages. Transmission project developer Trans-Elect heads up Atlantic Wind Connection. Atlantic Grid Development is the project developer and Google, private equity fund Bregal Energy, Japanese conglomerate Marubeni Corp, and Belgian transmission operator Elia are investors.
Atlantic Wind Connection says the main cable buried under the ocean will be able to carry 3,000 megawatts of power. That’s a few times larger than a full size power plant, although the output of wind farms is not consistent as nuclear or fossil fuel plants are. The company says it plans to begin construction and put the first New Jersey phase into service in 2019. In addition to carrying wind onshore, the network will provide alternate routes to the land transmission network and improve the reliability of New Jersey’s grid.
The proposed transmission line, called the New Jersey Energy Link, will need to be approved by regulators and the cost recovered by rate payers, the same way that other regulated lines are paid for, explained Trans-Elect CEO Bob Mitchell.
The company is moving ahead now to secure support from the state government and include the transmission lines as part of the regional planning process. “Once it is built, it will be able to move power north to supply power where and when it is needed. This relief of congestion will cause prices to be lowered—it will be adding supply when there is demand,” Mitchell says.
Lack of transmission has been a bottleneck for large onshore wind farm projects and establishing a transmission backbone in place would greatly simplify offshore wind development.
Winds in the ocean are stronger and steadier but the U.S. doesn’t have any offshore wind for technical, regulatory, and financial reasons. (See, DOE Grants Try to Crack the Code on Offshore Wind.) The Department of Energy estimates that the U.S. has 4,000 gigawatts of offshore wind available, or four time the country’s current generating capacity.

Offshore Wind Projects Could Provide Refreshing Energy Source

 

 

Residents along the Atlantic coastline recently witnessed the wrath of Hurricane Sandy. Now they may begin to feel something a bit more breezy — the beginnings of a new offshore wind energy project that is spearheaded in part by Google.

 

The Atlantic Wind Connection would take place over at least 10 years and would have the potential of delivering 7,000 megawatts of wind energy to states along the East Coast, some of which have set renewable portfolio standards. That would increase the venture’s attraction despite being considerably more expensive than on-land generation.
“The Atlantic Wind Connection provides a significant alternative to land-based upgrades to the grid,” says John Nathman, a retired naval officer before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “Indeed, the project can be an important step in strengthening our national security through improvements to the electric grid.” The venture’s partners are not just Google but also Trans-Elect, Good Energies, Marubeni Corp., Bregal Energy and Elia, which are moving ahead. They have combined to invest $5 billion.
The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management granted its permission to build the underwater line that could eventually stretch 380 miles from Virginia to New Jersey. The agency’s review concludes that no other similar competitors exist in that region that would object to giving the developers rights-of-way. Other federal and state permits are still necessary.
The project, of course, can’t avoid the comparisons to Cape Wind, which has been encumbered in legal battles for more than a decade but which may start producing power in 2014. The Atlantic wind deal has broader public and political support.
Still, the cost of the project could end up being enormous, or potentially twice as much as a land-based deal. The investors, though, are factoring in potential subsidies and tax benefits as well as tougher environmental regulations dealing with carbon emissions.
Under the National Offshore Wind Strategy, the U.S. Department of Energy wants to have 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind generating capacity by 2020 and 54,000 by 2030. Those scenarios include development in both federal and state offshore areas, including along Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts as well as in Great Lakes and Hawaiian waters, the agency says.
While the regulatory headwinds that are keeping offshore wind production at bay are easing, the bigger gusts involve getting the financing needed to go ahead, as well as to conquering some of the technical hurdles. That’s why the U.S. Department of Energy is working to remove some of the barriers to entry by funding some of the research and development.
“Offshore wind energy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, diversify our energy supply, and stimulate economic revitalization,” says Secretary Steven Chu. “The Department of Energy is committed to working with our federal partners to provide national leadership in accelerating offshore wind energy deployment.”
The best known among the offshore wind proposals is that of Cape Wind, which got approval to operate in 2010 after nine years of regulatory battles. The power facility, which would operate off the coast of Massachusetts and deliver electricity to the residents of Nantucket Sound, must still resolve some legal issues.
The deal has been helped along by the courts, which have recently upheld a power purchase agreement it had with National Grid to buy half of the power that it would generate. That makes financing the project more feasible. If it comes to fruition, it would generate 468 megawatts, providing most of the power there. And while the project has jumped through every regulatory hoop, environmental opponents of the wind farm have filed multiple lawsuits to try and stop it.
Why are Google and company so confident about the approval process while the Cape Wind project has languished for years? Cape Wind, designed to offset fossil fuel usage in the area, would be located in waters where the politically powerful surround. The proposed super-grid in the Mid-Atlantic is enjoying broad public support from the politicos and its would-be patrons.
That’s because the Atlantic has shallow waters relative to most other potential off-shore sites, meaning the wind mills could be located far enough away so as not to be an eye-sore. At the same time, the four on-land connection points are much less hassle than the number that would be required if a 350-mile transmission system was built on land.
Still, the cost of the project is said to be about 50 percent more than if the generation was land-based. The investors, though, are factoring in potential subsidies and tax benefits as well as tougher environmental regulations dealing with carbon emissions. Once built, meanwhile, the transmission system would get federally-regulated rates of return.
A Pike Research analysis indicates that offshore wind has high associated costs. The price of such generation is greater than that of onshore wind, adding that in some cases it is two to three times more.
NRG, for example, won’t go forth with its wind deal off the Delaware coast until it can find dependable investment partner. Meantime, Spanish wind developer Gamesa is suspending its plans to build off the Virginia coastline, citing the need for financing at a time of political uncertainty. It had wanted to build a small prototype but will now wait a few years.
The challenges surrounding offshore wind are enormous. To get there, costs must come down and technologies must improve, which would make it easier to attract capital. But if it can be cost-effectively achieved and subsequently replicated, the projects would provide a refreshing new source of power to residents along the East Coast, and elsewhere.

Advanced Energy Now: The Economic Impacts of Advanced Energy

 

Advanced Energy Economy Institute (AEEI), AEE's educational and charitable affiliate, commissioned Pike Research, a part of Navigant, to perform, for the first time, a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the advanced energy markets in the U.S. and globally. Their report, The Economic Impacts of Advanced Energy, identifies seven broad industry segments, which are further broken down to 41 distinct subsegments representing specific technologies, products, or services.
The report draws upon over 60 previously published Pike Research studies, as well as information maintained by Navigant’s Energy Practice, to build an assessment of advanced energy markets measured by revenue generated by the individual product categories, globally and within the United States. Key findings include:

• In 2011, global revenue from the seven advanced energy segments reached nearly $1.12 trillion.
• The U.S. advanced energy market reached $132.0 billion in 2011, representing nearly 12% of the global market. The domestic advanced energy market is expected to grow to an estimated $157.0 billion in 2012, with the U.S. share of the global market expected to rise to 15%.
• The U.S. advanced energy industry contributed $13.9 billion in federal tax revenue in 2011, plus another $6.7 billion in state and local tax revenue, for a total tax contribution of $20.6 billion.
• Globally, advanced energy is larger, by revenue, than pharmaceutical manufacturing, and roughly 2/3 the size of telecommunications.
• In the U.S., advanced energy is larger than the trucking industry that distributes goods throughout the country, and more than twice the size of the commercial casino industry

Shale Gas Will Fuel a U.S. Manufacturing Boom

 

Chemical producers abandoned the U.S. in droves. Cheap natural gas is luring them back.

• By Kevin Bullis on January 9, 2013

People predicting a manufacturing renaissance in the United States usually imagine whirring robots or advanced factories turning out wind turbines and solar panels. The real American edge might be in something entirely more mundane: cheap starting materials for plastic bottles and plastic bags.
The plummeting price of natural gas, which can be used to make a vast number of products, including tires, carpet, antifreeze, lubricants, cloth, and many types of plastic, is luring key industries to the United States. Just five years ago, natural gas prices were so high that some chemicals manufacturers were shutting down operations here. Now the ability to access natural gas trapped in shale rock formations, using technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, has led to a surge in natural gas supplies that have lowered American gas prices to a fraction of prices in other countries (see “King Natural Gas”).
Over the last 18 months, low U.S. gas prices have prompted plans for the construction of new chemical plants for the production of ethylene, ammonia for fertilizer, and diesel fuels. Dow Chemical, for example, plans to spend $4 billion to expand its U.S. chemicals production, including a new plant, due to open in 2017, in Freeport, Texas. The plant will make ethylene from the ethane found in many sources of natural gas. (The last such plant to be built in the U.S. was completed in 2001).
The impact of the resurgence is being felt most strongly in the $148 billion market for ethylene, the world’s most high-volume chemical, and the foundation for many other industries. It’s used to make bottles, toys, clothes, windows, pipes, carpet, tires, and many other products. Since ethylene is expensive to transport over long distances, a new ethylene plant is typically integrated with a facility to convert it into polyethylene for plastic bags or ethylene glycol for antifreeze.
In the U.S., it currently costs $300 to make a ton of ethylene, down steeply from $1,000 a few years ago. According to an analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers, it currently costs $1,717 to make it in Asia, where plants depend on high-priced oil instead of natural gas, and $455 per ton to make ethylene in Saudi Arabia, using a combination of ethane and butane. (Ethylene plants are also being built in Qatar, which, like the U.S., has very cheap natural gas.)
Over the last two years, manufacturers have announced plans to add 10 million metric tons of ethylene capacity in the United States by 2019. Those plans represent a 10 percent increase in global ethylene production and also account for close to half the industry’s planned expansions in all countries.

The impact of cheap natural gas on manufacturing could extend beyond the production of various chemicals. Using natural gas as an energy source, rather than a chemical feedstock, could significantly lower costs for manufacturers who use a lot of energy, such as steel makers. (The steel industry is booming already for another natural gas-related reason—it’s supplying gas producers with pipes.) What’s more, cheap natural gas is prompting a shift away from petroleum based-fuels for trucking. Some companies are switching to trucks that burn natural gas directly. Eventually, even diesel trucks could be using fuel made from natural gas. The South African company Sasol plans to build a huge $14 billion plant in Louisiana partly to convert natural gas to diesel, potentially lowering fuel costs for conventional vehicles as well.
Overall, cheaper chemicals, cheaper steel, and cheaper transportation could make the U.S. a far more attractive place for a wide range of industries.

Michael Levi, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says energy doesn’t exceed 5 percent of costs in most industries—not enough to make gas prices decisive for most companies choosing where to build manufacturing plants. Where cheap energy could matter most, he says, is giving existing U.S. factories a new reason not to close or move offshore. “Cheap natural gas might do more to keep existing manufacturing plants open than it will to get people to build new ones,” says Levi.
Just how long U.S. natural gas will stay relatively cheap is not clear. For capital investments to pay off, say analysts, oil prices need to stay high, and gas prices low, for years to come. That means chemical makers could still shift their plans. For instance, Sasol will reassess the economics of its planned plant for converting natural gas into diesel in 2014 before it breaks ground.

Industry Update: Microgrid Backbone Generation Assets, Part 1: Gen-sets Saturday, December 8th, 2012

                                   

Note: This is Part One of a three-part series that will address several options for backbone generation in a microgrid. This post will focus on generator sets, a traditional form of auxiliary power. The second and third parts of the series will focus on up-and-coming alternatives: microturbines and fuel cells.

Introduction

Last week a major blackout cut a wide swath across Cambridge, MA, where I live. As I left the bright lights of Boston and biked across the Longfellow Bridge on the way home from work, the transition to the darkness of Cambridge was quite stark. Other than the lights of the cars stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic caused by the disabled traffic lights, the streets were pitch black. Seeing Massachusetts Avenue in total darkness was eerie, and I was not looking forward to the possibility of a cold evening in my electrically heated apartment.
However, as I turned into my building’s driveway, I saw the welcoming glow of lights from the building’s windows and heard the deep rumble of two large diesel generator sets unobtrusively situated in the corner of the parking lot. Considering that I do not live in a luxury apartment building, I was a bit surprised by this unexpected amenity, and I am still trying to figure out why the management company spent money on providing full standby power for the ~120 units in the building. Grid power was restored after only a few hours, so the generators were somewhat unnecessary in this case, but it is nice to know the building has them.

A picture of a typical diesel gen-set. The engine and generator are housed inside a protective enclosure.

These types of generators, technically known as generator sets or gen-sets, are not only for emergency standby power. They can also be used as a form of backbone power generation for a microgrid. (In fact, so-called “wind-diesel” systems are common in many remote communities throughout the world from Mongolia to Alaska – see for instance this paper from NREL: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31755.pdf)
We start with a brief overview of what a generator set is and how it works before delving more deeply into how a gen-set can be integrated with a microgrid. I will then provide a brief analysis of the main types of 100+ kW gen-sets (diesel, natural gas, and propane). This post, along with the two that will follow in this series, is intended to provide readers a starting point for understanding the tradeoffs among different backbone generation assets for a microgrid.

What is a Generator Set?

A gen-set at its most basic level consists of a prime mover connected to a generator. The prime mover (engine) converts the energy stored in fuel (fossil fuels like diesel, natural gas, propane, gasoline, coal or biomass like wood pellets or straw) into mechanical energy that turns the generator crank to produce electricity. As the load on the generator increases, more fuel is fed to the prime mover to match the supply of electricity with the demand for electricity. The concept behind a gen-set dates back to the early 1800s when Michael Faraday discovered the principle of electromagnetic generators that is now known as Faraday’s Law.
The diagram below provides an excellent overview of the main components of a typical gen-set:

A diagram of the main components of a gen-set. Source: http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/How_Generators_Work.aspx

The vast majority of gen-sets installed around the world are “backup” generators used to supply power to a single building in the event of a grid failure. Most of these gen-sets are “dumb” in the sense that they do not interact with the grid and only run when the grid goes down, or when they are given their annual checkup. These standby gen-sets run for just a few hours per year, sitting idly by for the other 8,000+ hours per year. This represents an enormous asset (capital expenditure plus fuel inventory) sitting idle on institutional balance sheets – and unused even as “reserves” for the grid. As energy markets mature, these backup generators may evolve into valuable generation assets that can be monetized by their owners.
By incorporating a gen-set into a microgrid, the gen-set can interact with the grid and is no longer “dumb.” This “smart” generation asset can now dynamically interact with the grid, ensuring higher electricity reliability for loads on the microgrid and also providing a source of revenue throughout the year by enabling participation in a variety of demand response programs.

Integrating a Gen-Set with a Microgrid

Every microgrid must be built on some form of backbone (or “baseload” or “dispatchable”) generation capacity to ensure power is available when needed. Renewables like wind and solar are great, but they are not fully dispatchable. Batteries are dispatchable, but they are also very expensive at this time – it’s much cheaper to store energy in a gas tank or a pipeline.
Therefore, most microgrids incorporate one of three form of dispatchable generation: gen-set, microturbine, or fuel cells. As long as these units have access to fuel and are properly maintained, they can operate for many years (although as Hurricane Sandy reminded us, getting gasoline or diesel can sometimes be a challenge even in New York!).
Given the wide range of gen-set sizes (10 kW up to 1,000+ kW) and the relatively low upfront cost ($300-$600/kW installed), gen-sets are a popular choice for the backbone of a microgrid. One or more gen-sets can be incorporated into a microgrid as required to meet the expected load. These gen-sets can then be supplemented with renewable energy generation assets, and the (expensive) battery portion of the system can be reduced substantially. When renewable energy is available, the microgrid control software intelligently decreases the load on the gen-sets to allow for electricity from the more efficient forms of generation to flow.

Diesel vs. Natural Gas vs. Propane

Gen-sets in the ~100 kW size are most commonly fueled by one of three fuels: diesel, natural gas, or propane. However, for any gen-set larger than approximately 200 kW, the only real fuel choices are diesel and natural gas. Propane simply does not have the energy density (like diesel) or the extensive network of pipeline distribution (like natural gas) to make it an attractive choice for gen-sets much larger than ~150 kW. The frequency of fuel deliveries and the size of the fuel storage tank for gen-sets larger than ~150 kW would make such a gen-set a poor choice. However, for small standby gen-sets for individual homes, a propane gen-set is an excellent choice.
In deciding between a natural gas and a diesel gen-set there are several key factors that should be considered. First and foremost, is the availability of fuel. In some cases, natural gas is simply not an option because the site may not have access to a natural gas line. However, when natural gas is available, it will often provide a more secure and reliable source of fuel in the event of a regional natural disaster that may significantly disrupt road transportation and consequently the delivery of diesel. As we saw in Hurricane Sandy, the natural gas network suffered minimal disruption while diesel and gasoline supplies were significantly limited in certain portions of the Northeast. To provide extra reliability, a dual fuel gen-set could be used with natural gas as the primary fuel and diesel as a secondary fuel (with a limited amount of diesel stored on site in the event that natural gas delivery is disrupted).
A second factor to consider is the capital expenditure of the gen-set. Although each installation will vary in cost, a reasonable estimate for both natural gas and diesel gen-sets is in the $300 – $600/kW installed range for a gen-set of 100+ kW (based on data from this Department of Defense microgrid study). The difference in price for comparable natural gas and diesel gen-sets for a given site will likely be insignificant.
Third, operational expenditures (primarily fuel cost) should be considered. Based on a survey of the specifications for natural gas and diesel gen-sets, I created the following chart comparing the average cost of fuel per kWh:

A comparison of the fuel cost to generate a kWh of energy from diesel and natural gas based on a variety of fuel prices.

As the chart illustrates, the fuel cost per kWh for a natural gas gen-set is almost on par with the price of retail power! (Of course, this is not a full LCOE analysis, but that is beyond the scope of this blog post). Interestingly enough, the efficiency, defined as energy out divided by energy in, of an average diesel gen-set (33.5% efficient) is significantly higher than the efficiency of an average natural gas gen-set (25.0% efficient).
One should note that shale gas has caused the spot price for natural gas in the US to fall dramatically in the past two years (currently about $3.50/mCF). Regardless, enormous price movements on both sides would be required before the fuel cost of generating a kWh of energy from a natural gas gen-set would ever be equivalent to one from a diesel gen-set.

Conclusion

In many areas of the US, based on excellent fuel availability and low operating costs, a natural gas gen-set is the technology of choice to serve as a backbone generation asset for a microgrid. A natural gas gen-set also provides the added benefit of producing less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the next blog post, I will explore microturbines in the context of backbone generation for a microgrid and how they compare to using a natural gas gen-set.
Maybe the town of Cambridge, MA will put one in, and it will be easier for me to bike home next time there is a blackout!
If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this blog post or how Riverview can help your organization explore microgrid options, please send us an email: info@riverviewconsultinginc.com
-JJ Augenbraun and the Riverview Consulting Team

Cisco Dives Into Home Energy Management With AT&T

 

 

Cisco’s multi-communications control panel to connect AT&T Digital Life home automation service

Jeff St. John: January 7, 2013

It looks like rumors of Cisco’s departure from the energy-connected home space have been a bit exaggerated. On Monday, the networking giant jumped right back into the home energy fray with AT&T, announcing at CES that it has built an all-wireless control panel for the telecommunication giant’s Digital Life service.
Cisco’s control panel comes with five radios (one-way and two-way radios, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi and 3G), along with HomePlug AV wire-line capability, making it about the most communications-versatile home energy device I’ve seen. It’s also a mini-computer, capable of advanced diagnostics and power management and 24-hour backup, and using Cisco’s OSGi software to carry out many of the computations that go into sensing and controlling a home’s energy use.
Of course, it’s also connected to the cloud. Cisco’s providing the back-office provisioning and applications life-cycle management system, which connects the various cameras, smart thermostats, light controls, smoke detectors, door locks and other such home security and automation gear, and allows homeowners to monitor and control them via smartphone, tablet or PC.
In short, it’s about the most interoperable piece of hardware deployed to date for home automation -- which brings up the question of how much it costs. Cisco and AT&T didn’t reveal pricing details for the device or the Digital Life service, though AT&T said it plans to launch it in eight U.S. markets in March, with up to 50 additional market rollouts planned in 2013.
AT&T is a bit late to the party here. Verizon has been offering home automation and security devices to its FiOS broadband internet customers since October 2011, and Comcast’s Xfinity home automation service launched in mid-2011 and has been expanding to new markets ever since.
Home security companies such as ADT are also getting into the business, though their customers tend to view energy savings as an afterthought to safety. Alarm.com raised $136 million in VC for its connected home services in July, and Vivint, a home automation company that has been adding third-party-financed solar to its offerings, was bought by private equity firm Blackstone Group for $2 billion late last year.
As for Cisco, it de-prioritized home energy management back in 2011 to refocus on commercial buildings via its EnergyWise line of business. That technology, based on its 2009 acquisition of building energy software company Richards-Zeta Building Intelligence, has mostly been applied in data centers to date.
The home requires a much different approach than the instrumented and managed commercial building sector, however. Cisco has long talked about the need to distribute much of the intelligence for “endpoints” on the grid like homes and offices, to keep network traffic to a minimum and allow each home to more or less do the right thing on its own most of the time -- but that requires a good deal of computing power for in-home devices.
At the same time, companies like EcoFactor, Nest, Energate, Silver Spring Networks, Honeywell and a plethora of others are using cloud computing to do much of the heavy IT lifting, so to speak. That model collects data from semi-smart devices and multiple other sources, crunches it to figure out what the home devices should do, and then sends the commands back. No doubt Cisco will be applying both methods in its partnership with AT&T.
At the same time, Cisco has taken a lead in smart grid, networking everything from distribution substations to smart meters. But its Monday announcement didn’t make any connection between its smart grid work and the AT&T project -- which makes sense, since it’s a completely different channel to the home.
Few utilities have offered up the same kind of home automation gadgetry as the big telcos and home security providers have, though some are starting to enable third-party devices that connect to smart meters, demand response signals and other utility systems

Apple's wind turbine technology uses heat, not rotational energy to generate electricity

Apple's wind turbine technology uses heat, not rotational energy to generate electricity

2013-01-04 05:45:50.0

By Mikey Campbell

In a rare non-computing related patent filing discovered on Thursday, Apple proposes a wind turbine that generates electricity from converting heat energy rather than rotational energy created by the rotation of the unit's blades.

Source: USPTO

While Apple is best known for inventing, and patenting, technology for computers and mobile electronics, the company also dabbles in seemingly radical ideas for an OEM. Such is the case with a an application published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the "On-demand generation of electricity from stored wind energy," an invention wholly dedicated to solving problems of variability associated with the alternative energy production method.

The application, filed for in June 2011, notes that most contemporary wind turbines convert kinetic energy from wind into mechanical energy, or in some cases electricity. Basic windmill technology is well known: wind energy is asserted on a mill's sails or blades and is converted into rotational energy through a drive shaft, which then powers machinery or, more recently, electric generators. It is apparent that the process is dependent on a steady supply of wind which, as Apple's filing notes, is highly variable.

To mitigate these inconsistencies, the filing proposes a system that converts rotational energy from the turbine into heat, which is then stored in a "low-heat-capacity" fluid. From storage, heat can be selectively transferred to a "working fluid" that is used to generate electricity during lulls in wind activity.

In some embodiments, heat is generated from the friction created between blades connected to the rotor shaft and the low-heat-capacity fluid, such as mercury, ethanol or an inert gas, in which they are immersed. Thermal energy is stored in an insulated vessel. A thermally insulating component like a radiator or conductive rod can be used to selectively transfer heat from the low-heat-capacity fluid to the working based on electrical demand. Finally, the working fluid boils and creates steam which rotates a turbine connected to an electric generator.

Heat from the low-heat-capacity fluid (110) stored in the thermally insulating vessel (202)
is transfered to the working fluid (114) through a thermally conductive component (204).

According to the patent application, the "on-demand" electric generation system can reduce costs associated with natural variations in wind supply. Further, the method can be used as a replacement for current conventional energy storage methods such as batteries.

Whether Apple plans to deploy such a wind turbine system is unclear, but Cupertino is investing heavily in alternative energy sources like solar and natural gas "energy servers," as seen at the company's Maiden, N.C. data center.

Why some NYC buildings are more efficient than LEED-certified ones

By Sustainable Business News

 

Some of New York City's oldest buildings are more energy efficient than LEED-certified buildings.

Although the recently built 7 World Trade Center trumpets its LEED-Gold rating to lure renters, it isn't as efficient as the Chrysler Building, which was constructed in the 1930s.

While 7 World Trade Center gets an Energy Star score of 74 -- just below the minimum allowed for that certification -- the Chrysler building scores 84, thanks to extensive efficiency upgrades. The Empire State Building has a score of 80.

That's because old structures tend to have thicker walls, fewer windows and less ventilation. They also don't lend themselves to massive data centers that consume lots of electricity.

It's also because of energy consumption by tenants. Tenants at the World Trade Center tend to be more data-crunching oriented with firms like Moody's, whereas nonprofits and other firms that require basic computing tend to occupy highly efficient buildings.
Not all older buildings score well, of course. The MetLife Building, built in 1963, scored 39, and the Seagram Building, built in 1958, scored 3.
Those numbers will change for Seagram, which will soon get extensive energy upgrades.
"Some scores will not be flattering, but identifying buildings with the most opportunity to improve is a big part of driving energy savings," Andrew Burr, a performance expert at the Institute for Market Transformation, told the New York Times. "It does put energy on the radar of real estate consumers."
Next page: More surprising numbers
In 2009, NYC passed a first-in-the-nation law that all privately-owned buildings must measure and report on energy consumption. This is the first year that buildings were required to publicly disclose that data.
Some of the information they must divulge includes energy and water use per square foot (energy intensity), greenhouse gas emissions and Energy Star scores.
Eighty percent of the city's carbon emissions come from heating and cooling buildings. NYC wants to cut by a third of these emissions by 2030 as part of PlaNYC, its sustainablity plan.

The data shows that the biggest buildings -- which constitute 2 percent of the city's one million buildings -- consume 45 percent of the city's energy. If they all reached median levels of energy intensity, the city would cut energy consumption 18 percent and greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent.
Still, NYC buildings generally consume less energy and water than the national average.

Why would LEED-certified buildings score lower?
Not all LEED-certified buildings score lower, such as the Empire State Building, which is both LEED-Gold and Energy Star certified. But some buildings do score lower because LEED covers many green building criteria, not solely energy efficiency.
To get LEED certified, building designers can choose from a raft of environmental features, such as the kinds of materials used, water systems and proximity to public transportation.

But one of the criticisms of LEED is that buildings are rated before tenants move in. Once tenants occupy a space they may leave lights and computers running 24 hours a day, for example.

Read NYC's benchmarking report here.
Photo of Chrysler building provided by Songquan Deng via Shutterstock.com

follow our lead!!!

http://www.linkedin.com/company/2861563?trk=NUS_DIG_CMPY-fol

Wind Tax Credit Survives in Fiscal Cliff Deal

The tax deal brokered in Congress extends a wind energy tax credit for another year but manufacturers had already begun to scale back due to the uncertainty and slowing growth.

Siemens set up manufacturing operations in Kansas to meet demand for the wind industry boom last year, but laid off workers earlier this year due to an expected slowdown. Credit: Siemens.

The last-minute tax deal passed by Congress yesterday includes a one-year extension to a tax credit for wind industry, keeping a subsidy in place for wind energy projects.
The package includes a “tax extender” that provides a 2.2-cent per kilowatt hour tax credit for energy produced at wind farms. The extension covers all wind projects that start construction in 2013, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the industry’s lobbying group. President Obama is expected to sign the bill.
AWEA estimates that the move will save up to 37,000 jobs at 500 factories in the U.S. but the possibility that the tax credit would not be extended has already caused wind manufacturers and their suppliers to scale back and lay people off.
Turbine manufacturers, including Siemens and Vestas, had set up manufacturing operations in the U.S. to supply the rapidly growing industry, but cut back in the middle of the year. (See, Siemens Layoffs Portend U.S. Wind Slowdown) About 70 percent of wind turbines used in U.S. wind projects are made in the U.S., according to AWEA. Project developers, meanwhile, were racing to finish up their installations before 2012 ended because it didn’t appear that the credit would be extended.
The wording of the one-year tax credit extension, which is said to cost $12.1 billion over ten years, effectively means that wind energy projects that are not finished until next year will still qualify for the subsidy. “On behalf of all the people working in wind energy manufacturing facilities, their families, and all the communities that benefit, we thank President Obama and all the Members of the House and Senate who had the foresight to extend this successful policy, so wind projects can continue to be developed in 2013 and 2014,” Denise Bode AWEA CEO said in a statement.
Forty four percent of the new electrical generating capacity came from wind this year, more than natural gas. Without extending the wind production tax credit, the US. Energy Information Administration and others projected very little new capacity in 2013.
While the wind industry can breath a sigh of relief, there will be continued pressure to eliminate the subsidy. In December, AWEA proposed extending the credit in 2013 and then phasing out the credit over five years, a position designed to avoid the boom-bust cycle that’s characterized the U.S. wind industry.
Utility-scale on-shore wind development is mature, but 2013 could be a significant year for advancing offshore wind technology. The DOE last month announced a plan to provide $47 million in grants over four years to demonstrate direct-drive turbines and new types of foundations for offshore wind. There are 4,000 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity in the U.S. but so far no projects developed. (See, DOE Grants Try to Crack the Code on Offshore Wind.) The tax extenders deal includes investment tax credits for offshore and community wind projects.

Why Solar Installations Cost More in the U.S. than in Germany

A new report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory points to specific areas where costs could be lowered.

• By Kevin Bullis on December 26, 2012

Why It Matters

More than half the cost of a solar power installation comes from things other than the solar panels.

In 2011, residential solar system installers paid a little over $1.80 per watt for solar panels in both Germany and the United States. In Germany, installers added $1.20 to the cost of the solar panel to complete an installation. But in the U.S., they tacked on $4.36 per watt, more than three times as much.
A report released this month by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory explains why.
The most obvious difference between the United States and Germany is the total amount of solar power installed in each country—there’s five times as much installed in Germany.
The study concludes, however, that the learning curve isn’t enough to explain the price disparity—it might account for only half of it. Instead, based on a survey of U.S. and German installers, it seems that there are some fundamental differences in the U.S. and German markets that could keep prices higher in the U.S.—unless something is done to address them.

The most marked difference is in the cost of acquiring customers. German installers spend seven cents per watt of installed capacity on things like marketing and designing systems for specific customers. U.S. installers spend 10 times that amount. Costs for permitting, connecting the systems to the grid, and having them inspected are also far higher in the United States. The Germans spent only three cents a watt on these things, while U.S. installers spend 20 cents, in part because of larger amounts of paperwork and the fact that U.S. installers have to pay permitting fees.

U.S. installers also spend more on labor during actual installation (in some cases, higher winds force more expensive installations).They pay more in sales tax (German installers are exempt). And they pay more for overhead (which is closely related to economies of scale).
The report lists some more line items. Part of the difference, for example, is due to higher costs for inverters in the U.S. But the report comes short of explaining the entire price difference—about $1.30 of the price difference remains unaccounted for. The researchers speculate that some part of that difference is coming from U.S. installers taking higher profits.
The U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative is funding projects aimed at reducing the non-hardware costs of an installed solar system. One part of SunShot is a $12 million program is aimed at cutting red tape. Earlier this year it announced a $10 million prize to be given to companies that can lower total non-hardware costs of an installation to below $1 per watt. And this month it announced $21 million for the development of a “plug-and-play” system for solar panels that could reduce installation costs (see “Redesigning Solar Power”).

The biggest lever for reducing solar costs remains reducing the number of solar panels needed per installation, which in turn reduces labor costs (see “Alta Devices: Finding a Solar Solution”). But for solar to compete with fossil fuels, directly addressing the soft costs will be key. “We will see a substantial improvement, even if we just replicate the practices in Germany,” says Ryan Wiser, a staff scientist at LBNL and one of the authors of the new report

A net-zero-energy prototype for a large school district aims for top results across the board.

By

Deane Madsen, Assoc. AIA

 

For more than 15 years, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has had to deal with degraded classrooms, often putting up temporary trailers to house ever-growing student populations. Now, however, even these temporary structures are due for replacement. With energy costs increasing and the state’s budgets suffering, LAUSD issued a call in 2010 to architects to develop “the most creative, aesthetic, flexible, and efficient structure that can be replicated and site-adapted to multiple campuses and multiple uses.” Swift Lee Office’s Net Zero Energy K–12 High Performing School Prototype was selected as one of three winners.
Going beyond the competition brief’s requirements, Swift Lee Office (SLO) designed its two-story, 30,000-square-foot NZE prototype to be flexible enough to be LEED-certified, with the level of certification varying with each project, and to consume net-zero energy in any of the configurations that the kit-of-parts design allows. Given that the LAUSD’s replacement buildings would have to house a variety of different programs—with a total capacity for 350 to 500 students each—the architects felt that integrating customizable components into the design would produce the most adaptable structures. “Economies of scale were a top priority for us,” says principal Gloria Lee. “We started with a long-span moment frame and added a performance layer to account for context.” Beneath the steel skeleton, SLO designed nonstructural, demountable interior partition walls optimized for maximum flexibility, with exterior performative skins that are customizable for each deployment’s climatic conditions. Using Autodesk’s Ecotect Analysis software, the architects will determine optimum site-responsive solar screen materials and opacity for the modular system to allow natural light intake and to reduce heat loss or gain.
To bring in additional natural light, SLO developed a light chimney by combining rooftop parabolic skylights with motorized ventilation louvers, light-directing glass, spectrally reflective lining, and airflow and daylight dampers. The solar arrays chosen for the roof will be determined by the prototype’s site. “We’ve provided enough free roof area so that the building can produce as much energy as it consumes in a year,” Lee says.
With schools already a prime candidate for net-zero energy based on their normal use schedule—during daylight hours, and not during the hottest months of the year—the implementation of the daylighting and ventilation mechanisms would further reduce schools’ energy consumption. The remainder of the prototype’s heating and cooling needs are met through displacement induction via active chilled beams, with the chimneys serving as exhaust for the thermal buoyancy-driven ventilation system.
Although the economic forecast for California remains somewhat bleak, LAUSD hopes to begin production of the NZE prototypes in 2014.

Proof from UC Berkeley that Green Label Buildings Increase the Market Value of Commercial Properties.

Proof from UC Berkeley that Green Label Buildings Increase the Market Value of Commercial Properties.

12/29/2012

0 Comments

The University of California Berkeley has conducted a study that shows that green labeled buildings command higher market rents per square foot resulting in higher selling prices and values of buildings. Conclusions of this study are found below.

The results clearly indicate the importance of a green label in affecting the market rents and values of commercial space. The results suggest that an otherwise identical commercial building with an Energy-Star certification will rent for about three percent more per square foot; the difference in effective rent is estimated to be about six percent. The increment to the selling price may be as much as 16 percent.

These effects are large, and they are consistent. As noted above, at prevailing capitalization rates of six percent, the increment to effective rents (estimated in Table 3) implies that the value of a green building is about $5.5 million more than the value of a comparable unrated building nearby. From Table 4, the incremental value of a green building is estimated to be about $5.7 million more than that of a comparable unrated building nearby.

To view the whole study click here

30 Under 30 - The Future Of Energy Is Nuclear

 

 

 

30 Under 30: Energy

        

+show more +show more

 

 

 

 

 

 

leslie Dewan, 27

With fellow MIT Phd candidate Mark Massie, 26, Dewan is working to develop a new nuclear reactor design. The Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) will utilize liquid fuel consisting mainly of the "spent" fuel rods from the nation's fleet of Light Water Reactors, which Dewan says still contain enough energy to power the entire U.S. for 70 years.

« Previous

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Next »

Welcome to the second-annual Forbes 30 Under 30 list of rising stars in the energy sector. Please check out the slideshow to see pics and bios of this year’s bunch.
In looking over this year’s list and trying to see what themes emerged, a few things stood out.

Move up http://i.forbesimg.com tMove down

30 Under 30: Food And Wine Randall LaneForbes Staff

30 Under 30: Wall Street Wizzes Nathan VardiForbes Staff

America's 20 Dirtiest Cities Christopher HelmanForbes Staff

First of all, old-school fossil fuel companies have virtually no representation on this list. That’s not because they don’t have talented young people working for them. But it’s harder for them to stand out, and many big, Borg-like enterprises are not enthusiastic about identifying them. (Prove me wrong Big Oil. Let’s identify the crop of young engineers who will lead the future.)
Second, the people who did make the list are primarily this: nerds who love science and are not only driven to solve problems but who also possess the entrepreneurial spirit to turn their inventions into companies or nonprofits.
Third, taken as a whole, if we were to apply all the ideas of these inventors, academics and entrepreneurs to the global energy grid, we could save oceans of fossil fuels and prevent mountains of carbon from entering the atmosphere.
Some examples:
Yaniv Scherson of Stanford has invented and installed a system that creates electricity from sewage by capturing ammonia from sewage treatment plants, converting it to nitrous oxide, then burning it to generate power.
Priyanka Bakaya, with PK Clean, is perfecting a technology that can glean 4 barrels of diesel fuel out of each ton of plastic trash.
Gene Berdichevsky at Sila Nanotechnologies is figuring out how to get more energy out of lithium-ion batteries. While Qichao Hu of SolidEnergy Systems is working on polymer ionic liquid lithium metal batteries that will be safer, smaller and hold more energy than lithium ion.
With his colleagues from Northwestern University, Chris Wilmer has invented an algorithm that has already been used to discover and synthesize new porous materials that have been shown to store more natural gas in small spaces than any other material. Vital for devising long-range natural gas-powered vehicles.
In solar power, Eden Full, with Roseicollis Technologies, is deploying her SunSaluter solar-tracking system in Africa. While Patrick Walsh has devised a solar-recharged LED light that he’s distributing to poor families in India to help replace smoky kerosene lamps. Manuel Weichers Banuet has installed small solar-charged batteries on the homes of more than 1,000 poor families in Mexico — providing a reliable source of light at night. Daniel Schnitzer with EarthSpark International is doing something similar in impoverished Haiti.
Then there’s the nuclear engineers. Nuclear power is, of course, the world’s only large-scale source of reliable baseload power generation that emits zero greenhouse gases. The lingering drawback is that it creates nuclear waste, and, with older reactor designs there’s a small, but material, risk of a catastrophic meltdown.
Several of this year’s 30 are working to revolutionize nuclear power. Taylor Wilson built his first working nuclear reactor at age 14, is the recipient of a Thiel Fellowship, was the subject of this longread and is having a movie made about him.
Then there’s Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, MIT Phd candidates and co-founders of TransAtomic Power, have a plan for a reactor design that if rolled out nationwide could have the potential to power the entire country for 100 years and run on our existing mountain of nuclear waste. They call it the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR). Instead of solid uranium fuel rods used in common light water reactors, the core of the WAMSR will contain liquid fuel — predominantly consisting of “spent” fuel rods from old reactors dissolved in a salt solution. “Nuclear waste is not really waste at all. It still has a tremendous amount of energy in it,” says Dewan.
In fact those old fuel rods still contain 95% of their radioactive energy, meaning that by Dewan’s calculations America’s stockpile of nuke “waste” could power the whole country for 100 years. What’s particularly appealing about the WAMSR concept is that the reactor has a passive failsafe system, meaning it could never suffer a meltdown. How it works: At the bottom of the vessel containing the churning molten salt reactor core is a “freeze valve” where a plug of the same salt is electrically cooled into a soild plug, like a bathtub stopped. If a disaster were to knock out electricity to the plant, the plug would quickly melt causing the reactor solution to pour out into a non-critical configuration that would cool into a solid over a few days. With no risk of meltdown, no carbon emissions, and powered by nuclear waste, Dewan and Massie’s design could change the world. They hope to have a pilot plant built by the end of the decade. (Plus, they’re exceptionally charismatic and well spoken: check out their captivating TED talk here and Leslie Dewan’s new interview with Forbes here.)
Nuclear engineer Robert Petroski is helping to advance a similar objective at TerraPower, a company launched by Nathan Myhrvold’s Intellectual Ventures company and backed by Bill Gates. TerraPower aims to build something called the Traveling Wave Reactor — which would start off being fueled by a dose of low-enriched uranium, to which additions of depleted uranium (useless in today’s reactors) would occasionally be made. According to the company: “A TWR can sustain a fission chain reaction given only non-fissile fuel such as depleted uranium because it sets up a slow-moving wave in which neutrons produced by fission reactions in the power-producing region convert adjacent fuel from fertile isotopes (such as U-238) into fissile isotopes (such as Pu-239).”
Petroski has worked at TerraPower since its formation in 2007. Since earning his Phd at age 25, he has been one of the principal designers of the reactor’s core. TerraPower’s CEO John Gilleland has said the TWR “can represent a nearly infinite supply of low cost energy – carbon free energy – for the world”
It might take some time, but given TerraPower’s big backers, we can hope that the TWR will be built — if not in the U.S. then in China.
Speaking of China, I’m sure there are plenty of promising young engineers in China, India, Germany, Brazil, Australia, and all over the world looking to solve the world’s energy problems. Naturally, as broad a net as I and my Forbes colleague Todd Woody cast in looking for nominees, I’m sure we’ve overlooked some precocious superstars out there. If you know of any (or are one), please leave a comment below with your nominations for next year’s 30 Under 30. And if they’ll be too old by then, then let us know anyways — we’re always looking for fascinating people and head-scratching breakthroughs to write about on Forbes.com.

Cuomo Orders Energy Retrofits in State Bldgs

Last Updated: December 28, 2012 01:31pm ET

Cuomo Orders Energy Retrofits in State Bldgs

ByPaul Bubny | Northeast

 

Cuomo says the plan will cut greenhouse gases by eight million metric tons.

ALBANY-Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Friday ordered New York State agencies to increase energy efficiency by 20% in seven years, putting teeth into the order with a plan known as Build Smart NY. The plan is intended to use state building energy data to prioritize projects by their projected energy savings per dollar spent.
Under the plan, the largest and most inefficient state government buildings will be addressed first with whole-building improvements, according to a release. These range from new lighting fixtures and controls to automated energy management systems. The program will also ensure that cost-effective improvements for energy savings factor into all of the state’s capital project planning.
The New York Power Authority, which is assembling a central management and implementation team to manage the plan, has committed $450 million in low-cost financing for the Build Smart NY initiative. On most projects, no upfront capital spending will be required because agencies can repay the loans through the projects’ energy savings, the release states.
“Improving energy efficiency in our buildings is a smart investment in our present and future,” Cuomo says in a statement. “Through Build Smart NY, state government can produce significant savings for New York taxpayers and generate thousands of jobs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than eight million metric tons—which is the same as taking one million cars off the road for one year.”
The program has gotten a head start, with energy use data already collected on over 180 million square feet of buildings and campuses, representing about 95% of the state’s building stock. Work has gotten under way on 30 million square feet of real estate, the release states.

About Our Columnist

Paul Bubny is managing editor of Real Estate Forum. He has been reporting on business since 1988 and on commercial real estate since 2007. He is based at ALM Real Estate Media Group's offices in New York City. Contact Paul Bubny.