Thomas BoydSolar energy panels, such as this one at Gresham’s wastewater treatment plant, along with bus passes and efficient heating systems are among the projects that qualify for tax credits under Oregon green energy subsidies.

Published: Monday, March 14, 2011, 8:48 PM     Updated: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 2:26 PM

 By Harry Esteve, The Oregonian SALEM — A free-for-all reputation shades Oregon’s green energy incentives, which offer hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for everything from experimental solar panels to employee perks at some of the state’s richest companies. 

Yet lawmakers struggling to find money for schools and health care appear as reluctant as ever to jettison a program seen as one of the few that brings jobs to Oregon — even though firm job numbers have proven elusive. 

“It can be and has been an important economic development tool,” says Rep. Tobias Read, D-Beaverton, who serves on a committee studying all state tax breaks. “Part of it is the message we’re sending to rest of world, that we want Oregon to continue to be an attractive place” to develop renewable energy. 

Tobias and other supporters say the Business Energy Tax Credit, sometimes known as the Betsy for its BETC initials, works as a lure for solar, wind, biofuel and other renewable power start-ups that otherwise would have passed Oregon by. 

But records examined by The Oregonian show the program has been treated more like a state-sponsored ATM machine by hundreds of companies. Want to gamble on a solar megaplant? Get a tax credit that pays half the cost. Need a new heat pump? Cut your upfront costs by more than a third with a state credit. 

State documents show it doesn’t matter whether a company needs the help. Nor does it matter how speculative its plans are, or how much energy it saves or produces — the tax breaks flow. 

Here are some examples from Oregon Department of Energy records: 

 Oregon gave away $10 million in tax dollars to provide bus passes for dozens of businesses, including Intel, Nike and Stoel-Rives, the state’s largest law firms. 

 Of the 10 companies with the most employees in Oregon, eight have received energy tax subsidies totaling $16 million. Among them: Precision Cast Parts, Portland General Electric and Columbia Sportswear. 

 SolarWorld, which already received $22 million in tax credits, is in line to get $74 million more, making it the clear leader in nabbing multiple state energy subsidies. 

 Alfred Fairbanks, a dentist in Washington with no energy development experience, has been pre-certified for $10 million in tax credits for his plan to build a massive solar panel array in eastern Oregon. 

“We’re not paying attention to what we are getting for the money we are spending,” says Jody Wiser, a frequent critic of the credits who runs a watchdog group called Tax Fairness Oregon. ”You get in a situation where someone says, ‘I’m going to build this cool green energy thing’ and everybody throws money at it. Nobody is really there watching with great care.” 

The net result has been an explosion in state spending on the tax credits. The latest estimates, contained in a recently released state report, show the subsidies will cost Oregon’s general fund nearly $300 million over the next two years. That’s a 60 percent increase over current spending and quadruple what the state shelled out just four years ago. 

The Cost of Green

Green energy isn’t just a moral imperative, politicians say. It creates jobs. But how much do Oregon’s green energy subsidies really cost? And what do we get for our money?

Reporters Ted Sickinger and Harry Esteve have examined those questions over the last several months, plowing through records, interviewing experts in government and business, and analyzing what they found. This series builds on their earlier reporting the past two years.

Day 1: The world’s largest wind farm gets $1.2 billion in subsidies and will generate 35 jobs.

Day 2: No one can say how many jobs Oregon’s energy tax credits have created.

Today: Bipartisan support makes rollbacks of the subsidies unlikely.

Such growth dwarfs that of other state programs. The run-up in energy subsidies stands out starkly against a backdrop of Oregon’s deep recession and multibillion-dollar budget shortfall. 

Efforts by lawmakers to rein in the program’s cost have slowed its exponential growth. Until last year, the credits were handed out like entitlements — if a company qualified, it got a credit. After stories in The Oregonian noted abuses of the program, such as credits going to out-of-state truckers and companies that saved little or no energy, lawmakers ordered tighter restrictions, cut subsidies for wind and placed a $500 million cap on the credits. 

That hasn’t slowed the crush of applicants. And the Energy Department continues to approve hundreds of tax credit applications. From Jan. 1, 2010 to Jan. 1, 2011, the department gave final approval to $108 million in credits. (Oregonian Publishing Co. was pre-certified last year for a tax credit worth about $45,000 for energy efficient lights.) 

If the subsidies were discontinued today, they would still cost the state more than $100 million a year at least until 2017, according to the Legislative Revenue Office. That’s because the projects that were promised tax credits will take time to complete and the credits are spread over five years after completion. 

State revenue officials estimate that in the decade between 2007 and 2017, Oregon will have spent more than $1 billion in tax dollars on green energy incentives. 

One reason the tax breaks have not just survived but multiplied is that the cost to taxpayers and the state general fund is partially hidden. There is no line item in the state budget to pay for the subsidies — the state simply goes without the money for the credits. Lawmakers don’t make a direct decision to spend $100 million on SolarWorld instead of on public schools as they must do with other state services. 

The incentives appeal to both political parties. Democrats like them because they promote green energy. Republicans like to see taxes benefit private business. 

“We’re not just giving money away,” says Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, who serves as co-chair of the committee responsible for overseeing state tax credits. “We’re using tax policy to drive private sector investment.” 

The tax credits cover three broad areas — conservation, renewable energy production and renewable energy manufacturing. Incentives for conservation and renewable energy production are scheduled to sunset next year, but could be extended by the Legislature. Incentives for manufacturing are supposed to sunset in 2014. 

The Legislature has a history of extending tax credits and the current crop of lawmakers doesn’t appear to be in any hurry to see them disappear. Ditto for Gov. John Kitzhaber, who wants to extend the breaks as part of his effort to put people to work thinning forests and burning the debris to generate electricity. 

Even Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, one of the most outspoken critics of the credits, isn’t ready to let them expire.

“You’re going to see changes and certainly a narrowing down would be my guess,” Burdick says. “But I would be surprised if we ended the program altogether.” 

Incentives for green energy have become a national juggernaut. President Barack Obama has called for a huge increase in federal tax breaks and grants for conservation and renewable energy developers as part of his “win the future” effort. States, meanwhile, compete with each other for the prettiest package of subsidies for a new wave of solar panel manufacturers. 

Oregon offers some of the nation’s most lucrative incentives and loosest requirements for getting them. 

More

The Oregonian’s continuing coverage of the Business Energy Tax Credit.SolarWorld, a German company that makes solar energy components, was lured to Hillsboro with the promise of a $22 million tax credit, along with other federal and local tax breaks. Since setting up shop, however, it applied for — and is expected to receive — four more tax credits that will push its total state subsidy to $100 million. 

The additional subsidies are being awarded to SolarWorld for adding equipment to the plant’s production line. It’s all within the rules the Oregon Department of Energy spells out, says Ben Santarris, U.S. spokesman for SolarWorld. 

“You have to appreciate the competitive situation as well as the fundamental energy issues — for the economy, environment and security — that exist for solar manufacturing throughout the world,” Santarris says. “Oregon’s approach has allowed it to be strong.”

The tax incentives also allow unlikely entrepreneurs to take a chance on green energy projects because the credits — combined with federal subsidies and local property tax breaks — limit personal financial risk. Pullman, Wash., dentist Alfred Fairbanks said the subsidies are critical to the solar energy project he is trying to build in the Christmas Valley area of Lake County in eastern Oregon. 

The remote region, with its vast, cheap acreage and wealth of sunny skies, has attracted other solar speculators as well, including Obsidian Finance Group, a Portland accounting firm, and Element Power, an international renewable energy company with a headquarters in Portland. 

Fairbanks won’t get final approval for his $10 million Oregon tax credit until he completes the project. So far, he’s set up some of the poles that hold the solar panels. He attached some panels, but later took them down. He says he’s having trouble lining up agreements for shipping the power with the local utility and with the Bonneville Power Administration. 

He acknowledges he’s never attempted such a thing before. 

“It’s a family business,” Fairbanks says, noting he works with his sons. “It’s about being green and providing solar electricity, which we think is the wave of the future.” 

He apologizes and cuts short the interview, explaining, “I’ve got patients waiting.” 

– Harry Esteve

BY TYLER MOSS, JENNIFER WHOLEYAND LINDSEY VALICH

MARCH 10, 2011

Original URL: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=182751

Tyler Moss/MEDILL

Farmers at the year-round market at Logan Square say they are feeling the effects of climate change on their produce.

Tyler Moss/MEDILL, information courtesy USDA

Illinois corn production in 2009, including locations of ethanol plants across the state.

Lindsey Valich/MEDILL. Information courtesy USDA

Climate change affects production of the top three crops in the U.S. — corn, soybeans and wheat.

“Food is power.”Michigan farmer and livestock producer Nate Robinson has known this for years.Rising food costs impact every person in every country across the globe, diminishing the ability of millions of families to meet other essential needs. Increasing floods and drought due to global warming is expected to push food prices higher yet—it’s happening already.Robinson is feeling these effects both at his farm in Cassopolis, Mich., and at the grocery store. He finds himself taking a lower margin, despite the fact that he is forced to raise prices as food production becomes more expensive.“Unfortunately, the consumer ultimately will pay for this rising cost. Everyone has to eat,” Robinson said. “We go to the grocery store as a family and when we do, we’re a little bit in sticker-shock.”

America is particularly vulnerable to the toll climate change can take on food.The U.S. is the largest producer of corn in the world, generating more than 10 million of the world’s nearly 23 million bushels of corn in 2000, the most recent statistic from the National Corn Growers Association. Experts say our country must be poised to take on a larger burden of worldwide food supply as crop yields of rice and corn in the tropics drop by an estimated 20 to 40 percent due to climate change.The issueAlthough the causes for rising food prices are numerous, ”global climate destabilization” (as the experts prefer to call it) is playing a significant role.Many of the world’s agricultural hubs have been hit with massive flooding, in places as far flung as the Midwest and Bangladesh. While some skeptics are convinced this is just part of the Earth’s natural weather cycles, changes marked over time have convinced many that climate change is responsible for the erratic weather.If that is the case, it will only get worse over time as farmers face unpredictable growing seasons and unexpected weather patterns.The global ability to feed the growing population is a product of the Green Revolution, said Lewis Ziska, plant psychologist with the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service in Beltsville, Md. The Green Revolution is a term used to describe the development of semi-dwarf cereal varieties in the 1950s and 1960s that could grow with less fertilizer and water.“The result was a doubling or tripling of cereal production,” Ziska said. “Cereals, particularly corn, wheat and rice, are the foods that feed the world.”There is no question that weather plays a significant role in food production, said Jeff Andresen, geologist and researcher of agricultural meteorology and applied climatology at Michigan State University in East Lansing.“Weather, and its longer term climate, are the most important, uncontrollable variables in food production,” said Andresen, who is also the state climatologist for Michigan.While climate change at present is often thought of in terms of rising global temperatures, it also encompasses erratic weather patterns.“There is some suggestion that the frequency and magnitude of extremes might increase,” Andresen said. “It is a major fear because these extremes have a disproportionately high impact on food production.”Iowa, for instance, has experienced two so-called 500-year floods in a period of 15 years—one in 1993 and one in 2008. A 500-year flood is one with a probability of occurring once every 500 years in any given year.Developed countries have farms thousands of acres large, typically of only one or two varieties of cereal, Ziska said.“Essentially these farms are monoculture,” he said, “and do not have the biological diversity to adapt well to extreme events.”Farmers have the ability to adjust to increasing temperatures because it is something they can anticipate from year to year, Andresen said. Changes in extreme weather variability, such as flooding, are much more difficult to handle because major storms are unpredictable.Effects of climate change cover direct impacts and indirect impacts, he said.Direct impacts consist of mass flooding, droughts and other extreme weather events that are directly linked to the changing climate. Indirect impacts are associated changes that will cause problems further down the line, such as the prevalence of mold because of moist crop stocks, or insects living year round because of higher temperatures.Direct impactsCarbon dioxide is the thermostat for climate change. As levels rise in the atmosphere, so do temperatures, a phenomena documented in hundreds of thousands of years of data from ancient air pockets trapped in ice cores from places such as Antartica and Greenland. At 390 parts per million, carbon dioxide levels are higher now than they have been in more than 600,000 years.As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to be pumped into the Earth’s atmosphere, erratic weather patterns that disrupt global agriculture are becoming more and more frequent, said Steve Kolmes, director of environmental studies at the University of Portland in Oregon. And as the atmosphere continues to warm, major storms will become even more forceful.In 2010, Russia banned all exports of grain after millions of acres of their wheat supply was destroyed in a severe drought. Floods in countries such as Bangladesh and Australia are current examples sever weather, Kolmes said.“In the last year, the Bangladeshi floods submerged something like a quarter of the country,” he said. “And the cyclone that just went through Australia took out much of the banana crop.”Kolmes prefers the term “global climactic destabilization” to global warming.That is because the term global warming can be misleading, as impacts will differ in different parts of the world. For instance, in some places sea level shifts are causing inundation, he said, and even temporary inundation can damage a crop. In other places, increased temperatures can destroy yields as soil loses moisture due to evaporation.“An example is rice,” Kolmes said. “The yields of rice plants drop badly when the nights stay warmer. The projections are that the tropical crops of rice and corn are going to drop in their yields maybe 20 to 40 percent.”The logical conclusion is that, as weather makes food production more difficult, prices will rise and global hunger will become an even more serious issue.“We developed an agriculture based on a very long, stable climate,” he said. “And it appears, at least for the foreseeable future, that we’ve disrupted that appreciably.”Indirect impactsOne example of an indirect impact of climate destabilization can be seen in Michigan’s fruit trees.“Public enemy number one for apple growers is the apple cobbler moth,” Andresen said. “It lays eggs on apples. When the egg hatches, the larvae eat through a wormhole in the apple and the apple becomes unsellable.”Apple cobbler moths are cold blooded, Andresen said, meaning their survival is dependent on temperature. Moths are already surviving through warmer winters. If temperatures warm as projected, there will be extra generations of the moths surviving through the growing season, making the insect much more difficult for farmers to control.The example illustrates how as the planet continues to heat up, insects will be able to live through the colder seasons, thus having the potential to damage agriculture.Another indirect impact of climate change is on food security, said Ewen Todd, a retailing expert and professor at Michigan State.A study by the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen in October 2008 found a link between increased global temperature and outbreaks of salmonella in Europe. As temperature went up, so did the number of cases. Although the specific reason for why this is occurring is currently unknown, Todd said, the correlation is clear.The issues pose danger here in the U.S. as well.One of the major food security concerns is the heating of oceans and other bodies of water, he said. Vibrio, a type of bacteria responsible for foodborne illness, grow in warm water.“Vibrio include cholera, but that’s not a major pathogen for North America,” Todd said. “There is another one called parahaemolyticus that is probably in the water all over the place, but needs high temperatures to grow into large numbers.”Another food security issue stemming from climate change is the increased prevalence of toxic fungi or mycotoxins as a result of mass flooding, he said. These molds can grow in crops like wheat, cotton and corn.“The big one is called asatoxin,” Todd said. “People can spray for this, but in some countries that’s not feasible.”Small amounts of asatoxin will only make people sick when consumed repeatedly over many years, he said. Yet countries such as the U.K. restrict crop imports with even small traces of the toxin from going into circulation. If flooding and droughts produce more mold in Africa’s poorer nations where farmers cannot afford to eradicate it, then those farmers will no longer be able to sell their crops.“It’s a trade issue,” Todd said. “It means that some of these African countries can’t export, so [the mold] is a barrier.”In some cases, crops in Africa have been stored under moist conditions ideal for the growth of mold, he said. People who eat these plants get acutely sick, resulting in future problems such as kidney damage.“You have this extreme situation where people don’t like to eat them,” Todd said. “But they’re under starvation conditions and they have to.”As the planet heats up and bodies of water continue to evaporate, more moisture hangs in the air, he said. With more moisture in the air, mold growth is more extensive. Erratic weather conditions will stress the plant, making it more susceptible to mold penetration. Mold spores could start to grow under these moist conditions, and during metabolism growing would produce the toxin.“We think mycotoxins are well established in global climate change,” Todd said. “We think they will be a major factor.”GMOsMaking agriculture more efficient and productive is one of the best ways to combat the food crisis resulting from climate change, Andresen said. Though they are highly controversial, one of the possible solutions is the continued proliferation of GMOs, or genetically modified organisms.“Production efficiency and GMOs – those are two issues linked to one another,” he said. “A lot of the food that is produced never makes it to a table or plate. It gets lost because of substandard harvest practices or pests. That could be improved globally if we were able to prevent some of the losses that regularly occur.”The genes of crops such as corn and wheat could be modified to be less susceptible to environmental factors like insects, mold or harsh weather conditions. Robinson uses GM cold tolerant seed at his farm in Michigan to extend the growing season.“I’ve already asked for the cold tolerance seed to come in so I can plant it when it’s a little colder,” he said. “It’ll sit there and wait ’till the temperature gets right and not rot.”Despite the misgivings of those on the organic and all-natural bandwagon, many farmers do not see GMOs as any sort of mad science, Robinson said. To them, it is just a tool to combat changes in weather.BiofuelPerhaps one of the most controversial potential solutions to combate climate change is biofuel.While some praise it as the miracle cure to reduce petroleum use—one of the biggest contributors to global climactic destabilization—others argue that biofuels are responsible for just as much greenhouse gas, if not more.Research has shown that biofuels burn cleaner than petroleum. But experts worry about the carbon footprint of using agricultural land to produce crops for biofuels. Furthermore, increased production of biofuels means more corn is grown for ethanol instead of for food.“As countries are trying to do something about their carbon emissions, they’re going to biofuels a lot, and the biofuels are largely being diverted from food crops,” said Steve Kolmes, professor of biology and environmental studies at the University of Portland in Oregon.So while many farmers continue to grow corn, it just never enters the food chain, Kolmes said. As biofuel use continues and soybeans get turned in biodiesel, corn gets turned into ethanol, food prices will go up and food availability will go down.“One of the basic principals of economics is that when you increase the demand of something you increase the price,” said Tim Searchinger, research scholar at Princeton University. “It’s the growth in demand rather than a shortage in supply that is the key cause of the food crisis right now.”The U.S. is the world’s largest producer of corn, and 80 percent of corn produced in the U.S. is used to feed livestock, poultry, and for fish production all over the world, according to a 2009 report by the Environmental Protection Agency.The demand for corn and grain has roughly doubled since 2004, according to Searchinger, who said this is mostly because of an increased demand for biofuels.“The biofuels have not quite doubled the rate of growth and that’s the single biggest factor keeping things out of balance,” he said.Because biofuel, unlike weather, is something we can control, Searchinger said we must work to make biofuel production more efficient.“It’s not that we don’t have enough land to produce biofuels—we do,” said Bruce Dale, chemical engineer at Michigan State University. “It’s more a matter of choosing good systems and getting started on those so that over time those can be more dominant.”There are right ways and wrong ways to produce biofuels, according to Dale. Double cropping—growing a second crop on the same land after the first crop is harvested—is one option. This may include planting grasses or legumes in the winter following the summer harvest of corn and soybeans. These crops could be used solely for biofuels rather than human food consumption.“It’s more the efficiency with which we use land,” Dale said. “If we would just start growing double crops on our corn land we would impact the quality of soil, we would reduce green house gases and it would provide a lot of plant material for production in biofuels.”Another option Dale suggested is making biofuel out of the non-edible parts of the plant, such as the leaves or the cellulose in corn stalks.“If we can make biofuel by digesting the cellulose in corn stalks, we could have both the food and the fuel crop,” Kolmes said. “So there are technical fixes that might make biofuels have a much more neutral impact on the food supply.”The issue clearly requires more research – and soon.“We need to invest in agriculture research and infrastructure,” Ziska said. “And we needed to do it yesterday.”The futureProjections by climate modelers in the past generally showed that by 2100, things are going to be bad, Kolmes said.The problem is that everything is happening much faster than the models predicted. Even the most pessimistic of the climate models is being outstripped by the rate of change.“It’s really hard to get out your crystal ball on this one,” he said.While certain aspects of the issue might be foggy, the ultimate prescription is not: food shortages will result in higher food prices.If, in fact, climate change will interfere with global agriculture as predicted, then action needs to be taken quickly. Research and development must become a priority, Andresen said.Governments need to put aside their developmental differences and realize this is a global issue, Todd said. Climate change will affect people everywhere. Hunger and starvation are tangible concerns. An international strategy is imperative.When asked what the future holds for climactic destabilization and rising food prices, Kolmes laughed sadly.“I mean, it snowed in San Francisco,” Kolmes said, an unusual result of increasing evaporation of ocean water. “The rules of predictability were predicated on an atmosphere that we have changed. So instability, I’m afraid, is the new norm.”

February 23, 2011 08:00 AM Eastern Time

PORTLAND, Ore.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–ECOtality, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECTY), a leader in clean electric transportation and storage technologies, today commenced the installation of the company’s flagship Blink™ Level 2 Residential Charging Stations in Oregon. As project manager of The EV Project, the largest rollout of electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure and EVs in U.S. history, the company will install Blink residential EV chargers in homes throughout EV Project regions nationwide to support the launch of more than 8,300 EVs. Today’s launch event outside of Portland marks the first step in the deployment of a rich charging infrastructure, as well as the culmination of nearly two years of EV Project planning.

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden states, “I believe that these new charging stations will help reinforce Oregon’s standing as a place where new ideas become game-changing new products.”

Today’s event comes on the heels of the first Blink installations in San Diego and Los Angeles, and lays the groundwork for the deployment and installation of Blink commercial charging stations, including the Blink Level 2 Pedestal Charger and Blink DC Fast Charger. In September 2010 ECOtality revealed potential locations for more than 1,100 publicly available chargers in Portland, Salem, Corvallis and Eugene and also announced plans to place stations in Medford, Ore., and Ashland, Ore., thus creating a framework of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the length of I-5.

“Electric vehicles are a central strategy for breaking America’s addiction to foreign oil, and I’m thrilled that Oregon is pioneering their deployment,” said U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley. “I’m working hard at the federal level to promote their strategy. I look forward to the day in the near future where I can drive all across Oregon in an electric vehicle.”

“The infrastructure that supports the expansion of electric vehicle use in Oregon continues to develop,” said Oregon State Representative Tobias Read and co-chair of the House Transportation and Economic Development Committee. “I will continue to advocate for policies that promote electric vehicles and help seize opportunities they present in Oregon. After all, electric cars may be quiet on the road but they will make a lot of noise in Oregon’s economic future.”

ECOtality also recently announced the start of mass manufacturing of the Company’s Blink Charging Stations at the Roush Manufacturing facility outside of Detroit. Blink Home Charging Stations are available now to EV drivers and are free of charge to EV Project participants. The smart Blink Home Charger allows for increased cost-savings through improved power management and boasts an intuitive set of features, including a 7-inch color touch-screen control panel, and a stylish, easily configurable design. The units can be installed inside or outdoors at commercial locations, with both hardwire and plug-in versions available. For more information, including product spec sheets, please visit www.blinknetwork.com.

“The first installations of Blink home charging stations mark the start of a new age for EVs, and we are excited to continue to drive consumer EV adoption not only in Oregon but across the country,” said Jonathan Read, CEO of ECOtality. “Today we move from planning to implementation, and we thank our project partners in Oregon for their efforts in bringing charging stations to the places where Oregonians live, work, eat and play. This Blink charging station is the first of many, and we look forward to installing our smart Blink EV charging solutions as more EVs hit the road.”

As part of The EV Project, the largest rollout of EV infrastructure in history, ECOtality will monitor the energy usage and output of charging stations to determine a viable method for mass adoption of electric vehicles and empower the smart grid. Portland General Electric, a participant in The EV Project, is helping lead regional efforts in electric transportation.

“We expect most of our customers to charge up their electric vehicles at home so today’s residential charging station installation marks a major milestone in putting in the necessary infrastructure to support our EV-driving customers,” said Joe Barra, Director of Business Model and Program Development at PGE. “We’d like to thank ECOtality, the state of Oregon, and all our partners who are collaborating to make EVs a reality for our customers.”

ECOtality, as project manager of The EV Project, will oversee the installation of commercial and residential charging stations in 18 cities and major metropolitan areas throughout six states and the District of Columbia. The project, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through a federal stimulus grant of $114.8 million made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), will provide an EV infrastructure to support the deployment of 8,300 EVs. The grants are matched by private investment, bringing the total value of the project to approximately $230 million.

About ECOtality, Inc.

ECOtality, Inc. (NASDAQ:ECTY), headquartered in San Francisco, California, is a leader in clean electric transportation and storage technologies. Through innovation, acquisitions, and strategic partnerships, ECOtality accelerates the market applicability of advanced electric technologies to replace carbon-based fuels. For more information about ECOtality, Inc., please visit www.ecotality.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain as they are based on current expectations and assumptions concerning future events or future performance of the company. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which are only predictions and speak only as of the date hereof. In evaluating such statements, prospective investors should review carefully various risks and uncertainties identified in this release and matters set in the company’s SEC filings. These risks and uncertainties could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements.

Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=6622534&lang=en

Contacts

Media:ECOtality, Inc.Randall Grilli, 415-992-3000Director of Communicationsrgrilli@ecotality.comorInvestor Relations:Alliance Advisors for ECOtalityThomas Walsh, 212-398-3486twalsh@allianceadvisors.net

Permalink: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110223005768/en/ECOtality-Commences-Blink-Residential-Charging-Station-Installations

By: Katie Worth 02/22/11 4:00 AMExaminer Staff Writer

The City is looking at reconvening a task force to require gas stations that sell diesel fuel to switch to selling biodiesel. (Examiner file photo)

Gas stations selling diesel fuel in San Francisco could be forced to sell biodiesel instead, if a proposal floated by a city commission gains traction.

The City’s Biodiesel Access Task Force has discussed imposing a mandate that would require every diesel retailer to replace their regular diesel with B5, a biodiesel blend comprising 5 percent biodiesel — fuel made from plant oils and grease — and 95 percent regular diesel fuel. Such fuel can be used by diesel engines without any special conversion.

The B5 mandate, which would require local biodiesel to be used, would be modeled after a similar program currently in effect in Oregon.

The task force, made up largely of local biodiesel advocates and industry executives — some of whom could benefit from such a mandate — discussed the proposal in December. That was the last meeting of the task force, which was scheduled to sunset that month. But Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi is drafting legislation to rename and revive the task force.

Task force member Ben Jordan said that if the task force is revived, pushing forward the proposed mandate would be one of its highest priorities.

“When we do reconvene, we’re interested in continuing to develop this idea,” Jordan said. “We have an example in Portland, and from what we understand it’s been a win-win-win for everybody.”

Jordan hopes that somewhere down the road, the proposed B5 requirement could be changed to mandate the use of B20 — a separate fuel blend containing 20 percent biodiesel.

The biodiesel task force was initially created in 2006 by legislation from Supervisor Jake McGoldrick with the goal of improving public access to the alternative energy. In 2007, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that The City’s entire fleet had been converted to run on B20, but as of December, less than half the fleet ran on that fuel.

Mirkarimi said he doesn’t yet have an opinion about the proposed mandate. He said that’s a reason the task force should continue forward.

“The task force reached its natural sunset, but there’s more work that needs to be done,” he said.

No one on Mayor Ed Lee’s staff is working on such a citywide B5 mandate, his spokeswoman Christine Falvey said.

“We are open to looking into ideas that would help the city reduce its carbon emissions, but our first priority is to make sure our own city fleet is compliant,” Falvey said in an e-mail.

Because the idea is still in its infancy, gas station manager Johnny Wong said he had not yet heard about it, and didn’t have a formed opinion. His station, Precise Chevron on 19th Avenue, receives its fuel from Chevron corporation.

“For now I’m just a skeptic,” he said. “I guess it depends on the price we can get for biodiesel. If the price of that kind of fuel is too much it means we would have to charge more, and it might drive customers away.”

 Is new fuel clogging Muni bus air filters?

 Shortly after Muni converted all its diesel buses to biodiesel, it began having problems with air filters getting gummed up.

Correlation is not causation, cautioned Muni spokesman Paul Rose, but he said the agency is now investigating whether the biodiesel could be responsible for the problems.

The problem began in 2007, around the same time that Mayor Gavin Newsom issued an edict requiring the entire city fleet to be converted to the biodiesel blend B20.

The problem has persisted since then, causing some Muni mechanics and engineers to wonder whether their buses may not be taking to the fuel change. In the meantime, because of infrastructure and tank problems, less than half of the fleet is running on the B20 fuel.

Neither the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission nor the San Francisco Department of Public Works have experienced any problems with the biodiesel, representatives of those agencies said.

“Besides the occasional smell of fries from our vehicles, we have not really experienced any problems with using biodiesel,” SFPUC spokesman Tyrone Jue said.

What is biodiesel?

The fuel is an alternate to petroleum diesel that can be used in compression-ignition engines. It is made from plant oils and grease. While some vehicles can run on 100 percent biodiesel, various biodiesel blends are much more common:

• B5: A blend of 5 percent biodiesel and 95 percent standard diesel. Such fuel can be used by diesel engines without any special conversion.
• B20: A blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent standard diesel. Though suitable for some types of diesel engines, in 2007, The City started stepping toward converting its entire bus fleet to run on this fuel. Mechanical complications ensued around the same time, though direct cause hasn’t been proven. Today, less than half of Muni’s fleet is running on B20.

kworth@sfexaminer.com

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2011/02/panel-looks-mandate-biodiesel-usage-san-francisco#ixzz1EixvWWNp

The Oregon agriculture department’s measurement standards division issued notice yesterday that its in-state biodiesel production threshold of 15 MMgy was recently met, triggering Oregon’s B5 mandate.

By Ron Kotrba | February 02, 2011

The Oregon agriculture department’s measurement standards division issued notice yesterday that its in-state biodiesel production threshold of 15 MMgy was recently met, triggering Oregon’s B5 mandate. Come April 1, all diesel fuel sold in the state must contain a minimum of 5 percent biodiesel. Diesel fuels used in locomotives, marine engines and home heating applications are exempt from the mandate.

The notice mentioned that delivery documentation must identify the specific biodiesel blend in the fuel. No new labeling at the pumps is required with a B5 blend, since the diesel fuel spec, ASTM D975, allows up to 5 percent biodiesel without notice.

Daniel  Shafer, principal manager of Beaver Biodiesel LLC, a small-scale biodiesel plant in Albany, Ore., tells me he thinks the mandate is a statement about Oregon’s commitment to renewable energy, adding, “Beaver Biodiesel is glad to be part of Oregon’s competitive advantage in developing a renewable energy economy.”

Beaver Biodiesel can produce nearly 1 MMgy of biodiesel a year using waste vegetable oil as its primary feedstock.

Analysis by Tracy Staedter
Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:24 AM ET

 

Administrations dating back to the Nixon years have touted a “get off foreign oil” policy that, to date, has really gone no where. We’re still on foreign oil. But now we might have a chance to get on foreign synthetic gasoline. A research collaboration in England has resulted in a synthetic, hydrogen-based fuel that would be more stable in price than oil and would produce no carbon emissions when burned in a combustion engine.

The fuel was developed by scientists from Cella Energy — a spin-out company from Rutherford Appleton Laboratory — University College London and Oxford University. It’s based on a complex chemical compound called a hydride that contains hydrogen. Hydrides are used in batteries, such as nickel-metal batteries, to store energy, and have been looked at for storing hydrogen in fuel cell-powered electric cars.

Air, Sugar Power New Human Fuel Cell

The problem, according to Cella Energy, is that conventional means for containing hydrides are not great. According to the website:

“Storing hydrogen up to now has required either high-pressure storage cylinders at up to 700 times atmospheric pressure or super-cooled liquids at -253°C (-423°F). Neither is practical on a large scale as these hydrogen storage methods both require large amounts of energy to either pressurise or cool the hydrogen, and present significant safety risks.”

New Kind of Uranium Could Power Your Car

Cella Energy has a found a low-cost way to trap the hydride compound inside a nano-porous polymer micro bead. They say:

The hydrogen storage materials are stored at ambient temperatures and pressures, this means that the Cella Energy hydrogen storage materials can be packaged in a regular shaped fuel tank. They do not require the large heavy cylinders designed to withstand high pressures normally associated with hydrogen storage.

The micro-beads make hydride more efficient as a fuel, they help filter out the damaging chemicals and protect the hydrides from oxygen and water, so that they don’t react and can be handled in air. The final product looks like white tissue paper or a powder.

And because the micro-beads move as a fluid, they can be used in the following way:

• as a way of storing and delivering hydrogen safely for use in an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell
• as a fuel additive to reduce the carbon emissions from a hydrocarbon fuel such as gasoline, diesel, JP-8, jet-fuel or kerosene

“Early indications are that the micro-beads can be used in existing vehicles without engine modification,” said Cella Energy CEO Stephen Voller in this article on Gizmag.

This kind of development could really upend gasoline economies. I’m curious to see where this innovation goes.

Photo: Juice Images/Corbis

By Tami Luhby, senior writer December 27, 2010: 5:09 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Oregon drivers may get an unpleasant shock when they pull up to the pump in the new year.

Drivers there are already paying an average of $3.06 per gallon, but in the new year the state Department of Transportation is hiking the gas tax by 6 cents. That will bring the state tax to 30 cents per gallon.

Taxpayers in the rest of the nation, however, can breathe a sign of relief. Oregon’s gas tax increase is one of the few hikes taking place on Jan. 1.

State officials across the country have shied away from raising taxes this fiscal year, which began July 1, increasing them only $6.2 billion after hiking them nearly $24 billion a year earlier.

And though states are still suffering from budget shortfalls, officials probably won’t raise taxes much over the next year.

“New governors ran on platforms of not increasing taxes,” said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers.

The exceptions include Washington D.C., which increased its gas tax by 3.5 cents in 2009; Minnesota, which is raising its tax by 8.5 cents over several years; and Rhode Island, which upped its tax by 2 cents in 2009.

Also, voters have derailed lawmakers’ plans to raise revenues in some states. In November, residents of Washington and Massachusetts, for example, repealed taxes on candy and alcohol, respectively.

First hike since 1993

In 2009, Oregon’s legislature approved rate hikes on a host of motor vehicle fees to pay for improving city, county and state roads and highways, as well as manage rest stops. As part of that, they raised the gas tax, which had remained steady at 24 cents since 1993, and scheduled it to take effect on Jan. 1, 2011.

In total, the measures will raise $300 million a year for the state’s Department of Transportation, which is funded mainly by such levies. The department, which has been hurting for money, has had to slow or delay projects.

Drivers who use 600 gallons of gas annually will pay about $35 more, said Dave Thompson, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Transportation.

“The purpose of the gas tax is a user fee for damage you do to the roads,” said Thompson, noting that consumer prices have risen 51% since the levy was last increased. “Sooner or later we have to face the crisis of not having enough money to fix the roads.”

Still, some anti-tax advocates are not pleased with the measure.

Oregon’s unemployment rate stood at 10.6% in November, the seventh highest in the nation and above the national 9.8% rate. Many people are already suffering from higher property taxes and utility costs, said Jeff Kropf, director of the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, which advocates for limited government.

That means the gas tax could prove a weighty burden.

“For the working person, in particular, it will take more money out of their pocket or it will cut their opportunities to get around,” said Don McIntire, president, Taxpayer Association of Oregon. 

By Laurie Segall, staff reporter December 27, 2010: 6:25 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.In an interview with Platt’s Energy Week television, Hofmeister predicted gasoline prices will spike as the global demand for oil increases.

“I’m predicting actually the worst outcome over the next two years which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices,” he said.

Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst with Oil Price Information Service says Americans will see gasoline prices hit the $5 a gallon mark in the next decade, but not by 2012.

“That wolf is out there and it’s going to be at the door…I agree with him that we’ll see those numbers at some point this decade but not yet.” Kloza said.

“The demand is still sluggish enough in some of the mature economies.”

Check gas prices in your state

Gasoline prices have been steadily rising. Last week, gas prices crossed the $3 mark for the first time since October 2008. According to AAA figures, prices are up 4% from a month ago and 16% from the $2.585 average a year ago.

A study from the Oil Price Information Service estimates drivers will spend $305 on gasoline in December. According to the study, fuel prices are up 13.6% from last December and 76% higher from December 2008.

Gas prices eased off last week’s gains but still remained around the $90-a-barrel mark, settling at $91-a-barrel. Prices were down 51 cents from Thursday’s close after China unexpectedly raised interest rates over the holiday weekend for the second time in two months.

Oil prices settled above $90 a barrel for the first time since October of 2008.  

 This story started on

CNN iReport

By Katherine Dorsett, CNN

December 17, 2010 2:43 p.m. EST

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Obama administration touts streetcars as a way to vitalize urban economies
• Feds offer $130 million to cities in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio
• Supporters: Streetcars will create jobs, cut pollution, reduce traffic, shrink oil dependence
• Opponents: Streetcar programs waste tax money that could be spent on road improvements

(CNN) — In a down economy, pursuing the American dream can be challenging, but restaurant owner Todd Steele was willing to take a chance.

For nearly 20 years, Steele worked all levels of the restaurant game, from dishwasher to general manager, before partnering with his mom and opening his own eatery called Metrovino on Portland, Oregon’s, 11th Avenue streetcar line.

“I would not have picked this spot if it weren’t for the streetcar, and my business has certainly benefited from our location,” Steele said. “Streetcars are also a romantic way to travel, and they are fun to watch from inside Metrovino.”

While America lost much of its love for streetcars as public transportation during the 1960s, a few cities have kept the romance burning. The heart of San Francisco includes its nearly 140-year-old electric cable car system. In New Orleans, the location for Tennessee Williams’ “A Streetcar Named Desire,” many tourists are drawn by the picturesque St. Charles Avenue Line.

The Obama administration recently offered some U.S. cities a piece of a $130 million federal fund for streetcar projects aimed at reducing traffic congestion, cutting pollution and reliance on foreign oil, and creating jobs. Transit systems in Dallas, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Charlotte, North Carolina, are slated to share grants from the Federal Transit Administration’s Urban Circulator program.

Other cities have plans and other funding for streetcar projects, too.

See map for key projects

But not everyone is a fan of streetcars. “This is a waste of money,” said Ron Utt of The Heritage Foundation.

“Streetcars certainly create jobs, but they are a poor investment and create little lasting value,” he said. “Because it requires extensive ongoing subsidies, it is also unsustainable. Improving roads would be the better bet in most communities.”

CNN iReporter Raymond Becich is a supporter. “Sure, Portland paid incentives to businesses to build along the streetcar (line),” he said. “But how is this any different than any governmental jurisdiction giving tax breaks and other incentives for businesses to relocate to a city or state?”

Streetcars have transformed a “blighted warehouse district … into a vibrant area of shops, grocery stores, restaurants and apartments that provide entertainment and employment,” he said.

But there’s nothing streetcars can do that buses can’t do better, faster, safer and for far less money, said CATO Institute senior fellow Randal O’Toole. “Even though a single light-rail train can hold more passengers than a bus, a bus route can move more passengers per hour than any light-rail line.”

Portland’s streetcar system attracts about 12,000 daily riders at an average ticket cost of $1.47. Its creators credit it with $3.5 billion in surrounding development, including shops, restaurants and 10,000 new housing units.

Also, streetcars that run on either hydro or coal-generated electricity spit out less greenhouse gases per passenger mile than diesel buses, according to University of California researchers.

So, what is a streetcar, exactly? The transportation community generally defines it as a rail-based passenger tram that shares streets with cars and trucks.

Becich said he rides his city’s system so often he’s considering selling his car.

“Riding public transportation in Portland is quick, easy and enjoyable,” he said. “It’s absolutely easier than driving, and streetcar operators go out of their way to be helpful.”

But is it faster than driving? “If you count the time from point A to B, it is slower to ride the streetcar,” Becich said. “But if you factor in time to find a place to park and the cost of parking, it is more convenient and cheaper to ride the streetcar.”

It’s no secret that public transit offers commuters an escape from hectic traffic and a chance to read, make phone calls or snooze.

These transportation issues were recently at the heart of an $85 million question faced by leaders and residents of Fort Worth, Texas: Should they green-light a proposed three-mile streetcar line from LaGrave Field through downtown and into the near-south side?

After much debate, city leaders decided “no” earlier this month “because of the timing and questions regarding how it would be fully funded.”

As many as 2,250 people were projected to use the system daily, according to a city study. Utt says that’s not very many riders, considering the cost of building and maintaining the line. “Most ridership projections are overly optimistic,” he said. “There are good reasons why most cities got rid of their trolley systems in the ’50s and ’60s.”

Read state-by-state data on how commuters get to work

A federal transportation official acknowledged that ridership is often low, according to industry studies.

In Michigan, supporters are working to bring a light-rail line to revitalize downtown Detroit, a city among the hardest hit by the recession.

But on Capitol Hill, a House transportation committee spokesman acknowledged that there may be less federal money available for streetcar projects as Republicans prepare to take control of the House in January.

Transportation blogger Yonah Freemark agreed. “Based on recent decisions by party members at the state and national level, that will mean a renewed emphasis on roadway projects and less proposed funding for transit.”

Building the Economy through Sustainable Transportation (BEST) is the first coalition in the state of Oregon with the sole purpose of advocating across modes for freight related projects and policies. Comprised of local businesses and business advocacy groups, BEST was formed to help facilitate economic growth, highway safety and reduced environmental impacts by ensuring an adequate infrastructure for the efficient movement of freight in the region.

In a time of constrained financial resources, critical freight projects are underfunded in the Portland metropolitan area and throughout the state. While the freight community has made strides in establishing policy groups such as the Portland Freight Committee and the Metro Regional Freight Committee, the need to create an advocacy voice for freight led to the formation of BEST.

BEST objectives will be reached through a mix of advocacy, educational outreach, and grassroots mobilization.

“Facilitating economic growth, highway safety and reduced environmental impacts by ensuring an adequate infrastructure for the efficient movement of freight in the Portland Metro region.”

“252,000,000 tons of goods are moved in the Portland region annually, accounting for 82% of the statewide volume.”

“Failure to invest in the transportation system for freight means potential loss to the economy of $844 million annually – That’s $882/household each year.” — Regional Cost of Congestion Study