The phrase of the day is “Feed in Tariff”.

No, it is not a tax on over-eating at McDonalds.

It is a way of encouraging the use of renewable energy. Germany is most famous for this method, but it is not the only one. Read here about how our Corporation Commission might consider the issue.

Why is this important to you? Well, if you’ve ever asked “why don’t we have more solar in Arizona?”, then this is one major reason why.

There are two types of methods generally used.

1) Rebates –this is what we have now. Basically, if you install the panels, you get a rebate from the utility company (as required by the Corporation Commission).

Example: The gross cost for solar panels that I want to put on my roof is $15,000. The utility will give me a rebate of $8,000. Then I can also take various tax credits, etc. The ultimate cost will be around $7,000.

Why this is good: Its better than nothing, which is what we had.

Problems: You need to be able to come up with the initial cost (although leasing companies have made this a little better). Also, just because you install it does not mean that you will use it. Further, as the utilities are the ones who give out the rebates, they can slow the process of installation.

2) Feed in Tariff –The utility (and other rate payers) pay you for the electricity that you produce and put in to the system with renewable energy technology.

Example: My electric bill is $100 per month. But I know that every month I could generate $150 per month worth of electricity, based on current rates and what I know the utility will pay for the electricity I generate. I pocket $50 per month and get free electricity.

Why this is good: It gives investors certainty that they will get money back from their investment. It drives the installation of manufacturing for that renewable resource, but also energy efficiency (the less energy you use, the more money you pocket at the end of the month!).

Problem: Some argue that those rate-payers who don’t have solar have to absorb the cost difference of installing solar versus the cheaper coal/gas options. The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that (a) costs for solar are decreasing and (b) it will cost more if we wait and try to do it later.

So, look at this map. Who do you think would benefit if we do this the right way?

‘Nuf said….

Regular contributor of topic ideas of my blog, John Bennett, sent me this Newsweek article that explores how the generation raised in this recession might live differently.

Unlike in previous recessions, a more frugal life outlook might hold this time because the economics of the world, in general, will force Americans to save more, spend less and make different decisions about consumption.

According to the article, “the personal savings rate has more than quadrupled from its 2008 low to the current rate of 4.5 percent.”

This is amazing to me. Back when I worked at the Concord Coalition, a federal deficit reduction advocacy organization lead by Senators Paul Tsongas (D) and Warren Rudman (R), we watched in horror as the American average savings rate went in to negative territory. Meanwhile, the Japanese and Germans had a strong, consistent personal savings rate.

This had an impact on our federal budget deficit, as the amount people saved impacted the price of bonds and (in a complicated way that I’m not very good at explaining) the deficit that we funded with those bonds.

The article also predicts that we are entering “a new age in which young graduates can’t expect to do better than their parents—and one in which Wall Street is perceived as being able to continue business as usual while Main Street struggles.” Heck, I’m already there. I doubt that I will do as well as my parents. Although that might come from my personal choices to try to save the world, rather than anything else. Yet, over-all, the number of kids who do better than their parents is dwindling.

It creates an interesting set of ideas to think about as the Baby Boomers pass on. First, the Generation X-ers will be living off what their parents leave them, which, in the aggregate, will be more than any other time in history. Yet, there may not be much left after the Baby Boomers live longer, spend more on health care and then, finally, when we have to find a way to pay off all of the debt accumulated in our massive federal debt.

What does this mean for the housing market? I think in the 15-20 year time horizon, you can expect that many large homes will be left to the next generation by Boomers. Unless there is a continued influx of immigrants who improve America’s productivity level (not just service jobs), those homes might just sell for less and be worth less.

On the positive side, however, the Recession Generation is learning something that the eco-friendlies in the Boomer generation have been saying for decades with little response: live smaller. Dry your laundry on a line, compost, reuse things that break, live in a smaller, more energy efficient home.

When I lived in Bosnia, many folks did these things without thinking about it –even in 2007 when I went back to visit. An economist would say that it was because they had a lower standard of living and had to do these things because they had no other choice. This is true. Yet, the frugal part of life there never left me feeling that my standard of living was all that bad. In fact, it made me feel better about my lifestyle and my impact on the environment in many ways.

I hope we get a little of that New Frugality in America and it sticks.

Unless you have a large chipper-shredder in your back yard to turn your Christmas tree in to a fine mulch (Yes, that’s my dream. What?), you need to find a place for that conical fire hazard.

The City of Phoenix has a whole list of places for you to do that. But this only went through the 3rd. So, give them a call and they will have answers about where to take them.

It is better to compost them than burn them, in any case. I don’t think we are out of the woods in regards to no-burn days…

In polite cocktail party chatter, after people ask why we don’t have more solar in Arizona, they often bemoan the fact that why we don’t have a high speed rail line between Phoenix or Tucson, etc.

After all, there are only so many times you can get pinned between two 18-wheelers and a 20-year old in a Hummer with spinney wheels on I-10 before you start to wonder if there is isn’t better way.

The only answer I got when I asked was that there was not sufficient capacity on the rail line next to I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson.

The issue came front and center when Amy and I were in New Mexico in October, riding that state’s spankin’ new Rail Runner between Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

I gotta say, I was a little embarrassed that New Mexico was kicking our collective petooty in the high speed rail department. This thing was pretty swanky, in all it’s double-decker, panoramic windowed glory. Kinda like pimp my ride meets the Santa Fe Super Chief.

Well, it just so happens that one of my real estate clients helped plan and install the high speed rail servicing Washington, DC. So, he pointed me to people who could get me some answers as to why we don’t have this basic necessity  and what it would take to get it.

He pointed me first to Chris Blewett, the project manager behind New Mexico’s Rail Runner. This soft-spoken public servant seemed almost underwhelmed by his own accomplishments. At a total cost of $400 million (via state bond), they had phase one of the rail line completed in about 2 years, from conception to operation. That was 45 miles of upgraded track, plus trains. Phase 2, the next 100 miles, was completed about 2 years later.

In government time, that’s like doing the 100 meter dash in 5 seconds.

So certainly, you’d think, it can’t be that bad. Absent our budget morass, we could pull that off, right? Heck, Civic Plaza cost over $500 million.

Well, the reasons it worked so easily was that there was under-used Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) line between the two cities. All the state had to do was kinda spruce it up with new ties and some new track, according to Blewett.

What made the rail line necessary, however, was not so much the traffic but the Native American communities that dot the land on either side of the existing I-25. The freeway simply can’t grow outward any further without encroaching on tribal land. This problem won’t be apparent tomorrow, but it would bottleneck the entire state in the next decade if alternatives were not created.

The rail line, on the other hand, offered an actual solution and that is where we need to learn to make better arguments.

According to Blewett, when answering the “why not here” question, you have to look more broadly. You have to answer the question: what can commuter rail help with beyond the old standard “traffic and air quality” issues?

It creates an alternative and markets like alternatives. It allows you to build affordable housing closer to work. Money put in to rail goes further per mile than money put in to widening freeways.

If it were all that simple, then we would have it in Arizona, right?

That is when I turned to Mark Pearsall, a rail transit planner with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). The first thing he did was clarify for me that we are really talking about two different things: commuter rail and passenger rail.

1) The commuter rail is in the metro area, it travels long distances (say from Wickenberg to Gilbert), but it makes frequent stops. It is an elevated train, so it is not light rail. But it is not a connector for major metro areas. This needs rail lines capable of speeds up to 79 miles per hour.

There are several options for commuter rail in Phoenix: BNSF owns track from Wickenberg, down Grand Ave. to Central Phoenix. A commuter could get from Surprise to downtown Phoenix is 30 minutes. (You think the wait is long at Matt’s Big Breakfast now? Just wait.)

In order to make that happen, we would have to lay parallel track on the Grand Ave. corridor, do some signal upgrades and build a few bridges. Pearsall estimates this would average 5,000 riders per day.

There is also a Union Pacific track that could connect Buckeye to Phoenix. They would actually have to lay more main-line track in that case. Finally, there is a southeast line that could connect Phoenix, Tempe, Gilbert and Queen Creek.

According to Pearsall, this entire network would move 17,000 riders per day.

This is where money is not the only problem. Have a look at the map above. In order to see all of those connections, you would have to find a way to connect a number of those track lines that are not already connected. The map makes it look easy, but it is a spaghetti junction of rules, ownership and rights of way.

Further, you’d need to get agreement from BNSF about dedicating valuable track space and time to passenger rail. While not using all of the track space now, BNSF fears that they might in the near future.

MAG is going to come out with the results of a study in the spring, the most serious in 30 years, with conclusions about which of these lines are the most feasible. Click on the photo, above to download a copy of a recent system analysis. You will be able to get the major study at the same website in the spring.

This is where it comes down to money again. The next time the existing transportation sales tax is up for renewal is 2026, and I don’t see the voters going for another tax on top of our existing one any time soon.

So, no! No twain for Chwistmas until 2026, little Johnny!

2) Passenger rail is what we think of when we talk about Phoenix to Tucson or L.A. to Phoenix.

The problems of using existing track and laying new main lines is the same as with commuter rail, but the costs for completing the projects are much higher. However, whereas you can share rail corridors between commuter and freight rail in many cases in Maricopa County, Union Pacific tells us that we would have to build our own corridor for passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix.

That’s big money, folks.

This is where Pearsall has hope for an ADOT study, under way now. That study will identify the top 8 corridors of possible service between Phoenix and Tucson in which you could average 70 to 100 mph. This “alternatives analysis” is meant to start the discussion of getting federal dollars to lay the track.

You know, “baby steps.”

This is also where MAG and ADOT will be coordinating efforts. They will want to locate commuter rail line next to passenger rail line in some cases to maximize efficiency and make a seamless system.

Pearsall is confident that all of these details could and would be worked out once there is money in the pot. Railroads would change their tune and track could be laid.

Just drop $2billion in the tip jar on the way out, thanks.

But, you could envision it one day. Just close your eyes and let’s imagine together: hiking in the mountains around Wickenberg, stopping off for lunch in downtown Phoenix and having a nice evening out in Tucson, without ever setting foot on a gas pedal.

Or, more seriously, you could actually save money over building new, congested freeways. (gasp!)

However you want to look at it, I think it is a goal we should have.

Postscript: It looks like the AZ Republic was doing a story on this issue as I was writing this. So, learn more here.

A new central utility plant for Phoenix Children’s Hospital uses new technology and other innovations that will save 5.6 million gallons of water per year for the water-scarce Phoenix area (enough for 120 households) and will guarantee $570,000 in energy savings per year over 15 years, versus a traditional design.

They are using a chiller, which is the most efficient way to cool using existing technology. Basically, you make ice all night long and then blow air over it during the day for A/C. They basically do the opposite in the winter to make hot air and hot water.

Chase Field and surrounding buildings all share one massive chiller to heat and cool, as does the entire campus of UofA. I think ASU does, but my memory is failing there.

The only way they could use less energy to generate hot and cold water is to use solar hot water to help off-set the natural gas used to run the compressors. But, that technology is still being rolled out. Not in time for the new hospital tower.

Still, its pretty cool. I hope all new buildings take this same tactic.

Learn more at the developer’s website.

My friend and architect Tazmine Loomans has a blog where she highlights restaurants that feature sustainable food choices.

Locally-grown, organic even proximity to public transport.

She has a whole new list of restaurants and coffee bars. Some are in Phoenix and some are not. Regardless, it is a pretty good guide and a good place to check in for ideas.

Which makes me think, perhaps we need a U.S. Green Building Council certification for restaurants.

That is a totally geeky idea and very “insider” if you don’t know that the USGBC certifies new and existing buildings as “green” if they do a number of things, including installing better insulation, solar panels and features that support people who use mass transit. They even give credits for reusing waste created when you build the building or tear down an existing structure.

How would your favorite restaurant fare if measured up against a U.S. Green Eating Council?

You may know that the US Green Building Council will be here in town in November for a huge conference featuring Cheryl Crow, Al Gore, Smokey Robinson and, oh yeah…building sustainably.

You may also know that it is more expensive to build green. So, how can we build inexpensive sustainable structures for low-income home buyers? How can we renovate existing structures so we use less energy there?

The local USGBC will be hosting an event on just that topic. See the announcement, below. I plan to be there.

—————————-

USGBC

Affordable Housing Summit

Phoenix, AZ

November 10-11, 2009

Join us on Tuesday, November 10, for a full day of panel discussions with national experts on green affordable housing, focusing on the rehabilitation of existing homes and transit oriented development, as well as small group charrettes on real projects around the country.  The second day of the Summit will include a guided tour of innovative projects in and around Phoenix, AZ.

This is a free pre-conference event organized In conjunction with the

2009 Greenbuild International Conference and Expo.

Contact Tom Flanagan at tflanagan@usgbc.org to receive an invitation.

According to a University of Arizona study from January of this year, the average American adds 474 pounds of food waste per year to landfills.

There are also increasing costs to transport fertilizers. According to beef magazine (a bastion of leftist thought), “During the 12 months ending in April 2008, nitrogen prices increased 32%, phosphate prices 93%, and potash prices 100%. This price surge in 2008 was due to strong domestic and global demand for fertilizers, low fertilizer inventories, and the inability of the U.S. fertilizer industry to adjust production levels.”

As the economy improves, these prices will go up with greater demand and with higher fuel prices.

So, here’s my point: if you want to use less foreign oil, emit less greenhouse gas and promote local, organic food, start composting.

All you need is clean kitchen and yard scraps (no cooked food, meet or breads), a good compost bin, a nice shady place and water.

Below  is my contribution to helping you find a method that makes composting easy. And, let’s face it. If it ain’t easy, we are not likely to do it for very long.

That’s why I gave up my hobby of collecting personally autographed postage stamps of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Surgeon General’s Waring: I am not a professional film-maker.