Sustainability of Prince William County and the Rural Crescent

In the recent Prince William County local elections the candidates ran and were elected on schools, roads and jobs. Those are the immediate concerns of residents, but our elected officials need to look to the future and worry about the sustainability of Prince William County. We need to meet the ever tightening requirements under the Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan for the mandated Chesapeake Bay TMDL and we need to make sure that our water resources are not impaired. Preserving the Rural Crescent is essential to sustainable development of Prince William County. The first half of sustainable development is the redevelopment of Brownfields along the Route 1 corridor rather than Greenfield development in rural areas where there is no existing infrastructure. Redevelopment along Route 1 would help Prince William County to improve storm water management (and score nutrient reduction points under the Watershed Implementation Plan) as well as revitalize these older areas of the county. This redevelopment would take place without significantly increasing pavement and impervious surfaces. The second portion of sustainable development is to ensure adequate water for our county now and in the future.

Our geology and climate determines our water resources. The geological regions of Virginia are (from east to west) the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont, the Blue Ridge, the Valley and Ridge and the (Cumberland) Plateau. The Coastal Plain of Virginia is composed mostly of unconsolidated geologic deposits and extends from the Atlantic coast to the “fall zone” a geological line that runs north-south through Fairfax, Fredericksburg, Richmond, and Petersburg, to a large extent along Route 95. At its widest portion the Coastal Plain is over 100 miles wide.

Coastal Plain deposits consist of alternating layers of unconsolidated sand, gravel, silt, shell strata and clay and slopes generally southeast. There are two groundwater systems, an unconfined aquifer and a lower artesian aquifer both flow in the general direction of the topography slope towards the ocean. In the 1990’s it was estimated that approximately half of Virginia’s groundwater use was in this region. The principal recharge area for these aquifers is the land around the fall zone where the aquifers outcrop, unfortunately that area was paved and covered along with the development of Route 95. The Costal Plain’s artesian aquifer has an enormous groundwater storage capacity and Virginia remains a relatively wet location, but pumping (possibly over pumping) has lowered the artesian pressure allowing some salt water intrusion near the coast and development and building in the recharge zone has impacted the availability of water. It is projected with little more population growth that during drought years Fairfax and the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area will have inadequate water.

The Piedmont is bordered by the “fall zone” on the east and the Blue Ridge Mountains on the west. The Piedmont is the largest geological region in Virginia and has a diverse geology largely dominated by igneous and metamorphic rocks, with some areas of sedimentary rocks. The area has limited overburden and the fractures and fault lines formed in the rocks store and transmit groundwater. The size and number of water bearing fractures decrease with depth so significant supplies of water are generally located in the first few hundred feet. There is a wide variation in groundwater quality and yield ranging from under 1 gallon to over 50 gallons a minute. The largest yields are obtained where fracture and fault system are extensive. In other areas of the Piedmont, disintegration of the granite bedrock forms a zone of granular material with slow recharge and relatively high and annoying amounts of iron and sulfur. While providing very productive wells the fractures and faults offer a natural route of transport for any contaminant so that the most water rich areas that supply Bull Run and the Occoquan are the most susceptible to contamination.

Prince William traverses both the coastal plane and the Piedmont. The Rural Crescent in Prince William County is contained within the Piedmont region of the county within the water rich fracture and fault system and its waters feed the surface waters of the eastern portion of the county. The Rural Crescent should remain an urban growth boundary for the county not to preserve our agricultural heritage and sense of place, but to preserve our water. While I strongly support redevelopment of areas with preexisting infrastructure (Brownfield redevelopment) which would allow Prince William County to improve storm water management as well as revitalize older areas of the county and preserve the Greenfields areas in my general support of sustainable development; my strong support for preserving the Rural Crescent is about protecting the groundwater from depletion and contamination.

The Rural Crescent in Prince William County aligns roughly with the Mesozoic basin aquifer of the Culpeper groundwater basin, one of the more important watersheds in Virginia. My home and much of the Prince William County Rural Crescent is located within the northeast quadrant and eastern quadrant of the Culpeper basin and consists of sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate of Late Triassic age; with the fault and fracture system that produces water rich wells and the easy transport routes for contaminants into the groundwater supply.

The Culpeper basin is part of a much larger Piedmont Geologic Province and has only begun to be studied thanks to the careful groundwater measurements taken by Loudoun County as excessive development of the western part of the county began to impact water supplies. Each groundwater system or basin is unique and must be understood and managed individually. Groundwater quantity and quality in our region impacts not only groundwater wells, but stream flow and recharge to the surface water. In short all the drinking water in Prince William County. Groundwater recharges at various rates from precipitation and other sources of infiltration. The recharge is not spread evenly across the land. Pave over the land, change surface flow and infiltration and groundwater recharge could be reduced.

There are limits to the amount of groundwater available for extraction from the aquifer. The amount of groundwater removed from an aquifer needs to be sustainable and should ideally match the recharge rate. Increasing the direct demand by pumping to supply water to commercial or industrial users or reducing the recharge rate by diverting surface flow and adding pavement and roads will result in changes in the local or regional hydraulic balance- a reduction in discharge to surface water at some other location, an increase in recharge from surface water, or a loss of storage in the aquifer by falling water table or some combination of these effects.

Our freshwater resources need to be managed as a whole. The utilization of groundwater resources in an unsustainable manner can result in impacts to the entire region, including the decrease in water level and aquifer storage, reductions in stream flow and lake levels, loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems, land subsidence, saltwater intrusion and changes in groundwater quality. Our future and our children’s future is our water. We can’t allow it to be destroyed by those who only see short term gain.

The Holiday Septic Backup and When to Pump Out the Septic Tank

In general it is recommended that septic tanks should be pumped out every 3-5 years. I live within the Chesapeake Bay watershed in a resource protected area that requires a septic tank pump out at least every five years. Many localities do not have set requirements. However, just because no one requires you to pump out your septic tank, does not mean that the tank does not need to be pumped out. How often you need to pump your septic tank depends primarily on the size of your tank, the number of people in the household contributing to the volume of your wastewater, the volume of solids in your wastewater and whether you use a garbage disposal or have a water treatment system. According to the EPA, the use of a kitchen garbage disposal will increase the amount of solids in the holding tank by as much as 50%. It is the amount of soils in the tank that ultimately will cause most septic problems. The chart above is from the Montana Extension Office and gives a general rule of thumb for frequency in pumping a septic tank to avoid failure. This chart assumes that the system is properly used and does not have a garbage disposal in the household nor a reverse osmosis water treatment system discharging into the tank.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, New England and southeast have the highest proportion of homes served by septic systems. Having grown up in New England with an old septic system and now living in the southeast, the rules of care to minimize the need for pumping the tank and maximizing the life of a septic system are second nature to me. Only human waste and a limited amount of toilet paper are to be flushed done the toilet. A toilet and septic system is not a trash can. Don’t put dental floss, feminine hygiene products, condoms, diapers, wipes, cotton swabs, cigarette butts, coffee grounds, cat litter, paper towels, latex paint, pesticides, or other hazardous chemicals into your system. Never do more than two loads of laundry a day. Cooking grease is poured into a can under the sink, and all plates are scraped into the trash or compost. Commercial septic tank additives add bacteria to the system and in some instances may assist in the breakdown of fecal waste, but do nothing for the breakdown of vegetable matter, and trash that you have put down the drain. The EPA believes that the commercial septic tank additives have little if any effect on the need for pumping the tank and believe in most instances the bacteria already present in the tank eat the added bacteria.

A typical septic system has four main components: a pipe from the home, a septic tank, a leach field (alternative systems might have drip fields, sand mounds or peat tanks where a leach field is not possible or has failed), and the soil. Microbes in the soil digest or remove most contaminants from wastewater before it eventually reaches groundwater. The rest of the system is designed to remove most of the contamination so that the soil is not overwhelmed and can “polish” the water before it is returned to groundwater. Many systems also have pumps to move the liquids from the home to the septic tank or from the septic tank to the drain field. There are also Alternative systems that have additional components such as; float switches, pumps, and other electrical or mechanical components including additional treatment tanks. However, the main functioning components are the septic tank and the leach field.

The septic tank is a buried, watertight container typically made of concrete, fiberglass, or polyethylene. It holds the wastewater long enough to allow solids to settle out (forming sludge) and oil and grease to float to the surface (as scum). It also allows partial decomposition of the solid fecal materials. Anaerobic (without oxygen) digestion takes place with the aid of bacteria that came from human digestive tracks and most of the fecal solids are converted to carbon dioxide, water and other byproducts. The process is not completely efficient and fecal solids and other materials that find their way into the septic tank will accumulate over time. Compartments and a T-shaped outlet in the septic tank are intended to prevent the solid sludge buildup and floating scum (grease, oil, dead skin cells, etc.) from leaving the tank and traveling into the leach field area. Some newer systems have screens and filters to keep solids from entering the leach field. These filters and screens become clogged and need to be cleaned out regularly. Clogging of the filters can cause the system to backup.

The basic design of a septic tank will only work if the sludge is not too thick on the bottom and the grease and scum is not too thick on top, and if the flow to the tank is not excessive. If there is too much waste on the bottom of the tank or too much water flowing to the tank, there will not be enough time for the solids and liquids to settle out before the tank starts releasing waste. If there is too much water flow for the void area in the tank, water containing large amounts of solids and fecal waste and grease will be released to the drain field. The most likely time for your septic system to back up is when water use is highest-when you have a lot of guests at your home using the bathrooms, running the dishwasher and doing laundry, in short, the holidays. A backed up septic system is usually caused by a blockage between septic tank and leach field causing the tank level to rise and back up. If the liquid level in the septic tank is found to be above normal, either: the tank outlet is plugged or in newer systems this can be caused by a clogged filter, the line to the absorption field is obstructed, or the absorption field is clogged and pretty much ruined. An absorption field is destroyed slowly over time. If the absorption field is clogged there will probably be evidence of seepage or general wetness in the absorption area. In dry summer days stripes of green grass over the absorption field may be an indication of a failing system.

A plugged tank outlet can be caused by several things. In septic tanks which have been used for many years, the outlet baffle or “T” sometimes disintegrates or collapses. This allows scum and sludge solids to overflow and plug the outlet or the line to the absorption field. A tank with too much scum and solids that has a large flow of water will also cause solids and scum to overflow the tank. In appropriate stuff like hair, dental floss, feminine hygiene products, condoms, diapers, cotton swabs, cigarette butts, coffee grounds, cat litter, paper towels can be stirred up by too much water use and pushed out of the tank and cause a blockage in the outlet line. Newer septic tanks have filters and screens that can become clogged. Tree roots getting into pipe joints or the collapse of a pipe section can also block the line.

To prevent problems, you can be the household septic police and make sure that only reasonable amounts of grey water, human waste and a limited amount of TP are put into your septic system at all times. This is one way you will avoid that classic holiday disaster of the septic system backed up into the basement, but your family may think of you as a crazy control freak. There is another approach. I clean my filters and pump my septic tank just before the holiday season every year. I do not have to remember what year it is, I do not have to make sure every guest treats my septic system like the elegant, natural system that it is. By pumping the tank each year, I prevent excess sludge (solid material) from building up inside the septic tank, and flowing into the absorption field, and clogging it beyond repair. In the long run I extend the life of my septic system, protect the groundwater and my well, avoid holiday disasters and I can be a slightly more relaxed septic cop. Be aware though that the plumbing system can also get clogged. Waste lines in the house (especially from basement bathrooms) can become clogged with too much paper and not enough water or disposable cleaning cloths that should not be flushed. If this happens you will have to snake the waste line. Toddlers love to flush things down the toilet.

Keystone XL and the Kaleidoscope Picture of Energy’s Future

On Sunday protesters from around the United States descended on the White House to protest the Keystone XL pipe line. The protesters represent several environmental groups that want President Obama to stop the pipeline. Last week, President Obama stated that he would be making the final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline himself. Jobs, renewable energy, environment, greenhouse gases, and energy security all come into play in this decision, and I would not try to guess the President’s mind on this. This decision is an important one in the new world we face.

We thought we knew what the world’s energy supply looked like. Peak Oil, the maximum global oil extraction rate would be reached at the dawn of the 21st century, at which time the rate of oil production would begin its terminal decline. After the 1970’s the U.S. had become dependent on the oil from the Middle East and Venezuela and this would be compounded by rising fuel prices, potential shortages associated with declining global oil supplies . The cost of everything would be increased by more costly energy. The decline of the chemical manufacturing sector (plastics, pesticides, herbicides) would be accelerated due to expensive base stock and high fuel costs reducing U.S. manufacturing employment and increasing food costs. The future of the United States was not a rosy one, but it is one we would share with the world and the positive side to this reality was the opportunity to make renewable energy sources economically competitive.

The bell ringing of that world view was the failure of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 or the Waxman-Markley bill. This bill would have established a variation of cap and trade similar to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The emissions cap under that plan would grow tighter over time reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted in total and pushing up emissions prices and thus prodding industry to release less carbon dioxide by utilizing cleaner energy sources or increasing efficiency of the existing ones. Other provisions of that bill included new renewable energy requirements for utilities, studies and incentives for carbon capture technologies, energy efficiency incentives and penalties for homes and buildings, and grants for green jobs. The bill was approved by the House in June 2009, but died in the Senate, and was possibly the last stand of the world view that cap and trade can stop climate change on a planet with an ever growing human population.

The change in the world energy picture had started slowly in the 1990’s with the first deep water wells in the Gulf of Mexico and Brazil, but it has taken off in the last decade as a result of declining conventional fields, climbing energy prices and swift technological change. The Deepwater Horizon disaster and the political environment slowed the U.S. exploration and extraction in the Gulf, but did not stop it. Regulations tightened as the failure was better understood. Massive new oil and gas fields are being identified and exploited in the United States and around the world utilizing new technologies developed in the past decade or two. Some of the reserves have been known to exist for decades but were inaccessible either economically or technologically, others have been newly found as in Brazil, Israel, Norway, and Argentina. Regulations need to be tightened before large failures in drilling, fracking and extracting oil from sands.

The devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck northeastern Japan in March, 2011 resulted in extensive loss of life and infrastructure damage, including severe damage to several nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. This nuclear disaster has prodded the European Union, notably France and Germany to rethink their nations’ reliance on nuclear power. Both are sun-setting their utilities’ reliance on nuclear power generation. The newly available natural gas from shale, oil from deep water drilling and oil steamed from sands will replace nuclear power in Europe and extend the era of the dominance of fossil fuels for at least a generation and possibly a hundred years.

The Canadian oil sands have been known for decades, but until oil prices rose and technology improved they were too expensive to exploit. Technology and rising oil prices altered the economics in their favor and streamlined the refining process. Recovering reserves from deeper underground using steam injection, rather than mining techniques, has reduced the footprint of operations and environmental damage to the forests. According to the New York Times “The United States may now have the means to reduce its half century of dependence on the Middle East.” This will only occur if the extension of the Keystone pipeline is approved.

Canadian oil sands production is expected to increase every year for the next two decades, and it is estimated that current known reserves exceed Iraq’s total reserves. Canada is now a premier oil producer- the world has changed. However, many American and Canadian environmentalists strongly oppose this change. These groups are fighting to stop the Keystone pipelines to the United States and western Canadian ports. In June 2010 the first phase of the Keystone Pipeline System went into operation moving crude oil from Canada to market hubs in the U.S. Midwest. Keystone Cushing (Phase II of the pipeline) extending the pipeline went into service in February 2011, connecting the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, to the Midwestern hubs. The proposed Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project, Keystone XL, is an approximate 1,660 mile, 36 inch crude oil pipeline that would begin in Alberta and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. It would incorporate a portion of the Keystone Pipeline (Phase II) through Nebraska and Kansas to serve the markets at Cushing, before continuing through Oklahoma to an existing terminal not far from Port Arthur, Texas. The oil would arrive at the Texas refineries and ports for export.

So far President Obama has been non-committal on the project, which is strongly opposed by many environmentalists in both the United States and Canada. The Canadian Prime Minister Harper told reporters the project would create a vast number of jobs in Canada and the United States, and he fully supported the project. President Obama has said environmental issues would weigh just as heavily in any decision as job creation and energy security. The pipeline runs through the Osgallala aquifer in Nebraska, a very important water source to mid-west agriculture (secondary containment should be considered in sensitive locations) and continued dependence on fossil fuels goes against the administration’s support of renewable energy as the long term future of the United States.

The Final Alternative Septic Regulation in Virginia

The Emergency Alternative Onsite Sewage System (AOSS) Regulations went into effect April 7, 2010 and expired on October 6th 2011. It was anticipated that the final regulation would replace them without a gap in regulation; but Governor McDonnell did not sign the final regulations until October 20th 2011. The Board of Health will publish the regulations on November 7th 2011 and they will go into effect 30 days later, so there will be a 60 day gap in regulation which in the end is meaningless. Homeowners had only recently received letters informing them of the now expired emergency regulations, but the requirements under the final regulations are almost the same as outlined by the Board of Health Letters sent to homeowners this past spring. So as a homeowner with an alternative septic system in Virginia you will need to be in compliance with the regulations.

The final regulations list the homeowner responsibilities as section 140 of the regulations.12VAC5-613-140. Owner responsibilities.
It is the owner's responsibility to do the following:
1. Have the AOSS operated and maintained by an operator;
2. Have an operator visit the AOSS at the frequency required by this chapter;
3. Have an operator collect any samples required by this chapter;
4. Keep a copy of the log provided by the operator on the property where the AOSS is located in electronic or hard copy form, make the log available to the department upon request, and make a reasonable effort to transfer the log to any future owner;
5. Follow the O&M manual and keep a copy of the O&M manual in electronic or hard copy form for the AOSS on the property where the AOSS is located, make the O&M manual available to the department upon request, and make a reasonable effort to transfer the O&M manual to any future owner; and
6. Comply with the onsite sewage system requirements contained in local ordinances adopted pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (§ 10.1-2100 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (9VAC10-20) when an AOSS is located within a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area.

Have your AOSS operated and maintained by a licensed operator. As a homeowner if you are not licensed by the DPOR you are not allowed to maintain nor operate you own AOSS. The Virginia code requires the owner of an AOSS to have that system operated by a licensed operator, so you need to hire one of them to operate and maintain your system. That amounts to at a minimum one visit a year, but may be more depending on the type of system you have. The cost of my septic contract increased by 25% after the emergency regulations were approved by the Governor. The operator (or someone who works for the license holder) will visit your home inspect, test and service the components of your system and will file a report on line with the Virginia Department of Health certifying the results.

Have an operator review the operation of the system at the frequency required by the regulations. The frequency of your required maintenance is actually on your AOSS operating permit, which you have probably never seen. Do not worry, if you have an “off the shelf” system it is probably once or twice a year. Typically, the manufacturer obtained general approval for commercially available AOSS (and that is most systems), the maintenance schedule is given in the standard homeowner’s manual (the link to that is below in the next section). My system operating instructions detail system inspections and adjustments every six months and filter cleaning every three months. The operator is required to perform the required system maintenance, fill out and file forms with Environmental Health detailing the operation and condition of the system and compliance with the required maintenance schedule. The operator is required to file a report (on-line) for all visits. A little note, if your system was custom designed by an engineer, you could have significant additional operating, maintenance and sampling requirements.

Have an operator collect any samples required by this chapter. Laboratory sampling is not required for any small AOSS with an installed soil treatment area that is sized for septic tank effluent and complies with the requirements of 12VAC5-610 for septic tank effluent. In addition to regular maintenance and inspection, all systems installed after April 7, 2010 and whose systems have a secondary treatment and is not exempted by the above statement are required to have a grab sample of sludge taken and analyzed for BOD and, if disinfection is required, fecal coliform once every five years. Systems installed before April 2010 are grandfathered and do not require sampling. Expect to pay at least a couple hundred dollars for this. Yes, it would be cheaper if you took the samples yourself, but you are not allowed to.

Keep a copy of the maintenance log provide by the operator on the property where the AOSS is located. Every time the operator visits your system to maintain and/or inspect it, they are required to fill out a form with the Virginia Department of Health on their on-line reporting system and send you or give you a form indicating what service they provided. I file all of these in a notebook with the Operations Manual, but my service company e-mails me the invoice/log entry so I have all items electronically stored.

Keep a copy of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual for the AOSS on the property, make it available to the health department on request and transfer the O&M Manual to any future owner. All manufactures of systems approved in Virginia have created O&M Manuals that you can access on line and print. You can download the manual and save it or you can print it out. I know this is the biggest waste of paper ever, but I found it easier to actually skim through the manual in print. It does give some useful tips on how to properly use your system. All the manuals from the standard state approved systems can be accessed at this link. (Go outside and read the name and model number off your system. It is on the power/circuit boxes bolted to the house.)

Comply with the local ordinances for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act when an AOSS is located within a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Once a system is built, the responsibilities for the owner are to have the system pumped out at a minimum every five years. Here is a little tip, systems are less likely to back up into your basement or percolate out of the drain field if you pump them out frequently. In practice the licensed operator should inform you when your system needs to be pumped out and certainly the Board of health will send you a letter.

These are now the final regulations for O&M of alternative septic systems. Compliance is simple, but expensive. Identify the type of system you have, print the manual, then identify a licensed operator in your area and hire them. (Check reference and comparison shop, cost is not always indicative of quality in an inefficient market.) I have found by reviewing the AOSS survey performed for the Department of Health that these systems tend to need regular component replacement or repair, so good response time for a system alarm or failure is important.

While alternative septic systems are a bit more complicated that traditional septic systems they can allow the safe development of environmentally sensitive areas. However, it is widely accepted, but not well documented that improperly managed septic systems contribute to major water quality problems. In 2003 EPA reported that 168,000 viral and 34,000 bacterial illnesses occur each year from drinking water contaminated by waterborne pathogens from fecal contamination due primarily from failed septic systems. Proper maintenance of septic systems (both traditional and alternative) is essential for protection of public health and local water resources. Unfortunately, while you and I responsibly manage our septic systems, (exercise, maintain a healthy weight, eat 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily, save for retirement, etc.), many homeowners are unaware of how septic systems work and what is necessary to maintain them.

One method to deal with this problem was to eliminate all but the most basic systems in the most geologically favorable locations (reduce percolation rate tolerances and design the systems as conservatively as possible). The other method was to regulate, control and track. Establish system performance and monitoring and maintenance requirements, establish a tracking system and operating permits for compliance monitoring, and establish penalties and enforce the program. As a society we collect taxes, we license, register, and inspect cars; now we permit, register and inspect/maintain a septic system. Legislation approved in 2008 (Va. Code § 32.1-163.6) chose which path Virginia would take. That legislation required the Virginia Department of Health to accept designs from professional engineers for alternative septic systems that comply with standard engineering practice, any performance requirements established by the Board, and horizontal setback requirements necessary to protect public health and the environment. In response to that legislation, several localities banned alternative septic systems to protect the groundwater in their communities. Finally, the Virginia legislature stepped in again and required the Board of Health created the emergency regulations (and ultimately the final regulations) to address three issues for AOSS; performance standards, horizontal setbacks, and Operation and Maintenance necessary to protect public health and the environment from AOSS failure or poor design.

This legislation denied localities the ability to restrict use of AOSS in their counties, expanding property rights. However, the legislation also protects public health, the waters of the state and the environment because it requires all AOSS be properly designed, meet minimum performance standards and be properly maintained and spells out what that entails. It is believed by regulators and manufacturer that proper operation and maintenance of these systems will ensure that all AOSS function as designed. It is hoped that uniform regulations throughout the Commonwealth will facilitate homeowner awareness and compliance with the regulations. The full text of the regulations can be read at this link.

SREC Values in Pennsylvania

The decline in Pennsylvania solar REC prices over the past year can be explained very simply by supply and demand. The demand for SRECs is dictated by Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act which requires 44 MW of solar capacity in order to meet the solar-carve out for 2012 Compliance Year. (The Pennsylvania Compliance Year is between June 1, 2011 and May 31, 2012). However, there are estimated to be 105 megawatts of solar photovoltaic systems currently registered and certified in Pennsylvania of which only about 36 are actually located in Pennsylvania, which is one of the last states within the PMJ to allow “foreign” SRECS to fulfill their Solar renewable energy portfolio standard.

Solar Renewable Energy Certificates, SRECs, are not real, but merely a credit for having made one megawatt hour of solar electricity that was used elsewhere. SRECS have no intrinsic value. In other words, if there is no buyer for the solar REC, it is worthless. Like most consumer solar arrays I use all the power produced by the panels in my own home, nonetheless, my system generates 10 SRECs a year. Because SRECs are not physical items their value depends entirely on regulation which can change over time and that is the inherent risk in making financial decisions based on regulations. There was always a risk that some (or all) SRECs could become worthless at any time if regulations change.

Solar projects are sold based on state rebates, tax credits and SRECs to make financial sense. Electricity costs would have to be much higher to make solar photovoltaic panels a rational choice without incentives. Many solar projects built within the PMJ service area were sold based on selling the SRECs for the power they produce to make the cost versus return of the projects work as well as the state and federal tax incentives/rebates. The costs of the SREC are ultimately paid by electricity consumers rather than taxpayers. There are estimated to be about 105 megawatts of solar capacity now in place in Pennsylvania, while the 2004 law requiring utilities to buy a steadily increasing portion of renewable power envisions a demand of only 44 megawatts for the current year. The result: SREC prices have crashed within Pennsylvania. The solar industry says the market may remain oversupplied for several years unless the legislature steps in. The solar industry lobbied Harrisburg to accelerate the annual increases for solar-power mandates for the next three years.

Legislation amending the 2004 law has been introduced annually for the past few years. Two bills were introduced this year one in the state senate this past spring and one in the house this month. The senate bill would have increased the solar requirement and banned out-of-state projects from selling their credits to Pennsylvania utilities. This would effectively raise the price and value of in-state SRECs and make the out of state SRECs worthless in Pennsylvania. The legislation was introduced in the State Senate on June 14, 2011 and referred to the Environmental Resource and Energy Committee on that day. It has not emerged from committee and in the current legislative session appears to have no traction. The house bill, HB 1580, introduced in October of this year modifies the solar carve-out requirements for energy years 2013, 2014, and 2015 increasing them from approximately 71 MW, 118 MW and 205 MW to 207 MW, 238 MW, and 290 MW, respectively. This bill also proposes to close the Pennsylvania market so that only in-state systems registered after January 1, 2012 would be able to sell SRECs in the PA market. It appears under this amendment that out of state systems registered before January 1 2012 would be grandfathered. This bill is currently with the Consumer Affairs Committee of the house and has wide sponsorship and support.

The future of SRECs as always is dependent on political and economic environment. For three years Pennsylvania’s lawmakers have debated legislation to increase the state’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS). Each effort ultimately sank under the weight of amendments- too many, too complicated, too confusing, and too messy. In the 2010 legislative session Pennsylvania lawmakers introduced HB 1128 to increase the solar requirements under PA’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS). In addition to increasing the solar requirements, HB 1128 was written to amend the program by introducing a fixed alternative compliance payment (ACP) for the Solar PV portion of the AEPS as was done in the Massachusetts program. That bill failed on a roll call vote. It remains to be seen if the current simpler amendment can move forward and what regulatory interpretation of the amendment is if it passes both houses.

The regulatory interpretation of the 2004 legislation ACP was surprising to the solar industry. The regulators assumed that since Pennsylvania accepted SRECs from throughout the PJM region, it was a fair indication of the average price in the region. Therefore, Pennsylvania uses an ACP of 200% of the average price paid for SRECs in Pennsylvania. This was a different interpretation than the SREC market participants expected; that the utilities would be fined based on neighboring state closed market SREC values as well as the reciprocal Ohio market. So as long as there are some market participants willing to accept a low price and the market remains well supplied by allowing out of state participants, there is no price support for SRECs.

However, ACP mandates for 2011-2012 are increasing in other states some of which still have reciprocity with Pennsylvania. So if there are no legislative changes to offer relief the Utilities, and the state rebate monies are all spent there might be an improvement in the Pennsylvania market in the 2013 compliance year without the current bill passing. SRECs are valid for RPS compliance for the year generated and the following 2 years. Remember, though, that DOE recently approved a $1.4 billion loan guarantee to Bank of America Merrill Lynch to support Project Amp; the installation of 752 MW of photovoltaic solar panels on 750 existing rooftop owned by Prologis. This represents more than 80% of the total amount of PV installed in the U.S. last year when the renewable energy solar photovoltaic rebates were widely available. Depending on where these solar photovoltaic panels are installed they could significantly impact pricing and economics in the solar market and the cost of electricity across the nation and could change the SREC economics in all states.

California Implements Cap and Trade Program

On Thursday, October 20, 2011 after a long public hearing and meeting the California Air Resources Board unanimously voted to adopt the nation's first state-administered cap-and-trade regulations for greenhouse gases. Cap-and-trade is the centerpiece of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 a California law that establishes a wide reaching program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable, reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are intended to be cost effective. This law establishes a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions. Though Cap and Trade was not part of the actual law, it was added by the California Air Resource Board in their Regulations. California sees itself as leading the way in cap and trade legislation and an example to the nation of the potential benefits and concerns and problems with this particular approach to attempt to prevent climate change by controlling CO2 emissions. A second phase of compliance begins in 2015 and is expected to include 85% of California's emissions sources.

Thought there were many other voices the prevailing view at the meeting was California is leading the way to the future. California intends to show by example to other states and the federal government that it is possible to regulate greenhouse gas emissions while protecting its economy and fostering a new green economy and industry. According to others, California is taking a very big risk with their economy for uncertain results. There is the strong feeling amongst journalists, regulators and NGOs that the vote was closely watched by other states and, if the program is deemed successful, it will serve as a model for future markets. If you recall the "American Clean Energy and Security Act” is HR 2454, also known as the Waxman-Markley energy bill, or simply as "ACES" was passed by the US House of Representatives in 2009 and died in the senate. The bill included a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S and also required “polluters” to buy permits to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide.

Within California there is the strong belief that people watch what California does and emulate it. The California regulators believe that cap-and-trade programs are going to spread to other states and regions and the design features developed for the California program will be adopted in other states and regions with the federal government finally adopting the program. The California Air Resource Board sees their work in creating 262 pages of regulation as ground breaking and likely to change the country. These regulations imply a shift away from carbon based fuels. It is envisioned that this will support the creation of new green-tech jobs and financial certainty for the renewable energy industry even as there is a strong national push to further develop shale source natural gas to move power generation away from the coal fired utilities built in the mid 1900’s and for a reduction in the size of government. At least 15 states now produce shale gas and others may join them. The largest shale area, the still-emerging Marcellus, covers much of the Northeast and already supports 140,000 jobs in Pennsylvania alone. Many of the jobs created recently in Texas are related to the expansion of shale gas exploration and development.

United Nations Climate summit will be held November 28-December 9th 2011 in Durban South Africa. The Kyoto Protocol, which commits developed countries to cut their emissions, is set to expire in 2012. After both the Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010) Climate summits failed to produce a legally binding climate treaty, delegates to the Durban talks are under immense pressure to produce some kind of deal that will be acceptable to both rich and developing nations. However, it is reported that cap-and-trade concept is losing support among the pervious signers of the Kyoto treaty and China and India who are now major producers of greenhouse gas because of concern about jobs, costs and bureaucratic complexity.

The “emerging nations,” including China and India want an extension of Kyoto, which required the industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% below 1990 levels from 2008-12. The world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters are China and the United States. The U.S. never ratified Kyoto, arguing it should contain 2012 goals for emerging economies and would cost U.S. jobs. China was exempted as an emerging economy, and though it is now the largest greenhouse gas emitter on earth, it wants to remain exempted from reducing or even stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions under any new agreement. In September India announced that it would not accept any legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emission, and Japan announced that they are reconsidering plans to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 25% by 2020 due to closing of a significant portion of its nuclear power generation, and the costs of the carbon-credit programs that required the spending of almost $11 billion on carbon abatement programs in other countries. Overall, expectations for the future of the Kyoto Protocol are low and some doubt whether if a second commitment period is feasible with only support from EU which accounts only around 11% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and is itself reconsidering its nuclear power generation after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors were damaged after the quake. If nuclear reactors are going to be phased out as low greenhouse gas emission power generation there is no way to achieve carbon reductions without reducing the size of the economy, the standard of living or the size of the population.

The California Cap and Trade program requirements will help the current crop of California solar projects. If you will recall, the Department of Energy recently issued its final round of loan guarantees before the program ended and these final four loans included three generation project in California.
California Valley Solar Ranch Project a $1.237 billion loan guarantee to allow SunPower Corp to borrow the money to build a 250-megawatt photovoltaic electricity generating array in San Luis Obispo County, California using sun tracking technology to increase electricity output. The power will be sold to Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and will generate enough (very expensive) electricity to power 64,000 homes and will allow SunPower to increase demand for their panels and maintain or increase production. Construction employment will be significant, but permanent jobs will be few. The panels do not need much operation.

Low Impact Termite Management

In the United States there are four groups of termites of concern: subterranean (including the Formosan termite), drywood, dampwood and powderpost. Subterranean termites and drywood termites are the two general types. Subterranean termites "nest" in the soil and from there they can attack structures by building shelter tubes from the soil to the wood in structures. Subterranean termites cause more of the damage to homes and structures than drywood termites so will be my primary focus here. Termites will attack any material with cellulose, including wood, paper coated wall board, and paper (as in that treasured book collection that occupies the lower level of my home). Wood that is at least 30% water saturated provides enough moisture. Additionally, termites will find free-standing water such as condensation, rain or plumbing leaks and use this moisture as their main source for survival. Termites have been a part of the ecosystem for thousands of years and aid in the decomposition of wood, freeing the nutrients in the decaying material for reuse by other organisms. Termites rely on eating the cellulose found in wooden structures, furniture, stored food and paper. It is virtually impossible to reside anywhere in the United States without confronting termites at one point or another.

Subterranean termites are the common termite in most states, and live below ground in colonies. Mature termite colonies tend to be decentralized with numerous nesting and feeding locations, interconnected by underground tunnels. The size of a colony can vary from less than 10,000 termites occupying 100-200 square feet to millions of termites covering an area as large as a half an acre. In higher density residential areas, the colony or colonies responsible for damage may actually be located in a neighbor's yard, rather than beneath the house that is infested. This requires that termite treatment involve both in house treatment and creating an external perimeter control to push back the colony. One of the oldest and least toxic treatment of in house termites and other pests is boric acid which will shut down the termite's nervous system. The termite will go into "shock" and the boric acid will simultaneously dehydrate the termite.

The treatment options for termites are bating for control of the perimeter with spot treatment both inside and out and traditional chemical barriers. Physical barriers installed during construction are also possible. As a practical matter physical barriers cannot be effectively retrofitted. Prevention of termites should be part of the construction process. Building codes require in most locations require that a construction site be pretreated for termites. Proper construction techniques, such as isolating wood from the soil, elimination and prevention of moisture and the use of physical barriers such as crushed glass, basalt, granite, quartz or silica sand can prevent termite attack. Certainly, adoption of vigilant construction methods and the use of inert physical barriers can prevent termite penetration into the structure and can provide more permanent termite control than is possible with insecticide applications to the soil alone. Very few of us build our own homes and the inclusion of permanent physical termite barriers often does not make the list of desirable features.

The new technologies for termite control can be safer to use and potentially less harmful to the environment than relying only on pesticides alone. Termite baits use small amounts of insecticide to knock out populations of termites foraging in and around the structure. Some baits may even eradicate entire termite colonies. Various methods of termite baiting are used in various products. The Sentricon Colony Elimination System is a termite control system from Dow AgroSciences it is the oldest and most widely tested of the commercially available baiting systems. It is comprised of several slotted, sub-ground level cylinders containing wooden monitoring devices. When termite activity is detected in a particular unit, the monitoring insert is replaced with a special bait tube. The bait used is a chitin inhibiting chemical which prevents the termites from molting. The idea behind this baiting method is that foraging termites consume the bait and pass it along to others within the colony, eventually working its way up to the queen, thereby eliminating the colony.

Sentricon has been commercially available since 1996. Several university etymology departments have conducted field tests over the years in the termite hot spots of Hawaii and the southeast. Beginning in fall 1993, field studies were conducted with a prototype Sentricon system around three representative structures in Hawaii, each of which had a history of subterranean termite infestation and recurring problems. Application of the hexaflumuron baits which is the active ingredient in the Sentricon system eliminated all termite activity at these sites. Continued monitoring is very important, though. Several years later, termites were again found to be reinvading two of the locations, but using baits again eliminated the infestation. The University of Kentucky also performed independent research studies. They, too, found that the Sentricon® is an effective termite control option. Some of these studies involved structural that could not be controlled using conventional liquid methods, which require the application of hundreds of gallons of chemicals into the ground to create an unbroken wall of soil soaked with chemical.

The Sentricon Termite Colony Elimination System was developed by Dow AgroSciences (Indianapolis, IN), and is sold only through authorized pest control firms. Termite control is not a DIY project. The bait contains a slow-acting ingredient, hexaflumuron that works by stopping the insect’s growth. It interferes with chitin synthesis, which termites need to form a new exoskeleton. Hexaflumuron has low toxicity and low mobility in the soil. It binds strongly to soil particles and is not highly soluble in water. It is not likely to contaminate surface or groundwater and is used in bating systems in very small quantities so is not likely to come in contact with residents. Termite control with the Sentricon System ® entails a 3-step process: (1) initial monitoring to pinpoint termite activity, (2) delivery of the bait, and (3) subsequent monitoring to provide ongoing protection of the structure.

The Sentricon baiting systems is the most extensively tested baiting system. (For other systems see University of Kentucky review of baiting systems.) It can be used as a preventive method for subterranean termites and a remedial control tool for existing infestations in structures. However, it could take from one month to more than a year to control an ongoing infestation and is in my opinion best used to prevent infestation. One of the biggest challenges in baiting is getting termites to find the baits in the first place. The timetable for discovery will vary from property to property, depending on such factors as termite foraging intensity, time of year, moisture, and food availability. On one infested property in Kentucky, more than a dozen monitoring devices were "hit" (attacked) by termites within two weeks of installation; on another home in the same neighborhood, no below-ground stations were attacked during a full year of intensive monitoring despite two concurrent termite swarms inside the home. Similar variances in bait detection by termites (and thus effectiveness of the baiting system to treat and eliminate an ongoing infestation) have been reported elsewhere in the country.

Thus, baiting can take more than a year to push back an infestation and baiting is expensive. While the initial cost of baiting is much less than the initial treatment with a chemical barrier. A typical "barrier" treatment may involve hundreds of gallons of pesticide injected into the ground alongside the foundation, beneath concrete slabs, and within foundation walls and may require the drilling of concrete floors, walkways and driveways. The total cost for this initial treatment can be up to $2,500 for a suburban home, but the maintenance contact is $100-$200.

Termite control with baiting entails a 3-step process: (1) initial monitoring to pinpoint termite activity, (2) delivery of the bait, and (3) subsequent monitoring to provide ongoing protection of the structure. Monitoring stations are installed around the perimeter of the house 10- to 20- feet apart. Stations are typically installed one to two feet from the foundation, to avoid soil that may have been treated earlier with a liquid termiticide. Patios, driveways, and other paved surfaces are not stations can be installed farther out from the foundation, in adjoining plant beds, etc. Additional stations are installed in suspected termite foraging areas, such as near pre-existing termite damage, stumps, woodpiles, or moist areas on the property.

Bimonthly thereafter the bait stations are inspected for termite presence. When termites are found in a monitoring station, the untreated wood is replaced with a perforated plastic tube containing bait laced with a slow-acting termite growth inhibitor (hexaflumuron) and the termites feeding on the wood pieces are carefully dislodged and placed within the bait tube. Eventually, these termites tunnel through and out of the perforated tube, carrying the bait back to the colony. After termites are no longer found in the bait tubes, the baits are once again replaced with untreated wood pieces and monitoring continues. Even if the termite colony threatening the structure has been eliminated, reinfestation can occur and homes protected with bait systems will need to be continually inspected, monitored and maintained to guard against reinvasion from new colonies or previously suppressed ones. Once the termite population has been eliminated, the pest control firm will continue to monitor at three- to four-month intervals for an indefinite period so that the annual contract cost is substantial and may be up to $350-$800 per year, though the initial cost would typically be in the same range.