On-Site Renewable Energy Production

To whom it may concern,

With the recent push for renewable energy production, I am concerned about the unbalanced approach that favors large, commercial production operations over the on-site production of wind and solar power. While on-site production cannot yet generate the entire amount of energy needed to run a house, business, or industrial building, it can go a long way to reduce demand and forego the needs for additional commercial facilities from being built. While I understand the need to create these large facilities in order to someday replace those power plants that run on non-renewable resources, the rush to approve solar thermal plants and wind farms across the country still rely on the logic that the best way to meet our energy needs are to increase supply, when I believe that we should be reducing demand. These on-site alternatives are less intrusive, easier to construct and maintain, directly benefit the home owner or business, and do not require the loss of open space or agricultural lands. There are thousands of square miles of roofs in this country that should be utilized as our new, decentralized power plants. Solar thermal plants produce clean energy, but they burn through large amounts of water in usually arid climates and require vast tracts of land, disturbing natural habitat. Producing on-site sources of renewable energy also reduces the burden on the electrical grid, loses less energy over transmission lines, and prevents costly investment in new energy plants. Considering the stimulus bills push for renewable energy production, a continuance of the tax break for photovoltaic solar arrays, and the upgrade of our electrical grid, how does this administration intend to expand and further its support of on-site renewable energy production across the country?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP