If you're never quite sure what incentives are out there - NC state and federal - for energy efficient projects that you're thinking about, check out the February issue of Carolina Country.
On pages 10-11 you'll find an easy to read summary. Here's a quick sampling, and it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that there are additional requirements and restrictions not listed here that you'll need to check into before you hire somebody to start climbing onto your roof with solar panels.
- Solar water heaters are eligible for a federal tax credit of up to 30%, up to $2,000 and a state property exemption.
- Federal tax credits are still available for vehicles (hybrid gas-electric, battery-electric, etc). But, there is a 60,000 vehicle limit per manufacturer before a phase out period begins, and Toyota and Honda have already been phased out. If you're interested, you'll need to start shopping for a Ford, GM or Nissan, since that's where the credit is still available.
- Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are in a separate classification. There's a federal tax credit of $2,500-$7,500, and the first 250,000 vehicles sold get the full tax credit.
There's more on the list, including photovoltaic systems (the federal tax credit is up to 30% of cost, state tax credit up to 35% of cost, not to exceed $10,500).
If you live in the distribution area for this magazine and you've already tossed - ahem, recycled - your copy, I think the February issue will appear online soon.
Source: "Go Green Save Green". Compiled by Morgan Lashley, NC Association of Electric Cooperatives. Carolina Country is the monthly magazine of North Carolina's Touchstone Energy Cooperatives. Picture used with permission.
Friday, January 30, 2009
NC Sate and Federal Tax Credits - The List
Posted by
Kimberly
at
2:53 PM
0
comments
Thursday, January 29, 2009
No Green Thumb Required - But You Will Need a Pencil
I’m a “let’s toss that seed in the ground and see if it grows” type of gardener. While I love the abundance of a full, green summer garden, I rarely take the time to make sure I’m doing it right. So I started Don Rosenberg’s new book, No Green Thumb Required: Organic Family Gardening Made Easy, (Catawba Publishing) thinking I would flip through it in an hour, find the “good stuff” and check that off the to-do list. It didn’t quite work out that way.
First of all, I’m still a gardening neophyte. I’ve had a garden for several years, but for some reason every year still seems like my first venture into the back yard with a hoe. To make matters worse,
The first part of the book covers general info, as if
Chapter 7 discusses kids in the garden, with some tips for kid-friendly projects. But the real meat of the book begins right around Chapter 9, when
After recommending varieties, the book goes into planning the garden, complete with a grid that you can use to gauge how much space you’ll need for each of your favorite veggies. That’s when I realized there was no way I’d be able to get out of this without getting out a pencil. Articles in the appendix address common questions and tips for growing tomatoes and other popular items. Like one of my favorites - squash. You might find yourself taken back by
Here’s what I discovered about No Green Thumb Required. It’s a reference book. Not an article. Oh. No wonder I couldn’t get through it in one sitting. I now realize I’m supposed to keep it around, fill out the charts and actually use it. I’m not sure whether I’ll follow through on all of that – but I do have my short list of stuff I’d like in my garden already written out. Right next to the note about needles. So that’s a start, right?
If you’d like more information about the book, check out
Posted by
Kimberly
at
10:41 AM
0
comments
Labels: Gardening, Kids, organic food
Friday, January 16, 2009
(Lots of) Cash for Clunkers
If you have dreams of a hybrid sitting in your driveway – but instead you’ve got an enormous SUV lurking out there, waiting for your next trip to the gas station – Congress has a deal for you. “Cash for Clunkers”, legislation introduced on Wednesday in both the House and Senate, proposes up to $4500 vouchers be given to SUV owners that turn in their gas guzzlers. Those vouchers can be used for reimbursement when purchasing new vehicles that exceed federal fuel economy targets by at least 25 percent.
It seems win-win. In theory, auto manufacturers would gear up to produce the in-demand, fuel efficient cars. Those cars would be replacing larger, less environmentally friendly SUVS and Congress estimates the savings would be equal to 40,000 to 80,000 barrels of motor fuel each day by the end of the four year program.
But I hope that in the rush to re-start the auto industry, reduce dependency on foreign oil and save the planet in general everyone takes the long view. Up to a million cars a year, over four years, is 4 million SUVS that could be scrapped. Are there any unintended consequences that we should be thinking of NOW instead of being surprised them by later? Surely we can re-use some of the materials in these SUVs before they head to the scrap heap? Is that cost factored into the overall cost of the program? And while we’re at it, is the program realistic? Is $4500 enough of an incentive if you owe, say, $15,000 on your SUV now? Will folks heading to the dealerships, voucher in hand, be able to get credit (assuming they’ve found work after being laid off)?
Don’t get me wrong. It’s great out-of-the-box thinking, and I’m all for it. I’m just hoping that someone with a giant whiteboard on Capitol Hill is drawing lots of circles and lines right now in a big, comprehensive plan to make sure that this big (expensive) program lives up to its promise. Costs are estimated to be between $1 to $2 billion per year, and you know how initial government estimates always seem to be...well...a bit on the low side. The numbers coming out of Washington these days are so numbingly large, it's easy to lose track of the fact that $1 billion is still a big, big number.
Check out MSN’s story on the subject and – for some glimpses into more unintended consequences that need to be considered – The Daily Green.
Posted by
Kimberly
at
4:11 PM
1 comments
Thursday, January 15, 2009
In Pursuit of Safer CFLs
CFL bulbs (compact fluorescent light bulbs) are thought of as a better lighting choice across the board – from an energy saving perspective, anyway.
Of course, those nagging concerns about their mercury content won’t quite go away (nor should they). Advocates say that the mercury used in the bulbs is far outweighed - in a big picture kind of way - by the benefit of the mercury saved (since a major source of mercury in the environment comes from coal-fired electrical plants, and CFLs use less energy than their incandescent cousins).
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has a great report on 7 high quality, low mercury bulbs. It's short - it will take you five minutes to read, tops. Meanwhile here’s an even quicker version: Earthmate, Litetronics, Sylvania, Feit, MaxLite, Philips all have bulbs that made it on to the list (Sylvania has two).
By the way - the Energy Star label you see on a CFL box is not an indicator that the bulb is low in mercury. And w
Posted by
Kimberly
at
6:55 PM
0
comments
Labels: Energy




