In less than a month, solar energy projects will see the stimulus-funded cash grant in lieu of the 30 percent tax credit expire. The change back to tax-credit-financed projects provides a revealing look at the disadvantages of energy incentives based on the tax code. See what our energy blogger, John Farrel, has to say about this development and the recent news coverage about it. Read the full post over at our Energy Self Reliant States web site. Continue reading
Viewing the Distributed Generation tag archive Page 17 of 31
Term for Energy
“The economics of sub-utility scale renewable energy continue to improve at a rapid pace…This downward price curve is fueling demand for distributed solar PV and small wind systems as an alternative to centralized power generation.”
Key benefits of distributed power generation (DP). Proven technologies for DP are widely scalable. Obvious example: a wind farm can be incrementally built in multiples of approximately 1.4 MW. Bigger doesn’t necessarily mean “cheaper” for DP. Customers can match the DP capacities to precisely known needs and not have to over-buy equipment. (see Figure 1… Continue reading
An interesting graphic that shows how the definition of distributed generation can vary by technology, since one “module” of a wind power plant (~1.5 megawatts) is very different than one solar module (~250 Watts).
Image credit:Electric Power Systems Research 57 (2001) 195-204; Ackermann et. al.
When discussing centralized v. decentralized solar power, there’s an inevitable comparison between solar thermal electric power and solar photovoltaic (PV). But the fact is that solar thermal power – or concentrating solar power (CSP) – can also be done in a distributed fashion. In fact, of the 21 operational CSP plants in the world, 18… Continue reading
Martifer Solar, a subsidiary of Martifer SGPS, alongside Silverado Power, signed today Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with Southern California Edison, for 113 MW solar projects.
These 113 MW consist of nine PV projects within close proximity to major utility lines in Southern California. These projects, expected to be concluded in 2013, are primarily located in Los Angeles County and will allow an energy supply to thousands of homes via a 20-year contract with Southern California Edison. [emphasis added]
Last week I briefly reviewed IREC’s new (almost) Best Practices for Community Solar and Wind Generation. Craig Morris provided another review this week that provides a very good perspective.
For one, Craig notes that there’s an unhealthy focus on net metering to the exclusion of other policies (like feed-in tariffs) that can provide a higher value for community projects. I think he illustrates one of the biggest problems with continuing to rely on net metering for distributed renewable energy projects:
Generally, under net-metering the utility company gets your “excess” solar power for free, say, at the end of the calendar year – solar power that offset the most expensive power on the spot market during times of peak demand in the early afternoon during the summer. You give that to your utility for free under net-metering. [emphasis added]
The report also misses a chance to highlight the global best practices for community renewables, or even the best practices in the U.S.:
Perhaps unsurprisingly, when IREC went looking for best practices, it did not look at leading global markets, but stayed within the confines of US borders. The study is typical of US analyses in that respect (see this report at Renewables International). Clearly, the dominant global policy to incentivize renewables is feed-in tariffs, especially in ramping up community projects. IREC even ignores FITs within the US, comparing policies in Massachusetts, California, and Maine, for instance, while Vermont, which has successful, but rather limited feed-in tariff scheme, is mentioned only in terms of its “group billing program.”
Craig also notes the glaring issue of ownership. The IREC report defines community ownership as “direct ownership, third-party ownership, and utility ownership.”
Which begs the question of what kind of “community” system can be owned by a utility. Certainly in Germany, a community system is by definition one owned by the community.
IREC goes on to state a preference for utility ownership, an idea I find appalling. As I noted in my review, utility-owned community solar projects have often asked community participants to pay more for electricity, at a time when most people going solar are making a return on investment.
Overall, I think I agree with Craig’s conclusion:
Given the current policy framework in the US, the report is probably useful. For instance, it discusses how community projects can avoid having to pay income tax on the power generated and how federal tax credits can be utilized. In other respects, IREC’s thinking is clearly still bound to net-metering; if you switch to feed-in tariffs, for instance, the question of “demand charges,” which seems to be an important issue for IREC, becomes completely irrelevant. In effect, the proposals basically show how progress could be made within the current legal framework without any major changes.
IREC’s report provides a good perspective of how to advance community renewables under a “business as usual” policy framework. If you agree that we might be able to find better policy, however, you might want to read [shameless promotion alert] Community Solar Power: Obstacles and Opportunities instead.
The CEO of a leading Indian solar energy firm issues a call for a U.S. federal feed-in tariff in yesterday’s New York Times:
Two things happened last month to give us pause to reflect on clean energy. First, Germany added the equivalent of nearly 1 percent of its electricity supply with solar energy between January and August. The first 1 percent took 10 years to achieve; the next 1 percent just 8 months. Second, the author of this revolution, Hermann Scheer, died.
The United States is one of the two top energy consumers in the world (along with China), so the world cares how fast America becomes convinced that there is a viable replacement to fossil fuels. The domestic American market should reach 1,000 megawatts next year. But to put that in perspective, Germany next year could add 1,000 megawatts in just 1.5 months.
To catch up, President Barack Obama needs to push for a federal feed-in tariff, or a mandate for states to have one, and fund it with a surcharge on conventional power — small enough to pass, but big enough to move solar away from cumbersome grants and tax incentives that come and go with the annual budget circus.
In mid-October, yet another municipality joined the growing list of lawsuits against the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac over the popular Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. Arguments in the court case will be heard next week.
A federal judge will consider next week whether to dismiss lawsuits questioning the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s decision to effectively shut down a White House-supported home energy efficiency program.
In a closely watched case, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California will hear arguments Dec. 2 over whether to dismiss several lawsuits against the agency, including one filed by the state of California.
I’m hopeful that the plaintiffs can win – PACE could really open the door to major improvements in home energy efficiency and expansion of distributed renewable energy.
It’s rarely mentioned that a home with a solar array still gets most of its electricity from the grid. In fact, without storage, a typical home solar array might only serve one-third of a home’s electricity use, even if the system is big enough to meet the home’s peak needs. The problem is a mis-match… Continue reading