Back to top Jump to featured resources

Viewing the policy tag archive Page 13 of 19

Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | No Comments | Updated on Jul 14, 2011

Regulatory Roadblocks to Democratizing the Electricity System

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/regulatory-roadblocks-democratizing-electricity-system/

A serialized version of our new report, Democratizing the Electricity System, Part 4 of 5. Click here for: Part 1 (The Electric System: Inflection Point) Part 2 (The Economics of Distributed Generation) Part 3 (The Political and Technical Advantages of Distributed Generation) Download the report. Regulatory Roadblocks / The Political System Despite technology’s march toward… Continue reading

Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | No Comments | Updated on Jul 13, 2011

The Power of Comprehensive Energy Policy

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/power-comprehensive-energy-policy/

If Germany’s 16 federal states had each enacted their own renewable energy legislation, we’d have far less solar energy usage. I often tell people that Germany has 400 types of beer and one renewables law, while the situation in the United States is the other way around.

Continue reading

Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | No Comments | Updated on Jul 13, 2011

Could California Save 30% or More on Solar With German Policy?

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/could-california-save-30-or-more-solar-german-policy-2/

The Golden State has covered over 50,000 roofs with solar PV in the past decade, but could it also save 30% or more on its current solar costs?  Renewable energy guru Paul Gipe wrote up a study last week that found that Californians pay much more per kilowatt-hour of solar power than Germans do (accounting for the difference in the solar resource). The following chart outlines the various ways Californians pay for solar, compared to the Germans (averaged over 20 years, per kilowatt-hour produced).

While the study doesn’t explore the rationale, here are a few possibilities:

  1. The inefficiency of federal tax credits artificially inflates the cost of U.S. solar.
  2. Big banks that offer financing for residential solar leasing routinely overstate the value of the systems, increasing taxpayer costs on otherwise cost-effective systems.
  3. The complexity and intricacy of the state and federal incentives (4 separate pots of money!) and the lack of guaranteed interconnection means higher risk and higher cost for U.S. solar projects.
  4. The inconsistency in local permitting standards that increases project overhead costs.

Ultimately, the combination of these market-dampening problems in the California market has hindered the cost savings that have hit the German market.  California solar installations of 25 kilowatts (kW) and 100 kW have a quoted price of $4.36 and $3.84 per Watt, respectively, according to the Clean Coalition.  This compares to $3.40 per Watt on average for already installed projects of 10-100 kW in Germany.   

Given a solar cost disadvantage that is present both in the value of incentives AND in the actual installed cost, renewable energy advocates in California should seriously question whether the current policy framework makes sense. The mish-mash of federal tax credits and state/utility rebates has not led to the same economies of scale and market maturity as Germany has accomplished with their CLEAN contract (a.k.a. feed-in tariff).  

Switching energy policies could save ratepayers billions. 

A 24-cent CLEAN contract price for California solar (to match the German contract) would replace the entire slate of existing solar incentives with an overall average cost 30% lower than the current combined incentives.  If 2011 is a banner year and the state sees 1 gigawatt (GW) of installed capacity, the savings to ratepayers of a CLEAN program (over 20 years) would be nearly $3 billion.

If the CLEAN price were adjusted down to assume that projects could use the federal tax credit, then California could set the contract price as low as 18.5 cents per kWh, 5 cents less than is currently paid by California ratepayers (although requiring projects to use tax credits has significant liabilities). 

Several states and municipal utilities (Vermont; Gainesville, FL; San Antonio, TX) have already shifted to this simple, comprehensive policy, with promising early results.  Californians should consider whether holding to an outdated and complicated energy policy is worth paying billions of dollars extra for solar power.

Continue reading

Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | No Comments | Updated on Jun 29, 2011

Missouri Voters Will Have to Try Again for Energy Self-Reliance

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/missouri-voters-will-have-try-again-energy-self-reliance/

Missouri State CapitolHow many times must Missouri voters tell their government that they want clean, local energy and its economic benefits? 

They should try 21 times.  That’s how much more in-state economic benefit can be gained from developing local energy rather than trying to keep rates low with energy imports.

In 2008, voters approved – with 66% percent of the vote – a referendum establishing a 15% renewable energy standard.  The law also required utilities to get the renewable energy within Missouri or surrounding states.  In January, however, the state legislature stripped that part of the law, allowing Missouri utilities to import renewable energy from anywhere, even if that electricity never physically reaches Missouri ratepayers. 

Renewable energy advocates even tried to reach a compromise with utility lobbyists, reducing the mandate by half but keeping the geographic restriction. 

If the measure had passed, it would have guaranteed Missouri “a coal-sized plant of renewable energy over the next decade,” [Rep.] Holsman said. “That means a vast array of economic development, including sales, installation, service and manufacturing jobs for Missouri. It means not having to worry about EPA regulations or adjusted fuel costs for the investment.”

The measure failed, however, because consumer groups thought importing wind power from elsewhere would be cheaper and utilities wanted ratepayers to front the cost for permits for new nuclear power plants (despite the horrendous economics of such power plants).

 

The irony is that Missouri has strong, local renewable energy resources.  According to a 2010 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Missouri could generate three times its electricity consumption from high-quality, in-state wind power.  The cost for this wind power would be 6 to 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) without the federal tax credit, and less than 5 cents per kWh including the incentive.  This compares to average residential retail rates of 8-9 cents.  Even solar PV is fairly affordable, with a levelized cost (including the 30% federal tax credit) of just 15 cents per kWh (with an installed cost of $3.50 per Watt).  Missouri has enough sun and roofspace to get 21% of its electricity from rooftop solar PV.

The cost savings from importing cheaper wind power pale in comparison to the economic benefits of building locally.  The cheapest wind power in the U.S. would be – at best – about 1.5 cents per kWh less than wind power generated in Missouri.  If it could (impossibly) be delivered to the state with zero transmission cost, the savings to ratepayers of getting 100% of their electricity from wind would be $1.3 billion.

However, the economic impact of in-state wind power is $1 million per megawatt (MW), according to the American Wind Energy Association.  The state would need 28,000 MW of wind power to match its electricity consumption (with a 35% capacity factor), for an economic impact of $28 billion, 21 times the savings from importing out-of-state wind.  Furthermore, if those turbines were also owned by Missourans, the economic impact would rise 1.5 to 3.4 times higher, from $42 to $95 billion. 

The repeal of the geographic requirement in Missouri’s renewable energy law is penny-wise and (21 times) pound-foolish. 

Continue reading

Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | 1 Comment | Updated on Jun 27, 2011

Pricing CLEAN Contracts – feed-in tariffs – for Solar PV in the U.S.

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/pricing-clean-contracts-feed-tariffs-solar-pv-us/

The price of solar is dropping fast, opening new opportunities for community-scale renewable energy across the country.  But despite the improving economics and tremendously sunnier skies, the United States lags far behind Germany in installing new solar power.  What might happen if the U.S.  adopted Germany’s flagship “feed-in tariff” policy, responsible for 10 gigawatts of solar in just two years?  Let’s take a look at how such a program would be priced.

First, we’re marketing conscious in America, so we’ll call it something better, like a CLEAN contract, for Clean Local Energy Accessible Now. 

Then we’ll need to adjust the German prices in three ways:

  1. Convert euros to dollars
  2. Adjust for U.S. sunshine
  3. Adjust for federal tax incentives 

But before we dive in to the German solar program, let’s quickly look at the raw cost of producing solar electricity in the U.S. along with the major federal incentive.   The following map (click here for an interactive version) illustrates the so-called “levelized cost” of solar PV, the total cost of the system (minus the 30% federal tax credit) divided by its expected electricity production over 25 years, based on an installed cost of $3.50 per Watt (common in Germany, and possible for distributed solar PV in the U.S.):

Levelized Cost of Solar PV @ $3.50/W over 25 years – 30% ITC included

Prices have fallen so much, that they are comparable to or lower than retail electricity rates in selected states in the Southwest (with great sun) or Northeast (with high electricity rates).  The following map illustrates (click here for an interactive version):

Average Residential Retail Electricity Rate (Feb. 2011)

So, solar is narrowing the gap with retail grid electricity rates.

Now, back to the analysis of a U.S. CLEAN contract program.  We start with the rates the Germans pay for solar PV under their feed-in tariff.  The euro to dollar exchange rate is currently around 1 to 1.4, giving us the following starting rates for rooftop solar PV projects in U.S. dollars per kilowatt-hour:

< 30 kW

30-100 kW

> 100 kW

> 1000 kW

$0.405

$0.385

$0.365

$0.304

The Germans pay these rates to anyone who can put up a solar panel, per kilowatt-hour sent to the grid, for 20 years.  These rates may seem high, but we’re just getting started.

Next, we have to adjust these rates down to account for the significantly better sunshine in the U.S.  For illustration, Albany (NY) has 33% better sunshine than Munich (Germany), even though Munich is in the “sunny south” of Germany.  Los Angeles gets almost 70% better sunshine than Munich.  We’ll pick St. Louis, MO, for its central location and average U.S. solar resource.  The following table illustrates the dramatic drop in the price required to offer a modest return on investment for a rooftop solar project.

< 30 kW

30-100 kW

> 100 kW

> 1000 kW

$0.27

$0.26

$0.25

$0.21

As good as these values look, we’re still leaving money on the table.  Almost every solar PV project built in the U.S. will take advantage of the 30% tax credit (even if they have to let a third party skim off up to half its value).  With a full 30% discount, however, the prices for solar PV projects in St. Louis would drop as follows:

< 30 kW

30-100 kW

> 100 kW

> 1000 kW

$0.21

$0.20

$0.19

$0.16

The following map provides a look at the prices for a CLEAN contract for rooftop solar PV (< 30 kW) in each state, based on one of the state’s sunnier locations (click here for an interactive version).  Prices would be up to 25% lower for the largest PV projects (over 1 MW).

CLEAN Rate for < 30 kW Rooftop Solar PV @ $3.50/W – ITC only

In many cases, commercial developers of PV can claim accelerated depreciation in addition to the federal 30% tax credit.  With this additional discount (worth around 20% of the project cost), the cost of a CLEAN contract falls even further, as shown on the map (click here for an interactive version).  Once again, prices would be up to 25% lower for PV projects 1 MW and larger.

CLEAN Rate for < 30 kW Rooftop Solar PV @ $3.50/W – ITC and depreciation

There’s a danger to looking at CLEAN contract rates with federal incentives, for two reasons:

1) Many individuals and entities (e.g. schools, cities, nonprofits) can’t effectively use a tax credit incentive.  

2) Tax incentive programs expire or are killed by “budget hawks” (or ideologues) in Congress.  

The 30% federal investment tax credit for solar is in statute until 2016, but let’s assume for a moment that it expired or that we want to look at the CLEAN contract rates for projects not able to use any federal incentives for solar power.  We still assume an installed cost of $3.50 per Watt.  

CLEAN Rate for < 30 kW Rooftop Solar PV @ $3.50/W – no incentives (click here for an interactive version):

This chart is a more accurate representation of the state of solar economics (without incentives).  It’s also the price required for the most democratic solar incentive program, one that would not be prejudiced against participants who couldn’t effectively use the federal tax incentives.

In the end, a CLEAN program in the U.S. will likely be premised on the use of one or both federal tax incentives and pay much less than this last chart.  It will make sense for ratepayers, but will probably not have the same democratizing effect as Germany’s flagship program.

Continue reading

Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | No Comments | Updated on Jun 23, 2011

The Electric System: Inflection Point

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/electric-system-inflection-point/

A serialized version of our new report, Democratizing the Electricity System, Part 1 of 5 The 20th century of electricity generation was characterized by ever larger and more distant central power plants.  But a 21st century technological dynamic offers the possibility of a dramatically different electricity future: millions of widely dispersed renewable energy plants and… Continue reading

hv gravy train_0
Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | No Comments | Updated on Jun 7, 2011

FERC’s High-voltage Gravy Train Rolls On

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/fercs-high-voltage-gravy-train-rolls/

Mid-May proved beneficial for many high-voltage transmisison developers, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s “high-voltage gravy train” kept delivering the cash.  Five additional transmission projects received incentives, including bonsues to the project’s return on equity or rate recovery during construction. Earlier this year, I wrote about FERC’s program of incentives for new transmission projects, noting… Continue reading

Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | 7 Comments | Updated on Jun 1, 2011

Learning a Lesson about Net Metering

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/learning-lesson-about-net-metering/

I just got a copy of a utility bill for a Minnesota business that has a 40 kilowatt (kW) solar PV array.  I’d hoped to get a sense for how quickly he’d pay off his array with the net metering revenue.  I was shocked. Payback time was 30 years.  Even if the business owner had… Continue reading

Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | No Comments | Updated on May 24, 2011

Nova Scotia Boosts Economic Development with Community-Owned Renewables

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/nova-scotia-boosts-economic-development-community-owned-renewables/

Yet another Canadian province is showing a serious commitment to the economic benefits of renewable energy development. Ontario’s “buy local” energy policy has the promise of 43,000 local jobs from 5,000 MW of new renewable energy. Now Nova Scotia is completing rulemaking for a provincial goal of 40% renewable power by 2020 that includes a 100 megawatt (MW) set-aside for community-owned distributed generation projects. The policy promises to increase the economic activity from its renewable energy goal by $50 to $240 million. Continue reading

Article filed under Energy | Written by John Farrell | 7 Comments | Updated on May 19, 2011

Change in Federal Incentive Enables Cooperative to Own Wind Project

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/change-federal-incentive-enables-cooperative-own-wind-project/

The use of tax credits as the primary federal incentive for renewable energy has often stymied cities, counties, and cooperatives from constructing and owning their own wind farm.  But the temporary cash grant in lieu of the tax credit (expiring this December) has opened the door for one South Dakota cooperative and over 600 local investors:

The Crow Lake Wind Project, built by electric cooperative Basin Electric subsidiary PrairieWinds SD 1, Inc., is located just east of Chamberlain, S.D. With 150 MW of the project’s 162 MW owned by Basin Electric subsidiary PrairieWinds SD1, Inc., the facility has taken over the title of being the largest wind project in the U.S. owned solely by a cooperative, according to Basin Electric. [emphasis added]

The project is also distinguished for having local investors in addition to ownership by the local cooperative:

The entire project consists of 108 GE 1.5-MW turbines, 100 of which are owned and operated by PrairieWinds. A group of local community investors called the South Dakota Wind Partners owns seven of the turbines, and one turbine has been sold to the Mitchell Technical Institute (MTI), to be used as part of the school’s wind turbine technology program, which launched in 2009. PrairieWinds, which constructed the seven turbines now owned by the South Dakota Wind Partners, will also operate them. [emphasis added]

The key to success was the limited-time opportunity for the cooperative to access the federal incentive for wind power:

The opportunity became viable following passage of 2009’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which created a tax grant option allowing small investors to access government incentives and tax benefits, making public wind ownership possible. Creating the Wind Partners for that purpose were Basin Electric member East River Electric Power Cooperative, the South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation, the South Dakota Farmers Union and the South Dakota Corn Utilization Council…

“This development model created opportunity for small local investors to have direct local ownership in wind energy and access the tax benefits previously reserved for large equity investors,” said Jeff Nelson, general manager at East River Electric. “It offers a model for others to participate in community-based wind projects.”

The South Dakota Wind Partners consist of over 600 South Dakota investors, some who host the project’s 7 turbines and many who do not.  Investors bought shares in increments of $15,000 (combinations of debt and equity).  Brian Minish, who manages the project for the South Dakota Wind Partners, hopes to see future opportunities for this kind of development.  “There’s a lot of political benefit in letting local people become investors in the project,” Minish said in an interview this afternoon, “local ownership can help reduce opposition to wind power projects.”

Photo credit: Flickr user tinney

Continue reading