Showing posts with label California Public Utilities Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California Public Utilities Commission. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

The price of solar in California

Original article: http://www.renewablesinternational.net/the-price-of-solar-in-california/150/511/29293/
California's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) says that although the price of solar has plummeted in recent years, the bids for utility-scale projects in the state are paradoxically rising.

In the study (PDF) released last Tuesday entitled "California's solar PV paradox: declining California solar initiative prices and rising investor owned utilities bid prices," the DRA authors Nika Rogers and Derek Fletcher of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) find that the price of retail solar PV – the small rooftop systems on family homes and small businesses – dropped by 19-22 percent from Q4 2008 to July 2010. However, the price of utility-scale solar projects (defined as “mostly 10 MW or more”) slightly increased from 2007 to 2009.

The authors identify three main risks behind the latter:

  • difficult credit markets,
  • deadlines for California's RPS, and
  • the CPUC’s “reluctance to reject high-priced contracts providing a disincentive for developers to price their bid competitively.”
The authors also make a number of recommendations about how to fix the problem, including having the CPUC reject pricey bids. The authors recommend that California's solar market be compared to New Jersey's “with a specific eye toward whether New Jersey experienced the same discrepancy in utility and consumer-side price trends,” although the authors stop short of saying that the California market should be compared to other markets abroad, such as Ontario's booming PV sector or the many thriving solar markets in Europe. In the final sentence of the report, the authors do, however, recommend "further research" into "expanded feed-in tariff provisions to allow for excess solar energy to be sold back to the grid," which clearly shows that the authors are bound to the notion of net-metering and that feed-in tariffs should only be paid for power not consumed by the array owner – even though no such provisions apply to any solar feed-in tariffs anywhere.

John Geesman, a former member of the California Energy Commission (CEC), says he is not surprised by the study's findings as his criticism of California's RPS goes along similar lines: "the lack of transparency creates little downward pressure on price; the feel good, happy talk about contracts signed creates little pressure for actual delivered energy; and the distinction between flexible compliance and regulatory capture remains murky.” It is interesting to note that, while feed-in tariffs for solar have been accused of overpaying, feed-in tariffs have been plummeting in countries like France and Germany during the timeframe under investigation here, whereas the policy used in the US has apparently been overpaying solar.

The California Solar Initiative at the heart of the study only covers solar rooftops, not utility-scale field arrays, and some of the largest solar projects announced recently concerned concentrated solar power (CSP), not photovoltaics, but one of the study's authors Nika Rogers told Renewables International that "we only looked at solar PV projects and filtered out any solar thermal or solar trough projects.” Overall, the study provides an interesting overview of the California solar market for anyone looking to understand it better.

By Craig Morris (cm)

This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Schwarzenegger signs 2 renewable energy bills, vetoes others

California will require utilities to pay consumers for generating more solar and wind power than they use and will boost the payoff for certain solar facilities. The laws take effect Jan 1.

By Tiffany Hsu, latimes.com

October 13, 2009

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has approved two major initiatives that will require utilities to pay consumers for generating extra power and will boost the payoff for certain solar facilities.

Homes, businesses and schools that have solar panels or wind turbines previously had no financial incentive to use less electricity than they generated. But AB 920, written by Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), will encourage efficiency, supporters say.

SB 32, by state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino), requires utilities to purchase solar electricity from facilities that produce up to three megawatts and could increase installations on unused spaces such as warehouse roofs. The old limit was 1.5 megawatts.

The two bills will go into effect Jan. 1. Schwarzenegger signed them late Sunday, the last day to act on bills from this year's legislative session.

Under AB 920, the state Public Utilities Commission will set a rate for utilities to compensate customers whose solar or wind systems produce more power than they use in a year. Under California's current law, customers are not paid for any surplus electricity they feed back into the grid.

The state requires that when a consumer installs a solar power system, it be the right size to produce only enough power necessary for on-site use. Rebates from the California Solar Initiative, overseen by the utilities commission, discourage anything larger. So customers who later reduce their energy consumption often end up underutilizing their solar panels.

"The current system instills a perverse incentive for people to waste their solar electricity just so they don't give it away for free to the utilities," said Bernadette Del Chiaro, a clean energy advocate with Environment California, which sponsored the bill.

The new law could boost sales of photovoltaics, especially in regions with sunny summers. Homes that use less power than they did when their solar panels were installed -- such as those that add energy-efficient appliances, insulation or weatherproofing -- and those with children who have moved out can also benefit.

"This bill applies to individual homeowners as well as small businesses, farms, wineries, schools and even affordable housing developments," Huffman said in a statement.

Customers can either receive a check for the extra energy or have credit rolled forward on their electricity bills. Experts, however, said they should expect little profit.

SB 32, meanwhile, could spark more interest in commercial rooftop systems. The law expands an existing program to include municipal utilities, which now must purchase solar power at a set rate until they reach their portion of a statewide 750-megawatt cap. The limit was previously set at 500 megawatts.

The utilities commission will set the rate, which will be higher than market price after incorporating environmental compliance costs and other benefits, said Sue Kateley, executive director of the California Solar Energy Industries Assn., which sponsored the bill.

Between the sweeping solar installations in the desert and the small-scale ones on homes, she said, there had been a category of properties that had plenty of space but didn't use enough power to justify setting up huge solar panels.

But now, owners of large storage units and similar low-energy facilities will be able to install solar power systems and sell the extra electricity back to the utilities, a program known as a feed-in tariff.

The program took cues from countries such as Germany -- where, some in the industry have complained, a similar tariff format stimulated the market so much that prices of solar energy shot too high. Other critics are worried that the tariff could be too low to interest investors.

"We didn't want to replicate the German model, which was a social movement to create an industry," Kateley said. "In California, we already had an industry, but we wanted to fill a market gap. And within the community, it's really exciting because this law will create local jobs."

In a note to the state Senate on Sunday, Schwarzenegger encouraged the utilities commission to continue investigating an expanded tariff for small to medium-size producers of renewable energy.

"In order to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and a Renewable Portfolio Standard of 33% by 2020, we will need to use all the tools available under our existing programs," he said.

But Schwarzenegger vetoed a slate of bills -- including SB 14 and AB 64 -- that would have required the state to rely on renewable resources for at least one-third of its electricity. He has issued an executive order to meet the 33% goal using a different plan and supports efforts to create 1 million solar roofs by 2018.

Assemblyman Paul Krekorian (D-Los Angeles), chairman of a renewable energy committee, called the vetoes a dangerous setback. The bills, Krekorian said, would have created "green" jobs and steadied price volatility while cutting market manipulation from solar hubs outside of California. He said the vetoes would sour developers to the California market, leading them elsewhere.

"If we don't get started now," he said, "our opportunities to complete projects are going to be missed."

tiffany.hsu@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Friday, August 28, 2009

Cal Proposes Feed-In Tariff With a Twist

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/cal-proposes-feed-in-tariff-with-twist/

The state wants to require utilities to buy renewable power from developers of 1- to 10-megawatt installations. But regulators won’t set fixed prices.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Thursday proposed to expand a feed-in tariff program that aims to promote small-scale renewable energy projects that woudn't require new transmission lines and lengthy regulatory review.

The proposal would create a market for projects from 1 megawatt to 10 megawatts in generation capacity by requiring utilities to purchase 1 gigawatt worth of renewable electricity over a four-year period.

A feed-in tariff typically refers to a government-set rate for the utilities to buy electricity from producers. Such policy also tends to require the utilities to buy all the renewable energy that is available for sale. Germany and Spain have become the two largest solar energy markets in the world thanks to their feed-in tariff programs.

California started a feed-in tariff program in 2008, but it only applies to installations up to 1.5 megawatts. The program hasn't been popular, largely because the prices were too low (see California Feed-In Tariffs: The Price Isn't Right).

The new proposal would increase the size of each project in order to promote the so-called distributed generation: producing power close to where it's consumed. This way, developers - and ratepayers - wouldn't have to pay for building new transmission lines. Small projects could go on rooftops or land in and around cities.

But the proposal doesn't follow the European model in one crucial area: pricing.

California's proposal calls for a competitive bidding process. The utilities would issue a request for proposal a few times a year. Each time, they would review all the bids and award contracts to the lowest bidders. State regulators would decide the amount that could be spent for each request for proposal.

Each developer could send in multiple bids for each request for proposal, which would likely have enough money set aside for more than one project of 1- to 10-megawatts in size.

To prevent one company from grabbing all the contracts, a rule would be in place that says no one developer could get more than 50 percent of the money budgeted for each request for proposal.

For example, if a request for proposal aims to spend $50 million, then the lowest bidder wouldn't be able to get more than $25 million worth of contracts. For the remaining $25 million, the utility would pick the next lowest bidder or bidders.

Setting prices is probably the single most contentious issue in crafting the feed-in tariff program. The CPUC staff left the pricing element unanswered when it issued a draft proposal earlier this year that dealt with other issues, such as the size of power projects that would qualify (see California Considers Expanding Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs).

"The difficulty has been setting a price for a feed-in tariff. If you set it too low, you don't have market activities. If you set it too high, then you give away undue profits and remove political support for the program," said Adam Browning, executive director of Vote Solar, a nonprofit advocacy group in San Francisco.

The bidding process also would circumvent a legal dispute raised by Southern California Edison, which challenged the CPUC's authority to set prices and require utilities to pay a premium for renewable energy. Edison argued that only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could do so.

Browning said the new proposal strikes the right balance. He pointed to Spain as a cautionary tale of what could happen when pricing is out of whack.

Spain once offered ultra generous feed-in tariffs, leading to a dramatic growth in solar energy system installations in recent years. Then a frenzy to take advantage of the incentives broke out last year when developers and solar panel makers knew that the government was ready to lower the feed-in tariffs in the fall of 2008.

The rush led to about 2 gigawatts of new installations in 2008. By contrast, the United States installed about 391 megawatts last year.

In September last year, the government reset the tariffs and capped the national installation to 500 megawatts for 2009 (see Spain: The Solar Frontier No More).

The public now has a chance to comment on the new California proposal, which requires the approval of the five-member commission.