Author Archives Laura Arnold

US Senate Finance Tax Extenders: Good News Approved 23 to 3; Bad News Sen. Coats Voted “N”

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 24, 2015  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Key senate committee approves wind tax credit extension

 By | July 23, 2015

Dive Brief:

  • The Senate Finance Committee voted Tuesday to approve a package of extensions for some 50 tax incentives, including the $0.023 per kWh production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy projects. The package included an investment tax credit and expensing and bonus depreciation provisions to support wind development.
  • The package of extensions must now win approval by the full Senate and a matching package must be approved by the House. When Congress failed to extend the tax incentives in 2013, development fell 92% and 30,000 wind industry jobs were lost. The 2014 restoration of the credit brought back 23,000 jobs, according to the wind industry.
  • The package, which would extend the PTC through the end of 2016, was approved by a 23 to 3 vote. Wind advocates were encouraged by the lopsided count and say it reflects bipartisan support for wind.

Dive Insight:

Over 70% of congressional districts have wind turbines, wind manufacturing facilities, or both.

The wind industry brought a record 1,661 MW of new capacity online in the second quarter of 2015, according to the just-released quarterly industry market report. There are 100-plus wind projects under construction in 24 states, representing over 13,600 MW of capacity and $20 billion in private investment. Utilities signed PPAs for over 800 MWs of new wind capacity in Q2.

Hewlett Packard announced a 112 MW PPA and Facebook announced a 200 MW PPA, both with Texas projects, and two projects with corporate purchasers went online in Q2, IKEA’s 98 MW Illinois project and a 211 MW Mars-owned Texas project.

Florida’s Gulf Power signed a 180 MW PPA and the Arkansas Electric Cooperative signed a 108 MW PPA, both with Midwest producers. Iberdrola Renewables broke ground on the first utility-scale wind project in the Southeast, the 208 MW Amazon Wind project, which will provide its output to Amazon Web Services.

Recommended Reading

Washington Times: Wind industry wins key victory in Senate

So how did they vote?

Results of Executive Session on Extend Certain Expiring Tax Provisions July 21, 2015

Amendment #2, Grassley/Cantwell/Thune #2; Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform Act – approved by voice vote.

Amendment #68, Stabenow/Heller/Menendez/Isakson/Brown/Casey/Cardin #4, as Modified; Refinement to the Mortgage Forgiveness Tax Relief Act to Provide More Certainty to Struggling Homeowners – approved by voice vote.

Final Passage of an Original Bill to Extend Certain Expiring Tax Provisions – approved by roll call vote of 23 ayes, 3 nays.

Ayes: Hatch, Grassley, Crapo, Roberts, Cornyn (proxy), Thune (proxy), Burr, Isakson (proxy), Portman, Heller, Scott, Wyden, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson (proxy), Menendez, Carper, Cardin, Brown (proxy), Bennet, Casey, Warner (proxy).

Nays: Enzi, Toomey, Coats.

Motion to close an executive session meeting pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate to consider the committee’s report on the IRS handling of tax exempt status under Internal Revenue Code 501 (c)(4) – approved by voice vote.

Tippecanoe Valley School Corp. looking at solar projects using NIPSCO Feed-in Tariff (FIT)

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 21, 2015  /   Posted in Feed-in Tariffs (FiT), Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO)  /   No Comments

TVSC LOOKING INTO SOLAR PROJECT

AKRON — Many in the Akron-Mentone area are familiar with Tippecanoe Valley School Corporation’s wind turbine.

[See http://tippecanoevalleyschools.com/wind-turbine-information-center/]

Now, the corporation is looking into another renewable energy project, this time with solar power.

At a public work session held last evening, Monday, July 20, at the school administration building, TVSC Superintendent Brett Boggs introduced Northern Indiana Power Supply Company’s Feed-In Tariff program, an option the school corporation is looking into as a way to earn some revenue.

Known as NIPSCO FIT 2.0, the program allows locations with small-scale renewable energy projects to sell excess energy back to the grid. Boggs identified Mentone Elementary School and Burket Educational Center as two ideal locations within the school corporation for such a project.

Present at the meeting were Jim Straeter and son, Mike Straeter, of Ag Technologies, Rochester. Straeters have experienced firsthand the benefits of this type of renewable energy and have worked with and developed their own solar power systems. They were also able to explain several options available through the FIT program.

On July 8, NIPSCO conducted a lottery, choosing 20 participation request forms from among 77 that were submitted by locations interested in the program. Both Mentone and Burket were selected.

Among all of TVSC’s schools, Mentone and Burket were entered because they are located in NIPSCO’s service area, making them eligible for the program. In addition, both have the 1.5-acre space required for the solar arrays.

The idea behind the project is twofold. First, to reduce energy costs by allowing Burket and Mentone Elementary to create their own energy and, second, to generate additional income for the schools by selling excess energy back to the grid, making between 2.5 cents and 3 cents per kilowatt hour.

As with all major undertakings, this new project comes with initial expenses. The next step is for TVSC to find a tax-eligible investor. This needs to be accomplished by July 8, 2016.

At this point, TVSC has not made a final decision, but will continue looking into different options available for each of the two locations.

For REMC’s: “How Much Will Solar Power Cost You?” Your thoughts on this analysis?

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 21, 2015  /   Posted in solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

How Much Will Solar Power Cost You?

By Victoria A. Rocha | ECT Staff WriterPublished: July 20th, 2015

Are you thinking about building a solar energy system at your electric cooperative?

A screening tool developed by NRECA and the Department of Energy can give you an estimate of much a solar project will cost your co-op. (Photo By: Joshua McGhee)

Check out a convenient tool now available from NRECA that helps estimate the costs of constructing, financing and operating utility-scale solar projects.

Developed as part of the Solar Utility Network Deployment Acceleration (SUNDA) project, the Cost and Financing Screening Tool can be found on NRECA’s website and is available to all cooperatives.

The tool takes into account more than 80 variables to estimate the cost of producing electricity from photovoltaic cells. Variables include array and inverter costs, labor rates and historical meteorological data collected by the federal government.

“It’s intended to let you go in and kick the tires and play around with elements like system size or expected life to generally see if solar makes sense for your co-op,” said tool developer Paul Carroll, technical liaison and consultant to NRECA.

To get an estimate, users must supply the prospective site’s ZIP code and array size. After that, you can type in other information—such as details on local labor rates, state incentives for solar programs or construction costs—to refine the estimate.

“The model is powerful, yet flexible, and can be easily modified to suit your needs,” said Carroll.

To access the tool, users need the Google Chrome browser or they can download a spreadsheet version on NRECA’s website. There’s also an online tutorial.

For questions and more information, contact Andrew Cotter at Andrew.Cotter@nreca.coop, or Paul Carroll at Paul.Carroll-contractor@nreca.coop.

Ohio Energy Mandates Study Committee could urge reducing benchmark annual increases

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 21, 2015  /   Posted in solar, Uncategorized, wind  /   No Comments

EAMON QUEENEY | DISPATCH FILE PHOTO Wind turbines generate electricity on a farm straddling Paulding and Van Wert counties in northwest Ohio.
 

Ohio’s clean-energy mandates likely to be cut as legislative panel ends work

Result could be reduction, not repeal, of benchmarks

By Dan Gearino The Columbus Dispatch  •  Tuesday July 21, 2015 12:09 AM

Ohio’s clean-energy benchmarks are more likely to be reduced than repealed, according to the leaders of a special legislative panel that has been studying the topic.

The Energy Mandates Study Committee held its final meeting on Monday, and its members have until Sept. 30 to deliver recommendations to Ohio House and Senate leaders.

The panel’s work is required by a bill passed last summer that also placed a two-year freeze on state standards for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The committee’s goal is to study the costs and benefits of the standards and consider making changes before the freeze lifts at the end of 2016.

“I think everything is still on the table,” said Sen. Troy Balderson, R-Zanesville. He leads the committee along with Rep. Kristina Roegner, R-Hudson.

Some observers have speculated that the panel might wait to see the potential effects of pending federal carbon rules. That is not the case, Roegner said. “We’ll move forward and do what’s right for the state of Ohio,” she said.

So, if the panel is going to make recommendations, what might they be?

Balderson supports one particular approach: “I’d like to see the standards go down somewhat,” he said.

By that, he means he favors a reduction in the annual increases in the benchmarks.

Under current law, when the freeze ends in 2016, electricity utilities will need to make annual increases in their purchases of renewable energy, working toward a goal of 12.5 percent of their total by 2027.

For energy efficiency, utilities will need to have programs that help consumers reduce energy use, extending toward a goal of 22 percent savings by 2027.

It remains to be seen how a reduction in benchmarks would work.

Some legislators want to see a repeal of the benchmarks. That has not attracted enough support to receive a full debate, partly because of doubts that Gov. John Kasich would sign such a measure.

The clean-energy benchmarks came into being with a 2008 law, and the freeze was passed last summer after a long and bitter debate.

Electricity utilities and some large businesses argued that the rules were too costly to follow and would lead to increases in utility bills.

The rules have been defended by environmental groups, clean-energy businesses and consumer advocates.

Committee member Rep. Mike Stinziano, D-Columbus, said he continues to support the energy benchmarks and hopes the rules remain at least mostly intact.

“At the end of the day, I don’t think I heard much (in committee hearings) that would lead me to think we shouldn’t maintain the standards and have Ohio continue to be a leader in energy-efficiency standards,” he said.

dgearino@dispatch.com

@DanGearino

 

John Farrell: Utility solar costs less, but it’s also worth less

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   July 20, 2015  /   Posted in solar  /   No Comments

John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance

John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Commentary: Utility solar costs less, but it’s also worth less

A new report released this week asserts that utility-scale solar is much more economical than small-scale solar. The clear implication is that we should let incumbent utilities build or buy solar from large-scale arrays instead of allowing customers to generate their own power.

There are several reasons to seriously question the mistaken assertion that big solar is better.

Follow the Money

First, this study is funded, in part, by the Edison Electric Institute. The Institute is the for-profit utility trade group whose 2013 report on “disruptive challenges” suggests, among other things, that utilities have to fight back against distributed solar energy as a revenue threat. Their members include many utilities proposing or implementing higher charges on their customers to make small solar less economical. In other words, the sponsors of this study have a financial interest in slowing the growth of small scale solar.

Second, the report is prepared for First Solar, a Walmart-family supported solar developer who views rooftop solar as a competitive threat to their utility-scale solar business. In other words, the study was commissioned by a company whose financial interest is in reducing competition from small scale solar.

Question the Assumptions

In theory, we could find objective study results despite biased funders, but you won’t find them here. Let’s talk about a few of the titanic omissions in a fair comparison of large and small scale solar.

Utility-scale solar and residential solar aren’t comparable on a levelized cost basis, because only one delivers power at the point of use (residential solar). Utility-scale solar has to get to customers, and that getting requires access to (and often construction of) high-voltage transmission infrastructure that is not only controversial, but expensive.  The following chart, based on Clean Coalition analysis in 2011, shows that transmission costs for large-scale solar projects can outweigh economies of scale from being big.

distributed solar cost and benefits 00001

Cost can be higher, but value is lower for solar energy from centralized solar arrays. For example, numerous studies on the value of solar energy (and one state law) illustrate the particular grid benefits of distributed solar that utility-scale doesn’t provide, including: reduced line losses, deferred distribution system maintenance, avoided transmission capital expense, and increased resiliency. It’s not just a theory, it’s an industry practice. When Geronimo Energy pitched Xcel Energy on 100 megawatts of new solar capacity in Minnesota, they promised to build it in 2-10 megawatt chunks that the company asserts “will deliver many benefits, including a reduction in line loss, elimination of transmission costs, and geographic diversification of generation assets.” The following chart, illustrating Minnesota’s value of solar formula, illustrates particular values that only apply to distributed solar like that on residential rooftops.

distributed solar cost and benefits 00002

Distributed solar also has substantial economic benefits, of interest to electric customers if not their monopoly utilities. For example, a megawatt of solar that is locally owned rather than utility owned means as much as $5.7 million in lifetime economic benefits for a community. And the dramatic rise in residential and commercial rooftop solar arrays suggests electric customers see a clear economic opportunity in generating their own power.

Question the Purpose

It’s tempting to accept the assertion that bigger is better, especially for environmentalists seeking the most rapid transition to clean energy. But the truth is that distributed solar competes on cost and value, and it’s a faster way to a cleaner power sector. Look no further than world-leader Germany, where more than 25% of annual electricity production comes from renewable energy, 7% from solar alone. The vast majority of German solar arrays (70%) are 500 kilowatts or smaller (less than the size of an IKEA rooftop). In contrast, the splashy 550-megawatt Topaz Solar Array took seven years to develop and construct, during which time over 8,000 megawatts of distributed residential and commercial solar were installed in the U.S. Don’t forget that, like Germany, thousands of these distributed solar arrays are locally owned, widely distributing the economic benefits of the clean energy transformation.

The issue of economic benefits may be the central point. Utility scale solar safely fits within the antiquated 20th century centralized, monopoly model of electricity delivery, insulating these for-profit utilities from innovative customer-centered distributed power. In fact, a late 2014 study highlighted that net metering of distributed solar is a minor threat to ratepayers, but a much more significant threat to utility shareholders.

There’s nothing wrong with building utility-scale solar. But let’s be clear: it’s neither the most economic nor fastest way to green the electricity sector, and it cements centralized control of electricity system in an era of widespread decentralized innovation. And that may be too high a price to pay.

This article originally posted at ilsr.org. For timely updates, follow John Farrell on Twitter or get the Democratic Energy weekly update.

 

 

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG