Author Archives Laura Arnold

Distributed Generation Makes Big Numbers | john-farrell-ilsr

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   March 02, 2011  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Distributed Generation Makes Big Numbers | john-farrell-ilsr.

Editor's Note: The graphics are not displaying well for this article. Please go to the original article.

Distributed renewable energy comes in small bites, but it makes mouthfuls -- gigawatts -- of renewable energy capacity. Americans tend to think big, but it is countries that built small that are hitting big renewable energy targets.

Take Germany. In 2009, it installed 3,000 megawatts (MW) of solar PV, more than three times all the solar PV installed in the U.S., ever. Over 80 percent was installed on rooftops.
Chart.

Distributed wind power scales, as well.

Of Germany's 27,000 megawatts of wind power projects (third most in the world and most per capita), nearly 90 percent are smaller than 20 megawatts, with most between 1 and 5 megawatts.

Chart.
The small projects are also a significant portion of total capacity, with 20 MW and under wind projects contributing half of total wind power capacity.

Chart.
Germany’s clean energy policy doesn’t just make mountains out of molehill-sized distributed wind and solar projects, it spreads the economic benefits around. Over half of the country’s 43,000 MW of renewable power are owned by individuals or farmers. The chart is from Germany's Renewable Energy Agency (terms translated by Google):

Chart.

There's nothing inherently wrong with seeking big numbers for renewable energy, but it's shortsighted to assume that only big projects add up. And American policy for renewable energy can do more and get more with a focus on distributed energy.

This is part of a series on distributed renewable energy posted to Renewable Energy World. It originally appeared on Energy Self-Reliant States, a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's New Rules Project.  

Contact John Farrell at jfarrell@ilsr.org, find more content at energyselfreliantstates.org or follow @johnffarrell on Twitter

Here are some of the comments posted thus far from the original post in Renewable Energy World.

3 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 3

February 28, 2011
Americans think BIG IS BOUNTIFUL while developing countries think SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL. Small distributed power will add up quickly rather than waiting for large power production. After all 1+1+1+ ........ leads to infinity.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India

Comment
2 of 3

March 2, 2011
Distributed projects also reduce the need for new transmission, which may take decades to permit in the US. In a hybrid micro-grid configuration, they can also increase reliability in a way that centralized projects never can. We are starting to focus our future efforts with the HOMER software (www.homerenergy.com) on micro-grids for exactly these reasons.
Peter Lilienthal, Ph.D.
CEO,HOMER Energy

Comment
3 of 3

March 2, 2011
So much roofing surface area, so little time.

Combine energy generation and energy efficiency, combine daylighting and solar thermal and PV and suddenly we're talking about the real economy.

The big numbers are in low profile buildings, the big boxes. No need to tear up the desert and incur transmission losses.

AWEA: Indiana poll finds overwhelming bipartisan support for wind energy, as Legislature weighs 10% requirement

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   March 01, 2011  /   Posted in 2011 Indiana General Assembly, Uncategorized  /   1 Comments

Results of an Indiana poll released today show strong and deep bipartisan public support for increasing wind farm development in the state through the passage of legislation calling for 10 percent of electricity sold in Indiana to come from renewable energy by 2020.

The results of the poll, conducted by research firm Public Opinion Strategies, come as the Indiana House and Senate prepare to take up energy legislation, Senate Bill 251, which currently does not create any market for renewable energy. After passing in the Senate, the bill now heads to the House, where it can be amended to establish a renewable energy requirement for which so many Hoosiers are showing strong support.

The poll found that 77 percent of Indiana voters support legislation creating a requirement for 10 percent renewable energy by the year 2020. An impressive 47 percent of voters “strongly” support such legislation, and just 16 percent oppose it. The results signal support among Hoosiers for harnessing the economic-development benefits of wind power and diversifying the state’s energy mix in a way that can save consumers money. A 10 percent renewable energy requirement would spur construction of approximately six new wind farms and create thousands of jobs.

“Indiana voters clearly speak with one voice on this issue,” said Neil Newhouse, Public Opinion Strategies pollster and co-founder. “Nearly 80 percent of voters interviewed say they support legislation requiring 10 percent of the electricity sold in the state to come from renewable energy such as wind and solar.

“Support is not only deep (47 percent strongly support such legislation), but also broad, as voters across party lines support the proposal by at least a three-to-one margin. Clearly this is a win-win issue for lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle.”

The poll reflects recent national polls showing that as much as 89 percent of Americans want more renewable energy.

Key findings of the Indiana poll include: 

  •  77 percent of Indiana voters support legislation requiring that 10 percent of electricity sold in the state come from renewable energy by 2020. Fully 47 percent of voters “strongly” support such legislation, while just 16 percent oppose it (9 percent strongly opposing it). 
  • A strong 66 percent of Republicans statewide support a 10-percent renewable energy requirement.
  • Overall support for this legislation was above 70 percent in all regions of Indiana and between 77 percent and 79 percent in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the state.
  • Statewide voter support rose to 84 percent when told that a 10 percent requirement would spur construction on six new wind farms in the next two years, creating thousands of new jobs.
  • Support for legislation rose to 85 percent when voters were told that Indiana’s neighbors have secured long-term electricity contracts from wind power that costs significantly less than the average per kilowatt-hour price Hoosiers currently pay. 
  • Voter support for legislation rose to 83 percent when voters were informed that more than half of the wind energy generated in the state is currently used to deliver power to neighboring states with renewable energy requirements.“The voice of Indiana and the voice of America are one,” said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. “Hoosiers clearly want to embrace the economic-development engine that is wind power, and the industry stands ready to do its part here in America’s heartland.

    “Twenty-nine other states already require their utilities to provide renewable energy. Our job now is to make sure that Indiana’s leaders take to heart the overwhelming support for a 10 percent renewable energy requirement as demonstrated in this poll. We appreciate Indiana voters’ support, and we will work with a bipartisan group of policymakers to provide the clean, affordable and homegrown energy they want.”

Public Opinion Strategies conducted the poll by contacting 600 registered voters in Indiana by telephone on February 16-17. The margin of error of the poll is plus or minus 4.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. The partisan composition of the sample was 36 percent Republicans, 28 percent Democrats and 34 percent “Lean/Independent.”

Sens. Gard, Hershman and Merritt: This bill –SB 251–offers the right energy policy for state

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   March 01, 2011  /   Posted in 2011 Indiana General Assembly  /   No Comments

Editor's Note: I strongly urge that you click the link below to read and study SB 251 and determine for yourself  if  "this bill offers the right energy policy for [the] state" of Indiana. Without getting into all the details, I would merely like to offer this observation from data collected and reported by the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE).

DSIRE' s Quantitative RPS Data Project provides quantitative information about state renewables portfolio standards (RPS). In the RPS Data Spreadsheet, state requirements are defined by year and by resource class and include other key data elements such as monetary penalties or alternative compliance payments, eligibility of new and/or existing facilities, the percentage of the state's electric load covered by the policy, comments to clarify data entries or assumptions, and an update memo to describe recent changes to the data.

Let's set aside the issue of a mandatory vs. a voluntary goal for the state of Indiana. SB 251 establishes an anemic goal for so-called clean energy technologies which includes both clean coal and nuclear power. This data provides information on the Voluntary RPS Goals adopted by various states:

North Dakota: 10% by 2015

Oklahoma: 15% by 2015

South Dakota: 10% by 2015

Utah: 20% by 2015

Vermont: 20% by 2015

Virginia: 15% of base year (2007) sales by 2025

West Virginia: 25% by 2025

Now compare this to the voluntary goal established for Indiana's electric utilities in SB 251 of 10% by 2025.

This blog will report on additional analysis of SB 251 in the coming weeks.

What do you think?

Laura Ann Arnold

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110301/OPINION01/103010308/1031/OPINION01/My-View-bill-offers-right-energy-policy-state

Among his many bold visions for Indiana, Gov. Mitch Daniels advocates a first-ever comprehensive energy policy for Hoosiers. Daniels' objectives -- clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy sources making our state more self-sufficient and economically competitive -- are worthy of legislators' time and talent. The Indiana General Assembly can help achieve these goals for consumers by supporting Senate Bill 251.

Producing and distributing energy are increasingly linked to environmental considerations. Energy costs are growing concerns for business investors and employers. Decisions we make as a state will greatly impact Indiana's competitiveness to retain and attract jobs. So, these same decisions will impact the quality of life and cost of living for generations of Hoosiers.

Fortunately for us, 36 other states currently have more expensive utility rates than Indiana. In fact, energy here is more affordable for homeowners and employers than in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio with which we compete for jobs and skilled workers every day.

So the looming questions become how we continue to promote job growth, protect our environment and remain a lower-cost energy state.

As lawmakers, we are approached from all sides of the energy debate. Be assured, there is no shortage of opinions. Some say Indiana should abandon coal -- even clean coal -- as a principal fuel source and resort almost exclusively to renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydro. Others tell us renewables are unreliable, too costly and inappropriate for large commercial consumers. Still others suggest the best answer is to promote the development of safe nuclear power. They are convinced it's clean, dependable and, while expensive to build, remains the most cost-effective power source for the future.

We've listened to these disparate opinions and have concluded that a good public policy lies somewhere in the center and not at the polar extremes. That's why we're offering SB 251.

Our legislation encourages major investments to improve the environmental quality of generating facilities in Indiana -- as opposed to taking those investments and jobs to other states. The bill rightly contains pay-as-you-go provisions to attract investment, create jobs and safeguard the environment by avoiding cost cutting on safety measures.

SB 251 recognizes and references the important roles of clean energy resources. Our bill encourages utilities to ramp up on renewable energy yet it avoids imposing government mandates like high-energy-cost states have unwisely done. Rather than dictating a one-size-fits-all solution, utilities can select from a menu of options to develop the best strategy for their customers, geographic area and investors.

No one special interest group or lobbyist is entirely happy with our bill and the policies it reflects. But that's OK. Sometimes that's the best signal that we, as citizen legislators, have achieved a balance among competing interests. After all, our goal is to enact long-term energy strategies that best serve the interests of Hoosiers.

Gard, R-Greenfield, is chair of the Indiana Senate Committee on Energy and Environmental Affairs. Hershman, R-Lafayette, is majority whip and chair of the Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy. Merritt, R-Indianapolis, is Senate Majority Caucus chair and chair of the Committee on Utilities and Technology.

Should Indiana Implement Virtual Net Metering? Testify 3/11/2011 or Submit Written Comments by 3/24/2011 on IURC’s Net Metering Rule

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 25, 2011  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Editor's Note: Just when you think the State of Indiana is finally catching up with the rest of the country on renewable energy, something new pops up. This time the truly progressive states and places around the United States continue to adopt new  policies and programs that continue to leave Indiana in the dust when it comes to renewable energy and distributed generation.  One such new policy is virtual net metering.  Another is aggregate net metering and community net metering.

The Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) released the First Model Program Rules for Community Renewables. This includes virtual net metering.

Download IREC’s 2010 Model Program Rules for Community Renewables



Earlier this month, I received this notice from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC).

The  Public Hearing for the net metering rule, previously scheduled for February 28, 2011, has been changed to the following:
 
Friday, March 11, 2011 

10:30 a.m. local time (EST)
 

IURC Conference Center, Judicial Courtroom 224
 

PNC Center, 101 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana

At that time, you will be able to make oral comments suggesting changes to the rule. In addition, there will be a two-week written comment period that will begin at the start of the public hearing and last through March 24, 2011, with all written comments being due by close of business.  Oral and written comments will receive equal weight.  Please do not send written comments prior to the date of the public hearing; those comments will NOT be considered.  Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the public hearing or need any special accommodations.

DeAnna L. Poon
Assistant General Counsel
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
dpoon@urc.in.gov

Visit http://indianadg.wordpress.com/net-metering/iurc-rm-09-10-lsa-10-662/ to download a copy of the proposed net metering rule. 

Please make your views on net metering known to the IURC and please send your thoughts and ideas to IDEA.

Laura Ann Arnold

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original article http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/02/financial-trends-virtual-net-metering??cmpid=WNL-Friday-February25-2011

By Andy Wickless Associate Director, Energy Practice, Navigant   |   February 24, 2011   

California, USA -- Historically, if someone wanted to install a grid-tied solar system but lacked a suitable site, they were left with few, if any, options. Electric customers such as apartment building tenants or homeowners with shaded roofs were not eligible or apt for net metering tariffs, which otherwise would have allowed them to offset their normal electricity usage with the output of a solar system.

Net metering has served as an important incentive for consumer investment in solar. However, until recently, to capture net metering credits, there needed to be a one-to-one relationship between the solar generation system's meter and the meter associated with the offsetting electricity load. Moreover, the two needed to be co-located and tied to the same electric service account. These restrictions are beginning to subside with the advent of virtual net metering (VNM). VNM is an electric tariff that allows for the net-metering credits from a single solar generating system to be distributed among multiple electric service accounts.

Net metering has been around since the 1980s. Now, 43 states as well as the District of Columbia allow net metering. However, VNM is a relatively new concept. Massachusetts, for example, has implemented a "neighborhood net metering" program, which allows groups of at least 10 "neighbors" to spread the net metering credits from a single PV system across the electric accounts of the participating neighbors. Rhode Island offers VNM for certain customer classes such as local and state governments. Neither, however, has implemented VNM across all customer classes. California has taken a similar approach, piloting the concept with a select group of customers, namely the multifamily low-income segment.

California began its experiment with VNM as part of the California Solar Initiative (CSI). In 2005 and 2006, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) established the $2.17 billion CSI program. As part of the program, the CPUC required that at least 10 percent of all CSI funds be reserved for low income residential housing. The CPUC decided to split the low income solar incentives budget equally between single family and multifamily homes.

The Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing (MASH) program provided the CPUC with the opportunity to pilot the concept of VNM. In Decision 08-10-036, the CPUC acknowledged the economic and technical challenges to installing a solar energy system in a multifamily affordable housing complex and said VNM can overcome the challenge of allocating benefits from a single solar energy system to housing whose units are individually metered. The Commission said VNM allows bill credits for the output of a single solar installation to be shared with tenants in multifamily housing, without physical master metering or site-specific infrastructure upgrades.

In the same decision, the CPUC instructed the state's investor-owned utilities to file VNM tariff proposals. The primary difference between these tariffs and the typical single-meter net metering tariffs is the allocation of benefits across VNM participants. The utilities' VNM tariffs would need to allow the building owner or manager to divide the solar energy credits between the common area and the tenant area. This allocation percentage would remain fixed for at least five years. In addition, the VNM tariffs would need to allow for the allocation of net energy metering benefits from a single PV system to all meters on a multi-tenant property, based on the size of each tenant's unit.

If VNM sounds like a benefit for utility customers interested in solar and you wonder why all states have not adopted VNM policies, it would be helpful to identify its potential costs. In California, the CPUC noted that there likely would be costs "for each utility to modify its billing system to accommodate VNM." The CPUC added that additional work would be required by utilities particularly in allocating credits to individual tenant bills.

Other questions include, what happens when a tenant moves out? What happens if VNM were expanded to commercial rate classes and a shopping mall tenant expanded its space? For the low-income multifamily program, the CPUC allowed utilities to recover from the CSI general administrative budget "reasonable" costs associated with VNM implementation. If VNM were expanded in California, however, the costs needed to administer VNM and their recovery are not clear.

Besides the complexity of net-metering credit allocation, utilities have cited the issue of "free wheeling" on their distribution networks. California utilities expressed concern over customers paying nothing to use the distribution system to transport, or wheel, power from the location where the energy is produced to where the energy is consumed. "Free wheeling" is not an issue in the MASH program as a solar system must be located on the same property as the offsetting load to be eligible for VNM. Consequently, net metering credits received by MASH participants are valued at the full bundled retail rate.

In Massachusetts' "neighborhood net metering" program, however, participants could potentially be across town from the solar system and net metering credits do not include the distribution component of the applicable retail rate.

While VNM is currently limited in California to MASH participants, the CPUC is considering expanding it to multi-tenant properties beyond the MASH program. As the CPUC and other regulators evaluate VNM's relative benefits, as well as other forms of community renewables such as meter aggregation, joint billing and shared ownership, they will need to weigh the relative costs. As with the proliferation of non-utility solar PPAs, virtual net metering will likely evolve the roles customers and utilities play in procuring and managing energy.

Colorado’s PV Industry Threatened by Xcel Energy

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   February 23, 2011  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   1 Comments
By Blake Jones, Namaste Solar   |   February 21, 2011   |   22 Comments
Colorado, USA -- Last week Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest investor-owned utility (IOU) with over 90% of the state's PV market, announced catastrophic changes to its "Solar*Rewards" customer-sited PV incentive program.

The immediate result is that sales activity in Xcel’s customer-sited PV market has come to a grinding halt. Xcel Energy’s Solar*Rewards program will not accept new project applications until the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) addresses the issue.  Unfortunately, Xcel’s actions parallel those taken by Colorado’s other IOU and second largest utility, Black Hills Energy, which took similar actions last October that have effectively killed its portion of the state’s PV market.  In the meantime, until this issue is resolved by the CPUC, local solar companies only have previously-approved projects, if any, to sustain them while the future of Colorado’s solar industry and customer-sited PV market hangs in the balance.  

Prior to the unexpected announcement, incentive levels for the Xcel Energy Solar*Rewards program had been set according to capacity-based tiers that Xcel published – and updated daily – on its website (see snapshot below -- more info in sidebar at end of the article).  Modeled after the California Solar Initiative (CSI), the capacity-based tiers were established in 2009 with the intention of providing a road map of how the solar incentives would decline over time, thereby providing critically important transparency and visibility. 

Solar companies used this information to plan their business operations and communicate to potential solar customers.  Last Wednesday, Xcel Energy detoured from this road map with their unexpected, unilateral announcement.  It was equivalent to immediately skipping over the remaining five steps that collectively represented over 36 MW in just one of the four Solar*Rewards incentive categories (first table in sidebar below).

Why is Xcel Energy doing this?  In its press release, it claims that, “The changes are prompted by the decline in solar panel costs and increasing subsidization from government programs. Together, these developments have reduced the level of Xcel Energy incentives needed to support customer participation in Solar*Rewards.”  Indeed, solar panel costs have declined over 50% in the past 2-3 years, but it’s unclear what government programs Xcel is referring to that are increasing their subsidization.

Either way, the decreasing cost of installing solar has allowed the incentive levels to be reduced proportionately over the same time period, in keeping with the program’s original outline.  As future cost reductions were realized, the capacity-based tiers should have allowed for a smooth transition, allowing demand and cost reductions to drive the decrease in incentives.  Demand would only be sustained if costs continued to decline – that’s part of the beauty of such a system – so it’s unclear why Xcel Energy felt the need to accelerate the incentive reductions and ignore their own previous road map to the detriment of the local solar industry.

Xcel Energy’s actions threaten to reverse the progress that Colorado has made since the Solar*Rewards program was launched five years ago as a result of a voter-approved Renewable Energy Standard (RES).  Colorado’s RES is one of the best in the country (30% by 2020) and Colorado has been among the top five PV markets in the U.S. for many years.  Since its launch in 2006, the Solar*Rewards program helped create over 5,300 local solar jobs at over 400+ companies that have collectively installed more than 70 MW of customer-sited PV systems (see graph below). 

If Xcel’s actions are approved by the CPUC, I predict that over 50-75% of these jobs will be lost by the end of this year, causing Colorado to lose valuable solar industry infrastructure that took five years to build.

According to the press release, Xcel Energy predicts that over 59 MW of PV systems will be installed in 2011.  Despite the information provided, it’s difficult to discern how much of this is customer-sited and how much is utility-scale.  For example, the 59 MW likely contains a single 30+ MW utility-scale PV project in southern Colorado that SunPower and Iberdrola have been contracted to install.  Xcel seems to claim that the existing backlog of approved, but not-yet-installed, customer-sited projects totals over 6 MW and that over 10 MW of customer-sited solar will be sold in 2011, but I personally don’t see how that can happen at their proposed incentive levels. 

This unilateral move by Xcel Energy is a departure from the expectations of Colorado’s voters, explicit in 2004’s voter-approved ballot initiative, in which they states that the RES and solar incentive program should contribute to building a sustainable solar industry in Colorado. Businesses depend on transparent, stable, long-term policies to make hiring and investment decisions, and this move undermines the previously-established capacity-based tiers that Xcel Energy created and obtained approval for from the CPUC.  

With the national and international spotlight that President Obama put on the Colorado solar marketplace in 2008 (when he signed the historic American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the site of a 100 kW PV system in Denver), this is an embarrassment to our state that might spoil Colorado’s “New Energy Economy” success story.  Xcel’s regrettable and surprising act demonstrates the urgent need for a reformed incentive program that will help build a sustainable solar industry, and in Colorado’s case, I strongly believe that this requires that the incentive program be independent from Xcel Energy’s and Black Hills Energy’s control.

The solar industry will be organizing a protest to Xcel Energy’s actions on the steps of the state capital in Denver next Friday, February 25, at 12:00 p.m.  Please join us there to express your support. This is not just about Colorado – it’s also about stopping a national precedent from being set by two Colorado utilities that have pulled the plug on a growing solar industry.  For more information or to get involved, please contact the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (CoSEIA) at www.coseia.org.


Sidebar: Xcel Energy Solar*Rewards Program

More info at this link.

Snapshots of three of the four incentive categories

  • Small – Customer-Owned (<10 kW)
  • Small – Third Party Developer (<10 kW)
  • Medium – Tier 1 (10-100 kW)

 Snapshot of the just the tiers:

Small -- Customer-Owned (<10 kW)
Step Upfront Price
per watt DC
MW in step MW Confirmed MW Remaining
in Step
Date Step Began
1 $1.50 0.5 0.518378 -.018378 10/25/09
2 $1.00 1 1.042552 -.042552 11/11/09
3 85¢ 1 1.028433 -.028433 12/2/09
4 70¢ 1 1.048483 -.048483 12/31/09
5 55¢ 1 1.006607 -0.006607 3/18/10
6 45¢ 3 3.051158 -0.051158 5/14/10
7*(current) 35¢ 4 1.786143 2.213857 10/14/10
8 25¢ 4   4  
9 15¢ 4   4  
10 10¢ 8   8  
11 10   10  
12 10   10  
           

 

Small -- Third Party Developer (<10 kW)
Step Price per
kWh generated
MW in step MW Confirmed MW Remaining
in Step
Date Step Began
1 11¢ 3 3.0323 -0.0323 starting price
2 2 2.082185 -0.082185 9/08/10
3 1 1.006397  -0.006397 12/23/10
4* (currentl level) 1 0.365708 0.634292 01/26/11
5 1   1  
6 3.5¢ 2   2  
7 2.5¢ 4   4  
8 4   4  
9 8   8  
10 .05¢ 8   8  
11 .05¢ 10   10  
12 .01¢ 10   10  
             

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG