Posts Tagged ‘RPS legislation’

New Jersey Energy Master Plan Takes Aim at SACP

Wednesday, July 13th, 2011

New Jersey, one of the nation’s largest and fastest growing solar markets, recently released the 2011 Energy Master Plan (EMP).   The 2011 Energy Master Plan (EMP) is a 10-year non-binding proposal that lays out the energy agenda and guides legislators on energy policy decisions. The plan calls to reduce the 2016 Solar Alternative Compliance Payment (SACP) by 20 percent and then by 2.54 percent each year thereafter. Additionally, the EMP suggests lowering the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) target to 22.5 percent of energy generated from renewable sources, down from 30 percent. The SACP is a fee imposed on electricity providers if they fail to meet their solar requirement established in the RPS.

Governor Christie claims that the previous ten-year energy master plan was unrealistic and that a more obtainable set of standards based on the current situation is needed. Christie is concerned about what the RPS, particularly the solar carve out is doing to electricity costs for the average New Jersey customer.  Therefore, in this Master Energy Plan, Christie wants a cost-benefit analysis of the Solar Renewable Energy Credit (SREC) market in New Jersey created by the solar carve out.  To this end, his EMP proposes reducing the SACP as discussed above. Governor Christie has maintained that the projected plan is not intended to lessen the role of wind and solar energy in New Jersey but rather to set a more realistic target for the next ten years.

Opponents of the plan claim that the previous RPS goal of 30 percent is realistic and contributed to the vast solar development in New Jersey.  The solar carve out and SACP created one of the more robust SREC markets in the country.  An SREC, or solar renewable energy credit, is a tradable credit that represents all the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from a solar electric system.  Energy suppliers must procure a certain amount of solar-generated electricity, either through building their own systems or purchasing these SRECs, and so these SRECs became valuable.  NJ system owners were able to sell SRECs and decrease their payback period on solar systems significantly.

With the increasing deployment of solar energy and continually decreasing costs in the solar industry, critics of Governor Christie‘s Energy Master Plan claim now is not the time to reduce solar goals. Although the EMP itself does not impact the current NJ RPS (actual legislation would be needed for that), the proposed EMP could undermine the state’s exceptional leadership in renewable energy development and may lead to doubts on the continuing success of New Jersey’s solar market. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU), the lead implementing agency, will hold three public hearings in July and August before Christie issues his final plan.

Share

Why Big Solar is not Better Solar

Friday, February 4th, 2011

As solar energy systems become a more popular and profitable investment, many small and large scale projects are being developed. The idea of large solar projects may be attractive because of cost advantages due to scale, yet while the technology behind big and small solar projects is similar, some of the characteristics of big solar cancel out the advantages that are unique to solar energy.

Let’s define “big solar” as a photovoltaic (PV) system or a concentrated solar power (CSP) system that feeds energy into the grid as opposed to “small solar” which feeds the direct energy load of a given facility (most commercial facilities require less than 1 MW of power).

First, big solar is inefficient in terms of its land use. Instead of using the millions of acres of rooftop space and small vacant lots across the country, big solar is often built in deserts or remote areas, which could be potential agricultural or construction space, or even wildlife habitat.

Second, big solar requires significant transmission upgrades. Since large solar projects are far away from where electricity is used, long and costly transmission lines must be constructed to connect big solar projects with the grid. It costs approximately $1.5 million per mile for new transmission lines, a substantial cost that removes a lot of the economic advantages associated with large scale projects. Big solar projects will require the U.S. to engage in even more costly infrastructure upgrades over the next few decades; whereas small solar projects actually reduce the need for costly infrastructure upgrades.

Third, big solar does not alleviate grid-congestion. Even if new transmission lines can be financed, the electricity will only add to an already congested transmission and distribution system. Whereas, if small scale solar power is added near the power demand (such as the rooftop of a house or building), then it would not add at all to the congestion of the electrical system (one of the main causes of the 2003 blackout in the Northeast). Grid congestion is becoming even more important as U.S. electrical demand is increasing at a much higher rate than U.S. transmission capacity.

Fourth, big solar wastes a significant amount of energy during transmission. Transmission from a centralized power plant to a user wastes electricity: according to the EIA, line losses accounted for 6.5% of total electricity generation in 2007. Small solar, typically constructed on the roof or within a ¼ mile of the building it powers, has virtually no energy loss due to transmission.

Fifth, big solar has the same security disadvantages of large centralized power plants. In other words, large scale solar is just as susceptible as other power plants to national security threats from hackers or terrorist groups.

Now that solar technology is becoming more affordable on a residential and commercial scale, there is the potential to dramatically increase the prevalence of distributed generation power systems. Achieving this would insulate the U.S. against its current dependence on large scale power plants and an outdated electrical grid’s transmission ability. Yet, despite the relative disadvantages of large solar power plants, big solar and small solar often compete for solar incentives such as SRECs (Solar Renewable Energy Credits).

An SREC is a tradable credit that represents the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from a solar electric system. Each time the electric system generates 1000 kWh, a SREC is issued that can be sold or traded separately from the power. SRECs have value because utilities and energy suppliers can purchase them from system owners in order to meet the requirements determined in a state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. Residential and commercial solar system owners can harness this value to offset the costs of their solar energy systems. In some states, big solar threatens to reduce the value of these incentives by flooding the SREC market and decreasing the price of SRECs.

When creating and adjusting renewable energy policies, legislators and policy makers should recognize the unique benefits of small solar and distributed generation. It is important to understand that even though “big solar” may have some cost advantages, it is not the “best solar”.

Share

Carbon Markets: Carbon Credits, Carbon Offsets, and RECs

Friday, January 28th, 2011

Due to the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the past several decades, there have been different policy measures and regulations initiated in an attempt to reduce the level of GHGs, especially carbon dioxide. Governments and organizations can use a variety of tools to reduce GHGs, including carbon credits, carbon offsets, and renewable energy credits, however, all these tools share the same idea of putting a price on carbon.

One of the most common tools is the creation of carbon credit markets. A carbon credit is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit one ton of carbon or carbon dioxide equivalent. The carbon credit “cap and trade” mechanism used today is very similar to the methodology used for the U.S. Acid Rain Program, which was an emission trading program launched in 1990 aimed at reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide levels. In essence, a regulator establishes a cap on the overall emissions of a group and then distributes emission allowances to the separate participants, up to the cap limit.

If a company’s carbon emissions fall below its assigned amount, then that company can sell their surplus of carbon credits to other organizations that may have exceeded their respective limit. Cap and trade schemes allow companies to buy and sell “credits” for many types of pollutants, such as acid rain, but the market for carbon credits is by far the biggest.

In 2007, the size of the global carbon credit market was approximately $60 billion, with over 23 million metric tons of carbon dioxide traded in the U.S. alone. Today, carbon credits are relatively cheap, but carbon markets will become even more important in coming years. Louis Redshaw, head of the environmental markets at Barclays Capital, predicts that “Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) first noted that a tradable permit system is one policy instrument that has been shown environmentally effective in the industrial sector. The carbon credit mechanism was formalized in the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement between more than 190 countries whose aim was to address the issue of climate change. Under the Kyoto Protocol, each country is issued an Assigned Amount Unit (AAU) of carbon credits, and they are entered into the country’s national registry, which is validated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Countries who ratified the Kyoto Protocol set quotas for the emissions of local businesses and organizations, thus establishing a carbon market through a cap and trade scheme. The Kyoto mechanism has been used most notably in Europe, where the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) was established in 2005. The EU ETS is the largest emission trading scheme in the world. It employs a basic cap and trade model where the ETS imposes annual targets for carbon dioxide emissions on each EU country. The major carbon emitters in each country are then given national allowances that they can sell or purchase depending on their need.

The United States, however, did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol and there is no national cap on carbon emissions at this point in the U.S. Consequently, there is no mandatory cap and trade scheme in the U.S. for carbon credits. Nevertheless, carbon markets have still developed in the U.S. due to voluntary commitments from corporations to cap their emissions. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a U.S. GHG-trading platform where members make a voluntary, but binding commitment to meet annual reduction targets. The members who reduce GHG emissions below their targets can profit from the surplus. In addition, several states have discussed carbon cap and trade programs, and California recently announced that they would in fact start a cap and trade program for carbon credits in 2012. More commitments like these and the possibility of a national cap in the near future will increase the robustness of the U.S. market for carbon credits.

Although cap and trade is the traditional route for reducing carbon emissions, “carbon offsets” are increasing in popularity. A carbon offset firm acts as a middleman by estimating the emission levels of a company and then providing opportunities to invest in carbon-reducing projects across the world. By investing in these carbon-reducing projects, a company can receive carbon offsets for the carbon emissions that its investments are removing from the atmosphere.

Carbon credits and carbon offsets are not the only financial mechanism for discouraging pollution; another common policy tool in the U.S. is the use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). RECs are present in U.S. states that have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards, which require local utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. RECs are also tradable commodities, but they represent the environmental attributes coming from the generation of one-megawatt hour of electricity by a renewable energy source. In general, RECs have much higher values than carbon credits, and solar RECs (SRECs) in particular tend to have very high values. Whereas carbon credits trade in the range of 0.30-$3.50, SRECs generally trade from 200-$650 per credit.

Today, carbon markets are still in their infancy in the U.S., but carbon credits, carbon offsets, and renewable energy credits represent great potential for reducing pollution and protecting the environment through economical, market-based approaches.

Share

Mid Size Commercial Solar Projects Require Guaranteed Long Term SREC Contracts

Monday, November 15th, 2010

The mid-Atlantic region has witnessed a rapid growth in solar installations over the past few years. While the large multi-megawatt commercial projects make front-page news, it is interesting to note that there is also vibrant growth in mid-size commercial projects, ranging from 50kW-500 kW. Today, the total capacity of solar installed in the PJM region (solar projects in the mid-Atlantic region) is 262 MW, of which 83 MW comes from systems in the 50 kW-500 kW range. Moreover, the mid-size commercial project segment has shown steady growth, adding approximately 26 MW each year since 2009.

Large solar projects face significant financing hurdles because millions of dollars of capital are required, but these projects also fetch the attention of large banks, energy suppliers and tax equity investors. Mid-size commercial projects face the daunting challenge of financing their projects with less visibility, but they can be successful if they make use of all the available incentives and financing tools.

Many mid-size commercial developers and installers can help the customer through the process for applying to federal and state grants; however, monetizing the Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) is often more difficult. SREC markets are complex for two main reasons. First, SREC markets differ across various states depending on the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Solar Alternative Compliance Payment (SACP), the fee paid by energy suppliers for non-compliance of RPS requirements. Second, SREC markets have been known to be fairly volatile due to legislation changes and variations in supply and demand. These challenges can be mitigated by finding a stable partner with long-term SREC contracts who can help system owners navigate the legislation, and provide security of cash flow payments which allow system owners to accurately determine their payback period.

Investing in a mid-size commercial solar project is a sizeable investment for a small business owner or homeowner, thereby making it imperative to ask some difficult questions to the SREC aggregator or financier. The most important question to ask the SREC aggregator is: “Are your customer contracts backed up with energy supplier contracts?” If an SREC aggregator has long term contracts with energy suppliers, then the SREC firm has foresight into future SREC prices and can offer a fair, guaranteed rate. On the contrary, if an SREC aggregator is speculating on price and hoping to sell the SRECs in the spot market at a future date without any security of a long term agreement, their customer is exposed to a lot more SREC market risk. System owners should also be aware of the other factors that shape the SREC markets, like regulatory changes, rapid adoption of solar, and market shifts due to large-scale solar projects.

Being the oldest and largest SREC aggregator in the country, Sol Systems has matched a majority of its long-term SREC contracts with its energy supplier contracts, thereby providing the market stability and flexibility that mid-size commercial customers seek. Today, Sol Systems works with over 200 developers and installers in financing mid-size commercial solar projects. More information can be found at www.solsystemscompany.com.

Share

California’s HomeBuyer Solar Option Sets Example for Growth of Distributed Solar Generation

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

California continues to prove its leadership in advancing the solar industry by instituting a new HomeBuyer Solar Option and Solar Offset Program to promote distributed solar development. The HomeBuyer Solar Option requires residential real estate developers to offer a solar photovoltaic energy system option to all new home buyers. Developers who do not participate in the HomeBuyer Solar option will be required to set up a solar offset system in which they generate an equivalent amount of solar electricity on another project.

This program is revolutionary because it specifically incentivizes the development of “distributed generation” electricity. Distributed generation, unlike centralized generation from large fossil-fuel power plants and renewable energy farms, reduces the amount of energy lost during electricity transmission and helps Independent System Operators (ISOs) mitigate congestion in the transmission lines.

States such as New Jersey, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and Delaware have set up aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which promote the development of solar energy and create markets for Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs). However, if these states wish to incentivize the promotion of distributed solar generation, it is important that they follow California’s lead in creating specific incentives for residential solar development.

If the 375,000 new homes sold across the U.S.* were equipped with a 5kW solar photovoltaic system, an additional 2,250 MWh would be generated each year. This would be sufficient to meet their energy demand for approximately six months.

*2009 Census- new home sales in U.S.
**Energy Information Administration- Table 5 Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State

Share

As the Federal RES Evolves, What Does it Mean for Solar?

Monday, October 4th, 2010

This last September, the U.S. Senate introduced the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010, Senate Bill 3813, a stand-alone Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) that will require sellers of electricity to retail customers to obtain certain percentages of their electric supply from renewable energy resources. If S. 3813 looks familiar, it should. The legislation is what remains of comprehensive climate change legislation that was introduced in the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 S.1462. This is therefore perhaps the last chance for any comprehensive federal approach to climate change or renewable energy prior to the next election.

So what does it mean for solar energy? In sum, it doesn’t hurt solar, but its immediate effects may not help much either. The proposed alternative compliance payment (ACP), which is the penalty energy suppliers must pay if they do not comply with their requirements is set low, especially when compared to current state RES programs such as New Jersey or D.C that have developed a foundation for a strong solar market. In addition, the portfolio of qualifying technologies may be too inclusive (by including numerous technologies the impact on any one technology is limited.

However, the legislation provides the framework, a seed of sorts, for the continued implementation and development of RES legislation nationwide. As RES markets develop nationwide, the solar industry can begin the task of adjusting to a more sustainable regulatory mechanism that is likely to help accelerate the implementation of solar technology (and others) well into the next decade. Our analysis is below.

BACKGROUND

What Does a Federal RES Do?

The federal Renewable Electricity Standard requires that a certain percentage of the electricity purchased in the country come from renewable energy resources. The purpose of an RES is to set up a competitive market in which utilities either (1) directly produce a specific amount of renewable energy based on their total load or (2) effectively purchase this renewable energy from others producing it or (3) pay a penalty. Most utilities will choose some combination of all three. In some state markets, an RES is called a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) or alternative energy portfolio standard (AEPS).

If utilities opt to go with the second strategy listed above, they usually do not purchase the energy from renewable energy resources, they simply purchase title to the “credit” associated with the renewable energy, termed a renewable energy credit (REC). Since energy can be measured in megawatt-hours (MWh), one REC represents the green attributes associated with one MWh of production from a renewable energy resource. Each time a homeowner or business produces one MWh from its solar system, it can sell the REC associated with this MWh in a competitive market. Technologies compete to produce RECs and sell them, and as these technologies scale, the supply of RECs increases, and the costs of these RECs decreases. The market is designed to drive down the costs of compliance and catalyze alternative energy technologies to scale.

CURRENT RES OVERVIEW

Volumes

The RES targets are less than the twenty to twenty-five percent recommended by most industry groups and President Obama himself this last year. The current RES requirements are below:

2012-13: 3%
2014-16: 6%
2017-18: 9%
2019-20: 12%
2021-39: 15%

The Alternative Compliance Payment

The Alternative Compliance Payment, which is the fee that electric utilities must pay in lieu of actually purchasing or producing the renewable energy credits required by the RES, is $21, adjusted for inflation. This means that for every MWH of electricity that the utility fails to supply from renewable energy, it must pay a fine of $21. The ACP effectively sets the ceiling on the value of renewable energy credits, with the caveat that there are multipliers (described below) that make some RECs more valuable than others.

Qualifying Technologies

Under the current RES, those resources include solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, qualified hydropower, marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy, incremental geothermal, coal-mined methane, qualified waste-to-energy, and potentially other technologies.

Multipliers

In order to incentivize certain technologies, states (and in this case the federal government) often provide multipliers for RECs from specific technologies or locations. Under the federal RES, utilities will receive double credit for RECs produced by renewable energy systems located on Indian land (to incentivize the development of renewable energy on Indian land) and triple credit for small renewable distributed generation less than 1 MW. Although not stated, it is likely that the maximum ceiling on energy efficiency credits will conversely reduce the value of RECs produced from energy efficiency upgrades.

No Preemption

The national RES will not preempt current state RES or RPS standards. Instead, the RES is meant to set a floor for states without current RES or RPS legislation to set up trading regimes and complement preexisting state legislation. The RES is a bit like the federal Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act in this respect, both of which provide states with a blueprint which they can either accept in whole, or mimic with state-specific standards that are as strict or less strict. This is incredibly important for those states that have more favorable solar requirements than the federal RES.

National Market

It is unclear at this point whether a national market will develop because of the legislation. Currently, the legislation provides for the delegation of responsibilities to either a national trading mechanism or a more regional mechanism. States will have to figure out whether they want their REC markets to be regional, like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), or isolated, like Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts and others.

SREC Values

The value of solar renewable energy credits (SRECs) is typically a function of supply and demand . It is therefore unclear what the values of SRECs will be since this supply and demand will differ from state to state. Taken by itself, the legislation will not push SREC prices very high since the ACP is $21, with a potential multiplier of three ($63). However, current RPS states will likely retain their markets, and states without an RPS may develop more aggressive RPS legislation in light of the national RES.

ANALYSIS

Potential Negatives

1. The effective solar alternative compliance payment (SACP) is $63 per MWH for distributed solar energy systems (those below 1 MW in nameplate capacity). This is low enough that it is not likely to create a significant market for solar renewable energy credits (since the ACP provides a ceiling on the value of SRECs). This legislation is therefore unlikely to single-handedly develop robust markets for solar. However, as discussed below, the RES may provide the necessary legislative framework for the creation of such a market.

2. The list of qualifying “renewable energy resources” includes technologies that will be much less expensive to implement initially, and will likely flood REC markets. Solar energy, for example, is not likely to be able to compete with biomass or methane from mining.

3. Utilities can purchase energy efficiency credits. These credits are also likely to be much less valuable than SRECs, and may also flood the market – although they are limited to 26.67 percent of their overall required needs.

Potential Positives

Setting up a national RES begins to set minimum requirements, build the framework for the introduction of renewable energy legislation that many states currently do not have in an organized fashion, and develop a sustainable means by which to incentivize renewable energy. RES legislation is especially important for new technologies that may have higher up-front costs (like solar) because requirements can be structured around these costs. Although the standards may not be perfectly structured to assist solar energy at this time, most RES legislation is tweaked over time to better suite solar energy.

OUR CONCLUSION

The proposed federal RES is a good beginning, and provides a decent foundation for future legislation. Although it may not be perfect for solar initially, it forces legislators to address the important issue of alternative energy development, and provides them with a blueprint with which to do so. Our guess is that the requirements, and the ACP, will likely increase on a state-by-state basis. In the meantime, renewable energy is able to put itself on the map, and we’ve taken the first step of many in diversifying our energy infrastructure and moving towards a more sustainable future.

Share

Delaware Senate Passes Amendment to Strengthen RPS

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

On June 30th, the Delaware House of Representatives voted to pass an amendment to Senate Bill No. 119. The bill would strengthen the RPS requirement and increase penalties for non-compliance. Taken together, these measures will improve the growth prospects for the solar industry.

The legislation ramps up the amount of renewable energy required in Delaware from 20% in 2019 to 25% by 2025. The proposition also raises standards for solar energy, from 2.005% in 2019 to 3.5% by 2025. Short-term solar energy prospects in Delaware are addressed by increases in annual targets for solar that move to .2% by 2011 (previously .048%) and .354% by 2014 (.8%).  The new targets ensure immediate incentives for the development of solar energy and will be seen as welcome news for regional installers and developers as well as Delaware homeowners interested in financing their solar energy systems.

The legislation has different effects on electricity suppliers in Delaware. The fine administered to utilities for non-compliance, known as the ACP, is raised to $400 per MWH (it was previously set at $250). As previously legislated under SB-119, a $50 increase in the ACP will be administered annually to non-compliant utilities.

A new provision in the amendment grants the State Energy Coordinator the authority to adjust the ACP by 20% “to determine reasonableness compared to market-based SREC prices.” Another new provision allows the solar requirement to be frozen if the total cost of compliance exceeds 1% of the retail cost of electricity. These amendments exhibit Delaware’s intent to provide more robust compliance incentives while also safeguarding against unreasonable increases in the cost of electricity.

The amendment to SB-119 is currently awaiting final approval from Governor Jack Markell who is expected to sign the bill this week. The amendment follows similar legislative changes in neighboring Maryland, which has recently expanded its renewable energy targets. Delaware’s proposed bolstering of the RPS is further evidence for the success of RPS programs implemented in several states across the mid-Atlantic region.

Share