Posts Tagged ‘State Renewable Energy Incentive Programs’

Magic and Sunrays in the Air

Monday, August 15th, 2011

In a neighborhood where painting your door a different color requires approval from a presidentially appointed commission, Georgetown Energy is aiming to permanently change the view of dozens of houses – from the sky.

Georgetown Energy, a student consultancy devoted to helping residents convert to solar electricity, is heading a monumental solar project that involves turning 43 quintessential student townhouse residences to solar electricity in the midst of Washington DC’s historic Georgetown district. Although it is a long-term project to be enjoyed by the generations after many of the current members of the group have graduated, Georgetown Energy students believe that the rewards of such an innovative project are well worth the effort.

What magic surrounding solar coaxed students to become involved so profoundly?  First, there is a substantial payback for the investment. In a solar lease contract signed between Georgetown University, which owns the student townhouses, and Solar City, a leading national solar installation company, adding 96.6 kW of solar capacity to 43 townhouses will require an initial investment of about $164,000, much less than if the University were to purchase the solar panels. Although Georgetown Energy has partnered with SolarCity for this project and used its solar lease scheme as a model, the project will be offered to various installers at its final stages. In the innovative solar lease scheme, the University will “lease” the roof of each townhouse to the installer, which will design, own, and operate a solar photovoltaic system on each townhouse.  The installer will then sell the electricity produced from each solar project to the residents of the townhouse at a lower price than the traditional competing utility. Savings increase every year and over the 20 years duration of the solar lease contract, students would save a total of $458,856 in their electricity cost. After the contract is over, the student body can decide whether to buy the panels at a low price.

Indeed, another charming aspect of the proposal is that everything is student-owned. Originating from the need to allocate a 3.4 million dollar defunct student endowment, the solar investment will take up only a portion of the available fund and coexist with other student proposals as well as generate profit. Ideally, Georgetown Energy sees the proceeds creating a fund for related projects to further environmental awareness and energy studies on campus.

Is there anything else in it for the university, the students, and the DC area? Sol Systems, a strong force in the fight for better solar incentives in DC, believes so. Not only is being involved in such a movement ideal preparation for a career in renewable energy (two recent graduates and former members of Georgetown Energy actually work at Sol Systems), but there is much potential for the greater DC area too. Of course, cleaner air for the district tops the list. It may even attract more students interested in environmental and energy issues and demonstrate the feasibility of clean energy investments, creating a virtuous cycle of environmental awareness and action in the university community. Perhaps the project may even set an example of a successful clean energy investment that some students may follow individually in the future. Lastly, it is a modern display of service to the community, the crux of the founding Jesuit ideals of Georgetown University.

What stage is the project at right now? In April 2011, a student commission voted in support of the proposal. Now Georgetown Energy students are working with University officials on the details. These include contractual issues, billing mechanisms, pricing, and structural and electrical issues with the houses. The Georgetown Energy students are learning some concrete skills needed for evaluating any type of construction investment. The work done from June-August 2011 will culminate in a final recommendation to be handed to the University on September 1st after which Georgetown Energy students will have to persuade the rest of the student body off their feet for a concluding student referendum and choose from final proposals from competing vendors and permitting.  If all goes well, the battle will be won one year from today. The panels will be constructed in Fall 2012 and convert ordinary sunrays to a unique opportunity for revenue and intellectual growth – truly magic!

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Why Businesses are Taking Advantage of Solar Power Purchase Agreements

Friday, January 21st, 2011

A Solar Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is a legal contract where a solar project developer installs and operates a system for a business owner, homeowner, or tenant (the “host”) who in turn agrees to buy the solar generated electricity for a fixed period, usually 10 to 20 years. The host typically purchases the solar power at a fixed rate equal to or less than their normal utility rate and does not pay the upfront capital costs of the installation, making PPAs a very attractive economic option.

Developers like the model because the PPA contract ensures that the developer will be able to sell the solar electricity for a fixed period of time at a pre-determined rate. The PPA contract also removes negotiation and transmission costs that could be associated with solar projects that do not have a guaranteed energy buyer.

Businesses benefit from the federal and state incentives in place for owning a solar system. Specifically, Solar PPAs in the United States rely on the federal solar investment tax credit, which was extended for eight years under the Emergency Economic Stabilization act of 2008 and then amended with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 so that the solar investment tax credit can now be combined with tax exempt financing. This investment tax credit covers 30% of the expenditures on a solar system. Several state rebate programs also reduce the capital necessary for PPAs by providing grants corresponding to the size of the solar system.

The host business that is buying the solar generated electricity does not receive any of these tax credits or rebates directly, rather, the developer or company that finances and subsequently owns the system receives these benefits. However, the developer passes these benefits on to the host in the form of lower fixed rates for their electricity.

Because the developer fully maximizes all the incentives associated with a solar energy system, in some situations a PPA can be a better deal than ownership of a system. For example, non-profits cannot receive tax credits, implying that a PPA would be the better financial decision since the developer could access the tax credits and consequently provide solar electricity at a reduced rate to the non-profit. Furthermore, a solar developer can raise funds for a project (or portfolio of projects) through tax equity investors.

Similarly, businesses and developers engaging in a Solar PPA can take advantage of Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs). 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. Therefore, the legal owner of the system can sell their rights to SRECs to utility companies that need SRECs to comply with state Renewable Portfolio Standards. This represents another substantial method to offset the cost of the system and allow businesses to reduce their net costs and ultimately the PPA rate. As state rebate programs diminish, SREC values will become more important for financing solar.

As PPAs and new solar financing tools become more prevalent, it is important to understand the difference between a PPA and a lease. A solar lease is another common financing tool where a solar company builds a solar energy system on a host’s property and then the host pays a lease payment for the benefits of the system’s electricity production. This is different from a PPA where the host pays directly for the solar power. Many companies that began exclusively in solar leasing are now offering the PPA model to customers as well. Typically, nuances in state laws or consumer preference determine whether a developer will offer a PPA or lease. Solar developers who offer solar PPAs have encountered a large number of interested customers. For example, Wal-Mart, Safeway, and Macy’s all use solar PPAs, and some estimates say that in 2008 PPAs represented over 60% of California’s non-residential solar market.

In short, PPAs allow businesses to take advantage of all sorts of solar incentives like SREC values, federal, and state incentives – all without any upfront capital. As large facility owners and tenants continue to demand solar without high upfront costs, PPAs will become more and more popular.

Share

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

An Outlook On Solar in 2011

Monday, January 17th, 2011

Competition is stiff in the solar manufacturing industry, with companies like Evergreen announcing their departure from the United States to China in order to reduce costs. Enormous global module supply has come online in the last two years to help fuel the rapid build-out in Europe, China and elsewhere, resulting in dramatic declines in solar module pricing. Some, like Gleacher and Company, are modeling module prices at around $1.30/watt right now. Others are actually predicting wholesale module costs at $1.10 in the next few weeks.

The result is a strange dichotomy of a manufacturing industry undergoing rapid growth and simultaneously undergoing a stressful reallocation of resources and a fairly pessimistic outlook on Wall Street. The WilderHill Clean Energy Index, which includes solar and other alternative-energy stocks, fell 5.3 percent last year, compared with a 12.8 percent rise in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. Companies like SunPower, Yingli, JA Solar, Trina, Canadian Solar, MEMC, Suntech and others all produced significant negative returns, some upward of negative 20 percent.

This fall in module prices, and the corresponding difficulties for module manufacturers, will likely continue through 2011 as the world’s top solar market, Germany, further cuts its solar subsidies and a growing supply of photovoltaic modules outstrips demand, putting pressure on prices and producers’ profits. As others have noted, a weak euro will compound the problem for Chinese and U.S. manufacturers. Last year, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Czech Republic all cut back their solar subsidies. Further cuts are expected in Germany and France in the first half of 2011 and in Italy in the second half. Those three markets account for around 70 percent of the global market, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Next year may be the first year in which more solar is built in the United States than in Germany.

For the solar installer and developer community this is presumably welcome news (ignoring the risks, of course, that similar reductions in incentives may take place here). As solar module costs decline, so are total system costs since modules compose a significant portion of the overall costs of a solar system.

However, cost reductions do not uniformly impact the solar community. Because of economies of scale, module costs account for a much larger portion of commercial-sized solar system’s costs than residential. The impact is still more powerful with regard to utility sized projects. As a result, falling module costs disproportionately benefit larger systems, as illustrated the figure below (care of SEIA).

Not only are commercial and utility costs already significantly lower than residential costs, they are also falling more rapidly. Indeed, utility projects are falling in price at three times the rate that residential projects are. This is an interesting window into the solar industry in the United States, which is that solar systems will undoubtedly get BIGGER.

To compound this trend, as states drastically reduce or altogether cut their rebate and grant programs for residential and small commercial systems, the economics that once favored smaller projects are starting to disappear. States like New Jersey, California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio and many others have all gutted their tax-funded rebate or grant programs. American Recovery and Reinvestment monies that flowed through the states in much of 2009 and 2010 are nearing their ends. Although module costs are falling significantly, they are not falling (nor could they) by two to three dollars a watt , which was often the size of grant and rebate monies. The result is a further shift upward in size. In Massachusetts, for example, given the emphasis on a solar renewable energy credit (SREC) market, many developers are starting to focus exclusively on commercial and utility scale projects.

For residential focused installers and developers, this may be an opportunity or a challenge. Presumably, those firms that can secure large economies of scale in purchasing power will better weather these changes than those that cannot. Additionally, because size matters, the industry may see consolidation. Hopefully, it will also see aggregation or collaborative models, where residential and small commercial installers work together to secure better financing opportunities and engineer more sophisticated acquisition models. This, of course, is a primary focus of financing firms like Sol Systems. Additionally, power purchase agreements and lease agreements may gain prominence if effective costs rise for residential customers in the absence of rebates.

For commercial and utility developers, a move upward in size means a necessary move towards more complex financing instruments. It becomes a bit more difficult to make a pure equity play on a multimegawatt project – a blended debt/tax equity/first loss equity product is typically required to reduce risks and bring down the costs of capital. To see this approach succeed, the capital markets will have to open further to solar projects. A lack of access to debt markets and tax equity was a big part of what has slowed the growth in wind and large-scale solar in the last few years. So this may be a challenge. On the other hand, Chinese banks continue to push into the US market to debt finance multi-megawatt portfolios, so it may not only be Chinese modules the US industry is using, it may also be Chinese money.

In sum, as the industry grows, there will be a continued movement towards larger projects. To succeed, players will have to become more sophisticated. This will favor players in the residential space who are able to collaboratively or individually leverage economies of scale and acquisition models and players in the commercial and utility space who are able to better secure complex financing instruments.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

FERC Ruling Complicates States Ability to implement Feed in Tariffs

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

A Feed in Tariff or FiT, is a policy mechanism requiring utilities to purchase electricity generated from a certain source at a fixed rate (which is typically higher than average market electricity rates). FiTs are implemented as a means to encourage the development of renewable energy by balancing the cost between electricity generated from renewable and traditional energy sources. Although FiTs have been implemented in countries such as Germany and Spain around the world, the United States federal government has not enacted FiT legislation. Thus far, each state has taken different approaches to encourage the development of solar. Many U.S. states have opted for Renewable Energy Credit (REC) trading schemes while other states, such as Vermont and California have implemented FiTs. However, a recent ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), threatens the future potential for states to implement FITs.

In March 2010, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1613, which granted the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) the power to set and regulate the purchasing price of electricity produced from Combined Heat and Power sources (CHPs). The CPUC would have required utilities to purchase electricity at fixed rates for 10 years from all CHPs that meet environmental and efficiency guidelines and are under 20 MW. Utilities affected by the legislation pushed back, claiming that the CPUC could not set wholesale electricity prices, a right, they argued, reserved only for the FERC.

In mid-July, FERC responded to the controversy by issuing a ruling stating “setting rates for wholesale sales in interstate commerce by public utilities… [is] preempted by the FPA.” The ruling confirms that FERC has the sole authorization to set and regulate the wholesale sale of electricity and deals a blow to pending FiT legislation in other states across the U.S. While states are allowed to enforce fixed rates upon utilities purchasing electricity from renewable sources, these rates cannot exceed avoided costs. Avoided costs are typically lower than proposed FiT rates, which effectively defeats the intent of a FiT which is to promote renewable energy development through guaranteed premium rates.

A likely result of the ruling is that states interested in establishing and achieving targets for renewable energy electricity generation will continue to turn to REC trading schemes. REC trading schemes have proven to be effective at both providing substantial incentives for renewable energy as well placing safeguards against unreasonably high compliance costs for utilities. For more information on REC schemes versus Feed-in Tariffs, please read Sol System’s recent posting on the issue.

Share

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off