Domestic solar energy industry achieved a record for installations and growth in the third quarter of 2011, according to a new report
Released by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the U.S. Solar Market Insight: 3rd Quarter 2011 report reveals that the US solar market installed more than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity in the first three quarters of 2011, already surpassing the 2010 annual total of 887 MW.
In the third quarter, 449 MW was installed, a record for quarterly installations and more new solar electric capacity than was added in all of 2009. This also represents 140pc growth over the same quarter last year.
Looking forward, however, the outlook for continued strong growth is uncertain. The market impact of cheap Chinese solar panels and the potential expiration of the 1603 program weigh heavy on the industry. The SEIA report predicts that if there is no extension of the 1603 program, a tax equity bottleneck for projects will happen in 2012, leading to a possible slowdown in installations in late 2012 and into 2013.
“The US solar industry is on a roll, with unprecedented growth in 2011,” said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of SEIA. “Solar is now an economic force in dozens of states, creating jobs across America. But our industry needs stable policy on which to make business decisions, and unfortunately an underlying mechanism for financing solar projects is scheduled to expire on December 31.
“To keep the industry growing and creating jobs in the U.S. we need Congress to extend the 1603 program. The 1603 programme has done more to expand the use of renewable energy than any other policy in U.S. history.”
Friday, December 23, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
BLM to hold Colorado hearing on western solar plan
SUMMIT COUNTY —Colorado residents will get one more chance to offer input on a plan that could potentially open more than 111,000 acres of public lands in Colorado for industrial solar development.In response to strong public outcry, the Bureau of Land Management recently reversed its decision not to hold a Colorado public hearing on a supplemental environmental study to the Draft Solar Programatic Environmental Impact Statement in Colorado. The meeting is set for Jan. 11, 2012 at the Inn of the Rio Grande in Alamosa (7 p.m.)
In November and December, 2011, BLM held public hearings in Las Vegas, El Centro, CA, and Palm Desert but no Colorado hearing was scheduled.
Numerous citizens appealed to the BLM on the grounds that Colorado was not being treated fairly under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Nearly all the Colorado lands eyed for solar development are in the rural, high-altitude San Luis Valley, including over 16,000 acres in 4 Solar Energy Zones. The San Luis Valley is home to Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar who oversees the BLM’s increasingly controversial solar development proposal on public lands.
The supplemental study addresses impacts for large-scale industrial solar development that will have significant impacts on a broad range of individuals, communities and environments. The plan will affect areas in the San Luis Valley subject to industrial solar development.
Critics say the proposal also impacts ratepayers and taxpayers who could be deprived of the benefits of locally produced solar energy development as a result of the disproportionate allocation of scarce public resources for remote, centralized solar power plants on public lands.
“We are pleased that BLM listened to that people and reversed its position”, said Ceal Smith, founder of the grassroots, San Luis Valley Renewable Communities Alliance. “Interest in the San Luis Valley is very high and now Coloradans will have the same chance as citizens in California, Nevada and Arizona to express their concerns about the proposed large-scale privatization of public lands for industrial energy development,” Smith said.
“A lot more is known now about impacts and less destructive and costly point of use alternatives for solar development. It’s important that the BLM give full consideration to this new information,” she added.
More than 100 citizens attended the March 7th, 2011 public scoping hearing on the Draft PEIS in Alamosa, CO. Participants included adjacent landowners, ranchers and farmers, local government officials, student and community environmental groups, solar installers and business representatives, global climate change and clean energy advocates and professionals, including 24 individuals who came prepared to speak.
The Alamosa meeting drew more attendance than any of the other public hearings held throughout the country, with the possible exception of the Feb. 8th Indian Wells hearing in California.
The Supplement to the PEIS and other related documents can be downloaded here: http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/supp/index.cfm
The deadline for public comment on the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS is January 23, 2012.
In November and December, 2011, BLM held public hearings in Las Vegas, El Centro, CA, and Palm Desert but no Colorado hearing was scheduled.
Numerous citizens appealed to the BLM on the grounds that Colorado was not being treated fairly under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Nearly all the Colorado lands eyed for solar development are in the rural, high-altitude San Luis Valley, including over 16,000 acres in 4 Solar Energy Zones. The San Luis Valley is home to Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar who oversees the BLM’s increasingly controversial solar development proposal on public lands.
The supplemental study addresses impacts for large-scale industrial solar development that will have significant impacts on a broad range of individuals, communities and environments. The plan will affect areas in the San Luis Valley subject to industrial solar development.
Critics say the proposal also impacts ratepayers and taxpayers who could be deprived of the benefits of locally produced solar energy development as a result of the disproportionate allocation of scarce public resources for remote, centralized solar power plants on public lands.
“We are pleased that BLM listened to that people and reversed its position”, said Ceal Smith, founder of the grassroots, San Luis Valley Renewable Communities Alliance. “Interest in the San Luis Valley is very high and now Coloradans will have the same chance as citizens in California, Nevada and Arizona to express their concerns about the proposed large-scale privatization of public lands for industrial energy development,” Smith said.
“A lot more is known now about impacts and less destructive and costly point of use alternatives for solar development. It’s important that the BLM give full consideration to this new information,” she added.
More than 100 citizens attended the March 7th, 2011 public scoping hearing on the Draft PEIS in Alamosa, CO. Participants included adjacent landowners, ranchers and farmers, local government officials, student and community environmental groups, solar installers and business representatives, global climate change and clean energy advocates and professionals, including 24 individuals who came prepared to speak.
The Alamosa meeting drew more attendance than any of the other public hearings held throughout the country, with the possible exception of the Feb. 8th Indian Wells hearing in California.
The Supplement to the PEIS and other related documents can be downloaded here: http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/supp/index.cfm
The deadline for public comment on the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS is January 23, 2012.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Colorado Solar Industry Faces Challenges
Colorado's San Luis Valley, an alpine desert, is rapidly becoming a leading producer of solar energy in the United States. The sun shines more than 340 days a year in the San Luis Valley. So the solar industry is booming here.
Several solar facilities in the region generate electricity on an industrial scale and others are under construction. Under Colorado law, 30 percent of power used in the state must be generated from renewable sources by 2020. But given the demand for electricity, Alamosa County's year-round sunshine still won't be enough.
Nick Thiel, plant manager of San Luis Solar Ranch, said, “We are sitting on 220 acres [89 hectares] with roughly 110,000 panels, equivalent to a 30-megawatt site,” said Thiel.
The company says that's enough to supply power to more than 7,500 homes.
“In the mornings, when the sun rises over those mountains, their sensors attract the sun, so they move in concordance with the sun. In the morning they face the east, and as the day falls, it will follow all the way to the west until it sets,” said Thiel.
In this valley, solar farms are expanding rapidly, making Colorado the third-largest solar energy producing state in the US, after California and New Jersey.
But the sun is not enough.
Alamosa County, one of the largest in the region, has six solar farms. County Commissioner Darius Allen said 650 hectares have been allocated for solar power and more could be dedicated, if the infrastructure were better.
“Right now, the transmission lines we have in here is pretty much maxed out,” said Allen.
But that's not the only problem. San Luis Valley is an agricultural area producing potatoes, grain, alfalfa and pasture for cattle. Farmers are concerned about land going to the solar industry.
Steve Vandiver is General Manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. He said, “If agriculture goes away here, we have nothing left."
Agriculture in this valley is under another threat. The land, rivers and aquifers under the Valley are drying out. That also affects solar power.
“Some of the bigger plants - the solar thermo plants - take a significant amount of water. You have to dry up a lot of farm land in order to create a water supply that is large enough to support those types of plants,” said Vandiver.
Solar panels also need to be washed because dust accumulates on them.
The water shortage has forced authorities to draw up plans that will close hundreds of wells and retire agricultural land.
“Valley wide we are probably looking at 60 to 80,000 acres [24,000 to 32,000 hectares] that will have to come out of production in the long term,” said Vandiver.
Farmers are concerned. George Whitten is his family's third generation on this organic ranch.
Recently, he and his wife Julie Sullivan, an environmental activist and educator, recruited neighbors in a bid to fight the construction of an 800-hectare solar farm adjacent to their land. They won their case, and the project failed.
“I never thought I would be fighting solar energy, and so it was very bizarre,” said Sullivan.
“It’s giant parabolic mirrors. They are the size of a drive-in theater, and there were going to be 9,000 of those right along that power line,” said Whitten.
The Whittens say industrial sites - even solar ones - should not replace agriculture.
They say instead of saving energy, Americans are trying to figure out how to use more.
Several solar facilities in the region generate electricity on an industrial scale and others are under construction. Under Colorado law, 30 percent of power used in the state must be generated from renewable sources by 2020. But given the demand for electricity, Alamosa County's year-round sunshine still won't be enough.
Nick Thiel, plant manager of San Luis Solar Ranch, said, “We are sitting on 220 acres [89 hectares] with roughly 110,000 panels, equivalent to a 30-megawatt site,” said Thiel.
The company says that's enough to supply power to more than 7,500 homes.
“In the mornings, when the sun rises over those mountains, their sensors attract the sun, so they move in concordance with the sun. In the morning they face the east, and as the day falls, it will follow all the way to the west until it sets,” said Thiel.
In this valley, solar farms are expanding rapidly, making Colorado the third-largest solar energy producing state in the US, after California and New Jersey.
But the sun is not enough.
Alamosa County, one of the largest in the region, has six solar farms. County Commissioner Darius Allen said 650 hectares have been allocated for solar power and more could be dedicated, if the infrastructure were better.
“Right now, the transmission lines we have in here is pretty much maxed out,” said Allen.
But that's not the only problem. San Luis Valley is an agricultural area producing potatoes, grain, alfalfa and pasture for cattle. Farmers are concerned about land going to the solar industry.
Steve Vandiver is General Manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. He said, “If agriculture goes away here, we have nothing left."
Agriculture in this valley is under another threat. The land, rivers and aquifers under the Valley are drying out. That also affects solar power.
“Some of the bigger plants - the solar thermo plants - take a significant amount of water. You have to dry up a lot of farm land in order to create a water supply that is large enough to support those types of plants,” said Vandiver.
Solar panels also need to be washed because dust accumulates on them.
The water shortage has forced authorities to draw up plans that will close hundreds of wells and retire agricultural land.
“Valley wide we are probably looking at 60 to 80,000 acres [24,000 to 32,000 hectares] that will have to come out of production in the long term,” said Vandiver.
Farmers are concerned. George Whitten is his family's third generation on this organic ranch.
Recently, he and his wife Julie Sullivan, an environmental activist and educator, recruited neighbors in a bid to fight the construction of an 800-hectare solar farm adjacent to their land. They won their case, and the project failed.
“I never thought I would be fighting solar energy, and so it was very bizarre,” said Sullivan.
“It’s giant parabolic mirrors. They are the size of a drive-in theater, and there were going to be 9,000 of those right along that power line,” said Whitten.
The Whittens say industrial sites - even solar ones - should not replace agriculture.
They say instead of saving energy, Americans are trying to figure out how to use more.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Colorado industry group gets $491,000 grant to cut red tape and costs for solar installations
Colorado industry group gets $491,000 grant to cut red tape and costs for solar installations
The Denver Post
A Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association team today received a $491,000 federal grant to develop a system that will cut red tape and cost for solar panel installations.
"Every municipality has been going about trying to set standards in a piecemeal fashion and that has added to cost," said Neal Lurie, executive director of the Colorado solar association.
Non-hardware costs, such as permitting, installation, design and maintenance account for up to 40 percent of the total cost of installed rooftop system, according to the US Department of Energy, which awarded the grant.
In a report released earlier this year, San Francisco-based SunRun, a company that leases solar panels, estimated local permitting and inspection added $2,500 to the average residential installation nation-wide.
The average residential solar installation is now between $12,000 and $18,000 and half the costs are now for permitting, regulatory, interconnection, customer acquisition, installation, and other similar charges, Lurie said.
The COSEIA team will work with municipalities to develop consistent lists of best practices, on-line tools and other standards, with the goal of cutting application costs by 25 percent, Lurie said.
"The Energy Department is investing in this Colorado project to unleash the community's solar potential by making it faster, easier, and cheaper to finance and deploy solar power," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
The Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association team also includes: the Rocky Mountain Institute, Denver, Boulder County, Fort Collins, Golden, and the American Solar Energy Society.
The Denver Post
A Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association team today received a $491,000 federal grant to develop a system that will cut red tape and cost for solar panel installations.
"Every municipality has been going about trying to set standards in a piecemeal fashion and that has added to cost," said Neal Lurie, executive director of the Colorado solar association.
Non-hardware costs, such as permitting, installation, design and maintenance account for up to 40 percent of the total cost of installed rooftop system, according to the US Department of Energy, which awarded the grant.
In a report released earlier this year, San Francisco-based SunRun, a company that leases solar panels, estimated local permitting and inspection added $2,500 to the average residential installation nation-wide.
The average residential solar installation is now between $12,000 and $18,000 and half the costs are now for permitting, regulatory, interconnection, customer acquisition, installation, and other similar charges, Lurie said.
The COSEIA team will work with municipalities to develop consistent lists of best practices, on-line tools and other standards, with the goal of cutting application costs by 25 percent, Lurie said.
"The Energy Department is investing in this Colorado project to unleash the community's solar potential by making it faster, easier, and cheaper to finance and deploy solar power," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
The Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association team also includes: the Rocky Mountain Institute, Denver, Boulder County, Fort Collins, Golden, and the American Solar Energy Society.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Reduce your utility bill and receive a tax credit
Reduce your utility bill and receive a tax credit
The “clean energy economy” is here and growing day by day; thanks in part to the Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy that has stimulated job creation, while encouraging home and business owners to install and create clean power by using solar.
Established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and extended by The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, many federal incentives apply to renewable technologies. The federal tax credits have currently been extended to 2016.
In order to qualify for the following systems and receive the federal tax credit in 2011, the system must be installed by Dec. 31, 2011.
• Solar Thermal (Hot Water) Systems receive a 30% tax credit which applies to solar thermal system expenditures with no cap. Products must be certified by Solar Rating and Certification Corporation.
• Residential Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Systems receive a 30% tax credit which applies to PV system expenditures with no cap. Systems must be installed by a licensed contractor.
• Commercial Solar PV Systems receive a 30% Treasury grant instead of a tax credit for new installations. Business owners may receive a grant from the U.S. Treasury Department instead of taking the Production Tax Credit. Receive a grant of 30% of the cost of the system in approximately 60 days as a direct deposit. This grant can only be taken for systems where construction begins before Dec. 31.
• Commercial Solar PV Systems Bonus Depreciation 2008-2012 plus Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) receive 100% bonus depreciation in 2011, 50% in 2012. MACRS businesses may recover investment in certain property through depreciation schedule; renewable energy technologies are classified as a five-year property.
What is the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit? A tax deduction is subtracted from income before total tax liability is computed. Tax credit is subtracted directly from the total tax liability. The tax credit is more advantageous to the taxpayer. Example: Tax credit of $1,000 for someone in the 28% tax bracket is equivalent to a tax deduction of about $3,500. Consult your tax advisor for details.
Solar jobs have been created in part because the incentives available to you have increased the demand for solar electricity products and services. According to a recent study by Brookings Institution the clean energy economy employs some 2.7 million workers across the industry in sectors such as solar energy and green construction. Solar photovoltaic installations have grown at a compounded annual growth rate of 61% between 2006 and 2009.
Are you ready to earn your 2011 federal tax credit? Call Atlasta Solar Center and talk with a professional about the incentives and rebates available until the end of this year. Happy holidays!
The “clean energy economy” is here and growing day by day; thanks in part to the Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy that has stimulated job creation, while encouraging home and business owners to install and create clean power by using solar.
Established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and extended by The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, many federal incentives apply to renewable technologies. The federal tax credits have currently been extended to 2016.
In order to qualify for the following systems and receive the federal tax credit in 2011, the system must be installed by Dec. 31, 2011.
• Solar Thermal (Hot Water) Systems receive a 30% tax credit which applies to solar thermal system expenditures with no cap. Products must be certified by Solar Rating and Certification Corporation.
• Residential Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Systems receive a 30% tax credit which applies to PV system expenditures with no cap. Systems must be installed by a licensed contractor.
• Commercial Solar PV Systems receive a 30% Treasury grant instead of a tax credit for new installations. Business owners may receive a grant from the U.S. Treasury Department instead of taking the Production Tax Credit. Receive a grant of 30% of the cost of the system in approximately 60 days as a direct deposit. This grant can only be taken for systems where construction begins before Dec. 31.
• Commercial Solar PV Systems Bonus Depreciation 2008-2012 plus Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) receive 100% bonus depreciation in 2011, 50% in 2012. MACRS businesses may recover investment in certain property through depreciation schedule; renewable energy technologies are classified as a five-year property.
What is the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit? A tax deduction is subtracted from income before total tax liability is computed. Tax credit is subtracted directly from the total tax liability. The tax credit is more advantageous to the taxpayer. Example: Tax credit of $1,000 for someone in the 28% tax bracket is equivalent to a tax deduction of about $3,500. Consult your tax advisor for details.
Solar jobs have been created in part because the incentives available to you have increased the demand for solar electricity products and services. According to a recent study by Brookings Institution the clean energy economy employs some 2.7 million workers across the industry in sectors such as solar energy and green construction. Solar photovoltaic installations have grown at a compounded annual growth rate of 61% between 2006 and 2009.
Are you ready to earn your 2011 federal tax credit? Call Atlasta Solar Center and talk with a professional about the incentives and rebates available until the end of this year. Happy holidays!
Monday, November 14, 2011
Solar developers discuss investment needs for Colorado’s solar market
On Nov. 4, a panel of Colorado-based solar executives met with executives from national and regional banks at the “Solar Finance Roundtable” hosted by the Colorado Bankers Association and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA).
The solar-financing roundtable, held at St. Julien’s hotel in Boulder, Colo., was a unique opportunity for the various players in both industries to discuss how to help move the solar industry forward.
“Solar-related financing is one of the top pain points in the solar industry today,” said COSIEA Executive Director Neil Lurie.
It’s one of the top challenges that is inhibiting faster growth in solar, according to Lurie.
“Based on the feedback we've heard from the industry and our members, we estimate that about 80 to 90 percent of solar businesses in Colorado lack the financing that they need to be able to broker business deals that helps support customer needs,” he said.
AC Solar, which has installed solar on about 600 homes, half on-grid, half off-grid, could benefit from financing, said Co-Owner JoElyn Newcomb.
“If I had an easy financing program, I would double my size tomorrow,” she said.
At this point she said the company has so much business and limited access to financing that Newcomb only looks at customers that can pay for a system outright.
Still, options are becoming more open for homeowners, said Justin Pentelute, CEO of Syndicated Solar, which focuses primarily on commercial and utility solar development.
“Residential solar is definitely starting to gain. I think right now there's a lot of financing options that make a tremendous amount of economic sense,” he said.
However, he sees a gap in financing available for projects in between residential and large-scale commercial or utility-scale projects.
“We're seeing issues getting anyone approved that's not investment grade,” he said. “That's the biggest issues that we're coming up against.”
Out of 15 solar project proposals generally only one secures financing. That’s despite companies having good balance sheets, according to Pentelute.
There’s also an issue with the products available to support solar financing.
“There are no loans designed for solar,” Pentelute said.
Most loans aren’t designed for periods longer than 10 years.
“It isn't really consistent with the life of a solar asset, which is 25 years,” said Pentelute.
This could be fixed to some tweaks to existing offerings, which sounds easy, but isn’t, he said.
Thus far the best options for commercial clients with a yen for tax equity are capital lease options. For those that don’t want tax equity financing, Syndicated Solar finds that third-party operating leases are a good way to go.
“The power-purchase agreements have been the most difficult to process because there is no standardized agreement. It's really difficult to negotiate when you have three parties going to war on what's acceptable,” Pentelute said.
The need for solar companies to better educate bankers on solar benefits was clear.
“There are plenty of bankers that have no clue what a solar system is,” said Mike Healy, a founder of solar thermal developer Skyline Innovations. “I can't tell you how many conversations started or ended with 'alright so it collects the heat, and then electricity comes from there, and that's how you heat the hot water.' There is clearly an education gap. We need to educate them.”
Such work will help bankers become more familiar with solar.
The solar-financing roundtable, held at St. Julien’s hotel in Boulder, Colo., was a unique opportunity for the various players in both industries to discuss how to help move the solar industry forward.
“Solar-related financing is one of the top pain points in the solar industry today,” said COSIEA Executive Director Neil Lurie.
It’s one of the top challenges that is inhibiting faster growth in solar, according to Lurie.
“Based on the feedback we've heard from the industry and our members, we estimate that about 80 to 90 percent of solar businesses in Colorado lack the financing that they need to be able to broker business deals that helps support customer needs,” he said.
AC Solar, which has installed solar on about 600 homes, half on-grid, half off-grid, could benefit from financing, said Co-Owner JoElyn Newcomb.
“If I had an easy financing program, I would double my size tomorrow,” she said.
At this point she said the company has so much business and limited access to financing that Newcomb only looks at customers that can pay for a system outright.
Still, options are becoming more open for homeowners, said Justin Pentelute, CEO of Syndicated Solar, which focuses primarily on commercial and utility solar development.
“Residential solar is definitely starting to gain. I think right now there's a lot of financing options that make a tremendous amount of economic sense,” he said.
However, he sees a gap in financing available for projects in between residential and large-scale commercial or utility-scale projects.
“We're seeing issues getting anyone approved that's not investment grade,” he said. “That's the biggest issues that we're coming up against.”
Out of 15 solar project proposals generally only one secures financing. That’s despite companies having good balance sheets, according to Pentelute.
There’s also an issue with the products available to support solar financing.
“There are no loans designed for solar,” Pentelute said.
Most loans aren’t designed for periods longer than 10 years.
“It isn't really consistent with the life of a solar asset, which is 25 years,” said Pentelute.
This could be fixed to some tweaks to existing offerings, which sounds easy, but isn’t, he said.
Thus far the best options for commercial clients with a yen for tax equity are capital lease options. For those that don’t want tax equity financing, Syndicated Solar finds that third-party operating leases are a good way to go.
“The power-purchase agreements have been the most difficult to process because there is no standardized agreement. It's really difficult to negotiate when you have three parties going to war on what's acceptable,” Pentelute said.
The need for solar companies to better educate bankers on solar benefits was clear.
“There are plenty of bankers that have no clue what a solar system is,” said Mike Healy, a founder of solar thermal developer Skyline Innovations. “I can't tell you how many conversations started or ended with 'alright so it collects the heat, and then electricity comes from there, and that's how you heat the hot water.' There is clearly an education gap. We need to educate them.”
Such work will help bankers become more familiar with solar.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Solar power showing greater mainstream potential
NEW YORK — Solar energy may finally get its day in the sun.
The high costs that for years made it impractical as a mainstream source of energy are plummeting. Real estate companies are racing to install solar panels on office buildings. Utilities are erecting large solar panel “farms” near big cities and in desolate deserts. And creative financing plans are making solar more realistic than ever for homes.
Solar power installations doubled in the United States last year and are expected to double again this year. More solar energy is being planned than any other power source, including nuclear, coal, natural gas and wind.
“We are at the beginning of a turning point,” says Andrew Beebe, who runs global sales for Suntech Power, a manufacturer of solar panels.
Solar’s share of the power business remains tiny. But its promise is great. The sun splashes more clean energy on the planet in one hour than humans use in a year, and daytime is when power is needed most. And solar panels can be installed near where people use power, reducing or eliminating the costs of moving power through a grid.
Solar power has been held back by costs. It’s still about three times more expensive than electricity produced by natural gas, according to estimates by the Energy Information Administration.
But the financial barriers are falling fast. Solar panel prices have plunged by two-thirds since 2008, making it easier for installers to market solar’s financial benefits, and not simply its environmental ones. Homeowners who want to go solar can do so for free and pay the same or less for their power.
Last month two of the nation’s biggest utilities, Exelon and NextEra Energy, each acquired a large California solar power farm in the early stages of development. Another utility, NRG Energy, has announced a plan with Bank of America and the real estate firm Prologis to spend $1.4 billion to install solar systems on 750 commercial rooftops.
Nationwide, solar power installations grew by 102 percent from 2009 to 2010, by far the fastest rate in the past five years.
“Every manufacturer globally is looking around for the next major growth market, and the U.S. is the first one everyone points to,” says Shayle Kann, managing director for solar research at GTM Research.
Making solar affordable still requires large tax breaks and other subsidies from federal and state governments. The main federal subsidy pays for 30 percent of the cost of a residential system. When state and other subsidies are added, as much as 75 percent of the cost can be covered.
But prices of solar panels, the squares of crystalline silicon or thin layers of metal films that turn the sun’s rays into electricity, are falling so fast that its advocates now credibly claim that solar will be able to compete with fossil fuels even when the federal solar subsidy shrinks by two-thirds in 2016.
“Over the past 10 years the industry has made the case that we needed to increase scale so we could reduce prices,” says Arno Harris, CEO of solar developer Recurrent Energy, a subsidiary of Sharp Corp. “We’re seeing it happen.”
The falling prices have made it easier for solar installers to raise the money needed to grow. And they’ve made solar power systems so affordable they can appeal to homeowners who want to save on their electric bill, not just reduce their environmental impact.
Tim Johnson, a high school math teacher in Philadelphia, had wanted to put solar panels on his roof for years. Like many people concerned about the environment, the thought of powering his home without burning fossil fuels had a strong appeal. But with two kids in college, he couldn’t justify spending $15,000, after subsidies, to do it.
But since March, he has generated 50 percent to 75 percent of his electricity with a set of solar panels on his roof, saving 20 percent on his electricity bills. His upfront cost for the system: $0.
Instead of buying and installing the panels himself, he signed up with SunRun, one of a handful of companies that build, own and maintain solar systems on homes. These companies earn money by charging customers for the power the panels produce.
Johnson pays SunRun $52 a month, and he pays his traditional utility for whatever extra power he needs from the grid. In all, he pays $60 to $100 a month for power; he used to pay $90 to $120.
SunRun can charge Johnson a competitive rate because federal and state subsidies pay for a portion of the installation. Also, the arrangement allows SunRun to take advantage of one of solar’s big advantages. Because it is generated near where it is needed, it doesn’t have to pass through hundreds of miles of wires, transformers and other equipment. The power price SunRun has to beat in order to entice customers like Johnson is an expensive retail rate, bloated with transmission and distribution charges that home solar doesn’t incur.
It would be cheaper over the long run for a homeowner to buy and install a solar system because he would not have to pay a company like SunRun for financing, service and maintenance. But these plans have growing appeal because they don’t require homeowners to lay out thousands of dollars up front.
In California, which leads the nation in solar power installations, 51 percent of the residential solar systems installed through the first three quarters of this year were sold with these plans, up from 12 percent in 2009.
SunRun and competitors such as SolarCity and Sungevity are expanding into more states, including Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Last month, Google announced it would create a fund that local installers in every state can tap so they too can offer no-money-down plans.
Some installers are teaming up with big hardware chains Home Depot and Lowe’s in an effort to expose solar to customers who might not otherwise consider it.
“Awareness is still one of our biggest problems,” says Lynn Jurich, co-founder and president of SunRun, which has a partnership with Home Depot.
Solar panel prices have been declining for years because of lower costs for polycrystalline silicon, the main raw material for most solar panels, and larger-scale manufacturing, especially in Asia. In the last six months, demand has dropped sharply in Germany, the world’s biggest solar market, in response to shrinking subsidies. This has created a global glut of solar panels and accelerated the decline in prices.
Solar panels, which are priced based on the amount of power they can produce during full sunshine, sold for $1.34 per watt in mid-September, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s down from $1.90 at the beginning of 2010. In 2008, they sold for $4 a watt.
The glut has been gut-wrenching for companies that make solar panels. Many of them remain profitable and are growing. But three U.S. panel makers have filed for bankruptcy in two months, including Solyndra, a solar panel maker that received a $528 million federal loan.
Falling profit margins are scaring investors. The stock price of First Solar Inc. has fallen from $170 in April to $53.77. Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. has fallen from $11 to $2.07 over the same period.
The Solyndra bankruptcy has sparked a political uproar. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of pushing for Solyndra’s loan for political reasons and have used the bankruptcy to question Obama’s plan to help boost the economy by subsidizing clean energy projects.
The market will not get any easier for small solar panel makers. General Electric Co., Samsung and other big companies are entering the market. This should increase supply and bring down costs even further. GE announced this month that it would build the largest panel factory in the U.S., near Denver.
But what has been treacherous for solar panel makers has been a boon for companies that market and install solar systems, for companies that make electronics and other parts for solar systems, and for solar customers.
To be sure, solar is growing from a very small base. All of the panels now installed across the nation produce enough electricity to power 600,000 homes, or about as much electricity as one large coal-fired power plant.
There are 30,000 megawatts’ worth of solar projects awaiting approval in the U.S., according to the American Public Power Association. Not all of them will be built, either because of regulatory or financial hurdles. But even if only half that is ultimately built, it would be five times what is already installed.
“We’re going in the direction the planet and the industry needs to go,” says Harris.
AP
The high costs that for years made it impractical as a mainstream source of energy are plummeting. Real estate companies are racing to install solar panels on office buildings. Utilities are erecting large solar panel “farms” near big cities and in desolate deserts. And creative financing plans are making solar more realistic than ever for homes.
Solar power installations doubled in the United States last year and are expected to double again this year. More solar energy is being planned than any other power source, including nuclear, coal, natural gas and wind.
“We are at the beginning of a turning point,” says Andrew Beebe, who runs global sales for Suntech Power, a manufacturer of solar panels.
Solar’s share of the power business remains tiny. But its promise is great. The sun splashes more clean energy on the planet in one hour than humans use in a year, and daytime is when power is needed most. And solar panels can be installed near where people use power, reducing or eliminating the costs of moving power through a grid.
Solar power has been held back by costs. It’s still about three times more expensive than electricity produced by natural gas, according to estimates by the Energy Information Administration.
But the financial barriers are falling fast. Solar panel prices have plunged by two-thirds since 2008, making it easier for installers to market solar’s financial benefits, and not simply its environmental ones. Homeowners who want to go solar can do so for free and pay the same or less for their power.
Last month two of the nation’s biggest utilities, Exelon and NextEra Energy, each acquired a large California solar power farm in the early stages of development. Another utility, NRG Energy, has announced a plan with Bank of America and the real estate firm Prologis to spend $1.4 billion to install solar systems on 750 commercial rooftops.
Nationwide, solar power installations grew by 102 percent from 2009 to 2010, by far the fastest rate in the past five years.
“Every manufacturer globally is looking around for the next major growth market, and the U.S. is the first one everyone points to,” says Shayle Kann, managing director for solar research at GTM Research.
Making solar affordable still requires large tax breaks and other subsidies from federal and state governments. The main federal subsidy pays for 30 percent of the cost of a residential system. When state and other subsidies are added, as much as 75 percent of the cost can be covered.
But prices of solar panels, the squares of crystalline silicon or thin layers of metal films that turn the sun’s rays into electricity, are falling so fast that its advocates now credibly claim that solar will be able to compete with fossil fuels even when the federal solar subsidy shrinks by two-thirds in 2016.
“Over the past 10 years the industry has made the case that we needed to increase scale so we could reduce prices,” says Arno Harris, CEO of solar developer Recurrent Energy, a subsidiary of Sharp Corp. “We’re seeing it happen.”
The falling prices have made it easier for solar installers to raise the money needed to grow. And they’ve made solar power systems so affordable they can appeal to homeowners who want to save on their electric bill, not just reduce their environmental impact.
Tim Johnson, a high school math teacher in Philadelphia, had wanted to put solar panels on his roof for years. Like many people concerned about the environment, the thought of powering his home without burning fossil fuels had a strong appeal. But with two kids in college, he couldn’t justify spending $15,000, after subsidies, to do it.
But since March, he has generated 50 percent to 75 percent of his electricity with a set of solar panels on his roof, saving 20 percent on his electricity bills. His upfront cost for the system: $0.
Instead of buying and installing the panels himself, he signed up with SunRun, one of a handful of companies that build, own and maintain solar systems on homes. These companies earn money by charging customers for the power the panels produce.
Johnson pays SunRun $52 a month, and he pays his traditional utility for whatever extra power he needs from the grid. In all, he pays $60 to $100 a month for power; he used to pay $90 to $120.
SunRun can charge Johnson a competitive rate because federal and state subsidies pay for a portion of the installation. Also, the arrangement allows SunRun to take advantage of one of solar’s big advantages. Because it is generated near where it is needed, it doesn’t have to pass through hundreds of miles of wires, transformers and other equipment. The power price SunRun has to beat in order to entice customers like Johnson is an expensive retail rate, bloated with transmission and distribution charges that home solar doesn’t incur.
It would be cheaper over the long run for a homeowner to buy and install a solar system because he would not have to pay a company like SunRun for financing, service and maintenance. But these plans have growing appeal because they don’t require homeowners to lay out thousands of dollars up front.
In California, which leads the nation in solar power installations, 51 percent of the residential solar systems installed through the first three quarters of this year were sold with these plans, up from 12 percent in 2009.
SunRun and competitors such as SolarCity and Sungevity are expanding into more states, including Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Last month, Google announced it would create a fund that local installers in every state can tap so they too can offer no-money-down plans.
Some installers are teaming up with big hardware chains Home Depot and Lowe’s in an effort to expose solar to customers who might not otherwise consider it.
“Awareness is still one of our biggest problems,” says Lynn Jurich, co-founder and president of SunRun, which has a partnership with Home Depot.
Solar panel prices have been declining for years because of lower costs for polycrystalline silicon, the main raw material for most solar panels, and larger-scale manufacturing, especially in Asia. In the last six months, demand has dropped sharply in Germany, the world’s biggest solar market, in response to shrinking subsidies. This has created a global glut of solar panels and accelerated the decline in prices.
Solar panels, which are priced based on the amount of power they can produce during full sunshine, sold for $1.34 per watt in mid-September, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s down from $1.90 at the beginning of 2010. In 2008, they sold for $4 a watt.
The glut has been gut-wrenching for companies that make solar panels. Many of them remain profitable and are growing. But three U.S. panel makers have filed for bankruptcy in two months, including Solyndra, a solar panel maker that received a $528 million federal loan.
Falling profit margins are scaring investors. The stock price of First Solar Inc. has fallen from $170 in April to $53.77. Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. has fallen from $11 to $2.07 over the same period.
The Solyndra bankruptcy has sparked a political uproar. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of pushing for Solyndra’s loan for political reasons and have used the bankruptcy to question Obama’s plan to help boost the economy by subsidizing clean energy projects.
The market will not get any easier for small solar panel makers. General Electric Co., Samsung and other big companies are entering the market. This should increase supply and bring down costs even further. GE announced this month that it would build the largest panel factory in the U.S., near Denver.
But what has been treacherous for solar panel makers has been a boon for companies that market and install solar systems, for companies that make electronics and other parts for solar systems, and for solar customers.
To be sure, solar is growing from a very small base. All of the panels now installed across the nation produce enough electricity to power 600,000 homes, or about as much electricity as one large coal-fired power plant.
There are 30,000 megawatts’ worth of solar projects awaiting approval in the U.S., according to the American Public Power Association. Not all of them will be built, either because of regulatory or financial hurdles. But even if only half that is ultimately built, it would be five times what is already installed.
“We’re going in the direction the planet and the industry needs to go,” says Harris.
AP
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
GE to Build Largest Solar Factory in U.S. in Colorado
In perhaps its biggest solar move since acquiring PrimeStar Solar [7], General Electric Co., (NYSE: GE [8]) announced plans to build America's largest solar factory in Colorado.
The plans to build the factory were actually made this past April, but a location had not been settled on until recently. Aurora, Colorado - a suburb of Denver - is the energy giant's choice, due to proximity to testing lines and available space. However, considering the current climate for solar panel production [9], the venture is a risky one.
Low-cost photovoltaics have led to considerable fallout in the solar market. Some of the biggest solar panel producers in the U.S. recently succumbed to bankruptcy [10] - due in large part to the reduced prices coming out of Asian markets. [11] Many of them having also received large government loans.
But GE intends to drop prices even further and still turn a profit, looking to its successes with wind as an example.
Says Vic Abate, GE's Vice President of Renewable Energy [12], ""It's a challenging industry for sure, but the cost of solar had to come down for it to become a mainstream power source."
The factory - which will be larger than 11 football fields and pack an annual capacity of 400 MW (enough to power 11,000 homes) - will be built without government subsidies and will produce "thin film" panels from cadmium telluride.
Similar to panels built by First Solar [13], they are less efficient at converting the sun's rays into electricity than traditional crystalline silicon panels, but are cheaper to manufacture and therefore produce power at a lower cost.
The plans to build the factory were actually made this past April, but a location had not been settled on until recently. Aurora, Colorado - a suburb of Denver - is the energy giant's choice, due to proximity to testing lines and available space. However, considering the current climate for solar panel production [9], the venture is a risky one.
Low-cost photovoltaics have led to considerable fallout in the solar market. Some of the biggest solar panel producers in the U.S. recently succumbed to bankruptcy [10] - due in large part to the reduced prices coming out of Asian markets. [11] Many of them having also received large government loans.
But GE intends to drop prices even further and still turn a profit, looking to its successes with wind as an example.
Says Vic Abate, GE's Vice President of Renewable Energy [12], ""It's a challenging industry for sure, but the cost of solar had to come down for it to become a mainstream power source."
The factory - which will be larger than 11 football fields and pack an annual capacity of 400 MW (enough to power 11,000 homes) - will be built without government subsidies and will produce "thin film" panels from cadmium telluride.
Similar to panels built by First Solar [13], they are less efficient at converting the sun's rays into electricity than traditional crystalline silicon panels, but are cheaper to manufacture and therefore produce power at a lower cost.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Atlasta collecting solar ‘artifacts' for eventual public display
Atlasta collecting solar ‘artifacts' for eventual public display
More than 30 years ago Virgil Boggess, the owner of Atlasta Solar Center, started collecting solar energy products as part of his growing business and because he liked to see how all of the solar technologies work.
Since that time, the Atlasta Solar Collection has grown dramatically to more than 100 pieces, all reflecting the evolution of an industry for a half-century.
Now, this Colorado Solar Collection is looking for a catalog, a home to display the products to the public, and further donations of solar energy technologies from around the country. Once the Colorado Solar Collection finds a local Western Slope home, it will be the world's first historical tour of the U.S. solar industry for the last 100 years.
Several weeks ago, this column had an article about the history of the solar thermal industry in the U.S. It was noted that the U.S. solar thermal industry is more than 100 years old. The discovery and development of solar electric began in the early 1800s when the French physicist Edmund Becquerel uncovered the “photoelectric effect.”
In 1923, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for his theories about the photoelectric effect. And in 1954 the U.S. solar electric industry began as researchers at Bell Labs demonstrated the first practical applications of photovoltaics (PV). Other manufacturers got in the game including AT&T and Westinghouse.
Hoffman Electronics produced the first commercial applications for PV priced at $1,500/watt. To put this into perspective, most current major manufacturers of PV can now sell solar electric panels for as little as $1.50/watt. Solar electric is now 1,000 times less expensive than 60 years ago.
The Atlasta Solar Collection has some of the earlier 20-40 watt PV panels manufactured by Solarex and ARCO Solar (once part of the Atlantic Richfield Oil Corporation) made in the early 1970s. Solarex is now part of the global energy conglomerate British Petroleum.
Among the one hundred or so items currently in the Colorado Solar Collection, there are several of some the most efficient solar thermal panels ever manufactured, which were manufactured by Colt, the same company that manufacturers rifles. Other unusual solar artifacts include gas-powered (through expansion and contraction of the gas) automatic greenhouse skylight openers, a pumpless solar thermal system that uses parabolic troughs, Tri-Tech “Air Hair” solar thermal space heating systems, air heating window units; and “SolaRoll,” an EPDM rubber solar water heating unit.
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE COLORADO SOLAR COLLECTION?
For the time being, all of these artifacts of scientific and technological history have half a home with Atlasta Solar. However, Atlasta Solar has requested that the (GVSC) Grand Valley Solar Center (a local nonprofit solar advocacy organization) to find a permanent home for the collection in Mesa County. Atlasta Solar has also asked the GVSC to request donations of other solar-manufactured articles from Colorado residents. If you have any older solar products that you would like to donate (or have removed), please call Atlasta Solar at . The long-term goal is to collect, catalog, and give public display to the world's first solar collection of the last century of the U.S. solar industry right here in western Colorado.
More than 30 years ago Virgil Boggess, the owner of Atlasta Solar Center, started collecting solar energy products as part of his growing business and because he liked to see how all of the solar technologies work.
Since that time, the Atlasta Solar Collection has grown dramatically to more than 100 pieces, all reflecting the evolution of an industry for a half-century.
Now, this Colorado Solar Collection is looking for a catalog, a home to display the products to the public, and further donations of solar energy technologies from around the country. Once the Colorado Solar Collection finds a local Western Slope home, it will be the world's first historical tour of the U.S. solar industry for the last 100 years.
Several weeks ago, this column had an article about the history of the solar thermal industry in the U.S. It was noted that the U.S. solar thermal industry is more than 100 years old. The discovery and development of solar electric began in the early 1800s when the French physicist Edmund Becquerel uncovered the “photoelectric effect.”
In 1923, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for his theories about the photoelectric effect. And in 1954 the U.S. solar electric industry began as researchers at Bell Labs demonstrated the first practical applications of photovoltaics (PV). Other manufacturers got in the game including AT&T and Westinghouse.
Hoffman Electronics produced the first commercial applications for PV priced at $1,500/watt. To put this into perspective, most current major manufacturers of PV can now sell solar electric panels for as little as $1.50/watt. Solar electric is now 1,000 times less expensive than 60 years ago.
The Atlasta Solar Collection has some of the earlier 20-40 watt PV panels manufactured by Solarex and ARCO Solar (once part of the Atlantic Richfield Oil Corporation) made in the early 1970s. Solarex is now part of the global energy conglomerate British Petroleum.
Among the one hundred or so items currently in the Colorado Solar Collection, there are several of some the most efficient solar thermal panels ever manufactured, which were manufactured by Colt, the same company that manufacturers rifles. Other unusual solar artifacts include gas-powered (through expansion and contraction of the gas) automatic greenhouse skylight openers, a pumpless solar thermal system that uses parabolic troughs, Tri-Tech “Air Hair” solar thermal space heating systems, air heating window units; and “SolaRoll,” an EPDM rubber solar water heating unit.
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE COLORADO SOLAR COLLECTION?
For the time being, all of these artifacts of scientific and technological history have half a home with Atlasta Solar. However, Atlasta Solar has requested that the (GVSC) Grand Valley Solar Center (a local nonprofit solar advocacy organization) to find a permanent home for the collection in Mesa County. Atlasta Solar has also asked the GVSC to request donations of other solar-manufactured articles from Colorado residents. If you have any older solar products that you would like to donate (or have removed), please call Atlasta Solar at . The long-term goal is to collect, catalog, and give public display to the world's first solar collection of the last century of the U.S. solar industry right here in western Colorado.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Solar State of the Week: Colorado
Solar State of the Week: Colorado
The Colorado market is almost evenly split between the residential, non-residential, and utility sectors.
State incentive programs drove the Colorado PV market to more than double in 2010, resulting in the installation of 53.6 megawatts of capacity.
The state market maintained a relatively even split, with 18.7 megawatts of installed capacity from residential, 15.9 megawatts from non-residential, and 19.1 megawatts from utility. Installations in the residential sector were mainly driven by the allowance of third-party-owned systems and incentives from the Governor’s Energy Office rebate program. In the utility sector, SunPower’s 19-megawatt Greater Sandhill project was completed in Alamosa County, becoming the largest solar energy project in the state.
The next few years will see additional large-scale utility projects coming online in the state. SunPower’s San Luis Valley Solar Ranch, a 30-megawatt photovoltaic installation, and Cogentrix’s Alamosa Solar, a 30-megawatt concentrating PV project, are both currently under construction and expected to come online in 2012.
Though Colorado had the third highest cumulative installed capacity at the end of 2010, the outlook for solar installations in the state is uncertain. Xcel Energy, which is responsible for over 75 percent of PV installations in Colorado, announced in February that it was making substantial changes to its “Solar* Rewards” customer-sited PV incentive program. The utility plans to cut rebate levels from $2.00 per watt to $0.25 per watt for systems under 100 kilowatts.
Until the PUC issues approval for these new rates, rebates will be frozen, and this poses a substantial risk to Colorado’s residential and small commercial market through 2011.
The Colorado market is almost evenly split between the residential, non-residential, and utility sectors.
State incentive programs drove the Colorado PV market to more than double in 2010, resulting in the installation of 53.6 megawatts of capacity.
The state market maintained a relatively even split, with 18.7 megawatts of installed capacity from residential, 15.9 megawatts from non-residential, and 19.1 megawatts from utility. Installations in the residential sector were mainly driven by the allowance of third-party-owned systems and incentives from the Governor’s Energy Office rebate program. In the utility sector, SunPower’s 19-megawatt Greater Sandhill project was completed in Alamosa County, becoming the largest solar energy project in the state.
The next few years will see additional large-scale utility projects coming online in the state. SunPower’s San Luis Valley Solar Ranch, a 30-megawatt photovoltaic installation, and Cogentrix’s Alamosa Solar, a 30-megawatt concentrating PV project, are both currently under construction and expected to come online in 2012.
Though Colorado had the third highest cumulative installed capacity at the end of 2010, the outlook for solar installations in the state is uncertain. Xcel Energy, which is responsible for over 75 percent of PV installations in Colorado, announced in February that it was making substantial changes to its “Solar* Rewards” customer-sited PV incentive program. The utility plans to cut rebate levels from $2.00 per watt to $0.25 per watt for systems under 100 kilowatts.
Until the PUC issues approval for these new rates, rebates will be frozen, and this poses a substantial risk to Colorado’s residential and small commercial market through 2011.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
US government backs Abengoa’s solar project with $1.2 billion loan guarantee
US government backs Abengoa’s solar project with $1.2 billion loan guarantee
Despite the high-profile failure of solar developer Solyndra earlier this month, Abengoa has successfully secured a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the US government to move ahead with Mojave Solar Project.
The 280 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) plant will cost an estimated $1.6 billion in total and should be completed in 2014. The Department of Energy (DOE) offered a loan guarantee earlier this summer.
Construction has already started on the project, which is located 100 miles northeast of Los Angeles near Barstow, California.
Once operational the plant will generate enough power for more than 54,000 households and will prevent the emission of over 350,000 metric tons of CO2 a year. One of the largest utilities in the US, Pacific Gas & Electric, has agreed a 25-year power purchase agreement, which is awaiting official confirmation.
Abengoa has also just started operations at the first of two CSP plants in southern Spain, which it has built jointly with Germany energy company E.ON.
Helioenergy 1 and Helioenergy 2, which will come online later this year, will produce enough power from 121,000 mirrors spread over 220 hectares to supply 52,000 households.
The DOE has also finalised a $90.6 million loan guarantee to Cogentrix for the 30 MW Alamosa Solar Generating Project in Colorado.
The high concentration photovoltaic (HCPV) facility, which uses concentrating optics and multi-junction solar cell panels controlled by a dual-axis tracking system, will produce enough power for 6500 homes and avoid 43,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions a year.
A $150 million loan guarantee has also been granted to 1366 Technologies to develop a multicrystalline wafer manufacturing project that could reduce the costs of solar manufacturing.
The innovative process could produce 700-1000 MW of silicon-based wafers a year at half the usual cost. The first phase of the project will be carried out at the company’s facility in Lexington, Massachusetts, but 1366 Technologies is looking for other sites for the next phase.
Meanwhile, Greece has unveiled a plan to increase its installed solar capacity to 2.2 GW by 2020 and 10 GW by 2050, according to Reuters.
The financially troubled nation hopes to attract up to €20 billion in investment through the ‘Project Helios’ plan.
While Greece has sunshine for an average 300 days a year and receives 50% more solar radiation that European solar champion Germany, it has a mere 200 MW already installed.
And further afield, Australia’s first utility-scale solar power project is under way in Western Australian.
The First Solar project, which is being backed by Verve Energy, GE Energy Financial Services and the Western Australian Government, will see a 10 MW facility built on 80 hectares of land 50 km southeast of Geraldton.
The output from the Greenough River Solar Farm, which is expected to be operational mid-next year, will be bought by the WA Water Corporation, which is building a new Southern Seawater Desalination Plant.
Despite the high-profile failure of solar developer Solyndra earlier this month, Abengoa has successfully secured a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the US government to move ahead with Mojave Solar Project.
The 280 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) plant will cost an estimated $1.6 billion in total and should be completed in 2014. The Department of Energy (DOE) offered a loan guarantee earlier this summer.
Construction has already started on the project, which is located 100 miles northeast of Los Angeles near Barstow, California.
Once operational the plant will generate enough power for more than 54,000 households and will prevent the emission of over 350,000 metric tons of CO2 a year. One of the largest utilities in the US, Pacific Gas & Electric, has agreed a 25-year power purchase agreement, which is awaiting official confirmation.
Abengoa has also just started operations at the first of two CSP plants in southern Spain, which it has built jointly with Germany energy company E.ON.
Helioenergy 1 and Helioenergy 2, which will come online later this year, will produce enough power from 121,000 mirrors spread over 220 hectares to supply 52,000 households.
The DOE has also finalised a $90.6 million loan guarantee to Cogentrix for the 30 MW Alamosa Solar Generating Project in Colorado.
The high concentration photovoltaic (HCPV) facility, which uses concentrating optics and multi-junction solar cell panels controlled by a dual-axis tracking system, will produce enough power for 6500 homes and avoid 43,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions a year.
A $150 million loan guarantee has also been granted to 1366 Technologies to develop a multicrystalline wafer manufacturing project that could reduce the costs of solar manufacturing.
The innovative process could produce 700-1000 MW of silicon-based wafers a year at half the usual cost. The first phase of the project will be carried out at the company’s facility in Lexington, Massachusetts, but 1366 Technologies is looking for other sites for the next phase.
Meanwhile, Greece has unveiled a plan to increase its installed solar capacity to 2.2 GW by 2020 and 10 GW by 2050, according to Reuters.
The financially troubled nation hopes to attract up to €20 billion in investment through the ‘Project Helios’ plan.
While Greece has sunshine for an average 300 days a year and receives 50% more solar radiation that European solar champion Germany, it has a mere 200 MW already installed.
And further afield, Australia’s first utility-scale solar power project is under way in Western Australian.
The First Solar project, which is being backed by Verve Energy, GE Energy Financial Services and the Western Australian Government, will see a 10 MW facility built on 80 hectares of land 50 km southeast of Geraldton.
The output from the Greenough River Solar Farm, which is expected to be operational mid-next year, will be bought by the WA Water Corporation, which is building a new Southern Seawater Desalination Plant.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Electric utility ‘demand charges' penalize commercial businesses
Electric utility ‘demand charges' penalize commercial businesses
Why is the topic of utility “demand charges” important? In most cases, utilities are monopolies that are guaranteed a certain amount of profit.
However, sometimes the method whereby utilities gain this guaranteed profit has little to do with the actual cost of the product they supply. Electric utility “demand charges” are an example of this widespread market distortion. This means that if you have a business, up to two-thirds of your bill may have little to do with the actual energy you have consumed.
WHAT ARE UTILITY DEMAND CHARGES?
Over a hundred years ago in the early days of electricity generation, utility service areas were small, sometimes only a few city blocks. Peak power requirements came in the early evening when people came home from work and turned on their lights. At this time lighting was typically the only electricity loads that homes had.
When another house was added to the utility service area, additional electricity generation capacity had to be installed to meet the new demand. New and existing utility customers were required to pay a fee to cover the costs of this additional generation. Nowadays, utilities can forecast service demand with great precision, and thus do not need to add additional generation capacity to meet the power demands of your existing business.
Power generation now is generally comprised of base load power plants, intermediary generation and peaking power generation. Base load power generation usually consists of coal-fired power plants, nuclear plants, and traditional hydroelectric.
Intermediate power generation is often comprised of older costlier coal plants, and some lower costs natural gas generation.
Peaking power is usually natural gas generation that can be brought online and offline quickly according to peak power demands.
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO REDUCE DEMAND CHARGES?
Demand charges can unfairly penalize certain commercial electricity customers; and electric utility demand charges especially penalize premium peak power produced from solar. What can you do at your business to reduce these antiquated utility demand charges?
First, be certain that your business is using the correct utility rate. A simple rate analysis may demonstrate that your business can use another available utility rate without demand charges.
Rate analysis done by Atlasta Solar has found numerous instances where commercial customers fell well below the threshold of utility demand charges, yet the utility continued to charge the customer hundreds of dollars a month for demand charges.
Simply switching to another electricity rate structure can immediately save you hundreds of dollars a month.
Two, the use of newly available and inexpensive automated energy monitoring equipment can keep you attuned to the power demands of your business. If you can measure it, you can manage it.
Three, relatively easy methods of managing power demand such as staging lighting and motors can keep your demand charges much lower.
Investing in solar power can decrease or eliminate your energy charges and reduce your demand charges dramatically. Solar power can generate all of the energy your business needs. Investing in solar power can also allow you to take advantage of a new solar power rate from the utility, which cuts your demand charges in half and pays you a premium for the solar power that you produce and use.
Electric utility demand charges are a century old obsolete method of measuring power that unfairly penalizes certain commercial customers. It is time the utilities change their outdated methods of valuing electricity. Solar power is peak power and clean power and must be valued as such. Call Atlasta Solar Center today at 970-248-0057 to have a rate analysis completed for your business.
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110909/COMMUNITY_NEWS/110909965/1027/RSS&template=printart
Why is the topic of utility “demand charges” important? In most cases, utilities are monopolies that are guaranteed a certain amount of profit.
However, sometimes the method whereby utilities gain this guaranteed profit has little to do with the actual cost of the product they supply. Electric utility “demand charges” are an example of this widespread market distortion. This means that if you have a business, up to two-thirds of your bill may have little to do with the actual energy you have consumed.
WHAT ARE UTILITY DEMAND CHARGES?
Over a hundred years ago in the early days of electricity generation, utility service areas were small, sometimes only a few city blocks. Peak power requirements came in the early evening when people came home from work and turned on their lights. At this time lighting was typically the only electricity loads that homes had.
When another house was added to the utility service area, additional electricity generation capacity had to be installed to meet the new demand. New and existing utility customers were required to pay a fee to cover the costs of this additional generation. Nowadays, utilities can forecast service demand with great precision, and thus do not need to add additional generation capacity to meet the power demands of your existing business.
Power generation now is generally comprised of base load power plants, intermediary generation and peaking power generation. Base load power generation usually consists of coal-fired power plants, nuclear plants, and traditional hydroelectric.
Intermediate power generation is often comprised of older costlier coal plants, and some lower costs natural gas generation.
Peaking power is usually natural gas generation that can be brought online and offline quickly according to peak power demands.
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO REDUCE DEMAND CHARGES?
Demand charges can unfairly penalize certain commercial electricity customers; and electric utility demand charges especially penalize premium peak power produced from solar. What can you do at your business to reduce these antiquated utility demand charges?
First, be certain that your business is using the correct utility rate. A simple rate analysis may demonstrate that your business can use another available utility rate without demand charges.
Rate analysis done by Atlasta Solar has found numerous instances where commercial customers fell well below the threshold of utility demand charges, yet the utility continued to charge the customer hundreds of dollars a month for demand charges.
Simply switching to another electricity rate structure can immediately save you hundreds of dollars a month.
Two, the use of newly available and inexpensive automated energy monitoring equipment can keep you attuned to the power demands of your business. If you can measure it, you can manage it.
Three, relatively easy methods of managing power demand such as staging lighting and motors can keep your demand charges much lower.
Investing in solar power can decrease or eliminate your energy charges and reduce your demand charges dramatically. Solar power can generate all of the energy your business needs. Investing in solar power can also allow you to take advantage of a new solar power rate from the utility, which cuts your demand charges in half and pays you a premium for the solar power that you produce and use.
Electric utility demand charges are a century old obsolete method of measuring power that unfairly penalizes certain commercial customers. It is time the utilities change their outdated methods of valuing electricity. Solar power is peak power and clean power and must be valued as such. Call Atlasta Solar Center today at 970-248-0057 to have a rate analysis completed for your business.
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110909/COMMUNITY_NEWS/110909965/1027/RSS&template=printart
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Solar Thermal Story
Solar electric has been getting all the headlines lately, yet there is another type of solar energy that has been affordable and available in the U.S. for more than 100 years. The technology is a solar thermal system and it is primarily used to provide domestic hot water (DHW).
The first U.S. large production solar DHW system came in the late 1800s. Clarence Kemp patented a method to combine the old practice of exposing metal tanks to the sun with the use of the solar box. He called his new solar water heater the “Climax.”
Kemp sold his solar water heaters in California — where over 1,600 units were in service by 1900. In 1909, William J. Bailey patented an improved solar water heater. He separated the solar water heater into two parts with a heating element exposed to the sun outside and an insulated storage tank in the house. Households could now have solar-heated water day and night and the next morning.
Bailey's “Day and Night” solar had a motto “Sunshine Like Salvation is Free.” From 1909 through 1918 Bailey sold more than 4,000 systems in California. Later, after the solar boom in California, Floridians purchased and shipped more than 100,000 solar water heaters between 1930 and 1954. Half of Miami homes had solar water heaters. In the early 1950s electricity became cheap in Florida and electric utilities gave away electric water heaters to gain market control. By 1973, there were only two full-time solar water heating companies left in the U.S.
In 1973, the Organization of Oil Exporting Companies (OPEC) started an oil embargo against the U.S. The Solar Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act passed in 1974, which established the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) and led to the solar thermal boom of the 1970s and 1980s. SERI later became the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) based in Golden, Colo. During this time, installing a solar system on your home was considered a patriotic act.
The federal and state solar thermal tax credits that existed from 1979 to 1986 started a nationwide boom in solar hot water systems that helped establish hundreds of manufacturers and thousands of contractors and distributors.
In Grand Junction alone in 1985, there were 25 solar companies (there are now 8-10 solar companies in GJ). After the tax credits ended in 1986, there was one GJ solar company that stayed in business, Atlasta Solar Center, which is alive and well today.
After 1986, over 95% of all solar companies nationwide went out of business. Between 1978 and 1986 there were 1 million solar thermal systems installed in the U.S — 1 out of every 65 households. By contrast, there are only about 150,000 grid-tied solar electric systems installed in the U.S. — 1 out of every 1,000 households.
Today, solar water heating has strong growth. In 2006, solar water heating installations more than doubled compared to 2005 due to the residential federal solar tax credit. Then in 2008, installations grew 56%. Solar (DHW) prices and technologies continue to improve. Some of the old solar DHW systems look like a science experiment and were overcomplicated (see photo 1). New, more attractive, evacuated solar tubes can be flush mounted on the roof (see photo 2).
A new solar DHW system can now be purchased for as little as $2,500, and can save hundreds of dollars a year. Solar electric systems typically cost 10 times that. Atlasta Solar has been installing and servicing solar DHW systems for more than 30 years.
The first U.S. large production solar DHW system came in the late 1800s. Clarence Kemp patented a method to combine the old practice of exposing metal tanks to the sun with the use of the solar box. He called his new solar water heater the “Climax.”
Kemp sold his solar water heaters in California — where over 1,600 units were in service by 1900. In 1909, William J. Bailey patented an improved solar water heater. He separated the solar water heater into two parts with a heating element exposed to the sun outside and an insulated storage tank in the house. Households could now have solar-heated water day and night and the next morning.
Bailey's “Day and Night” solar had a motto “Sunshine Like Salvation is Free.” From 1909 through 1918 Bailey sold more than 4,000 systems in California. Later, after the solar boom in California, Floridians purchased and shipped more than 100,000 solar water heaters between 1930 and 1954. Half of Miami homes had solar water heaters. In the early 1950s electricity became cheap in Florida and electric utilities gave away electric water heaters to gain market control. By 1973, there were only two full-time solar water heating companies left in the U.S.
In 1973, the Organization of Oil Exporting Companies (OPEC) started an oil embargo against the U.S. The Solar Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act passed in 1974, which established the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) and led to the solar thermal boom of the 1970s and 1980s. SERI later became the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) based in Golden, Colo. During this time, installing a solar system on your home was considered a patriotic act.
The federal and state solar thermal tax credits that existed from 1979 to 1986 started a nationwide boom in solar hot water systems that helped establish hundreds of manufacturers and thousands of contractors and distributors.
In Grand Junction alone in 1985, there were 25 solar companies (there are now 8-10 solar companies in GJ). After the tax credits ended in 1986, there was one GJ solar company that stayed in business, Atlasta Solar Center, which is alive and well today.
After 1986, over 95% of all solar companies nationwide went out of business. Between 1978 and 1986 there were 1 million solar thermal systems installed in the U.S — 1 out of every 65 households. By contrast, there are only about 150,000 grid-tied solar electric systems installed in the U.S. — 1 out of every 1,000 households.
Today, solar water heating has strong growth. In 2006, solar water heating installations more than doubled compared to 2005 due to the residential federal solar tax credit. Then in 2008, installations grew 56%. Solar (DHW) prices and technologies continue to improve. Some of the old solar DHW systems look like a science experiment and were overcomplicated (see photo 1). New, more attractive, evacuated solar tubes can be flush mounted on the roof (see photo 2).
A new solar DHW system can now be purchased for as little as $2,500, and can save hundreds of dollars a year. Solar electric systems typically cost 10 times that. Atlasta Solar has been installing and servicing solar DHW systems for more than 30 years.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Survey says Coloradans are fed up with oil companies, want more renewables
Survey says Coloradans are fed up with oil companies, want more renewables
By Scot Kersgaard | 08.24.11 | 8:39 am
Coloradans blame market speculation and oil companies for high gas prices, and the vast majority say the best way to bring prices down is to crackdown on market manipulation, according to a poll released Tuesday.
The Checks and Balances Project commissioned Colorado pollster Chris Keating to conduct research that shows that 79 percent of Coloradans favor a crackdown on oil price speculation and market manipulation to reduce gas prices. The survey showed 77 percent of Colorado voters think reducing oil consumption through efficiency would also be an effective way to reduce prices.
“Coloradans are tired of paying for their gas twice: once at the pump and again through their taxes,” said Matt Garrington, deputy director of the Checks and Balances Project. “It’s clear car and truck drivers in this state want solutions to this problem now, including a crackdown on market manipulation, a balanced approach to energy development and an end to taxpayer handouts for oil companies.”
Garrington told The Colorado Independent that the surveyors asked open ended questions along the lines of “Why do you think oil prices are so high? and What could be done to bring prices down?”
“We didn’t lay out policy options to choose from. We just asked people what they thought,” he said.
According to Garrington, Coloradans strongly favor ending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. Seventy-two percent of Coloradans say ending oil company subsidies and transferring those subsidies to companies that are developing wind and solar power would be an effective strategy for the nation.
Garrington pointed to a ThinkProgress study that shows how market manipulation affects the price of oil. The study shows that while the effect of speculation varies, it can increase the price of oil substantially.
“It’s time for oil and gas companies to stand on their own two feet,” said Garrington. “Coloradans understand that we simply can’t afford to pay billions in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. It is simply immoral to continue the Big Oil gravy train when Americans have been asked to sacrifice billions in cuts to Medicare.”
To reduce gas prices, he said seven of 10 Coloradans favor diversification of the sources of energy by creating a national renewable electricity standard that requires 20 percent of electricity to come from sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.
The live telephone poll conducted May 24-26, 2011 by Keating Research, Inc. as an internal messaging survey. It was released to the public on the eve of the Americans for Prosperity “Running on Empty” Colorado tour stops that promote increased oil drilling. The Checks and Balances Project criticized the group as a front for Big Oil and noted that billionaire oil refinery tycoons David and Charles Koch fund the organization.
“The Americans for Prosperity tour is running on empty ideas. Instead of investing our energy dollars into drilling deeper and putting Colorado land and water at risk, we need to build cars that can go further on a gallon of gasoline and to tap into the clean energy of the wind and sun – energy sources we have right here in Colorado that never run out,” said Garrington.
Results of the survey were based on 603 interviews with registered Colorado voters statewide. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
Responding to additional questions by email, Garrington said this about why the poll was conducted and why it is being released now, several months after the polling was completed.
“Checks and Balances was interested in learning where the public was at on gas prices and subsidies in the context of the larger political debate happening in Washington. We chose to release the poll in response to the Americans for Prosperity tour, which is backed by Big Oil and the Koch Brothers. AFP is using gas prices to try and take political advantage of the American public and leverage more handouts for Big Oil – this time in the form of our public lands, drinking water, and air quality.”
By Scot Kersgaard | 08.24.11 | 8:39 am
Coloradans blame market speculation and oil companies for high gas prices, and the vast majority say the best way to bring prices down is to crackdown on market manipulation, according to a poll released Tuesday.
The Checks and Balances Project commissioned Colorado pollster Chris Keating to conduct research that shows that 79 percent of Coloradans favor a crackdown on oil price speculation and market manipulation to reduce gas prices. The survey showed 77 percent of Colorado voters think reducing oil consumption through efficiency would also be an effective way to reduce prices.
“Coloradans are tired of paying for their gas twice: once at the pump and again through their taxes,” said Matt Garrington, deputy director of the Checks and Balances Project. “It’s clear car and truck drivers in this state want solutions to this problem now, including a crackdown on market manipulation, a balanced approach to energy development and an end to taxpayer handouts for oil companies.”
Garrington told The Colorado Independent that the surveyors asked open ended questions along the lines of “Why do you think oil prices are so high? and What could be done to bring prices down?”
“We didn’t lay out policy options to choose from. We just asked people what they thought,” he said.
According to Garrington, Coloradans strongly favor ending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. Seventy-two percent of Coloradans say ending oil company subsidies and transferring those subsidies to companies that are developing wind and solar power would be an effective strategy for the nation.
Garrington pointed to a ThinkProgress study that shows how market manipulation affects the price of oil. The study shows that while the effect of speculation varies, it can increase the price of oil substantially.
“It’s time for oil and gas companies to stand on their own two feet,” said Garrington. “Coloradans understand that we simply can’t afford to pay billions in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. It is simply immoral to continue the Big Oil gravy train when Americans have been asked to sacrifice billions in cuts to Medicare.”
To reduce gas prices, he said seven of 10 Coloradans favor diversification of the sources of energy by creating a national renewable electricity standard that requires 20 percent of electricity to come from sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.
The live telephone poll conducted May 24-26, 2011 by Keating Research, Inc. as an internal messaging survey. It was released to the public on the eve of the Americans for Prosperity “Running on Empty” Colorado tour stops that promote increased oil drilling. The Checks and Balances Project criticized the group as a front for Big Oil and noted that billionaire oil refinery tycoons David and Charles Koch fund the organization.
“The Americans for Prosperity tour is running on empty ideas. Instead of investing our energy dollars into drilling deeper and putting Colorado land and water at risk, we need to build cars that can go further on a gallon of gasoline and to tap into the clean energy of the wind and sun – energy sources we have right here in Colorado that never run out,” said Garrington.
Results of the survey were based on 603 interviews with registered Colorado voters statewide. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
Responding to additional questions by email, Garrington said this about why the poll was conducted and why it is being released now, several months after the polling was completed.
“Checks and Balances was interested in learning where the public was at on gas prices and subsidies in the context of the larger political debate happening in Washington. We chose to release the poll in response to the Americans for Prosperity tour, which is backed by Big Oil and the Koch Brothers. AFP is using gas prices to try and take political advantage of the American public and leverage more handouts for Big Oil – this time in the form of our public lands, drinking water, and air quality.”
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Grand Valley's first solar farm began producing electricity Aug. 1.
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — The Grand Valley's first solar farm began producing electricity Aug. 1.
Two years ago the rural electric cooperative Grand Valley Power began looking into how it could promote solar energy to its customers.
The utility broke ground in May for the 88-solar panel farm at 714 29 Road.
Rooftop solar arrays on private homes usually cost $15,000 to $20,000 — a hurdle for many of its members, GVP energy service administrator Derek Elder said.
For a $950 one-time upfront leasing fee of the 235-watt panel, a co-op member can receive electricity for 25 years. At current electricity rates that means a person would recoup his investment in 22 years.
“The reality is rates will go up,” Elder said. “As rates go up, the (rate of) return will come down.
“A lot of our solar grid-tie customers (who install solar arrays on their homes) are retired or getting ready to retire and are on a fixed income and are looking to control their expenses (against future rate increases) as much as possible.”
One 235-watt panel at maximum production is enough to energize three 75-watt lightbulbs, Elder said. Members will see the amount of electricity produced monthly noted on their utility bills, along with an average $3.60 credit per panel.
Residential customers can purchase up to a 10 kwh system, or about 40 panels. An average household needs about 20 panels for its entire electricity use, Elder said. A person can buy one panel per year if they want.
“They can build their system to their comfort level,” Elder said.
“If a person wanted to go up to 40, and consumed only 20, they'd receive a credit at the end of the year for the excess (energy).
People who install solar panels on their rooftops also receive credit for extra electricity produced.
“The advantage of the solar farm, we break it down panel by panel,” making it affordable for people, Elder said.
Once all 88 panels are leased, the co-op will use funds to build phase two. The site currently energizes 20 kwh.
“At this site we have the capacity to build up to 130 kwh,” Elder said. “If that fills up we'll take the same model and replicate the model on other property.”
Customers who move after they've purchased a panel are allowed to transfer that solar credit to a new address as long as it's a Grand Valley Power account. If the person moves outside of Grand Valley Power service area, the credit either stays with the property or can be transferred to another Grand Valley Power account.
Grand Valley Power serves outlying areas of Fruita and Grand Junction, from the Utah state line to the rural areas of DeBeque. The co-op includes 17,000 meters.
Atlasta Solar of Grand Junction installed the farm's solar panels.
“They did a good job and it looks nice as well,” Elder said.
A ribbon-cutting of the new solar farm takes place 10 a.m., Friday, Aug. 12, at 714 29 Road. Grand Valley Power is also celebrating its 75th anniversary with an open house and annual meeting, 4-8 p.m. at 845 22 Road. Grand Valley Power was formed in 1936, by a group of rural people in the lower Grand Valley who had been unable to secure electric service from existing utilities, due to unavailability at the time, or high construction costs to the individual user.
The utility began Aug. 1, 2011, producing solar power at its solar farm at 714 29 Road. Eighty-eight solar panels were installed on two-thirds of an acre by Atlasta Solar Center.
Grand Valley Power customers can protect against future rising electricity rates by purchasing one or more of the farm's panels ($950/each). As electricity rates go up, customers will recoup their investment in solar sooner.
GO&DO
What: Grand Valley Power solar farm ribbon-cutting AND 75th anniversary open house and annual meeting
When: Fri., Aug. 12 — ribbon cutting at 10 a.m.; celebration, 4-8 p.m.; BBQ buffet meal served 5-7 p.m. with the meeting.
Where: Ribbon cutting - 714 29 Road
Open house and meeting - 845 22 Road
Info: 242-0040, www.GVP.org
Two years ago the rural electric cooperative Grand Valley Power began looking into how it could promote solar energy to its customers.
The utility broke ground in May for the 88-solar panel farm at 714 29 Road.
Rooftop solar arrays on private homes usually cost $15,000 to $20,000 — a hurdle for many of its members, GVP energy service administrator Derek Elder said.
For a $950 one-time upfront leasing fee of the 235-watt panel, a co-op member can receive electricity for 25 years. At current electricity rates that means a person would recoup his investment in 22 years.
“The reality is rates will go up,” Elder said. “As rates go up, the (rate of) return will come down.
“A lot of our solar grid-tie customers (who install solar arrays on their homes) are retired or getting ready to retire and are on a fixed income and are looking to control their expenses (against future rate increases) as much as possible.”
One 235-watt panel at maximum production is enough to energize three 75-watt lightbulbs, Elder said. Members will see the amount of electricity produced monthly noted on their utility bills, along with an average $3.60 credit per panel.
Residential customers can purchase up to a 10 kwh system, or about 40 panels. An average household needs about 20 panels for its entire electricity use, Elder said. A person can buy one panel per year if they want.
“They can build their system to their comfort level,” Elder said.
“If a person wanted to go up to 40, and consumed only 20, they'd receive a credit at the end of the year for the excess (energy).
People who install solar panels on their rooftops also receive credit for extra electricity produced.
“The advantage of the solar farm, we break it down panel by panel,” making it affordable for people, Elder said.
Once all 88 panels are leased, the co-op will use funds to build phase two. The site currently energizes 20 kwh.
“At this site we have the capacity to build up to 130 kwh,” Elder said. “If that fills up we'll take the same model and replicate the model on other property.”
Customers who move after they've purchased a panel are allowed to transfer that solar credit to a new address as long as it's a Grand Valley Power account. If the person moves outside of Grand Valley Power service area, the credit either stays with the property or can be transferred to another Grand Valley Power account.
Grand Valley Power serves outlying areas of Fruita and Grand Junction, from the Utah state line to the rural areas of DeBeque. The co-op includes 17,000 meters.
Atlasta Solar of Grand Junction installed the farm's solar panels.
“They did a good job and it looks nice as well,” Elder said.
A ribbon-cutting of the new solar farm takes place 10 a.m., Friday, Aug. 12, at 714 29 Road. Grand Valley Power is also celebrating its 75th anniversary with an open house and annual meeting, 4-8 p.m. at 845 22 Road. Grand Valley Power was formed in 1936, by a group of rural people in the lower Grand Valley who had been unable to secure electric service from existing utilities, due to unavailability at the time, or high construction costs to the individual user.
The utility began Aug. 1, 2011, producing solar power at its solar farm at 714 29 Road. Eighty-eight solar panels were installed on two-thirds of an acre by Atlasta Solar Center.
Grand Valley Power customers can protect against future rising electricity rates by purchasing one or more of the farm's panels ($950/each). As electricity rates go up, customers will recoup their investment in solar sooner.
GO&DO
What: Grand Valley Power solar farm ribbon-cutting AND 75th anniversary open house and annual meeting
When: Fri., Aug. 12 — ribbon cutting at 10 a.m.; celebration, 4-8 p.m.; BBQ buffet meal served 5-7 p.m. with the meeting.
Where: Ribbon cutting - 714 29 Road
Open house and meeting - 845 22 Road
Info: 242-0040, www.GVP.org
New Solar Farm Open For BusinessOffers Low-Cost Solar Energy
New Solar Farm Open For BusinessOffers Low-Cost Solar Energy
Dann Cianca dcianca@kjct8.com
POSTED: 6:46 pm MDT August 12, 2011
Embed this VideoxEmailFacebookDiggTwitterRedditDelicious Link
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. -- A Grand Valley company is offering to lease you a little piece of sunshine. And they guarantee you'll make your money back over time.
Grand Valley Power held a ribbon cutting at their new solar farm on 29 Road today. The farm is unique because it allows people to lease a solar panel for $950. That is much less than the $20,000 that it costs to install a solar system at your home.
Derek Elder of Grand Valley Power says that it's a good opportunity for more people to become involved in solar power.
"It opens it up for renters to participate in solar. It opens it up for people who don't have their houses oriented properly. People who might have shade trees around their houses."
This is the first solar farm of its kind in the Grand Valley and the fourth in Colorado. It will be expanded based on interest and builders hope that usage will be high enough to warrant future farms.
Dann Cianca dcianca@kjct8.com
POSTED: 6:46 pm MDT August 12, 2011
Embed this VideoxEmailFacebookDiggTwitterRedditDelicious Link
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. -- A Grand Valley company is offering to lease you a little piece of sunshine. And they guarantee you'll make your money back over time.
Grand Valley Power held a ribbon cutting at their new solar farm on 29 Road today. The farm is unique because it allows people to lease a solar panel for $950. That is much less than the $20,000 that it costs to install a solar system at your home.
Derek Elder of Grand Valley Power says that it's a good opportunity for more people to become involved in solar power.
"It opens it up for renters to participate in solar. It opens it up for people who don't have their houses oriented properly. People who might have shade trees around their houses."
This is the first solar farm of its kind in the Grand Valley and the fourth in Colorado. It will be expanded based on interest and builders hope that usage will be high enough to warrant future farms.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Hidden Cost Savings: The Top 9 Public Benefits Of Installing Solar Power
Hidden Cost Savings: The Top 9 Public Benefits Of Installing Solar Power
Jessica Lillian, Monday 01 August 2011 - 21:59:43
Even as the costs of solar power continue to decline, a widespread perception from the public and many policymakers that solar is "too expensive" remains stubbornly in place - much to the frustration of advocates and industry professionals.
A new study challenges this assumption by delving into the numbers to compare the actual costs and benefits of solar power projects. The results confirm several key widespread public benefits of solar power and could provide the industry with a valuable weapon in the public-perception fight - a battle that remains crucial for long-term viability and growth.
The report, authored by Richard Perez at the University of Albany, Ken Zweibel at the GW Solar Institute and Thomas E. Hoff of Clean Power Research, focuses on tangible benefits that solar power generation delivers to utilities, ratepayers and taxpayers.
"It is clear that some possibly large value of solar energy is missed by traditional analysis," the report says.
Notably, these advantages apply to a wide population, thus providing a rebuttal to the "what's in it for me?" argument. Many other well-known recent studies on solar power's benefits focus on real - but not public - benefits. For instance, the average taxpayer may not care that his neighbor's rooftop PV array has raised that home's value or that the solar sector has created jobs for other people.
The new study, titled "Solar Power Generation in the U.S.: Too expensive or a bargain?," finds that, in all, solar PV installations deliver $0.15/kWh to $0.40/kWh to ratepayers and taxpayers.
Although incentives have proven to be a vital driver of solar power growth, the report's authors argue that the gulf between "inexpensive" conventional energy and "expensive" solar is smaller than often portrayed, especially when solar's public benefits are taken into account.
"This large apparent 'grid-parity gap' can hinder constructive dialogue with key decision makers and constitutes a powerful argument to weaken political support for solar incentives, especially during tight budgetary times," the authors wrote.
Instead, according to the report, incentives can be viewed as a logical means of transferring value from the public - which is enjoying solar's $0.15/kWh to $0.40/kWh benefits - to those who invested in the solar plants creating those benefits.
Where did the public-benefit dollar figure come from? What are these benefits, exactly? The report breaks down solar power's public value into the following nine accrued benefits (based on an analysis of relatively non-sunny New York City):
1. Savings on wholesale energy ($0.06-$0.11/kWh, of the total $0.15/kWh-$0.40/kWh). Locally generated electricity from solar installations reduces the amount of power utilities must purchase at higher prices on the wholesale market.
2. Reduction of demand-response expenses ($0.00-$0.05/kWh). "PV installations can deliver the equivalent of capacity, displacing the need to purchase this capacity elsewhere, e.g., via demand response," the report explains.
3. Savings on energy losses within the distribution system ($0.00-$0.01/kWh). Electrical losses typically incurred when energy is moved from large power plants to local loads can be avoided with distributed solar plants sited close to the load.
4. Reduced need for feeder equipment upgrades ($0.00-$0.03/kWh). Because distributed PV can deliver capacity at the feeder level, it can reduce the wear and tear on transformers and other feeder equipment.
5. Hedge against fuel-price spikes ($0.02-$0.03/kWh). "Solar energy does not depend on commodities whose prices fluctuate on short-term scales and will likely escalate substantially over the long term," the report says.
6. Grid security aid ($0.03-$0.06/kWh). Solar power's ability to closely mirror peak power demand can help reduce the chances of blackouts that can occur when the existing power system is overly stressed. Power outages currently cost the U.S. economy approximately $100 billion annually, according to the report.
7. Health-related and environmental gains ($0.03-$0.06/kWh). The deployment of solar power displaces the greenhouse gas emissions, mining-related consequences, water contamination, and other environmental- and health-related damages associated with fossil fuels. The $0.03-$0.06/kWh figure cited is "certainly a conservative range," the report adds.
8. Long-term taxpayer benefits from reduced fuel-price volatility ($0.03-$0.04/kWh). Using an estimate of a 150% rise in fuel-based generation costs by 2036 (deemed a conservative estimate), the report found that the "insurance hedge" of solar generation contributes a significant long-term value (in addition to the short-term fuel-price hedge value mentioned earlier).
9. Economic boost. The job-creation benefits of solar power have been demonstrated in numerous studies. Moreover, "Job creation implies value to society in many ways, including increased tax revenues, reduced unemployment and an increase in general confidence conducive to business development," the report explains.
Photo credit: U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Copyright © 2000-2011 SolarIndustryMag.com
( http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.8418 )
Jessica Lillian, Monday 01 August 2011 - 21:59:43
Even as the costs of solar power continue to decline, a widespread perception from the public and many policymakers that solar is "too expensive" remains stubbornly in place - much to the frustration of advocates and industry professionals.
A new study challenges this assumption by delving into the numbers to compare the actual costs and benefits of solar power projects. The results confirm several key widespread public benefits of solar power and could provide the industry with a valuable weapon in the public-perception fight - a battle that remains crucial for long-term viability and growth.
The report, authored by Richard Perez at the University of Albany, Ken Zweibel at the GW Solar Institute and Thomas E. Hoff of Clean Power Research, focuses on tangible benefits that solar power generation delivers to utilities, ratepayers and taxpayers.
"It is clear that some possibly large value of solar energy is missed by traditional analysis," the report says.
Notably, these advantages apply to a wide population, thus providing a rebuttal to the "what's in it for me?" argument. Many other well-known recent studies on solar power's benefits focus on real - but not public - benefits. For instance, the average taxpayer may not care that his neighbor's rooftop PV array has raised that home's value or that the solar sector has created jobs for other people.
The new study, titled "Solar Power Generation in the U.S.: Too expensive or a bargain?," finds that, in all, solar PV installations deliver $0.15/kWh to $0.40/kWh to ratepayers and taxpayers.
Although incentives have proven to be a vital driver of solar power growth, the report's authors argue that the gulf between "inexpensive" conventional energy and "expensive" solar is smaller than often portrayed, especially when solar's public benefits are taken into account.
"This large apparent 'grid-parity gap' can hinder constructive dialogue with key decision makers and constitutes a powerful argument to weaken political support for solar incentives, especially during tight budgetary times," the authors wrote.
Instead, according to the report, incentives can be viewed as a logical means of transferring value from the public - which is enjoying solar's $0.15/kWh to $0.40/kWh benefits - to those who invested in the solar plants creating those benefits.
Where did the public-benefit dollar figure come from? What are these benefits, exactly? The report breaks down solar power's public value into the following nine accrued benefits (based on an analysis of relatively non-sunny New York City):
1. Savings on wholesale energy ($0.06-$0.11/kWh, of the total $0.15/kWh-$0.40/kWh). Locally generated electricity from solar installations reduces the amount of power utilities must purchase at higher prices on the wholesale market.
2. Reduction of demand-response expenses ($0.00-$0.05/kWh). "PV installations can deliver the equivalent of capacity, displacing the need to purchase this capacity elsewhere, e.g., via demand response," the report explains.
3. Savings on energy losses within the distribution system ($0.00-$0.01/kWh). Electrical losses typically incurred when energy is moved from large power plants to local loads can be avoided with distributed solar plants sited close to the load.
4. Reduced need for feeder equipment upgrades ($0.00-$0.03/kWh). Because distributed PV can deliver capacity at the feeder level, it can reduce the wear and tear on transformers and other feeder equipment.
5. Hedge against fuel-price spikes ($0.02-$0.03/kWh). "Solar energy does not depend on commodities whose prices fluctuate on short-term scales and will likely escalate substantially over the long term," the report says.
6. Grid security aid ($0.03-$0.06/kWh). Solar power's ability to closely mirror peak power demand can help reduce the chances of blackouts that can occur when the existing power system is overly stressed. Power outages currently cost the U.S. economy approximately $100 billion annually, according to the report.
7. Health-related and environmental gains ($0.03-$0.06/kWh). The deployment of solar power displaces the greenhouse gas emissions, mining-related consequences, water contamination, and other environmental- and health-related damages associated with fossil fuels. The $0.03-$0.06/kWh figure cited is "certainly a conservative range," the report adds.
8. Long-term taxpayer benefits from reduced fuel-price volatility ($0.03-$0.04/kWh). Using an estimate of a 150% rise in fuel-based generation costs by 2036 (deemed a conservative estimate), the report found that the "insurance hedge" of solar generation contributes a significant long-term value (in addition to the short-term fuel-price hedge value mentioned earlier).
9. Economic boost. The job-creation benefits of solar power have been demonstrated in numerous studies. Moreover, "Job creation implies value to society in many ways, including increased tax revenues, reduced unemployment and an increase in general confidence conducive to business development," the report explains.
Photo credit: U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Copyright © 2000-2011 SolarIndustryMag.com
( http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.8418 )
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Innterview with Ron Binz
By: Rebecca Cantwell
Many people think of utility regulation as an arcane and dull realm. But things were pretty lively when Ron Binz served as chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission from 2007 until April 2011. He led the Colorado PUC in implementing the many policy changes championed by Gov. Bill Ritter and the legislature to bring forward Colorado’s “New Energy Economy.” Binz talked with Smart Energy Living shortly after leaving his post as chief utility regulator.
Q. You presided over big changes in state policy. What do you feel best about?
A. It would be hard not to say that at the top was our implementation of the Clean Air Clean Jobs act. It was a legislative directive for the Commission, in one fell swoop, to clean up the coal emissions of Xcel and Black Hills. Typically plants are cleaned up in onesies and twosies. This was a comprehensive look at the whole coal fleet and was probably alone in the nation to treat it at one time in terms of hazardous pollutants and carbon emissions. It was a huge case with 34 legal parties and hearings that went on for several weeks.
Q. What will it mean for the average Coloradan, good and bad? For example, it will increase rates, correct?
A. Rates will increase between now and 2020 no matter what. We estimate our decision to retire old coal plants and replace them with new natural gas plants will result in rates that will be only about 3 percent higher. It’s an impact, but the benefits in reduced smog and reduced particulates that, for example, create haze in natural parks, are all desirable. We built in a hedge against future carbon regulation when we switched from coal to a fuel that causes less carbon emissions.
Q. When will we see some results?
A. The commission order of December 15, 2010 specifies what will happen to a bunch of power plants. Nothing happens until next year when the first closures happen. Closures and conversions of coal plants will happen through the end of 2017. Familiar icons like the Cherokee coal plant in the northern metro area that is now emitting steam all winter will be converted to natural gas. By doing that, we will cut one of the largest sources of hazardous air pollution in the Denver area.
Q. What does the fact that this was so difficult and unusual say about the way utilities are structured and regulated?
A. Utilities going forward will have to be different kinds of businesses. This case showed us how much more nimble utilities will need to be. We were responding to an EPA requirement to clean up carbon. I’m proud we could show that a state could move quickly to implement something like this and, with the cooperation of the utility, achieve a good result.
Q. You came in for a lot of criticism along the way though.
The criticism I took was for being involved in legislative process in shaping the bill so that it would be good for consumers. I did that at the request of the governor, who knew the commission had expertise in rates. My involvement was not in the beginning but at end of it when most components had been agreed to. The opponents to the legislation were trying to upset the process any way they could and they settled on criticizing me for getting involved in the legislation. In my experience, the involvement of a chairman is usual, not unusual.
Q. One of the conundrums of recent energy policy is that to achieve energy efficiency, you are trying to get utilities to sell less of the product they make money selling. What do you think works?
A. Beginning in 2007, we moved in a direction toward a more aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency for the utilities. We required twice as much efficiency – twice as much kilowatt savings or energy not used –as the law required.
We adopted aggressive goals in 2008 when we made that decision. Xcel and Black Hills and all the gas companies began to develop energy efficiency programs within the utility, like rebates for air conditioners and refrigerators and a whole bevy of programs. The theory is that the energy saved by the utility is less expensive than building plants to create that energy.
That policy chugged along for a couple years and then in the fall of 2010 , we encouraged Xcel to increase energy savings by an additional 30 percent. We told them, “ You’ve been doing good --now let’s have more of a stretch goal.” Xcel preferred a slower growth pace. Their proposal was to increase by 8 percent over what they had been doing. But the commission basically agreed with the push goal of a 30 percent increase in efficiency.
Q. What do they get out of the deal?
A. If Xcel achieves these goals, it is rewarded handsomely. They get their costs recovered quickly and a bonus on top. That treatment is designed to counteract the built-in disincentive of not wanting to save electricity because the company is in the business of selling electricity. We try to change the benefit-cost equation by making energy efficiency the most profitable thing they can do.
Now Colorado is in middle of pack nationally on energy efficiency. I hope the commission continues to push this. It does make so much sense to use the utility to pursue energy efficiency.
Q. Where do you see utility regulation heading?
A. I think regulation needs to continue evolving. The model of regulators simply deciding the rates, that is probably soon to be displaced by something different. We can look at experiences of price cap regulation where you set a cap and let the utility do what it needs with its costs and investments to stay below the cap. You set a price and let them decide what they need to do. This model has been shown to produce more efficient results. We need a mode of regulation where the focus is on the price to customers.
Q. What impact will the trend toward individuals and communities owning their own sources of power have on utilities?
A. That is beginning to happen and will mushroom – the homeowner-provided solar panels and the wind tower on commercial property. Those are instances where customers are putting in production equipment or leasing it. That will cause the utility to lose load and lose customers and they don’t like that. The more of that that happens, the more pressure on the utility. As a general matter, I think we will see the utilities move into the business of providing rooftop solar systems.
Q. Since the utilities are monopolies, will they drive others out?
A. As long as regulators don’t let utilities use their monopoly status, the competing firms should be able to get along. It has worked in telecom. Generally the new players have done very well, and we can imagine something similar in electric power. But more generally, the pressure from distributed generation, or community power, is a good thing and will keep pressure on the utilities to do a better job.
Q. Colorado came a long way on renewable energy under your tenure. How would you characterize the transformation?
A. Renewable energy is now really woven into the fabric of Colorado. When you flip on a light switch, one kilowatt hour out of seven is produced by renewable energy and we are heading to one out of three, and at a cost that is acceptable. Customer bills went up but not a lot and polling shows customers are happy to have renewable energy in the mix. We moved from a “least cost’’ strategy to one that realizes the environmental effects of what we do and makes it a greater component of decision making. And this happened with the “greening’’ of Xcel Energy. The same company that opposed the Colorado Green wind project in 2003 was the leading wind provider in the U.S. by 2010. So it’s been a happy coincidence of regulators, the governor, legislators and the utility who saw the business sense in that. Colorado is a beacon for how you can move steadily and strongly towards renewable energy.
In addition to his work leading Colorado’s utility regulation, Binz was also an active member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, serving as Chair of NARUC’s Task Force on Climate Policy, and as a member of both the Energy Resources and Environment Committee and the International Affairs Committee. Binz now heads Public Policy Consulting (www.rbinz.com).
Many people think of utility regulation as an arcane and dull realm. But things were pretty lively when Ron Binz served as chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission from 2007 until April 2011. He led the Colorado PUC in implementing the many policy changes championed by Gov. Bill Ritter and the legislature to bring forward Colorado’s “New Energy Economy.” Binz talked with Smart Energy Living shortly after leaving his post as chief utility regulator.
Q. You presided over big changes in state policy. What do you feel best about?
A. It would be hard not to say that at the top was our implementation of the Clean Air Clean Jobs act. It was a legislative directive for the Commission, in one fell swoop, to clean up the coal emissions of Xcel and Black Hills. Typically plants are cleaned up in onesies and twosies. This was a comprehensive look at the whole coal fleet and was probably alone in the nation to treat it at one time in terms of hazardous pollutants and carbon emissions. It was a huge case with 34 legal parties and hearings that went on for several weeks.
Q. What will it mean for the average Coloradan, good and bad? For example, it will increase rates, correct?
A. Rates will increase between now and 2020 no matter what. We estimate our decision to retire old coal plants and replace them with new natural gas plants will result in rates that will be only about 3 percent higher. It’s an impact, but the benefits in reduced smog and reduced particulates that, for example, create haze in natural parks, are all desirable. We built in a hedge against future carbon regulation when we switched from coal to a fuel that causes less carbon emissions.
Q. When will we see some results?
A. The commission order of December 15, 2010 specifies what will happen to a bunch of power plants. Nothing happens until next year when the first closures happen. Closures and conversions of coal plants will happen through the end of 2017. Familiar icons like the Cherokee coal plant in the northern metro area that is now emitting steam all winter will be converted to natural gas. By doing that, we will cut one of the largest sources of hazardous air pollution in the Denver area.
Q. What does the fact that this was so difficult and unusual say about the way utilities are structured and regulated?
A. Utilities going forward will have to be different kinds of businesses. This case showed us how much more nimble utilities will need to be. We were responding to an EPA requirement to clean up carbon. I’m proud we could show that a state could move quickly to implement something like this and, with the cooperation of the utility, achieve a good result.
Q. You came in for a lot of criticism along the way though.
The criticism I took was for being involved in legislative process in shaping the bill so that it would be good for consumers. I did that at the request of the governor, who knew the commission had expertise in rates. My involvement was not in the beginning but at end of it when most components had been agreed to. The opponents to the legislation were trying to upset the process any way they could and they settled on criticizing me for getting involved in the legislation. In my experience, the involvement of a chairman is usual, not unusual.
Q. One of the conundrums of recent energy policy is that to achieve energy efficiency, you are trying to get utilities to sell less of the product they make money selling. What do you think works?
A. Beginning in 2007, we moved in a direction toward a more aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency for the utilities. We required twice as much efficiency – twice as much kilowatt savings or energy not used –as the law required.
We adopted aggressive goals in 2008 when we made that decision. Xcel and Black Hills and all the gas companies began to develop energy efficiency programs within the utility, like rebates for air conditioners and refrigerators and a whole bevy of programs. The theory is that the energy saved by the utility is less expensive than building plants to create that energy.
That policy chugged along for a couple years and then in the fall of 2010 , we encouraged Xcel to increase energy savings by an additional 30 percent. We told them, “ You’ve been doing good --now let’s have more of a stretch goal.” Xcel preferred a slower growth pace. Their proposal was to increase by 8 percent over what they had been doing. But the commission basically agreed with the push goal of a 30 percent increase in efficiency.
Q. What do they get out of the deal?
A. If Xcel achieves these goals, it is rewarded handsomely. They get their costs recovered quickly and a bonus on top. That treatment is designed to counteract the built-in disincentive of not wanting to save electricity because the company is in the business of selling electricity. We try to change the benefit-cost equation by making energy efficiency the most profitable thing they can do.
Now Colorado is in middle of pack nationally on energy efficiency. I hope the commission continues to push this. It does make so much sense to use the utility to pursue energy efficiency.
Q. Where do you see utility regulation heading?
A. I think regulation needs to continue evolving. The model of regulators simply deciding the rates, that is probably soon to be displaced by something different. We can look at experiences of price cap regulation where you set a cap and let the utility do what it needs with its costs and investments to stay below the cap. You set a price and let them decide what they need to do. This model has been shown to produce more efficient results. We need a mode of regulation where the focus is on the price to customers.
Q. What impact will the trend toward individuals and communities owning their own sources of power have on utilities?
A. That is beginning to happen and will mushroom – the homeowner-provided solar panels and the wind tower on commercial property. Those are instances where customers are putting in production equipment or leasing it. That will cause the utility to lose load and lose customers and they don’t like that. The more of that that happens, the more pressure on the utility. As a general matter, I think we will see the utilities move into the business of providing rooftop solar systems.
Q. Since the utilities are monopolies, will they drive others out?
A. As long as regulators don’t let utilities use their monopoly status, the competing firms should be able to get along. It has worked in telecom. Generally the new players have done very well, and we can imagine something similar in electric power. But more generally, the pressure from distributed generation, or community power, is a good thing and will keep pressure on the utilities to do a better job.
Q. Colorado came a long way on renewable energy under your tenure. How would you characterize the transformation?
A. Renewable energy is now really woven into the fabric of Colorado. When you flip on a light switch, one kilowatt hour out of seven is produced by renewable energy and we are heading to one out of three, and at a cost that is acceptable. Customer bills went up but not a lot and polling shows customers are happy to have renewable energy in the mix. We moved from a “least cost’’ strategy to one that realizes the environmental effects of what we do and makes it a greater component of decision making. And this happened with the “greening’’ of Xcel Energy. The same company that opposed the Colorado Green wind project in 2003 was the leading wind provider in the U.S. by 2010. So it’s been a happy coincidence of regulators, the governor, legislators and the utility who saw the business sense in that. Colorado is a beacon for how you can move steadily and strongly towards renewable energy.
In addition to his work leading Colorado’s utility regulation, Binz was also an active member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, serving as Chair of NARUC’s Task Force on Climate Policy, and as a member of both the Energy Resources and Environment Committee and the International Affairs Committee. Binz now heads Public Policy Consulting (www.rbinz.com).
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The myths of solar debunked: Part 2
The myths of solar debunked: Part 2
JULY, 14 2011
HEIDI IHRKE
HIGH NOON SOLAR
569 S. WESTGATE DR. #4
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
970-241-0209
WWW.HIGHNOONSOLAR.COM
The myths on solar continue being refuted this week in part 2 of a 3-part series. Our next article will focus specifically on financial myths associated with solar.
MYTH #1 Solar needs to be installed at a weird angle on my roof.
This myth, once again, had some past truth to it but isn't relevant for most of today's installations. Solar hot water panels were usually installed at a 54-degree angle to optimize winter solar gain, when the sun is low in the sky. This is because solar hot water panels cannot store heat on an annual basis, just on a daily basis, so the angle is put at the one required for winter heating, a high angle and one that required the panels being lifted away from the roof.
Solar electric panels work in a much different way since the utility grid can store excess power generated. The optimum angle for solar electric panels, on an annual basis in Grand Junction, is 30-39 degrees, depending on your information source. However, installing panels flush to the roof (the most common roof angle around the Grand Valley is about 20 degrees) only loses 4% production annually. This can be accounted for when designing the system, leaving the end product working as expected and not looking like an eyesore.
MYTH #2 Solar has to be installed facing south.
This one may get an initial rising of eyebrows from the “solar purists,” but it relates strongly to the last myth.
First, due to declination in Colorado, the perfect orientation for solar panels is actually right around 10 degrees east of south. That aside, many people don't have south facing roofs or, if they do, they may be very shaded. Should these people just get disqualified from solar or get a system that is lifted at a strange angle to the roof? Of course not.
Solar can be mounted to the east, southeast, south, southwest or west roofs. Efficiency loss to mount a system directly east-facing versus south is around 14%; for west the loss is 18%. A good designer will simply make up for this by adding another panel or two to the array that, ultimately, will allow the system to produce the same amount of annual power as the south-facing solar system.
MYTH #3 The power that goes into manufacturing a solar electric panel never actually gets made up by the energy it, in turn, produces.
This one is easy because there are a lot of studies on the subject. The term we are talking about here is Energy Payback Time (EPBT) or how long it takes for a solar panel to make more electricity than what went into creating it.
This term is used in all energy production techniques and is something that gets reviewed heavily by investors and developers for technologies such as oil shale. If you have to use more energy to get a product than that product then makes, why do it? Each solar panel has a different EPBT, due to different techniques in manufacturing, but for SunPower high efficiency 72 cell modules, the payback is 1.4- 3.8 years, depending on global location of installation.
MYTH #4 Climate change isn't real.
OK, this one isn't a specific solar myth but being active in the renewable energy field means I should address it nonetheless.
Perhaps it will mean a letter to the editor from someone who has learned “facts” from individuals paid by the industries dependent on folks believing global warming is a hoax to keep their bottom line secured, but that's the way that goes.
You think we would have learned a thing or two when this happened 50 years ago with tobacco companies after data revealed a link between smoking and lung disease. The tobacco industry just hired actors that were dressed up as doctors who gave advice that the reports were false. Nothing to see here; keep smoking away.
Ninety-eight percent (yes, that many) of climate scientists throughout the world have reached consensus that global climate change is happening. When 98% of medical doctors tell me not to do something because it will kill me, I listen to them. They are the experts, not the actors dressed up like them.
Nine of the 10 hottest years in history have occurred in the last 13 years. Watch the evening news to get regular updates on this situation, including all the “freak” numbers of tornadoes, mega-floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes. The Arctic ice cap reached its record low volume last year. Climate change is real and, as Al Gore puts it: “Wishful thinking and denial lead to dead ends.”
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110715/COLUMNISTS/110719992/1068&parentprofile=1059&template=printart
JULY, 14 2011
HEIDI IHRKE
HIGH NOON SOLAR
569 S. WESTGATE DR. #4
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
970-241-0209
WWW.HIGHNOONSOLAR.COM
The myths on solar continue being refuted this week in part 2 of a 3-part series. Our next article will focus specifically on financial myths associated with solar.
MYTH #1 Solar needs to be installed at a weird angle on my roof.
This myth, once again, had some past truth to it but isn't relevant for most of today's installations. Solar hot water panels were usually installed at a 54-degree angle to optimize winter solar gain, when the sun is low in the sky. This is because solar hot water panels cannot store heat on an annual basis, just on a daily basis, so the angle is put at the one required for winter heating, a high angle and one that required the panels being lifted away from the roof.
Solar electric panels work in a much different way since the utility grid can store excess power generated. The optimum angle for solar electric panels, on an annual basis in Grand Junction, is 30-39 degrees, depending on your information source. However, installing panels flush to the roof (the most common roof angle around the Grand Valley is about 20 degrees) only loses 4% production annually. This can be accounted for when designing the system, leaving the end product working as expected and not looking like an eyesore.
MYTH #2 Solar has to be installed facing south.
This one may get an initial rising of eyebrows from the “solar purists,” but it relates strongly to the last myth.
First, due to declination in Colorado, the perfect orientation for solar panels is actually right around 10 degrees east of south. That aside, many people don't have south facing roofs or, if they do, they may be very shaded. Should these people just get disqualified from solar or get a system that is lifted at a strange angle to the roof? Of course not.
Solar can be mounted to the east, southeast, south, southwest or west roofs. Efficiency loss to mount a system directly east-facing versus south is around 14%; for west the loss is 18%. A good designer will simply make up for this by adding another panel or two to the array that, ultimately, will allow the system to produce the same amount of annual power as the south-facing solar system.
MYTH #3 The power that goes into manufacturing a solar electric panel never actually gets made up by the energy it, in turn, produces.
This one is easy because there are a lot of studies on the subject. The term we are talking about here is Energy Payback Time (EPBT) or how long it takes for a solar panel to make more electricity than what went into creating it.
This term is used in all energy production techniques and is something that gets reviewed heavily by investors and developers for technologies such as oil shale. If you have to use more energy to get a product than that product then makes, why do it? Each solar panel has a different EPBT, due to different techniques in manufacturing, but for SunPower high efficiency 72 cell modules, the payback is 1.4- 3.8 years, depending on global location of installation.
MYTH #4 Climate change isn't real.
OK, this one isn't a specific solar myth but being active in the renewable energy field means I should address it nonetheless.
Perhaps it will mean a letter to the editor from someone who has learned “facts” from individuals paid by the industries dependent on folks believing global warming is a hoax to keep their bottom line secured, but that's the way that goes.
You think we would have learned a thing or two when this happened 50 years ago with tobacco companies after data revealed a link between smoking and lung disease. The tobacco industry just hired actors that were dressed up as doctors who gave advice that the reports were false. Nothing to see here; keep smoking away.
Ninety-eight percent (yes, that many) of climate scientists throughout the world have reached consensus that global climate change is happening. When 98% of medical doctors tell me not to do something because it will kill me, I listen to them. They are the experts, not the actors dressed up like them.
Nine of the 10 hottest years in history have occurred in the last 13 years. Watch the evening news to get regular updates on this situation, including all the “freak” numbers of tornadoes, mega-floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes. The Arctic ice cap reached its record low volume last year. Climate change is real and, as Al Gore puts it: “Wishful thinking and denial lead to dead ends.”
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110715/COLUMNISTS/110719992/1068&parentprofile=1059&template=printart
The myths of solar debunked: Part 1
The myths of solar debunked: Part 1
JULY, 7 2011
HEIDI IHRKE
HIGH NOON SOLAR
569 S. WESTGATE DR. #4
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
WWW.HIGHNOONSOLAR.COM
970-241-0209
There are a lot of myths that surround the solar industry. Part of this is because it is a variable technology that has been used to power everything from construction warning signs to space stations to Walmart. Plus, the industry has a long history surrounding tax incentives, rebates, feed in tariffs and, sometimes, the lack of all of these. Today, I hope to put some of the myths surrounding solar to rest.
MYTH #1 You need to have batteries if you want a solar system.
This one used to be true, back in the day, so its no wonder people still hold it as fact. That said, it is still a myth with today's solar applications. Cabins, boats, RVs and the like used to be the main reason people got a solar system. Wherever utility lines didn't run but power was needed, solar was the solution. These battery systems are called ‘off grid' applications. Solar panels charge batteries and you have power for cloudy days and nighttime. They are still relevant systems, as long as grid power isn't currently available. However, if your home or business is already getting power from ‘the grid,' you don't need to go ‘off grid' to reap the rewards of solar. Solar systems with the utility grid already in place is called ‘grid tie.' Grid tie uses no batteries. None. Solar produces electricity that's used in the home and, if it's more than what the home needs, it turns the utility meter backwards. This excess power gets saved in the utility grid for rainy days and nights, when solar doesn't produce. After a year of this give and take, putting extra solar into the grid, then taking it back out when you need it, can produce a year -end electricity usage from the power company of zero.
MYTH #2 It has to be a perfectly clear day for solar to work.
Solar panels certainly work better when its sunny out but they also work better when it's cold out, just like any electronics. The prime condition for a solar panel to perform in is a cold, sunny, winter day in the high elevations. You can't get much better than that. That said, we have 3 other seasons and many places where solar is installed that is at sea level and maybe doesn't ever see winter. Solar panels produce power even in lower light conditions, such as cloudy weather and early morning. Some panels are actually designed to work better in these hot or low-light conditions, such as the SunPower brand solar panels, which incorporates a patented design called Maxeon Technology. This technology translates as less efficiency lost every day due to heat or cloudy conditions, meaning more power actually gets made using the same size panel as a comparable, less efficient model. The high heat situation is especially important for Grand Junction applications, where the summer days are long and hot.
MYTH #3 Solar could never work in a place like Minnesota.
First, review the last myth we just talked about. Second, Germany has the same solar radiation access as Alaska but has installed more solar than all of the United States. In Minnesota, the design simply incorporates more ways to shed snow and higher tilt angle due to latitude. Otherwise, it cranks away nicely there.
MYTH #4 Solar is ugly.
I could make the argument here that gas wells and coal mining looks ugly too, it's just not found in your backyard as often. However, I agree that a lot of solar systems that used to be installed and, unfortunately, still do get installed by some contractors, certainly do look ugly. This is the fault of the contractor rather than the product, though. Solar panels can easily be flush mounted to east, south or west roofs (south being the most efficient) and don't have to be picked up at funny angles to work. Solar can even be used in dual purpose applications, such as a carport (you may have seen FCI Constructor's new solar carport on I-70B Loop recently) or as an awning. Some solar panels, such as SunPower panels, are all black to be more aesthetically pleasing and easier to integrate with roofs.
MYTH #5 Some Homeowners Associations (HOAs) don't allow solar.
Colorado's solar access laws, which date back to 1979, prohibit any residential covenants that restrict solar access. HB 1270 of 2008 extended the law to protect installations of wind turbines that meet the state's interconnection standards, and certain energy-efficiency measures including awnings, shutters and other shade structures, garage fans, energy-efficient outdoor lighting, retractable clotheslines, and evaporative coolers. Some exceptions are made to allow for aesthetic requirements that do not significantly increase the cost of the device or decrease its performance.
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110707/COLUMNISTS/110709998&template=printart
JULY, 7 2011
HEIDI IHRKE
HIGH NOON SOLAR
569 S. WESTGATE DR. #4
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
WWW.HIGHNOONSOLAR.COM
970-241-0209
There are a lot of myths that surround the solar industry. Part of this is because it is a variable technology that has been used to power everything from construction warning signs to space stations to Walmart. Plus, the industry has a long history surrounding tax incentives, rebates, feed in tariffs and, sometimes, the lack of all of these. Today, I hope to put some of the myths surrounding solar to rest.
MYTH #1 You need to have batteries if you want a solar system.
This one used to be true, back in the day, so its no wonder people still hold it as fact. That said, it is still a myth with today's solar applications. Cabins, boats, RVs and the like used to be the main reason people got a solar system. Wherever utility lines didn't run but power was needed, solar was the solution. These battery systems are called ‘off grid' applications. Solar panels charge batteries and you have power for cloudy days and nighttime. They are still relevant systems, as long as grid power isn't currently available. However, if your home or business is already getting power from ‘the grid,' you don't need to go ‘off grid' to reap the rewards of solar. Solar systems with the utility grid already in place is called ‘grid tie.' Grid tie uses no batteries. None. Solar produces electricity that's used in the home and, if it's more than what the home needs, it turns the utility meter backwards. This excess power gets saved in the utility grid for rainy days and nights, when solar doesn't produce. After a year of this give and take, putting extra solar into the grid, then taking it back out when you need it, can produce a year -end electricity usage from the power company of zero.
MYTH #2 It has to be a perfectly clear day for solar to work.
Solar panels certainly work better when its sunny out but they also work better when it's cold out, just like any electronics. The prime condition for a solar panel to perform in is a cold, sunny, winter day in the high elevations. You can't get much better than that. That said, we have 3 other seasons and many places where solar is installed that is at sea level and maybe doesn't ever see winter. Solar panels produce power even in lower light conditions, such as cloudy weather and early morning. Some panels are actually designed to work better in these hot or low-light conditions, such as the SunPower brand solar panels, which incorporates a patented design called Maxeon Technology. This technology translates as less efficiency lost every day due to heat or cloudy conditions, meaning more power actually gets made using the same size panel as a comparable, less efficient model. The high heat situation is especially important for Grand Junction applications, where the summer days are long and hot.
MYTH #3 Solar could never work in a place like Minnesota.
First, review the last myth we just talked about. Second, Germany has the same solar radiation access as Alaska but has installed more solar than all of the United States. In Minnesota, the design simply incorporates more ways to shed snow and higher tilt angle due to latitude. Otherwise, it cranks away nicely there.
MYTH #4 Solar is ugly.
I could make the argument here that gas wells and coal mining looks ugly too, it's just not found in your backyard as often. However, I agree that a lot of solar systems that used to be installed and, unfortunately, still do get installed by some contractors, certainly do look ugly. This is the fault of the contractor rather than the product, though. Solar panels can easily be flush mounted to east, south or west roofs (south being the most efficient) and don't have to be picked up at funny angles to work. Solar can even be used in dual purpose applications, such as a carport (you may have seen FCI Constructor's new solar carport on I-70B Loop recently) or as an awning. Some solar panels, such as SunPower panels, are all black to be more aesthetically pleasing and easier to integrate with roofs.
MYTH #5 Some Homeowners Associations (HOAs) don't allow solar.
Colorado's solar access laws, which date back to 1979, prohibit any residential covenants that restrict solar access. HB 1270 of 2008 extended the law to protect installations of wind turbines that meet the state's interconnection standards, and certain energy-efficiency measures including awnings, shutters and other shade structures, garage fans, energy-efficient outdoor lighting, retractable clotheslines, and evaporative coolers. Some exceptions are made to allow for aesthetic requirements that do not significantly increase the cost of the device or decrease its performance.
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110707/COLUMNISTS/110709998&template=printart
Monday, July 11, 2011
Spreading the word in Mesa County about energy efficiency
A team of 11 AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps members recently began a five-week service project in Mesa County to support a partnership between public and private entities dedicated to energy efficiency.
The AmeriCorps NCCC team will be canvassing neighborhoods, talking with residents at farmers' markets, and introducing new energy efficiency services to business owners throughout the county.
Their goal is to promote the Grand Valley Energy Alliance's “Red Door Challenge” program that gives residents opportunities to save 25% or more on their home utility bills.
The Grand Valley Energy Alliance is made up of local jurisdictions, utility companies, and other public and private organizations.
Once residents have signed up, the local utility company, Xcel Energy, will work with its partners Lightly Treading, Frost Busters and Coolth, as well as Energy Wise, to implement energy audits that point out ways homeowners can take action.
Common issues include improving ventilation, sealing and insulating, and improving lighting and windows. These audits, valued between $300 and $450, are being offered for a reduced price through rebates and stimulus money, or could even be free for low-income qualifying homes, courtesy of Housing Resources of Western Colorado.
The AmeriCorps team will also be promoting energy efficiency services offered through the “GreenBack$” program, a collaboration of the GJ Chamber of Commerce, the Palisade Chamber and the Fruita Chamber. The program is designed to encourage Mesa County businesses to make decisions that save them money and resources.
“The work that this enthusiastic team is doing will be invaluable to our local efforts to be more energy efficient,” said Kathy Portner, neighborhood services manager for the City of Grand Junction, one of the project sponsors.
Information about the residential program is located online at www.reddoorchallenge.com and information about the business program can be found at www.greenbacksproject.com.
— Free Press Staff Report
The AmeriCorps NCCC team will be canvassing neighborhoods, talking with residents at farmers' markets, and introducing new energy efficiency services to business owners throughout the county.
Their goal is to promote the Grand Valley Energy Alliance's “Red Door Challenge” program that gives residents opportunities to save 25% or more on their home utility bills.
The Grand Valley Energy Alliance is made up of local jurisdictions, utility companies, and other public and private organizations.
Once residents have signed up, the local utility company, Xcel Energy, will work with its partners Lightly Treading, Frost Busters and Coolth, as well as Energy Wise, to implement energy audits that point out ways homeowners can take action.
Common issues include improving ventilation, sealing and insulating, and improving lighting and windows. These audits, valued between $300 and $450, are being offered for a reduced price through rebates and stimulus money, or could even be free for low-income qualifying homes, courtesy of Housing Resources of Western Colorado.
The AmeriCorps team will also be promoting energy efficiency services offered through the “GreenBack$” program, a collaboration of the GJ Chamber of Commerce, the Palisade Chamber and the Fruita Chamber. The program is designed to encourage Mesa County businesses to make decisions that save them money and resources.
“The work that this enthusiastic team is doing will be invaluable to our local efforts to be more energy efficient,” said Kathy Portner, neighborhood services manager for the City of Grand Junction, one of the project sponsors.
Information about the residential program is located online at www.reddoorchallenge.com and information about the business program can be found at www.greenbacksproject.com.
— Free Press Staff Report
Thursday, July 7, 2011
U.S. solar installations up 22 percent in 2010 over 2009
U.S. solar installations up 22 percent in 2010 over 2009
Chris Meehan CleanEnergyAuthority.com
JUL 07, 2011
A newly released report from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) found that the there were 124,000 solar installations—including photovoltaics (PVs), concentrating solar power and solar thermal—in the U.S. in 2010. That’s an increase of 22 percent over 2009. And 2011 is likely to beat that.
Each of the leading states grew their solar installation significantly as well, according to the IREC report, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2010.
“The amount of PV capacity installed in Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Texas installed in 2010 was at least double the capacity installed in each state in 2009,” the report said. “California remains the largest U.S. market, with about 28 percent of the U.S. installed capacity completed in 2010. However, this is a significant drop in market share from the 49 percent recorded in 2009.”
New Jersey and California are likely to remain the top two states in terms of solar installations, said report author Larry Sherwood. IREC has been producing the report for four years now and monitoring the data for longer, he said.
Among the trends Sherwood saw for 2010 was significant adoption by utilities.
“I think the biggest change in 2010 is the growth in the utility-sector installations, which were pretty much non-existent five years ago,” he said. “I would say it’s likely to become the largest sector.”
However, Sherwood doesn’t expect growth in the utility sector to totally dominate the other solar markets, residential and commercial.
Although the federal incentives have helped spread the adoption of solar throughout the country, local solar incentives and rebates are also important to growing the solar industry, according to Sherwood.
“By where the installations are happening, you can see that they’re an important part of the package,” he said.
Looking forward, the growth trends are expected to continue in 2011, particularly in the utility sector, according to the report.
“Costs are going down and the supply of modules is pretty strong, so I think you’re going to see the prices continue to go down,” Sherwood said.
He also anticipates that the other costs related to solar, the soft costs, will come down, just not as quickly as the drop in module cost prices.
Pictured: Annual Installed Grid-Connected PV Capacity by Sector (2001-2010).
Chris Meehan CleanEnergyAuthority.com
JUL 07, 2011
A newly released report from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) found that the there were 124,000 solar installations—including photovoltaics (PVs), concentrating solar power and solar thermal—in the U.S. in 2010. That’s an increase of 22 percent over 2009. And 2011 is likely to beat that.
Each of the leading states grew their solar installation significantly as well, according to the IREC report, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2010.
“The amount of PV capacity installed in Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Texas installed in 2010 was at least double the capacity installed in each state in 2009,” the report said. “California remains the largest U.S. market, with about 28 percent of the U.S. installed capacity completed in 2010. However, this is a significant drop in market share from the 49 percent recorded in 2009.”
New Jersey and California are likely to remain the top two states in terms of solar installations, said report author Larry Sherwood. IREC has been producing the report for four years now and monitoring the data for longer, he said.
Among the trends Sherwood saw for 2010 was significant adoption by utilities.
“I think the biggest change in 2010 is the growth in the utility-sector installations, which were pretty much non-existent five years ago,” he said. “I would say it’s likely to become the largest sector.”
However, Sherwood doesn’t expect growth in the utility sector to totally dominate the other solar markets, residential and commercial.
Although the federal incentives have helped spread the adoption of solar throughout the country, local solar incentives and rebates are also important to growing the solar industry, according to Sherwood.
“By where the installations are happening, you can see that they’re an important part of the package,” he said.
Looking forward, the growth trends are expected to continue in 2011, particularly in the utility sector, according to the report.
“Costs are going down and the supply of modules is pretty strong, so I think you’re going to see the prices continue to go down,” Sherwood said.
He also anticipates that the other costs related to solar, the soft costs, will come down, just not as quickly as the drop in module cost prices.
Pictured: Annual Installed Grid-Connected PV Capacity by Sector (2001-2010).
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Rifle's Community Owned Solar Array Largest In Nation At 3,575 Panels
A cooperative effort between Holy Cross Energy, the Clean Energy Collective, and Garfield County produced the nation's largest community-owned solar array in Rifle, Colorado, on Tuesday.
The array sports 3,575 solar panels and is expected to produce in excess of 1,500 megawatt-hours each year for Holy Cross Energy customers that buy into the co-op.
Holy Cross customers can buy in for $3.15/watt or $725 per 230-watt panel. The fee covers all maintenance and operations costs for 50 years. Customers can later sell, transfer, or donate their panels at a fair market value.
Former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a green-energy activist, told The Glenwood Springs Post Independent, "Our ability to move to a clean energy economy in Colorado is a product of the political will that the people of the state have, to really try and find clean energy solutions... This is a way for people to have affordable power and to be able to participate and feel good about how they're generating their energy."
The Clean Energy Collective also sources energy from micro-hydro, geothermal, wind, and biomass.
The array sports 3,575 solar panels and is expected to produce in excess of 1,500 megawatt-hours each year for Holy Cross Energy customers that buy into the co-op.
Holy Cross customers can buy in for $3.15/watt or $725 per 230-watt panel. The fee covers all maintenance and operations costs for 50 years. Customers can later sell, transfer, or donate their panels at a fair market value.
Former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a green-energy activist, told The Glenwood Springs Post Independent, "Our ability to move to a clean energy economy in Colorado is a product of the political will that the people of the state have, to really try and find clean energy solutions... This is a way for people to have affordable power and to be able to participate and feel good about how they're generating their energy."
The Clean Energy Collective also sources energy from micro-hydro, geothermal, wind, and biomass.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Bills back trend of rental solar panels
Bills back trend of rental solar panels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON – More and more Coloradans are opting to lease solar energy systems for their homes to avoid the large up-front cost of buying solar panels.
To facilitate the practice, Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., is backing a bill to reduce the risk to companies that want to rent solar equipment.
Meanwhile, Gov. John Hickenlooper signed a bill Friday to reduce the permitting fees that local governments charge installers.
Colorado already ranks as a top market for the solar business. The state government provides a number of loans, tax exemptions and rebates for system installation. The state also has the third-highest number of solar installers affiliated with the American Solar Energy Society, according to FindSolar.com.
However, solar panels still remain largely out of reach for residential ownership. Prices for a complete system can range from $10,000 to $40,000 even after state and federal rebates and incentives, according to Cooler Planet, a Seattle renewable-energy company.
To address this problem, several companies have started to offer solar power financing services, where instead of buying panels, homeowners use company-owned equipment and pay for the power they use.
Although there are no savings guarantees, customers often will pay less for the leases and the electric bills than they previously paid for electric bills alone.
“This business model is making it so that solar is affordable for millions of Americans,” said Susan Wise, a spokeswoman for SunRun, one of the nation’s largest solar-power service companies, which also provides service in Colorado.
“This is just a much better way to go solar,” she said. “You don’t actually want the equipment. You just want the clean power.”
SunRun doubled the number of customers it serves from 5,000 to 10,000 between early 2010 and 2011, Wise said.
Close to half of all solar customers in Colorado use a solar lease-type model, as opposed to owning their own panels, according to Neal Lurie, the executive director of Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association.
“I think that solar-related financing programs, including solar leases, are going to see significant growth in the months ahead,” Lurie said. “This model barely existed just a couple years ago. The fact that they have close to 50 percent of solar customers participating in solar leases reinforces the fact that it just makes it easier for customers.”
Udall wants to encourage further growth in the solar market, which currently accounts for just 1 percent of the nation’s electricity supply.
Along with Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., he sponsored legislation that would allow the Department of Energy to ensure the value of leases for residential solar energy panels. Whitehouse introduced the bill, S. 1126, on June 1.
The bill allows companies that lease solar panels to pay a premium to join the program, and they would be protected if homeowners defaulted on the cost of the lease or the system didn’t produce enough energy. Because the companies would pay a premium, the cost of the program to the taxpayers would be zero.
The senators hope the program would encourage more companies to offer such leases and bolster the solar-energy market.
“By making solar energy more accessible to people, you stimulate manufacturing, you create jobs, you also create an interest in solar energy,” Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said.
At the state level, Wise said that rebates and other incentives are making it possible for solar leasing to exist.
“We still very much need subsidies in order to make this work,” she said.
Wise said that in the future, the industry’s goal is to be subsidy-free.
A major area that needs to be addressed is inconsistencies in solar permitting practices from municipality to municipality, Wise said. Such differences, on average, add about $2,500 per installation.
“If you can streamline permitting processes across the industry and have a standard process with online submission forms you will significantly reduce the cost of solar,” she said.
Efforts are under way at both the national and the state level to address this issue. The Department of Energy and the White House are enlisting local governments to design a streamlined permitting process that they would encourage cities to adopt.
In Colorado, Hickenlooper on Friday signed into law legislation that would ease the state’s permitting process. It limits the cost of solar permits and related fees to the local government’s actual cost to issue the permit, not to exceed $500 for a residential installation.
“I think this is ground-breaking legislation that is likely to become a national model that other states will follow,” said Lurie with Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association.
By Karen Frantz
Durango, CO Herald Staff Writer
Reach Karen Frantz at herald@durango herald.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON – More and more Coloradans are opting to lease solar energy systems for their homes to avoid the large up-front cost of buying solar panels.
To facilitate the practice, Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., is backing a bill to reduce the risk to companies that want to rent solar equipment.
Meanwhile, Gov. John Hickenlooper signed a bill Friday to reduce the permitting fees that local governments charge installers.
Colorado already ranks as a top market for the solar business. The state government provides a number of loans, tax exemptions and rebates for system installation. The state also has the third-highest number of solar installers affiliated with the American Solar Energy Society, according to FindSolar.com.
However, solar panels still remain largely out of reach for residential ownership. Prices for a complete system can range from $10,000 to $40,000 even after state and federal rebates and incentives, according to Cooler Planet, a Seattle renewable-energy company.
To address this problem, several companies have started to offer solar power financing services, where instead of buying panels, homeowners use company-owned equipment and pay for the power they use.
Although there are no savings guarantees, customers often will pay less for the leases and the electric bills than they previously paid for electric bills alone.
“This business model is making it so that solar is affordable for millions of Americans,” said Susan Wise, a spokeswoman for SunRun, one of the nation’s largest solar-power service companies, which also provides service in Colorado.
“This is just a much better way to go solar,” she said. “You don’t actually want the equipment. You just want the clean power.”
SunRun doubled the number of customers it serves from 5,000 to 10,000 between early 2010 and 2011, Wise said.
Close to half of all solar customers in Colorado use a solar lease-type model, as opposed to owning their own panels, according to Neal Lurie, the executive director of Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association.
“I think that solar-related financing programs, including solar leases, are going to see significant growth in the months ahead,” Lurie said. “This model barely existed just a couple years ago. The fact that they have close to 50 percent of solar customers participating in solar leases reinforces the fact that it just makes it easier for customers.”
Udall wants to encourage further growth in the solar market, which currently accounts for just 1 percent of the nation’s electricity supply.
Along with Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., he sponsored legislation that would allow the Department of Energy to ensure the value of leases for residential solar energy panels. Whitehouse introduced the bill, S. 1126, on June 1.
The bill allows companies that lease solar panels to pay a premium to join the program, and they would be protected if homeowners defaulted on the cost of the lease or the system didn’t produce enough energy. Because the companies would pay a premium, the cost of the program to the taxpayers would be zero.
The senators hope the program would encourage more companies to offer such leases and bolster the solar-energy market.
“By making solar energy more accessible to people, you stimulate manufacturing, you create jobs, you also create an interest in solar energy,” Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said.
At the state level, Wise said that rebates and other incentives are making it possible for solar leasing to exist.
“We still very much need subsidies in order to make this work,” she said.
Wise said that in the future, the industry’s goal is to be subsidy-free.
A major area that needs to be addressed is inconsistencies in solar permitting practices from municipality to municipality, Wise said. Such differences, on average, add about $2,500 per installation.
“If you can streamline permitting processes across the industry and have a standard process with online submission forms you will significantly reduce the cost of solar,” she said.
Efforts are under way at both the national and the state level to address this issue. The Department of Energy and the White House are enlisting local governments to design a streamlined permitting process that they would encourage cities to adopt.
In Colorado, Hickenlooper on Friday signed into law legislation that would ease the state’s permitting process. It limits the cost of solar permits and related fees to the local government’s actual cost to issue the permit, not to exceed $500 for a residential installation.
“I think this is ground-breaking legislation that is likely to become a national model that other states will follow,” said Lurie with Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association.
By Karen Frantz
Durango, CO Herald Staff Writer
Reach Karen Frantz at herald@durango herald.com
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Colorado Solar Growth a Boon for Economy and for Homeowners
Colorado Solar Growth a Boon for Economy and for Homeowners
Thursday, June 2nd 2011 9:30 AM
By GetSolar Staff.
Colorado hardly has the same kind of reputation for solar power as sunny southern California, or Arizona with its vast deserts. However, a report from the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation shows the growth of Colorado solar installers has far outpaced most of the nation.
Like many other states, Colorado has experienced difficult economic times in recent years. However, the renewable energy sector grew to 19,000 workers last year and was the only industry to add jobs in the state. Between 2005 and 2010, the sector grew by 32.7 percent, which was more than triple the national rate of 10 percent.
"Colorado ranks fourth nationally in the total number of clean-energy jobs and we're still growing and adding jobs," said Tom Clark, Metro Denver EDC executive vice president.
The state has benefited greatly from a strong research presence, hosting the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. Ecotech Institute, a school dedicated to renewable energy, also opened in Aurora, Colorado, last year and already boasts 230 students in wind and solar power programs.
Certain Colorado home owners in Xcel territory can earn up to $1.75 per watt under the revised (March 23, 2011) Xcel Energy Solar Rewards Program, according to the DSIRE database. Colorado customers who install solar may also be eligible for several other solar and renewable energy incentives from either the state or the utilities. The growing solar power sector in the state reflects a competitive marketplace, helping to reduce up-front costs for new residential solar systems.
Thursday, June 2nd 2011 9:30 AM
By GetSolar Staff.
Colorado hardly has the same kind of reputation for solar power as sunny southern California, or Arizona with its vast deserts. However, a report from the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation shows the growth of Colorado solar installers has far outpaced most of the nation.
Like many other states, Colorado has experienced difficult economic times in recent years. However, the renewable energy sector grew to 19,000 workers last year and was the only industry to add jobs in the state. Between 2005 and 2010, the sector grew by 32.7 percent, which was more than triple the national rate of 10 percent.
"Colorado ranks fourth nationally in the total number of clean-energy jobs and we're still growing and adding jobs," said Tom Clark, Metro Denver EDC executive vice president.
The state has benefited greatly from a strong research presence, hosting the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. Ecotech Institute, a school dedicated to renewable energy, also opened in Aurora, Colorado, last year and already boasts 230 students in wind and solar power programs.
Certain Colorado home owners in Xcel territory can earn up to $1.75 per watt under the revised (March 23, 2011) Xcel Energy Solar Rewards Program, according to the DSIRE database. Colorado customers who install solar may also be eligible for several other solar and renewable energy incentives from either the state or the utilities. The growing solar power sector in the state reflects a competitive marketplace, helping to reduce up-front costs for new residential solar systems.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
GE Sees Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Power in Five Years
GE Sees Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Power in Five Years
By Brian Wingfield - May 26, 2011 Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE)
“If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,” Little said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Washington office. The 2009 average U.S. retail rate per kilowatt-hour for electricity ranges from 6.1 cents in Wyoming to 18.1 cents in Connecticut, according to Energy Information Administration data released in April.
GE, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, announced in April that it had boosted the efficiency of thin-film solar panels to a record 12.8 percent. Improving efficiency, or the amount of sunlight converted to electricity, would help reduce the costs without relying on subsidies.
The thin-film panels will be manufactured at a plant that GE intends to open in 2013. The company said in April that the factory will have about 400 employees and make enough panels each year to power about 80,000 homes.
Solar-panel makers from Arizona to Shanghai are expanding factories to add more cost savings that analysts say will sustain the industry’s expansion. Installations may increase by as much as 50 percent in 2011, worth about $140 billion, as cheaper panels and thin film make developers less dependent on government subsidies, Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecast.
Solar Costs Dive
The cost of solar cells, the main component in standard panels, has fallen 21 percent so far this year, and the cost of solar power is now about the same as the rate utilities charge for conventional power in the sunniest parts of California, Italy and Turkey, the London-based research company said.
Most solar panels use silicon-based photovoltaic cells to transform sunlight into electricity. The thin-film versions, made of glass or other material coated with cadmium telluride or copper indium gallium selenide alloys, account for about 15 percent of the $28 billion in worldwide solar-panel sales.
First Solar Inc. (FSLR), based in Tempe, Arizona, is the world’s largest producer of thin-film panels, with $2.6 billion in yearly revenue.
Smart Grid
Little also said the U.S. transition to a full smart grid will take “many, many years” to develop.
A complete smart grid would consist of millions of next- generation meters installed in businesses and homes, appliances that adjust their energy use when prices change, and advanced software to help utilities control electricity flows, he said.
“I think it’s going to be a long time before we can realize the full potential of the smart grid,” he said. “But it is coming.”
GE this year plans to introduce the “Nucleus,” a device that will let consumers track their household electricity use with personal computers and smart phones. The company also is investing in its appliance and lighting unit, including $432 million for U.S. refrigeration and design centers announced in October.
Utilities need to have incentives to put in place devices that save energy, and Congress needs to provide greater certainty on tax policy surrounding renewable energy, Little said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Wingfield in Washington at bwingfield3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net
.
By Brian Wingfield - May 26, 2011 Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE)
“If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,” Little said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Washington office. The 2009 average U.S. retail rate per kilowatt-hour for electricity ranges from 6.1 cents in Wyoming to 18.1 cents in Connecticut, according to Energy Information Administration data released in April.
GE, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, announced in April that it had boosted the efficiency of thin-film solar panels to a record 12.8 percent. Improving efficiency, or the amount of sunlight converted to electricity, would help reduce the costs without relying on subsidies.
The thin-film panels will be manufactured at a plant that GE intends to open in 2013. The company said in April that the factory will have about 400 employees and make enough panels each year to power about 80,000 homes.
Solar-panel makers from Arizona to Shanghai are expanding factories to add more cost savings that analysts say will sustain the industry’s expansion. Installations may increase by as much as 50 percent in 2011, worth about $140 billion, as cheaper panels and thin film make developers less dependent on government subsidies, Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecast.
Solar Costs Dive
The cost of solar cells, the main component in standard panels, has fallen 21 percent so far this year, and the cost of solar power is now about the same as the rate utilities charge for conventional power in the sunniest parts of California, Italy and Turkey, the London-based research company said.
Most solar panels use silicon-based photovoltaic cells to transform sunlight into electricity. The thin-film versions, made of glass or other material coated with cadmium telluride or copper indium gallium selenide alloys, account for about 15 percent of the $28 billion in worldwide solar-panel sales.
First Solar Inc. (FSLR), based in Tempe, Arizona, is the world’s largest producer of thin-film panels, with $2.6 billion in yearly revenue.
Smart Grid
Little also said the U.S. transition to a full smart grid will take “many, many years” to develop.
A complete smart grid would consist of millions of next- generation meters installed in businesses and homes, appliances that adjust their energy use when prices change, and advanced software to help utilities control electricity flows, he said.
“I think it’s going to be a long time before we can realize the full potential of the smart grid,” he said. “But it is coming.”
GE this year plans to introduce the “Nucleus,” a device that will let consumers track their household electricity use with personal computers and smart phones. The company also is investing in its appliance and lighting unit, including $432 million for U.S. refrigeration and design centers announced in October.
Utilities need to have incentives to put in place devices that save energy, and Congress needs to provide greater certainty on tax policy surrounding renewable energy, Little said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Wingfield in Washington at bwingfield3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net
.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Goldman Unit Gets $90.6 Million Loan Guarantee for Colorado Solar Farm
Goldman Unit Gets $90.6 Million Loan Guarantee for Colorado Solar Farm
By Andrew Herndon and Brian Wingfield - May 10, 2011 Cogentrix Energy LLC, a unit of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), received a $90.6 million conditional loan guarantee from the U.S. Energy Department to build a solar plant in Colorado.
The 30-megawatt Alamosa Solar Generating Project will use concentrating photovoltaic technology that focuses the sun’s rays to increase output, according to a statement today from the Energy Department.
The concentrating solar plant near the city of Alamosa will have optical equipment and multijunction solar cells from Amonix Inc. that boost conversion efficiency to about 40 percent, or nearly double that of conventional photovoltaic panels, the agency said. It will also use a dual-axis tracking system to follow the sun’s movement throughout the day and maximize power production.
Public Service Co. of Colorado, an Xcel Energy Inc. (XEL) utility, will purchase all of the generated electricity, which is expected to be enough to power more than 6,500 homes.
Cogentrix operates 17 power plants in the U.S. and one in Turkey, fueled mainly by natural gas and coal. It expanded into solar with the February 2009 purchase of two solar-thermal facilities in Daggett, California, that have 43 megawatts of capacity.
The Energy Department’s loan guarantee program has committed more than $7.5 billion in loan guarantees for solar energy projects.
To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Herndon in San Francisco at aherndon2@bloomberg.net; Brian Wingfield in Washington at bwingfield3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net
.
By Andrew Herndon and Brian Wingfield - May 10, 2011 Cogentrix Energy LLC, a unit of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), received a $90.6 million conditional loan guarantee from the U.S. Energy Department to build a solar plant in Colorado.
The 30-megawatt Alamosa Solar Generating Project will use concentrating photovoltaic technology that focuses the sun’s rays to increase output, according to a statement today from the Energy Department.
The concentrating solar plant near the city of Alamosa will have optical equipment and multijunction solar cells from Amonix Inc. that boost conversion efficiency to about 40 percent, or nearly double that of conventional photovoltaic panels, the agency said. It will also use a dual-axis tracking system to follow the sun’s movement throughout the day and maximize power production.
Public Service Co. of Colorado, an Xcel Energy Inc. (XEL) utility, will purchase all of the generated electricity, which is expected to be enough to power more than 6,500 homes.
Cogentrix operates 17 power plants in the U.S. and one in Turkey, fueled mainly by natural gas and coal. It expanded into solar with the February 2009 purchase of two solar-thermal facilities in Daggett, California, that have 43 megawatts of capacity.
The Energy Department’s loan guarantee program has committed more than $7.5 billion in loan guarantees for solar energy projects.
To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Herndon in San Francisco at aherndon2@bloomberg.net; Brian Wingfield in Washington at bwingfield3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net
.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Xcel exceeding renewable energy goals in Colorado
Xcel exceeding renewable energy goals in Colorado
Chris Meehan
May 15, 2011
Xcel Energy (NYSE: XEL) is adding in more than enough wind and solar power in Colorado to meet current requirements under the state’s renewable energy portfolio law. Under the law, Xcel and other investor-owned utilities must source 30 percent of its electric from renewable resources by 2020.
The company said today (May 13) that it was filing its 2012 Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. In a press release the company said the filing shows that Xcel Energy is well ahead of targets to meet the renewable energy standard. The plan was not available for review at the time of writing but will be available via the commission’s Website, according to Xcel. “We won’t post it online until they have it,” said Xcel spokesperson Michelle Aguayo.
The filing is a 10-year outlook of how Xcel plans to comply with the renewable portfolio standard. It also seeks approval for its plans in the next two years, according to Aguayo.
Among other things, Xcel will double the amount, in terms of megawatts, of customer-sited or distributed generation, according to Aguayo. Under law, Xcel is required to source 3 percent of its renewable energy from such systems.
To exceed the requirement, Xcel will add-in 30 megawatts of customer-sited generation for each of the next two years through its Solar*Rewards program. “The 30 megawatts is double the amount of customer-sited electricity above what is needed to meet minimum compliance with the renewable energy standard,” the company said in a press release.
In the filing the company is proposing a plan to balance its Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment (RESA) fund. RESA is a 2 percent fee assessed on customers’ electric bill to fund renewable energy development in Colorado. But under the way the program is currently administered the utility has spent more on renewable energy than covered under RESA.
Xcel also is seeking to diversify its portfolio of renewable generation. “We’re going to continue to invest in Solar Rewards but we’ll look balance the portfolio with other renewable sources,” Aguayo said.
Chris Meehan
May 15, 2011
Xcel Energy (NYSE: XEL) is adding in more than enough wind and solar power in Colorado to meet current requirements under the state’s renewable energy portfolio law. Under the law, Xcel and other investor-owned utilities must source 30 percent of its electric from renewable resources by 2020.
The company said today (May 13) that it was filing its 2012 Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. In a press release the company said the filing shows that Xcel Energy is well ahead of targets to meet the renewable energy standard. The plan was not available for review at the time of writing but will be available via the commission’s Website, according to Xcel. “We won’t post it online until they have it,” said Xcel spokesperson Michelle Aguayo.
The filing is a 10-year outlook of how Xcel plans to comply with the renewable portfolio standard. It also seeks approval for its plans in the next two years, according to Aguayo.
Among other things, Xcel will double the amount, in terms of megawatts, of customer-sited or distributed generation, according to Aguayo. Under law, Xcel is required to source 3 percent of its renewable energy from such systems.
To exceed the requirement, Xcel will add-in 30 megawatts of customer-sited generation for each of the next two years through its Solar*Rewards program. “The 30 megawatts is double the amount of customer-sited electricity above what is needed to meet minimum compliance with the renewable energy standard,” the company said in a press release.
In the filing the company is proposing a plan to balance its Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment (RESA) fund. RESA is a 2 percent fee assessed on customers’ electric bill to fund renewable energy development in Colorado. But under the way the program is currently administered the utility has spent more on renewable energy than covered under RESA.
Xcel also is seeking to diversify its portfolio of renewable generation. “We’re going to continue to invest in Solar Rewards but we’ll look balance the portfolio with other renewable sources,” Aguayo said.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Xcel says it’s close to meeting Colorado target for renewable energy
Xcel says it’s close to meeting Colorado target for renewable energy
Denver Business Journal - by Cathy Proctor
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2011, 2:13pm MDT
Related:Environment, Energy
Xcel Energy Inc. believes it will substantially meet Colorado's year-old mandate of having 30 percent of its electricity come from renewable sources by the middle of 2012, eight years ahead of the 2020 deadline.
And that could mean a slowing of Xcel’s rush to build large wind and solar farms in the state, or buy power from such farms, in order to meet the mandate.
“It will probably put a damper on wind project development activity in Colorado, but probably not a complete stop because Colorado has a good wind resource,” said Steve Dayney, CEO of REpower USA Corp., a German wind turbine manufacturer which has its U.S. headquarters in Denver.
Minneapolis-based Xcel (NYSE: XEL) — Colorado’s largest utility, serving 1.3 million customers in the state — may still add renewable energy resources to its power portfolio in the form of new wind or solar power farms in the years ahead.
But such additions will be driven by questions of cost-effectiveness, or new rules made by Congress or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions, and not by the need to hit a state-mandated target, said Robin Kittel, Xcel’s director of regulatory and policy analysis.
“We have what we need for renewable resources, but we’re not in a static world,” Kittel said. “If Congress was to enact carbon legislation, or the EPA to exercise its authority to regulate carbon, it becomes a larger picture than just a compliance picture with a state goal.
“Also, there are supply-and-demand components — such as if there’s an oversupply of wind turbines in the marketplace, or solar panels, such that the cost of the systems are very cost-effective. It’s too dynamic out there to call it one way or another,” she said.
On Friday, Xcel will file a “Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan” with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The proposal will detail how Xcel plans to meet the state’s 30 percent standard during the next 10 years. The utility will ask approval only for actions its planning in 2012 and 2013.
That plan will detail Xcel’s progress toward meeting the 30 percent mandate. And it could signal a slowdown in its effort to support more wind and solar development projects here.
“There may be projects under development [whose power] will be sold into other regions. But the big fish in this pond, in Colorado, is Public Service Company [Xcel’s Colorado arm],” REpower’s Dayney said.
Or, state officials could look at raising the 30 percent standard, said Ron Lehr, a Denver-based consultant for the American Wind Energy Association, based in Washington, D.C.
“If they think they’re done at 30 percent, then it’s time to go to 40 percent,” Lehr said. “It’s a minimum standard, you’re encouraged by law to go beyond the standard.”
Xcel has built, or bought power, from several wind and solar farms in Colorado in recent years.
At the end of 2010, Colorado had 1,252 megawatts of wind power in operation, up from 32 megawatts in 2000. All but 60 megawatts of the 1,252 total are used by Xcel and its customers.
Two more wind farms, each with 250 megawatts of capacity, will start operations this year — with all the power going to Xcel, according to Craig Cox, the executive director of Interwest Energy Alliance, based in Lakewood, which represents wind energy companies.
“I’ve been very pleased with Xcel’s proactivity in renewable energy development,” Cox said. “Xcel is one of the leading renewable energy utilities. I believe they can and should continue to do more.”
Xcel also gets 27.2 megawatts of solar power from two existing solar plants in the San Luis Valley. The company will buy power from two additional large-scale solar power plants — each generating 30 megawatts — that will start operation by the middle of 2012.
And its Solar*Rewards rebate program has paid $178 million in rebates, through the end of 2010, to help pay for 75.9 megawatts of smaller solar power systems perched on residential rooftops or a customer’s property, according to the utility.
Colorado’s renewable energy standard mandates that Xcel get 30 percent of the power it sells to customers from renewable energy sources — such as wind or solar farms — by 2020.
The law, signed by then-Gov. Bill Ritter in 2010, measures progress toward the standard by the amount of “Renewable Energy Credits” or RECs the utility owns and spreads the RECs across three categories.
One REC corresponds to one megawatt of power generated from renewable energy for an hour. The law also adds a 0.25 credit for each REC generated in Colorado.
The 30 percent mandate means that in 2020, when Xcel expects to sell about 32.3 million megawatt-hours of power, Xcel will need to have:
• 8.7 million RECs in the first, biggest category — called “non-distributed generation,” which translates into large wind farms, Kittel said.
“We have more RECs than what we need for compliance in the non-distributed generation bucket,” she said.
That’s because Xcel can “bank” extra RECs — RECs the company owns over and above incremental targets leading up to the 30 percent by 2020 mandate — for up to five years and dip into the account as needed, she said.
• Xcel also needs 485,000 RECs in a second bucket, called “wholesale distributed generation,” or wind or solar farms generating 30 megawatts of power or less, Kittel said.
Xcel expects to have that amount of RECs by the middle of 2012, Kittel said.
A 30-megawatt solar power plant, built by Iberdrola Renewables Inc. in the San Luis Valley, is expected to start operation by the end of 2011. A second 30-megawatt power plant, built in the valley by Cogentrix Energy LLC, based in Charlotte, N.C., is expected to start operations by the middle of 2012. Xcel has signed contracts to buy all the power produced by the two solar plants.
• Xcel also needs another 485,000 RECs in a third bucket, called “retail distributed generation,” or solar power systems perched on rooftops or on a customer’s property.
Xcel believes it will be compliance for this category in the “near future,” Kittel said.
The utility expects it will need to acquire more RECs in the third category, via rebates for small-scale solar power systems through the Solar*Rewards program, for a few years. But Kittel said she didn’t know how long that would be.
“We’ll still need more in the long run but we don’t know how much,” Kittel said.
As for a 2 percent charge on each customer’s monthly bill, a charge intended to help pay for renewable energy resources, Kittel said that’s not likely to disappear quickly.
Xcel will file its next long-range resource plan, its forecast of energy needs and the power plants needed to satisfy that demand, in October.
And Xcel had advanced about $51.4 million into the renewable energy fund — over and above what the 2 percent charge collected from customers — as of January in order to pay for renewable energy. The company will be repaid that money via the 2 percent charge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Business Journal - by Cathy Proctor
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2011, 2:13pm MDT
Related:Environment, Energy
Xcel Energy Inc. believes it will substantially meet Colorado's year-old mandate of having 30 percent of its electricity come from renewable sources by the middle of 2012, eight years ahead of the 2020 deadline.
And that could mean a slowing of Xcel’s rush to build large wind and solar farms in the state, or buy power from such farms, in order to meet the mandate.
“It will probably put a damper on wind project development activity in Colorado, but probably not a complete stop because Colorado has a good wind resource,” said Steve Dayney, CEO of REpower USA Corp., a German wind turbine manufacturer which has its U.S. headquarters in Denver.
Minneapolis-based Xcel (NYSE: XEL) — Colorado’s largest utility, serving 1.3 million customers in the state — may still add renewable energy resources to its power portfolio in the form of new wind or solar power farms in the years ahead.
But such additions will be driven by questions of cost-effectiveness, or new rules made by Congress or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions, and not by the need to hit a state-mandated target, said Robin Kittel, Xcel’s director of regulatory and policy analysis.
“We have what we need for renewable resources, but we’re not in a static world,” Kittel said. “If Congress was to enact carbon legislation, or the EPA to exercise its authority to regulate carbon, it becomes a larger picture than just a compliance picture with a state goal.
“Also, there are supply-and-demand components — such as if there’s an oversupply of wind turbines in the marketplace, or solar panels, such that the cost of the systems are very cost-effective. It’s too dynamic out there to call it one way or another,” she said.
On Friday, Xcel will file a “Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan” with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The proposal will detail how Xcel plans to meet the state’s 30 percent standard during the next 10 years. The utility will ask approval only for actions its planning in 2012 and 2013.
That plan will detail Xcel’s progress toward meeting the 30 percent mandate. And it could signal a slowdown in its effort to support more wind and solar development projects here.
“There may be projects under development [whose power] will be sold into other regions. But the big fish in this pond, in Colorado, is Public Service Company [Xcel’s Colorado arm],” REpower’s Dayney said.
Or, state officials could look at raising the 30 percent standard, said Ron Lehr, a Denver-based consultant for the American Wind Energy Association, based in Washington, D.C.
“If they think they’re done at 30 percent, then it’s time to go to 40 percent,” Lehr said. “It’s a minimum standard, you’re encouraged by law to go beyond the standard.”
Xcel has built, or bought power, from several wind and solar farms in Colorado in recent years.
At the end of 2010, Colorado had 1,252 megawatts of wind power in operation, up from 32 megawatts in 2000. All but 60 megawatts of the 1,252 total are used by Xcel and its customers.
Two more wind farms, each with 250 megawatts of capacity, will start operations this year — with all the power going to Xcel, according to Craig Cox, the executive director of Interwest Energy Alliance, based in Lakewood, which represents wind energy companies.
“I’ve been very pleased with Xcel’s proactivity in renewable energy development,” Cox said. “Xcel is one of the leading renewable energy utilities. I believe they can and should continue to do more.”
Xcel also gets 27.2 megawatts of solar power from two existing solar plants in the San Luis Valley. The company will buy power from two additional large-scale solar power plants — each generating 30 megawatts — that will start operation by the middle of 2012.
And its Solar*Rewards rebate program has paid $178 million in rebates, through the end of 2010, to help pay for 75.9 megawatts of smaller solar power systems perched on residential rooftops or a customer’s property, according to the utility.
Colorado’s renewable energy standard mandates that Xcel get 30 percent of the power it sells to customers from renewable energy sources — such as wind or solar farms — by 2020.
The law, signed by then-Gov. Bill Ritter in 2010, measures progress toward the standard by the amount of “Renewable Energy Credits” or RECs the utility owns and spreads the RECs across three categories.
One REC corresponds to one megawatt of power generated from renewable energy for an hour. The law also adds a 0.25 credit for each REC generated in Colorado.
The 30 percent mandate means that in 2020, when Xcel expects to sell about 32.3 million megawatt-hours of power, Xcel will need to have:
• 8.7 million RECs in the first, biggest category — called “non-distributed generation,” which translates into large wind farms, Kittel said.
“We have more RECs than what we need for compliance in the non-distributed generation bucket,” she said.
That’s because Xcel can “bank” extra RECs — RECs the company owns over and above incremental targets leading up to the 30 percent by 2020 mandate — for up to five years and dip into the account as needed, she said.
• Xcel also needs 485,000 RECs in a second bucket, called “wholesale distributed generation,” or wind or solar farms generating 30 megawatts of power or less, Kittel said.
Xcel expects to have that amount of RECs by the middle of 2012, Kittel said.
A 30-megawatt solar power plant, built by Iberdrola Renewables Inc. in the San Luis Valley, is expected to start operation by the end of 2011. A second 30-megawatt power plant, built in the valley by Cogentrix Energy LLC, based in Charlotte, N.C., is expected to start operations by the middle of 2012. Xcel has signed contracts to buy all the power produced by the two solar plants.
• Xcel also needs another 485,000 RECs in a third bucket, called “retail distributed generation,” or solar power systems perched on rooftops or on a customer’s property.
Xcel believes it will be compliance for this category in the “near future,” Kittel said.
The utility expects it will need to acquire more RECs in the third category, via rebates for small-scale solar power systems through the Solar*Rewards program, for a few years. But Kittel said she didn’t know how long that would be.
“We’ll still need more in the long run but we don’t know how much,” Kittel said.
As for a 2 percent charge on each customer’s monthly bill, a charge intended to help pay for renewable energy resources, Kittel said that’s not likely to disappear quickly.
Xcel will file its next long-range resource plan, its forecast of energy needs and the power plants needed to satisfy that demand, in October.
And Xcel had advanced about $51.4 million into the renewable energy fund — over and above what the 2 percent charge collected from customers — as of January in order to pay for renewable energy. The company will be repaid that money via the 2 percent charge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
