Showdown looming for solar energy in Colorado

Xcel Energy has applied to the Public Utilities Commission for approval of a new voluntary program. The program would enable customers to offset their annual electric usage with solar energy, without installing a system of their own. It's called "Solar Connect," and it's modeled after the company's Windsource program that sells subscriptions for wind power. Under the proposal, Xcel would offer short-term solar subscriptions to customers for solar energy that would be generated from a new, large solar facility. The utility says the program is an alternative to onsite solar or community solar gardens. It looks like Xcel may be changing the game for solar energy in Colorado. A showdown may be looming between the utility and the rooftop solar crowd. The company has decided to take its solar segment to a new level, which may disappoint customers like The Johnson's of Centennial. They are sold on their rooftop solar array. Their electricity bill this month was only $8.25. If you combine that with their gas bill of $50.07, it comes out to a total of $58.72 for heat and light. Even when they add in the monthly cost of leasing their rooftop array, which is $87.72, they are still under $150 a month for energy. "We really wanted to put in solar years ago," Mary Johnson said. "So we're very pleased that we did it now, and we do get the benefits." The power meter on their house actually spins backwards, even on a cloudy day. It's an experience that continues to drive the rooftop solar industry in Colorado, which is very healthy. "There are over 150,000 solar jobs in the United States, and about 3600 of them are here in Colorado," said Blake Jones, President and CEO of Boulder's Namaste Solar. "It's a very large industry." Jones says with solar currently generating less than 1 percent of our electricity, the industry is just scratching the surface. But now comes a game changer. Xcel is building a massive $220 million dollar "utility-scale" solar system next to its Comanche Generating station in Pueblo. That's 450,000 solar panels on 990 acres. It will be large enough to supply energy to more than 30,000 homes. It's the largest solar project of its kind east of the Rocky Mountains. "The Comanche project is great because it's not only solar, and not only clean, but it is so low priced and so low cost, that we're actually able to save our customers money by having it on our system," said Xcel Vice President Frank Prager. The array will look much like this one in Lafayette, only dramatically bigger. The designers believe the power industry is making a move toward these larger utility scale projects, because by some estimates, they deliver more affordable power than thousands of rooftop arrays. Sam Sours of Community Energy designed the Lafayette array. He believes the larger scale projects will be the industry standard. "Yeah, if you look from the west, the California's, the Arizona's, the Nevada's, these larger solar scale projects have been slowly creeping their way east of the Rocky's," said Sours. Eric Blank, President of Community Energy, agreed. "When you get this scale, you can really drive down procurement cost and capital costs, so I think it's trending this way," Blank said. That could spell trouble for rooftop solar. Xcel is currently paying 11 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity generated by rooftop solar. If it decides to suspend those payments, under what is called its "net metering policy," the rooftop industry in Colorado will disappear. Namaste's Blake Jones agreed that could happen. "Yes, that's correct. I think that will be a very tragic day for the Colorado solar market, because without the foundation of that net metering policy, I think that our solar market could go away," Jones said. The Public Utilities Commission will evaluate rooftop solar at the end of 2014.

Wind and solar power ready to help states meet EPA rule

With the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issuing its first-ever rule limiting carbon pollution from existing power plants, many policymakers in Congress and state capitals are wondering: How can states meet the proposed standards most cost effectively? Republicans, Democrats, and Independents can get behind two affordable, reliable, and business-friendly solutions that are ready today – American wind and solar power. These sources of carbon-free electricity already foster economic development in all 50 states, creating jobs and benefitting rural and state economies by attracting new investment. In just three heartland states, Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado, wind power has grown to support 12,000 good-paying jobs and attracted nearly $20 billion in capital investment. In total, American wind power attracts up to $25 billion a year in private investment into our economy and supports over 50,000 jobs. More than 560 factories in 43 states make wind energy components. Last year, $13.7 billion was invested in solar nationwide – making it the fastest-growing source of renewable energy in the United States, accounting for nearly 30 percent of all new electric generation capacity installed in 2013. And across the U.S, 143,000 Americans are at work every day at more than 6,100 solar businesses. Both technologies are experiencing rapid price declines, and those savings are passed onto consumers. The American-made taller towers, longer blades and improved gearboxes, and over 30 years of experience in the field have helped drive down wind costs. According to the Department of Energy, the cost of energy generated by wind has dropped 43 percent in just four years. When the Midwest utility system operator (MISO) recently reached the milestone of supplying more than 25 percent of its momentary electricity demand from wind, it noted that it’s “one of the fuel choices that helps us manage congestion on the system and ultimately helps keep prices low for our customers and the end-use consumer.” The cost of solar has plummeted, as well. The average price of a residential photovoltaic (PV) installation has also fallen 43 percent, by watt, since 2010. Utility-scale PV prices fell 61 percent in that same time period. That’s an incredible decline that has helped solar to consecutive record-breaking years. Utilities in states as diverse as Colorado, Minnesota and Texas have all recently chosen solar as a cost-competitive source of new generating capacity, diversifying their energy mix – as demonstrated on March 8, 2014, when solar provided a record 18 percent of California’s 22,700 MW demand. Unlike many traditional sources of energy, wind and solar emit no air or water pollution, and create no hazardous waste. Electricity generation is the largest industrial source of carbon emissions in the U.S. The EPA’s proposed rule is an opportunity for the U.S. to again be the leader that the rest of the world can follow. We’re already on our way. Zero-emission wind power avoids enough carbon pollution every year to take the equivalent of 20 million cars off the road. More than 10 states are already reducing carbon emissions by 10 percent or more from wind energy alone (California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, and Washington state). And, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, obtaining 30 percent of the U.S. electricity needs with wind power will cut U.S. power sector emissions 37 percent. Solar currently installed in the U.S. is already generating enough pollution-free electricity to displace 18 billion pounds of coal or 1.8 billion gallons of gasoline. That’s the equivalent of removing 3.5 million cars off our roads and highways. Regulators looking to meet their states’ changing needs find solar energy to be reliable, cost-competitive, environmentally friendly, and easily scalable, fitting the needs of the state implementation plans soon to be necessary for meeting the EPA’s Section 111(d) carbon pollution standard. Some members of Congress worry we could hurt our economy by working to meet the EPA’s proposed standards. They may not have heard the good news about these newly affordable solutions at hand. While there’s no single solution to meeting the much-needed goal of reducing carbon emissions, wind and solar power are two of the biggest, fastest, and most cost-effective ways to meet the EPA’s proposed rule. Governors all across the country already know how they grow economies and create jobs – and a strong majority of Americans support scaling up these clean, homegrown energy sources. That’s why we urge all members of Congress to look to wind and solar power as leading solutions to help meet America’s future energy needs.

Meeting renewable energy targets turns out to be inexpensive

It turns out that adding renewable energy to the electricity generation mix doesn’t end up costing all that much, in at least one case it has even saved money. In Colorado the cost came to less than a penny per kilowatt-hour in 2012. Among the 24 states with renewable portfolio standards that were analyzed, the cost of complying between 2010 and 2012 was equal on average, roughly 1 percent of retail electricity rates, according to study by two national laboratories. The average additional cost in 2012 for renewable energy came to about 2 cents for each kilowatt-hour. Oregon saw and slight decrease in costs as renewables replaced more expensive generation. Wisconsin had the biggest incremental cost, about 4.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. The study was done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif. “The cost is fairly modest, though not insignificant,” said Galen Barbose, one of the study’s co-authors and a Lawrence Berkeley researcher. There has been upward pressure on the cost of compliance as renewable-energy targets are raised and more renewable sources are added, Barbose said. In Colorado that compliance cost roughly doubled between 2010 and 2012. But since most states, including Colorado, cap the rate impacts of renewable energy the pressure likely will not translate to higher bills. In Colorado, the cost to customers is capped at 2 percent of a residential bill. This Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment raises money to cover the above market cost of renewable-energy sources. Most of the money has gone into the Solar Rewards program for residential and small business rooftop solar installations. Since 2006, Xcel Energy has offered incentives for residential and small commercial solar installations under the Solar Rewards program. The program has provided more than $276 million in incentives to Colorado customers and installed nearly 17,800 photovoltaic systems, the company said. Solar Rewards has, however, run up a $42 million deficit that the Colorado Public Utilities Commission has pressed Xcel to reduce. The utility did away with rebates and trimmed the incentives for solar systems. It now offers a credit for of 3 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated by home solar panels, down from 9 cents in 2012 and the utility anticipates soon erasing the deficit. At the same time, the cost of solar installations has dropped from $9 a kilowatt to less than $4 a kilowatt — with Colorado having just about the lowest installation cost in the country, according to another Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study. As a result of the deficit, Colorado actually spent 3 percent of sales on Solar Rewards, in effect surpassing the cap, even though it did not appear on customers’ bills. There were two drivers in Colorado’s higher renewable-energy costs, the study said. First are the higher renewable-energy targets the state set. Colorado’s investor-owned utilities must get 30 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Only California, with a 33 percent standard, is higher. “The state’s largest utility, Xcel Energy, attained renewable procurement levels equal to 15 percent to 22 percent of retail sales over the 2010-2012 period compared to renewables procurement levels of 5-10 percent in most of the other states,” the study said. The second driver is a requirement that portion of the target be met with roof-top solar, or distributed generation, which is more expensive than some other renewable sources, such as wind. “Part of that it is an accounting issue,” Barbose said. “The cost for distributed generation has been heavily front-loaded with rebates and incentives, but once the system are up, there is less cost.” Even with all that, Colorado costs for meeting the renewable standard were relatively modest. Twenty-four utilities in eight states put a surcharge on customers’ bills, which in 2012 averaged $1.99, according to the study. The Xcel charge on a Colorado customer’s bill was $1.44, putting it in 16th place. The highest surcharge was by Citizens Electric & Gas in Arizona at $4.50. The lowest was Indiana Michigan Power at 7 cents. “The takeaways from the study that the costs for meeting the standards have been pretty modest,” Barbose said. “But going forward meeting the targets will put pressure on compliance costs, but most state’s have some kind of cost containment that will blunt that upward pressure.”

Key Details of E.P.A. Carbon Emissions Proposal

WASHINGTON — A rule proposed by the Enivironmental Protection Agency would cut carbon pollution from power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 – the equivalent, according to the agency, of taking two-thirds of all cars and trucks in America off the road. Here are some things to know about the rule: • The E.P.A. expects that under the regulation, 30 percent of electricity in the United States will still come from coal by 2030, down from about 40 percent today. • The E.P.A. estimates that the rule will cost the economy $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion annually, but will lead to benefits of $55 billion to $93 billion, primarily by preventing premature deaths and mitigating respiratory diseases. • Critics complain that the rule will drive up electricity costs, but the agency forecasts that the rule will increase energy efficiency across the power sector, leading to lower electricity bills when the program is fully implemented in 2030. • The rule will not, on its own, lower greenhouse gas pollution enough to prevent catastrophic effects of climate change. But, in combination with other regulations, it would allow the United States to meet its commitment to the United Nations to cut carbon pollution 17 percent by 2020 and press other major polluting countries, particularly China and India, to follow suit. • The draft proposal is just the beginning of the process to cut emissions. The agency will now take public comment and spend the next year completing the proposal before releasing the final rule in June 2015. States will then be given another year to submit compliance plans, or apply for an extension. • The rule is not an executive order. Under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. is required to regulate any substance defined as a pollutant, which the law defined as substances that endanger human life and health. A 2007 Supreme Court decision led to an E.P.A. determination that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, thus requiring that the agency regulate it or be in violation of the law.