The US Solar Market Is Now 1 Million Installations Strong

Sometime around the end of February, the millionth solar installation came on-line in the United States -- a milestone that says as much about where the solar industry is going as it does about how far the industry has come. “It took us 40 years to get to 1 million installations, and it will take us only two years to get to 2 million,” said Dan Whitten, vice president of communications at the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). “This is a time to mark when the solar industry started to accelerate at warp speed.” At the end of 2015, the U.S. solar market hit a total capacity of 27 gigawatts. That represents just 1 percent of the current U.S. electricity mix, but it could triple to 3 percent by 2020. This year alone, the U.S. solar market is projected to grow 119 percent, which represents an additional 16 gigawatts of new installed capacity and more than double the record-breaking 7.3 gigawatts added in 2015. Over the coming weeks, SEIA will run a campaign called #MillionSolarStrong to raise awareness around the U.S. solar industry’s achievements to date. The campaign includes a social media “thunderclap” and a flagship event in Washington, D.C. on May 3.

Colorado solar company gets another Nasdaq delisting notice

Real Goods Solar Inc. said it's received another letter from the Nasdaq stock exchange, saying its shares could be delisted from the exchange. On Friday, the Louisville rooftop solar-power installation company said it received a letter saying that it doesn't meet the stock exchange's $2.5 million minimum shareholders' equity requirement. In Real Goods Solar's latest 10-K filing, it listed shareholders' equity of $1 million. The company said it has until the end of May to submit a plan of compliance to the stock exchange. It's not the first time this year that Nasdaq has threatened to delist the company: In January, Real Goods Solar was warned that its share price was trading below $1 for 30 straight days.

Solar garden backers may seek bill to improve accessibility

Solar energy advocates may pursue a legislative fix after the Colorado Public Utilities Commission released written details on why it rejected a settlement agreement that community solar garden developers reached with Xcel Energy in February. "We were surprised by the PUC ruling that seems to be restricting more consumer access to solar gardens," said Rep. Faith Winter, D-Westminster, who sponsored a bill last year to allow solar gardens to operate across county lines. Winter said she has requested a legal opinion on whether another bill is needed to permit the kind of rate structure laid out in the settlement. The state's largest utility agreed to pay a renewable energy credit, or REC, of 0.3 cents per kilowatt hour for the power coming onto the grid. Last fall, those same solar developers, in competitive bids, agreed to "negative" RECs, meaning they would pay Xcel Energy instead of the other way around. Solar developers said negative credits can work when solar garden owners are commercial users, but not when they are residential. "The agreement we offered would allow access to a broader base of consumers, particularly low-income and residential consumers," said Karen Gados, chief of staff with SunShare, a solar garden developer. The PUC notes that ratepayers will have to cover the REC costs, and that Xcel Energy already has enough of them to cover its renewable energy obligations through 2020. In its written ruling, the PUC said its interpretation of the community solar garden statute doesn't allow for rates based on class averages as the settlement proposes. Supporters argue using average rates improves the economics in favor of residential participation. When the General Assembly updated the original community solar garden law last year in two separate bills, it didn't change that language. "Given that the General Assembly is presumed to know the pre-existing law, and the interpretations thereof, when it amends or clarifies that law, it is significant that the General Assembly did not amend or clarify this language," the PUC said in its written ruling. Winter counters that the intent of legislators has been and remains increasing constituent access to community solar gardens. "They want more access to renewables and community solar gardens," she said. Gados said unless the disagreement on renewable energy credits is resolved, 60 megawatts of community solar garden capacity that Xcel wants to pursue can't move forward. "SunShare can't subscribe finance and build our system until we have clarity around negative RECs and what the bill credit is," she said. SunShare would prefer residential customers claim half to 80 percent of its solar garden capacity in Colorado versus the current 15 percent. An exception is Colorado Springs. More than half of SunShare's Colorado solar garden customers are based there, due to a more favorable REC structure. Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said the written decision didn't offer any big surprises. "Xcel Energy continues to support the settlement agreement on community solar gardens," he said, "and we will ask the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to reconsider its decision."

Experts Discuss Solar Outlook In The Centennial State

Solar is strong in Colorado, but industry leaders are not resting. At the recent Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association’s (COSEIA) 2016 Solar Power Colorado conference, speakers talked about the achievements the industry made over the past year and noted that there are still some challenges. The conference, with the theme, “Developing New Markets: Solar Leads the Energy Transition,” ran from March 7 to 9 in Broomfield, north of Denver. Rebecca Cantwell, executive director of COSEIA, opened the conference with a review of 2015 victories. Among the national and local highlights were the following: The investment tax credit (ITC) was renewed, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) upheld net metering without changes, and the Colorado state legislature passed a measure that allows community solar garden subscribers to buy into projects located in adjacent counties. Also, Cantwell said, COSEIA launched the advocacy initiative Solar CitiSuns. She also showed a map of statewide photovoltaic systems. “There are 29,363 PV systems in the state,” she said. “We counted. They’re just about everywhere.” Mecom/AET id596 Former Interior Secretary and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar began his keynote address by praising the association’s work. “I have watched COSEIA grow, and now it’s in its third decade,” he said. “Solar is alive and vibrant, and the nation really watches what happens here in Colorado.” Salazar, quoting a figure from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, said that the industry expects to add 9.5 GW of solar capacity nationwide this year. There has been much progress, he said, but there are some flash points to watch. One is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which the Supreme Court delayed with a stay in February. Another challenge, Salazar said, is rooftop solar and net-metering disputes with Xcel Energy and the costs of updating the grid. “This is an issue today that is not only important for Colorado, but also for the country,” he said. Other speakers noted that although the solar industry is pleased with the ITC extension, there are still issues that need attention nationwide and in Colorado. At the opening plenary session, “What’s Ahead for the Solar Industry,” Jesse Grossman, CEO of Soltage LLC, said the ITC extension answered the question of whether solar will continue its momentum. “The fight is on the state level,” he said. “Colorado was, for a period of time, in the top five states for solar deployments, and currently, Colorado is 14th in the nation. Conversations need to happen right now about lessons learned, [renewable energy certificate] markets, tariffs, solar carve-outs and to focus on what it takes for solar development to move on in a sustained manner.” Willie Mein, owner of Custom Solar in Boulder, Colo., talked about “surviving the solar coaster” and noted that the barriers to deployment are not technology, economics or demand. “It’s other market forces,” he said. “The utility is the gatekeeper watching the henhouse, with limiting capacity, arbitrary requirements and unnecessary processes.” For example, Xcel Energy’s Solar Rewards program limits the size of a customer’s rooftop solar array to produce no more than 120% of the customer’s annual kilowatt-hour consumption. At another session, “New Solar Policy for Colorado,” moderator John Bringenburg, president of the COSEIA board of directors, mentioned that Public Service Co. of Colorado, Xcel Energy’s utility in the state, recently filed its Phase II Electric Rate Case with the CPUC. The proposal includes a smart meter pilot, a reconsideration of the previously rejected Solar Connect program and “grid use charges” for PV customers. The proposal raises fixed rates to make up for lost revenue from customers’ reduced consumption, said Rick Gilliam, program director of distributed generation regulatory policy at Vote Solar. “That’s what has triggered many of these proposals,” he said. A better rate design would be time-of-use rates. The three large investor-owned utilities in California – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – are switching to time-of-use rates, which encourages consumers to shift their energy use to off-peak periods. “In terms of a success story, that’s the best one right now.” Cindy Z. Schonhaut, director of the Office of Consumer Counsel at the Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs, said the office, which represents the interest of consumers, is against Xcel’s proposal. “Without having some of the fixed costs recovered through usage charges, the consumer has less ability to lower their bill with more efficient appliances or using less,” she explained. “That’s to make the utility whole and reduce their risk. That’s not in the public interest just by itself.” Panelists also discussed the Clean Power Plan, which is on hold after the U.S. Supreme Court stopped its implementation. The plan is now under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The delay leaves states wondering whether to continue working on meeting the carbon-reduction requirements. “We have had people say you should put your pencils down – don’t waste time and money having people do work that amounts to nothing,” said Chris Colclasure, deputy director of the air pollution control division at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. “On the other hand, we don’t want to sit back and watch the pages of the calendar. We are trying to identify what we can do.” He said the only immediate result is the department will not have to ask for an extension of the plan’s now-obsolete first deadline, in September, for submitting a compliance plan. “We will continue planning to reduce carbon emissions,” he said. “We think it is prudent to place Colorado in the best position that we can.”

Let’s Bring the Public Into Planning Our Energy Future

Xcel Energy has launched major ratepayer-funded outreach on a series of proposals it refers to as "Our Energy Future.'' Xcel is stressing that these plans encourage choice and renewable energy, but the plans actually favor monopoly utility control to the detriment of customer choice. We believe Colorado's energy future needs to be determined by the citizens of the state, not just the utility. The renewable energy transformation in Colorado began at the ballot box when we became the first state in the nation to require renewable energy through a citizen initiative in 2004. And the future is too important to leave citizens out of the loop during this critical transition. Since 2004, more than 30,000 Coloradans have gone solar, using their own resources to put panels on their homes and businesses to take advantage of unlimited clean energy from the sun. Colorado now ranks 9th in the nation in installed solar capacity with 540 MW currently installed-- enough to power 103,000 homes. More than 400 solar companies employ more than 5,000 Coloradans across the state. Quickly ramping up much more solar energy -- which still only contributes about 1.5% to Xcel's Colorado energy mix-- is critical for reducing the threat of catastrophic climate change. Solar emits no carbon emissions and adding more of this clean energy is a key way to reduce energy use that relies on burning fossil fuels. We are disappointed that Xcel uses a zero cost of carbon in its assumptions about future rates and makes virtually no mention of the issue. The impact of future decisions on climate change must be central to decisions about our energy future. We are pleased Xcel is proposing to add significantly more solar to its energy mix. Unfortunately, however, the utility proposes in its recent filings with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to continue to manage and control all solar programs, while entering the market as a competitor. The complex filings, estimated to cost more than $2 million in ratepayer funds, will likely take more than a year to wend through the regulatory process. Here are some initial thoughts on those filed so far: Phase II Rate Case (16AL-0048E) Last year, Xcel was granted an overall rate increase, but this case parcels out who would pay how much for electricity. The utility is proposing rate redesign for all customers and the inclusion of a new fixed charge called a `grid use charge' for residential and small commercial customers. At the same time, Xcel proposes to lower the charges for the volume of energy consumed per kilowatt-hour. The net effect is to reduce incentives for energy conservation (because using less will reduce the bill less) and increase the burden for ratepayers on low and fixed incomes. The structure also would erode the value proposition of solar, which reduces demand for energy from the grid. Xcel has also stated a desire to start with a pilot of demand rates for residential customers and eventually move all customers to this structure. Demand rates on residential customers would further exacerbate the punitive effects on customers who pursue energy efficiency, conservation and solar. The rate structure would end up inhibiting customer choice and energy savings. The need for entirely new rate structures has not been demonstrated. In fact, after a two-year in-depth inquiry into net metering, involving discussion of both the cost and benefit of distributed solar generation , the PUC decided six months ago that no problem with the current rate structure had been demonstrated. The commission voted unanimously to leave retail net metering alone. However, Xcel now calculates in the new rate case the perceived costs of rooftop solar, but not once does it mention the benefits solar brings to its system and to customers. The plan also fails to account for the real risk and costs of carbon emissions. This is an issue of paramount importance that is likely to be taken up by Xcel shareholders as well as rate payers. If Colorado wants to explore advanced rates, pilots of several alternatives would produce more useful data. For example, Time of Use Rates charge more when energy costs more-- at peak times. A three or four part Time of Use Rate could encourage people to use energy-hogging appliances such as dishwashers when fewer people are using energy -- such as late at night. Time of Use rates also can reward solar generators for contributing clean renewable energy to the grid when usage rates are high, such as in the late afternoon and evening of hot summer days. But Xcel proposes to close the four existing commercial and industrial time of use rates to new customers. A reverse block rate with several tiers could be tested with no special metering equipment. Reverse Block rates -- charging more the more you use -- tend to ease the burden on low and moderate income ratepayers. An annual report could detail findings on costs and benefits of multiple rates and associated grid upgrades. 2017-2019 Renewable Energy Plan (16A-0139E) The Renewable Energy Plan(REP) describes Xcel's plans for the Solar Rewards, Windsource and Recycled Energy programs, which are part of Colorado Renewable Energy Standard plans. The basic rooftop residential solar program, known as the "small'' program, is proposed to stay at the same level as it's been since early 2015. Currently, on the first of the month, 2 MW are made available to solar developers-- and each month, the capacity is reserved in a few minutes. This is evidence that the supply nowhere near meets the demand. Xcel proposes no increase in the 2 MW monthly allotment for the next 3 years, but a decrease in the Renewable Energy Credit paid, to 1/2 cent per kWh. This program, which is run and controlled by Xcel, is not working for the growing solar market. Increasing numbers of solar installers and their customers are simply bypassing the cumbersome and inadequate process and choosing to install solar with Net Metering and Interconnection only. A fair solution would be to affirm the right to install unlimited numbers of small solar systems with a 20-year Interconnection Agreement, and to have the current rules grandfathered for customers choosing to invest in solar. Xcel proposes another option in the REP, but makes it contingent on approval of the rate case, which is certainly not determined. Assuming the outcome of one proceeding in another raises legal issues. We are pleased that the company is proposing a small increase in the commercial or Medium program - which sells out even faster than the residential program. However, going from 12MW per year to 18MW per year and reducing REC purchase prices to 3 cents per kWh, will continue to starve and frustrate the market. We applaud Xcel’s recommendation to bring back modest capacity for the Large program. But bold new initiatives are needed for Colorado to reclaim its slipping solar leadership. COSEIA recently proposed new initiatives to Xcel and still believe they are needed, including: 1. A stakeholder- supervised survey to study the business health of Colorado's solar market relative to other active markets. Such a study is needed to understand the Colorado market in relation to programs being used elsewhere to support solar deployment including REC purchase programs. 2. Low income solar programs including rooftop and community solar would reduce the need for subsidies and provide free electricity for decades to customers who have paid into the renewable energy fund. A consensus memo of recommendations from a variety of stakeholders organized by COSEIA was shared with Xcel Energy and state energy leaders. 3. Special programs to encourage solar on new homes would support the unique market needs of home builders, who now compete with retrofit installers. A Solar Builder program needs to be a separate program from other programs and should not reduce the available acquisition for the general public. 4. Virtual Net Metering works especially well for schools, local governments and businesses with many locations. The customer has a single large solar farm that offsets any meter under common account ownership. We would like an initial pilot program included in the next Renewable Energy Plan. 5. Transparent reporting on grid interconnection status would help solar developers and the utility. As seen in many other markets, the industry would like to see information posted which illustrates areas of the grid which are more or less available for added interconnection. Better planning for added solar capacity on the distribution grid is also badly needed, especially where such distributed generation would defer capital expenditures to upgrade the grid. Additionally, Colorado's popular solar gardens program could be improved in a variety of ways. It would benefit from a new bidding process for Community Solar Gardens that creates more transparency and efficiency. Clarity is needed to ensure that negative Renewable Energy Credit prices are not legal. And special programs with differential REC prices to encourage community projects on warehouses and usable rooftops, as well as to benefit low and moderate income ratepayers, would deploy more solar in desirable locations. We believe that the popularity of Solar Gardens is still in its infancy and this form of solar needs to be encouraged in many ways. Solar Connect (16A-0055E) The Public Utilities Commission unanimously rejected the first version of Solar Connect in 2014 after the staff and numerous stakeholders argued that it was clearly anti-competitive. The utility revised the proposal and has submitted a second request for approval of the program. Solar Connect would consist of a 50 MW solar farm that the utility would contract for and purchase power from. Shares would be sold to the public at a premium with Xcel allowed to make a 10 percent profit. The revised proposal is improved but still has significant issues: -The 50 MW size is 25 times bigger than the biggest solar gardens developers are allowed to build and thus has built-in economies of scale advantage, but would be sold at a profit. Why not use most of this capacity in other programs where more job development and industry support will result? Why let Xcel charge above- market rates for a product their own analysis claims will cost less to deliver than any competing systems? -Xcel controls all the marketing, all the information on customers and all the solar programs so it is hard to see how Solar Connect would not be anti-competitive. More business risk should lie with Xcel shareholders including 100% of the start- up costs, marketing, administration and operations. If Xcel wants to enter the retail solar market in competition with the private developers who assume all their risks, a much more even playing field needs to be established first. If Xcel wants to offer products that compete with private industry, the utility should do so by starting a private subsidiary as other utilities have done. Electric Resource Plan (to be filed in early June, 2016) and other dockets (Grid CPCN, Decoupling, Utility ownership of new utility-scale Renewable Energy) Xcel is planning to file a longer-term resource acquisition plan called the Electric Resource Plan this spring, as well as other plans. The utility is seeking full ratepayer compensation for all of its multi-million dollar costs. We think there needs to be a more equal playing field. Xcel Energy's net income from Colorado has grown from $211.4 million in 2005 to $466.8 million in 2015. Xcel is also seeking an accounting mechanism that would guarantee it would be able to collect the millions of dollars of expense related to these cases in the future and thus has no incentive to be efficient. Other parties intervening in these cases must generate all costs out of their own pockets. Such intervening parties should receive compensation to hire experts, conduct analysis and construct responsive proposals, as allowed in other states. It is also high time that Colorado appoint an independent renewable energy administrator rather than allowing the monopoly utility run all the programs, control all the customer information and have nearly unlimited ratepayer funding to support marketing of its arguments. We are also disappointed that Xcel is using a zero cost of carbon in its assumptions about future utility rates. With catastrophic climate change coming ever closer, the effects of electric generation on greenhouse gas emissions need to be considered in every utility decision. We certainly think that appropriate planning for the future must acknowledge that Xcel's coal-centric generation resources need to transition to clean sources of energy by attributing a reasonable cost to carbon. We think this transition needs to happen much more quickly than Xcel is proposing. But in this transition, we don't believe it is in the public interest for the utility to act as gatekeeper, manager, and competitor all at the same time.