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.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
CU a finalist for national lab to study sun.
CU a finalist for national lab to study sun.
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/27/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
The University of Colorado has been named one
of two finalists for the headquarters of the
National Solar Observatory, whose mission is to
advance knowledge of the sun.
The National Solar Observatory is operated under
the auspices of the Association of Universities
for Research in Astronomy under a cooperative
agreement with the National Science Foundation.
CU-Boulder provost Russell Moore said CU is
delighted to be named a finalist to host the NSO,
which would employ up to 70 scientists,
engineers and staff with an estimated annual
payroll of $20 million.
The University of Alabama in Huntsville is the
other finalist
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/27/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
The University of Colorado has been named one
of two finalists for the headquarters of the
National Solar Observatory, whose mission is to
advance knowledge of the sun.
The National Solar Observatory is operated under
the auspices of the Association of Universities
for Research in Astronomy under a cooperative
agreement with the National Science Foundation.
CU-Boulder provost Russell Moore said CU is
delighted to be named a finalist to host the NSO,
which would employ up to 70 scientists,
engineers and staff with an estimated annual
payroll of $20 million.
The University of Alabama in Huntsville is the
other finalist
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Grand Junction Earth day Events
Earth Day, Arbor Day events planned
Plant a tree, save a world ... or at least make it a greener, more leafy place.
Earth Day (http://www.earthday.org) is April 22, and Arbor Day is April 29 (http://www.arborday.org). In the Grand Valley, a number of celebrations are planned to commemorate the two events.
Get an early start on Arbor Day with events from 9 a.m. to noon Saturday, April 16, at the Fruita Community Center, 324 N. Coulson St.
This Arbor Day celebration will feature a student poster/art contest, adult art contest, demonstrations, tree planting, children’s activities, and tree giveaways.
Call 858-0360 for information.
The 10th annual SouthWest ArborFest will be from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday, April 16, at Lincoln Park.
Events will include a chili competition, arts, crafts, entertainment, touch-a-truck, food, experts answering tree and gardening questions and free tree seedlings while supplies last.
Call 254-3866 for information.
Earth Day at the Botanical Gardens will be from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday, April 23, at the Western Colorado Botanical Gardens, 641 Struthers Ave.
Begin the day with a Community Exercise Expo with local fitness groups and circuit training from 8–9:30 a.m. Bring the kids for a separate workout designed just for them.
A Riverfront Trail bike ride will be from 9:30–10:30 a.m., and kids are encouraged to decorate their bikes.
A concert from 5–11 p.m. will feature four acts: Dem Bones, Jack + Jill, Lil Sum’n Sum’n and Atonga Groove Alliance.
Tickets for the Earth Day events are $1 per person (free with evening concert ticket).
The evening concert ticket for a family of four is $20 in advance or $25 at the gate. For families with more than four members, add $2 per person. Individual concert tickets are $10 in advance or $15 at the gate.
Tickets can be purchased at Alpine Banks, the Botanical Gardens, and Ecofly Solar, 2526 Broadway.
Go to http://www.gjearthday.com/ or call 257-7408 to learn about the day’s activities.
A puppet show titled “Every Day is Earth Day” is planned at Mesa County Libraries’ Central Library.
Shows will be at 2 p.m. Wednesday, April 20; 10 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 26; 10 a.m. Thursday, April 28; and 10 a.m. Saturday, April 30, at the Central Library, 530 Grand Ave.
Call 243-4442 or go to http://www.mesacountylibraries.org for information.
Plant a tree, save a world ... or at least make it a greener, more leafy place.
Earth Day (http://www.earthday.org) is April 22, and Arbor Day is April 29 (http://www.arborday.org). In the Grand Valley, a number of celebrations are planned to commemorate the two events.
Get an early start on Arbor Day with events from 9 a.m. to noon Saturday, April 16, at the Fruita Community Center, 324 N. Coulson St.
This Arbor Day celebration will feature a student poster/art contest, adult art contest, demonstrations, tree planting, children’s activities, and tree giveaways.
Call 858-0360 for information.
The 10th annual SouthWest ArborFest will be from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday, April 16, at Lincoln Park.
Events will include a chili competition, arts, crafts, entertainment, touch-a-truck, food, experts answering tree and gardening questions and free tree seedlings while supplies last.
Call 254-3866 for information.
Earth Day at the Botanical Gardens will be from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday, April 23, at the Western Colorado Botanical Gardens, 641 Struthers Ave.
Begin the day with a Community Exercise Expo with local fitness groups and circuit training from 8–9:30 a.m. Bring the kids for a separate workout designed just for them.
A Riverfront Trail bike ride will be from 9:30–10:30 a.m., and kids are encouraged to decorate their bikes.
A concert from 5–11 p.m. will feature four acts: Dem Bones, Jack + Jill, Lil Sum’n Sum’n and Atonga Groove Alliance.
Tickets for the Earth Day events are $1 per person (free with evening concert ticket).
The evening concert ticket for a family of four is $20 in advance or $25 at the gate. For families with more than four members, add $2 per person. Individual concert tickets are $10 in advance or $15 at the gate.
Tickets can be purchased at Alpine Banks, the Botanical Gardens, and Ecofly Solar, 2526 Broadway.
Go to http://www.gjearthday.com/ or call 257-7408 to learn about the day’s activities.
A puppet show titled “Every Day is Earth Day” is planned at Mesa County Libraries’ Central Library.
Shows will be at 2 p.m. Wednesday, April 20; 10 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 26; 10 a.m. Thursday, April 28; and 10 a.m. Saturday, April 30, at the Central Library, 530 Grand Ave.
Call 243-4442 or go to http://www.mesacountylibraries.org for information.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
US Solar Energy Industry Experiences Record-Breaking Growth in 2010
US Solar Energy Industry Experiences Record-Breaking Growth in 2010
Posted 01 April 2011 @ 11:34 am BST
The U.S. solar energy industry had a banner year in 2010 with the industry’s total market value growing 67 percent from $3.6 billion in 2009 to $6.0 billion in 2010, according to the U.S. Solar Market InsightTM: Year-in-Review 2010 released today by the Solar Energy Industries Association® (SEIA®) and GTM Research. Solar was a bright spot in the U.S. economy last year as the fastest growing energy sector, contrasting overall U.S. GDP growth of less than 3 percent.
In total, 878 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaic (PV) capacity and 78 MW of concentrating solar power (CSP) were installed in the U.S. in 2010, enough to power roughly 200,000 homes. In addition, more than 65,000 homes and businesses added solar water heating (SWH) or solar pool heating (SPH) systems.
The U.S. PV market made the most significant strides in 2010, more than doubling installation totals from 2009 according to the latest U.S. Solar Market InsightTM report. This expansion was driven by the Federal section 1603 Treasury program, completion of significant utility-scale projects, expansion of new state markets and declining technology costs.Solar Power For Your Home
The section 1603 Treasury program helped fourth-quarter installations surge to a record 359 MW and was critical in allowing the solar industry to employ more than 93,000 Americans in 2010. Originally set to expire at the end of 2010, the 1603 Treasury program was ultimately extended through 2011.
In addition, market diversification was a distinguishing characteristic of U.S. solar energy development in 2010. Sixteen states each installed more than 10 MW of PV in 2010, up from only four in 2007. The top 10 states for PV installation in 2010 were: California, New Jersey, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina and Texas.
Cost declines were also an important factor in the 2010 solar expansion, as technology costs fell and the industry matured further, capitalizing on greater economies of scale and improved installation practices. In the residential and commercial-property segments, installed annual PV system cost declines of 8 percent and 11 percent respectively spurred record build-out.
“The U.S. PV market saw a breakthrough in 2010 and is emerging as a global demand center for both suppliers and project developers,” said Shayle Kann, Managing Director of Solar at GTM Research. “The U.S. Solar Market InsightTM: Year-in-Review 2010 examines the conditions that led to the past year’s growth and pinpoints future demand, industry trends and market challenges for 2011 and beyond.”
“This report shows that solar energy is now one of the fastest growing industries in the United States, creating new opportunities for both large and small businesses. Every day, Americans across the country are going to work at well-paying, stable jobs at solar companies, from small installers all the way up to Fortune 500 companies,” said Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO. “This remarkable growth puts the solar industry’s goal of powering 2 million homes annually by 2015 within reach. Achieving such amazing growth during the economic downturn shows that smart polices combined with American ingenuity adds up to a great return on investment for the public. The bottom line is that the solar energy industry is creating tens of thousands of new American jobs each year.”
Along with analysis of the U.S. PV market, U.S. Solar Market InsightTM: Year-in-Review 2010 provides visibility into the CSP and solar heating and cooling markets. The 75 MW Martin CSP plant installed in Florida is the largest to come online in nearly 20 years and foreshadows a pipeline of more than 9 GW of CSP projects under development. In addition, for the first time in 2010, the federal government approved permits for CSP plants on public land.
Meanwhile, the solar heating and cooling markets grew in 2010. The top five states for solar water heating installations in 2010 were California, Hawaii, Arizona, Florida and Puerto Rico, while the top five for solar pool heating were Florida, California, Arizona, New York, and Illinois. Fluctuating natural gas and heating oil prices will determine the future of these markets.
Posted 01 April 2011 @ 11:34 am BST
The U.S. solar energy industry had a banner year in 2010 with the industry’s total market value growing 67 percent from $3.6 billion in 2009 to $6.0 billion in 2010, according to the U.S. Solar Market InsightTM: Year-in-Review 2010 released today by the Solar Energy Industries Association® (SEIA®) and GTM Research. Solar was a bright spot in the U.S. economy last year as the fastest growing energy sector, contrasting overall U.S. GDP growth of less than 3 percent.
In total, 878 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaic (PV) capacity and 78 MW of concentrating solar power (CSP) were installed in the U.S. in 2010, enough to power roughly 200,000 homes. In addition, more than 65,000 homes and businesses added solar water heating (SWH) or solar pool heating (SPH) systems.
The U.S. PV market made the most significant strides in 2010, more than doubling installation totals from 2009 according to the latest U.S. Solar Market InsightTM report. This expansion was driven by the Federal section 1603 Treasury program, completion of significant utility-scale projects, expansion of new state markets and declining technology costs.Solar Power For Your Home
The section 1603 Treasury program helped fourth-quarter installations surge to a record 359 MW and was critical in allowing the solar industry to employ more than 93,000 Americans in 2010. Originally set to expire at the end of 2010, the 1603 Treasury program was ultimately extended through 2011.
In addition, market diversification was a distinguishing characteristic of U.S. solar energy development in 2010. Sixteen states each installed more than 10 MW of PV in 2010, up from only four in 2007. The top 10 states for PV installation in 2010 were: California, New Jersey, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina and Texas.
Cost declines were also an important factor in the 2010 solar expansion, as technology costs fell and the industry matured further, capitalizing on greater economies of scale and improved installation practices. In the residential and commercial-property segments, installed annual PV system cost declines of 8 percent and 11 percent respectively spurred record build-out.
“The U.S. PV market saw a breakthrough in 2010 and is emerging as a global demand center for both suppliers and project developers,” said Shayle Kann, Managing Director of Solar at GTM Research. “The U.S. Solar Market InsightTM: Year-in-Review 2010 examines the conditions that led to the past year’s growth and pinpoints future demand, industry trends and market challenges for 2011 and beyond.”
“This report shows that solar energy is now one of the fastest growing industries in the United States, creating new opportunities for both large and small businesses. Every day, Americans across the country are going to work at well-paying, stable jobs at solar companies, from small installers all the way up to Fortune 500 companies,” said Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO. “This remarkable growth puts the solar industry’s goal of powering 2 million homes annually by 2015 within reach. Achieving such amazing growth during the economic downturn shows that smart polices combined with American ingenuity adds up to a great return on investment for the public. The bottom line is that the solar energy industry is creating tens of thousands of new American jobs each year.”
Along with analysis of the U.S. PV market, U.S. Solar Market InsightTM: Year-in-Review 2010 provides visibility into the CSP and solar heating and cooling markets. The 75 MW Martin CSP plant installed in Florida is the largest to come online in nearly 20 years and foreshadows a pipeline of more than 9 GW of CSP projects under development. In addition, for the first time in 2010, the federal government approved permits for CSP plants on public land.
Meanwhile, the solar heating and cooling markets grew in 2010. The top five states for solar water heating installations in 2010 were California, Hawaii, Arizona, Florida and Puerto Rico, while the top five for solar pool heating were Florida, California, Arizona, New York, and Illinois. Fluctuating natural gas and heating oil prices will determine the future of these markets.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Report: Colorado’s Solar Permit Processes Lag Behind Best Practices
Report: Colorado’s Solar Permit Processes Lag Behind Best Practices
Mar. 24, 2011 (Business Wire) — The Vote Solar Initiative (Vote Solar) and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA) today released a report and online interactive map rating solar permitting practices in 34 cities and counties across Colorado. Local solar permitting practices have a significant impact on the cost of solar energy systems for homes and businesses.
The new report indicates that, although practices vary widely by municipality or county, the average fee for Colorado solar permitting is nearly twice as high and seven times longer than national permitting best practices. The findings reinforce the need for Colorado to adopt the standardized, streamlined solar permitting practices contained in the Fair Permit Act of 2011 (HB10-1199) and to keep working to simplify permitting processes to drive down costs for consumers.
“With a clear policy commitment to renewables in place, Colorado has become one of the nation’s most promising solar markets. However, the state has an inefficient permitting landscape that directly undermines its renewable energy and economic development goals. Removing red tape and unnecessary fees from the solar permitting process is one simple and effective way that local governments can support Coloradan investment in clean energy,” said Gwen Rose, Deputy Director of Vote Solar and lead author of the report.
Added RJ Harrington, COSEIA’s Policy Director, “While there are certainly examples of leadership on the issue, many of Colorado’s cities and counties have permitting processes that add extraneous costs for solar customers and add unnecessary administrative work for solar installers and public agencies alike. Coloradans need the Fair Permit Act to help clear the way for solar adoption and economic development.”
When a Colorado energy customer invests in a solar electric or solar thermal system, that resident, business or other organization must first apply for and obtain a permit from the local government. According to best practices, this process should be transparent, standardized, expeditious, and reflect the municipality’s actual cost of review and issuance. As today’s report indicates, costs still vary widely by municipality due to different permitting plan review processes and other extraneous fees. This has resulted in piecemeal, local permitting practices that are often costly, complex, non-transparent and time-intensive.
The Fair Permit Act (HB 11-1199) is designed to reduce Colorado’s local solar permitting costs and clear the way for increased in-state investment in solar and related economic development. Specifically, the Colorado Fair Permit Act would:
• Extend existing $500 and $1,000 permit fee limitations to the plan review and permit issuance process for solar energy systems under 2-megawatts (MW) in size – these are currently set to expire on July 1, 2011
• Reduce unnecessary costs by limiting’ plan review and permit issuance fees to their actual costs for solar energy systems larger than 2 MW in size.
• Promote transparency by ensuring local governments clearly and individually identify all fees and taxes assessed on an invoice.
Using industry-standard best practices as a benchmark, Vote Solar and COSEIA assessed each city for the time and cost associated with solar permitting. The report found that permit fees for an average-sized residential solar system can cost a whopping $2,000 and take as many as 20 business days. The average cost of a solar permit in Colorado is $495 compared to a best practice fee of $250 or lower. Additionally the average time-to-issuance in Colorado is seven business days, significantly longer than the recommended over-the-counter practice. However, those local practices vary widely across the state. Breckenridge, Colorado Springs, Denver, Denver County, Grand Junction and Pueblo lead in solar-friendly permit practices. Meanwhile, Arapahoe County, Aurora, Commerce City, Douglas County, Erie and Longmont showed the most need for improvement.
Colorado is the second state in Vote Solar’s Project: Permit, a campaign to highlight and improve solar permitting practices in cities nationwide. To view the Project: Permit map, full Colorado report, and best practice guidelines, visit: http://votesolar.org/solar-map/
About the Vote Solar Initiative: Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream. Since 2002 Vote Solar has engaged in state, local and federal advocacy campaigns to remove regulatory barriers and implement the key policies needed to bring solar to scale. www.votesolar.org
About the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association: Established in 1989, COSEIA is the nonprofit association leading Colorado’s solar industry. Its mission is to expand the use of solar technologies across Colorado. COSEIA advances solar policy, removes market barriers, highlights emerging trends, and improves education and outreach. www.coseia.org
The Vote Solar Initiative
Rosalind Jackson, 415-817-5061
rosalind@votesolar.org
Mar. 24, 2011 (Business Wire) — The Vote Solar Initiative (Vote Solar) and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA) today released a report and online interactive map rating solar permitting practices in 34 cities and counties across Colorado. Local solar permitting practices have a significant impact on the cost of solar energy systems for homes and businesses.
The new report indicates that, although practices vary widely by municipality or county, the average fee for Colorado solar permitting is nearly twice as high and seven times longer than national permitting best practices. The findings reinforce the need for Colorado to adopt the standardized, streamlined solar permitting practices contained in the Fair Permit Act of 2011 (HB10-1199) and to keep working to simplify permitting processes to drive down costs for consumers.
“With a clear policy commitment to renewables in place, Colorado has become one of the nation’s most promising solar markets. However, the state has an inefficient permitting landscape that directly undermines its renewable energy and economic development goals. Removing red tape and unnecessary fees from the solar permitting process is one simple and effective way that local governments can support Coloradan investment in clean energy,” said Gwen Rose, Deputy Director of Vote Solar and lead author of the report.
Added RJ Harrington, COSEIA’s Policy Director, “While there are certainly examples of leadership on the issue, many of Colorado’s cities and counties have permitting processes that add extraneous costs for solar customers and add unnecessary administrative work for solar installers and public agencies alike. Coloradans need the Fair Permit Act to help clear the way for solar adoption and economic development.”
When a Colorado energy customer invests in a solar electric or solar thermal system, that resident, business or other organization must first apply for and obtain a permit from the local government. According to best practices, this process should be transparent, standardized, expeditious, and reflect the municipality’s actual cost of review and issuance. As today’s report indicates, costs still vary widely by municipality due to different permitting plan review processes and other extraneous fees. This has resulted in piecemeal, local permitting practices that are often costly, complex, non-transparent and time-intensive.
The Fair Permit Act (HB 11-1199) is designed to reduce Colorado’s local solar permitting costs and clear the way for increased in-state investment in solar and related economic development. Specifically, the Colorado Fair Permit Act would:
• Extend existing $500 and $1,000 permit fee limitations to the plan review and permit issuance process for solar energy systems under 2-megawatts (MW) in size – these are currently set to expire on July 1, 2011
• Reduce unnecessary costs by limiting’ plan review and permit issuance fees to their actual costs for solar energy systems larger than 2 MW in size.
• Promote transparency by ensuring local governments clearly and individually identify all fees and taxes assessed on an invoice.
Using industry-standard best practices as a benchmark, Vote Solar and COSEIA assessed each city for the time and cost associated with solar permitting. The report found that permit fees for an average-sized residential solar system can cost a whopping $2,000 and take as many as 20 business days. The average cost of a solar permit in Colorado is $495 compared to a best practice fee of $250 or lower. Additionally the average time-to-issuance in Colorado is seven business days, significantly longer than the recommended over-the-counter practice. However, those local practices vary widely across the state. Breckenridge, Colorado Springs, Denver, Denver County, Grand Junction and Pueblo lead in solar-friendly permit practices. Meanwhile, Arapahoe County, Aurora, Commerce City, Douglas County, Erie and Longmont showed the most need for improvement.
Colorado is the second state in Vote Solar’s Project: Permit, a campaign to highlight and improve solar permitting practices in cities nationwide. To view the Project: Permit map, full Colorado report, and best practice guidelines, visit: http://votesolar.org/solar-map/
About the Vote Solar Initiative: Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream. Since 2002 Vote Solar has engaged in state, local and federal advocacy campaigns to remove regulatory barriers and implement the key policies needed to bring solar to scale. www.votesolar.org
About the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association: Established in 1989, COSEIA is the nonprofit association leading Colorado’s solar industry. Its mission is to expand the use of solar technologies across Colorado. COSEIA advances solar policy, removes market barriers, highlights emerging trends, and improves education and outreach. www.coseia.org
The Vote Solar Initiative
Rosalind Jackson, 415-817-5061
rosalind@votesolar.org
Agreement Reached on Solar*Rewards Program
Agreement Reached on Solar*Rewards Program
After long days of negotiations, Xcel Energy has finally agreed to restart its Solar*Rewards program as early as next week, pending PUC approval this Friday, March 18th. The negotiated agreement had to address three primary goals:
- Provide greater predictability and stability for solar businesses and customers
- Address the program cash flow challenges
- Reduce the program's nearly $100 million debt load
All three goals have been met and COSEIA, along with coalition partners, was able to negotiate the up-front incentive payment to $1.75/watt + $0.04/kWh performance-based incentive over 10 years for the small customer-owned category (Xcel was proposing $0.25/watt + $1/REC).
Third-party owned and mid-sized programs will move immediately to a performance-based incentive (PBI), paid over a 20 year period:
- Small third-party owned systems $0.16/kWh PBI
- Mid-sized systems $0.15/kWh PBI
As with before, all incentives will ratchet down over time based on capacity installed to help balance the program budget. See chart >
Xcel's proposed 10 MW of additional capacity was also negotiated up to 60 MW over the next year when Xcel's 2012 RES Compliance Plan is implemented. The negotiated restart of the program will be March 2011.
The shift from up-front incentives to performance-based incentives will not be easy one, but is necessary to address the cash flow crunch and avoid another shut down of the program. Shifting to PBI's paid out over a 10 year time frame for the customer-owned category is easier to finance and will give businesses time to establish financing arrangements.
The agreement also includes language that prohibits Xcel from taking unilateral action without PUC approval -- and of course we, as an industry, need to do our part to live within our program's means. Funding is not unlimited.
Xcel's actions have come at a significant cost and we're going to continue to do everything possible to promote a more stable marketplace during these challenging times.
After long days of negotiations, Xcel Energy has finally agreed to restart its Solar*Rewards program as early as next week, pending PUC approval this Friday, March 18th. The negotiated agreement had to address three primary goals:
- Provide greater predictability and stability for solar businesses and customers
- Address the program cash flow challenges
- Reduce the program's nearly $100 million debt load
All three goals have been met and COSEIA, along with coalition partners, was able to negotiate the up-front incentive payment to $1.75/watt + $0.04/kWh performance-based incentive over 10 years for the small customer-owned category (Xcel was proposing $0.25/watt + $1/REC).
Third-party owned and mid-sized programs will move immediately to a performance-based incentive (PBI), paid over a 20 year period:
- Small third-party owned systems $0.16/kWh PBI
- Mid-sized systems $0.15/kWh PBI
As with before, all incentives will ratchet down over time based on capacity installed to help balance the program budget. See chart >
Xcel's proposed 10 MW of additional capacity was also negotiated up to 60 MW over the next year when Xcel's 2012 RES Compliance Plan is implemented. The negotiated restart of the program will be March 2011.
The shift from up-front incentives to performance-based incentives will not be easy one, but is necessary to address the cash flow crunch and avoid another shut down of the program. Shifting to PBI's paid out over a 10 year time frame for the customer-owned category is easier to finance and will give businesses time to establish financing arrangements.
The agreement also includes language that prohibits Xcel from taking unilateral action without PUC approval -- and of course we, as an industry, need to do our part to live within our program's means. Funding is not unlimited.
Xcel's actions have come at a significant cost and we're going to continue to do everything possible to promote a more stable marketplace during these challenging times.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
PUC Says Progress Being Made on Solar Negotiations — But More Time Needed
PUC Says Progress Being Made on Solar Negotiations — But More Time Needed
Posted By admin On March 11, 2011 @ 4:31 pm In ARCHIVES, Feature Articles | No Comments
Negotiations between Colorado’s solar industry and Xcel Energy concerning restarting the utility’s Solar*Rewards rebate program are progressing, Xcel told state regulators late Thursday. However, additional time is needed to reach a final agreement, according to the utility’s filing at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
Several stakeholder groups have been involved in this week’s negotiations, led by the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association which has warned that keeping the solar incentives at the reduced level will devastate the industry. Environmental and business groups are also at the table. Stay with Colorado Energy News for the latest on this huge issue.
By Ann Rascalli
If an agreement could, indeed, be reached within that time, the commissioners said they would consider approving a settlement. Without an agreement, the commissioners said they may take steps to resurrect Xcel’s Solar*Rewards rebate program in some form on a temporary basis until long-term decisions can be made.
The rebate issue broke out in mid-February when Colorado’s largest utility abrumptly cut solar rebate levels from $2.35 per watt to $2.01 per watt, and the following day stopped taking new applications for the Solar*Rewards program — at least until Xcel reopens it.
Since then, sales of PV systems in the state have virtually dried up, according to the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (CoSEIA), and the trade group warned that layoffs across the industry are coming.
Xcel has asked the PUC to cut the rebate levels to $1.25 per watt. CoSEIA wants the commission to keep rebates flowing — at some level — until the regulatory agency make a decision to approve or deny Xcel’s request.
“The PUC is moving very quickly on this issue, reinforcing the fact that they see the need to get this resolved before there’s any more economic damage to this industry,” said Neal Lurie, CoSEIA’s executive director. The Solar*Rewards program is funded by a 2 percent surcharge on the monthly bills of the utility’s Colorado customers, a small price to pay for clean energy say supporters.
“We’re happy to come to the table with the solar industry to try to reach an agreement,” said Michelle Aguayo, a spokeswoman for Xcel. “It’s always been our goal to get this program restarted in a form that is fair and equitable.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Colorado Energy News: http://coloradoenergynews.com
Posted By admin On March 11, 2011 @ 4:31 pm In ARCHIVES, Feature Articles | No Comments
Negotiations between Colorado’s solar industry and Xcel Energy concerning restarting the utility’s Solar*Rewards rebate program are progressing, Xcel told state regulators late Thursday. However, additional time is needed to reach a final agreement, according to the utility’s filing at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
Several stakeholder groups have been involved in this week’s negotiations, led by the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association which has warned that keeping the solar incentives at the reduced level will devastate the industry. Environmental and business groups are also at the table. Stay with Colorado Energy News for the latest on this huge issue.
By Ann Rascalli
If an agreement could, indeed, be reached within that time, the commissioners said they would consider approving a settlement. Without an agreement, the commissioners said they may take steps to resurrect Xcel’s Solar*Rewards rebate program in some form on a temporary basis until long-term decisions can be made.
The rebate issue broke out in mid-February when Colorado’s largest utility abrumptly cut solar rebate levels from $2.35 per watt to $2.01 per watt, and the following day stopped taking new applications for the Solar*Rewards program — at least until Xcel reopens it.
Since then, sales of PV systems in the state have virtually dried up, according to the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (CoSEIA), and the trade group warned that layoffs across the industry are coming.
Xcel has asked the PUC to cut the rebate levels to $1.25 per watt. CoSEIA wants the commission to keep rebates flowing — at some level — until the regulatory agency make a decision to approve or deny Xcel’s request.
“The PUC is moving very quickly on this issue, reinforcing the fact that they see the need to get this resolved before there’s any more economic damage to this industry,” said Neal Lurie, CoSEIA’s executive director. The Solar*Rewards program is funded by a 2 percent surcharge on the monthly bills of the utility’s Colorado customers, a small price to pay for clean energy say supporters.
“We’re happy to come to the table with the solar industry to try to reach an agreement,” said Michelle Aguayo, a spokeswoman for Xcel. “It’s always been our goal to get this program restarted in a form that is fair and equitable.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Colorado Energy News: http://coloradoenergynews.com
Xcel works to be wise stewards of renewables
Xcel works to be wise stewards of renewables
Heidi Ihrke of High Noon Solar unfortunately paints a very inaccurate picture of Xcel Energy’s recent decision to modify its Solar*Rewards program in Colorado, in her March 1 letter to the editor. In fact, Xcel Energy remains committed to creating a clean energy future for Colorado, but at a reasonable cost.
Colorado voters approved a Renewable Energy Standard in November 2004 to kick start, but not fund into perpetuity, the on-site solar industry. Xcel Energy now collects 2 percent of customers’ bills each month to support that standard — which has gone to the on-site solar industry through Solar*Rewards, for $178 million through 2010.
At the time we stared Solar*Rewards in March 2006, the goal was to keep customer costs for a new system at about 50 percent. Recently, however, incentives have been paying upwards of 75 percent of the total cost. This provides for fewer megawatts of generation and is unfair to those who have already installed solar systems over the years.
Xcel Energy must be wise stewards of its customers’ investment in renewable energy. We’re not shutting down Solar*Rewards, we’re asking to reset incentives to take advantage of the drop in costs associated with on-site solar systems.
Xcel Energy has 78 megawatts of on-site solar on its system in Colorado; it has committed to installing up to another 59 megawatts this year. We have more than 2,200 installations still to be completed from just last year, or about a half dozen a day. To question our commitment to on-site solar is otherwise ridiculous. Simply stated, the on-site solar industry will have more than enough work in the next several years.
The question on-site solar installers should be asking themselves is: Why give larger incentives to fewer customers, when spreading those enticements out to a greater potential base of consumers can only serve to increase business for the industry?
FRED EGGLESTON
Local Government and Community Affairs Manager
Heidi Ihrke of High Noon Solar unfortunately paints a very inaccurate picture of Xcel Energy’s recent decision to modify its Solar*Rewards program in Colorado, in her March 1 letter to the editor. In fact, Xcel Energy remains committed to creating a clean energy future for Colorado, but at a reasonable cost.
Colorado voters approved a Renewable Energy Standard in November 2004 to kick start, but not fund into perpetuity, the on-site solar industry. Xcel Energy now collects 2 percent of customers’ bills each month to support that standard — which has gone to the on-site solar industry through Solar*Rewards, for $178 million through 2010.
At the time we stared Solar*Rewards in March 2006, the goal was to keep customer costs for a new system at about 50 percent. Recently, however, incentives have been paying upwards of 75 percent of the total cost. This provides for fewer megawatts of generation and is unfair to those who have already installed solar systems over the years.
Xcel Energy must be wise stewards of its customers’ investment in renewable energy. We’re not shutting down Solar*Rewards, we’re asking to reset incentives to take advantage of the drop in costs associated with on-site solar systems.
Xcel Energy has 78 megawatts of on-site solar on its system in Colorado; it has committed to installing up to another 59 megawatts this year. We have more than 2,200 installations still to be completed from just last year, or about a half dozen a day. To question our commitment to on-site solar is otherwise ridiculous. Simply stated, the on-site solar industry will have more than enough work in the next several years.
The question on-site solar installers should be asking themselves is: Why give larger incentives to fewer customers, when spreading those enticements out to a greater potential base of consumers can only serve to increase business for the industry?
FRED EGGLESTON
Local Government and Community Affairs Manager
Monday, March 7, 2011
Colorado PUC Tells Xcel, Solar Sector To Reach Agreement On Rebates
Colorado PUC Tells Xcel, Solar Sector To Reach Agreement On Rebates
SI Staff, Monday 07 March 2011 - 20:57:37
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has instructed Xcel Energy and representatives from the state's solar market to work out an agreement regarding rebates for installed solar systems. The decision follows Xcel's decision to make controversial modifications to its Solar*Rewards program.
Xcel and the state's solar sector were given seven days to reach a settlement, the Denver Business Journal reports. If no agreement is reached within that time frame, commissioners may issue a temporary decision until a longer-term agreement can be reached.
SOURCE: Denver Business Journal
SI Staff, Monday 07 March 2011 - 20:57:37
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has instructed Xcel Energy and representatives from the state's solar market to work out an agreement regarding rebates for installed solar systems. The decision follows Xcel's decision to make controversial modifications to its Solar*Rewards program.
Xcel and the state's solar sector were given seven days to reach a settlement, the Denver Business Journal reports. If no agreement is reached within that time frame, commissioners may issue a temporary decision until a longer-term agreement can be reached.
SOURCE: Denver Business Journal
Monday, February 28, 2011
Xcel’s cut in solar rebate hurts economy, energy
Xcel’s cut in solar rebate hurts economy, energy
As a small business owner, employer and proud resident of the state of Colorado, I used to also be able to say I worked in the No. 2 state for solar jobs per capita in the United States. That was until Xcel Energy inexplicably decided to cut its entire solar compliance plan last Wednesday, reducing its rebate structure by more than 90 percent for the state of Colorado.
Not only did Xcel reduce the rebate, effective immediately, but now the solar industry is in a holding pattern until the PUC rules on the validity of this reduction, with no new applications for solar allowed with Xcel Energy.
When asked in an informative meeting held by Xcel the day after the announcement if they had considered loss of jobs when they made this decision, an Xcel representative blatantly said, “No, no we didn’t.”
Colorado voters have sent a clear message that they want to increase clean-energy use to help promote economic development in our state. Allowing Xcel to control its own solar program is a conflict of interest. As a monopoly utility, Xcel has a financial stake in disrupting and delaying solar growth in a state where voters have made a strong voice in support of renewable energy.
The PUC needs to stand strong in support of small businesses that are looking to lose 2,000 to 3,000 jobs by year’s end if resolution does not come in this matter.
Considering the prospect of $4 to $5 per gallon cost of gasoline as conflicts continue to flare in oil-rich areas, renewable energy should be the last thing on the chopping block.
HEIDI IHRKE
High Noon Solar
Grand Junction
Grand Junction Sentinel 28 February 2011
As a small business owner, employer and proud resident of the state of Colorado, I used to also be able to say I worked in the No. 2 state for solar jobs per capita in the United States. That was until Xcel Energy inexplicably decided to cut its entire solar compliance plan last Wednesday, reducing its rebate structure by more than 90 percent for the state of Colorado.
Not only did Xcel reduce the rebate, effective immediately, but now the solar industry is in a holding pattern until the PUC rules on the validity of this reduction, with no new applications for solar allowed with Xcel Energy.
When asked in an informative meeting held by Xcel the day after the announcement if they had considered loss of jobs when they made this decision, an Xcel representative blatantly said, “No, no we didn’t.”
Colorado voters have sent a clear message that they want to increase clean-energy use to help promote economic development in our state. Allowing Xcel to control its own solar program is a conflict of interest. As a monopoly utility, Xcel has a financial stake in disrupting and delaying solar growth in a state where voters have made a strong voice in support of renewable energy.
The PUC needs to stand strong in support of small businesses that are looking to lose 2,000 to 3,000 jobs by year’s end if resolution does not come in this matter.
Considering the prospect of $4 to $5 per gallon cost of gasoline as conflicts continue to flare in oil-rich areas, renewable energy should be the last thing on the chopping block.
HEIDI IHRKE
High Noon Solar
Grand Junction
Grand Junction Sentinel 28 February 2011
Xcel Energy blasted for burying bill to up small-scale renewable energy projects
State's largest utility accused of unhealthy obsession with fossil fuels, full-scale centralized energy facilities
Backers of a bill that would have prompted the study of a “feed-in-tariff” program in Colorado to connect renewable energy generators to the grid say the state’s major utilities quietly killed the legislation in committee last week because of their “continuing love affair with fossil fuels.”
HB 1228 (pdf), sponsored by Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, was shot down in the House Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee, mostly because of the no votes of seven Republicans. Publicly owned Xcel Energy, the state’s largest utility, and the Colorado Rural Electric Association – representing most of state’s rural electric co-ops – opposed the bill.
“Xcel’s business model relies too heavily on the building of large central generation facilities that have major inherent liabilities for grid security and environmental impacts,” said consultant Becky English of Denver-based Rebecca English and Associates, who worked with Solano for the past eight months on the bill. “Distributed generation of clean renewable energy is the wave of the future; feed-in tariff is the market-balancing policy mechanism that gets us there.”
Feed-in-tariff (FIT) is being used in parts of Canada and Germany, where it allows individual property owners and businesses to generate power using small-scale solar, wind, biomass or hydro installations and sell that electricity back into the grid at a premium rate that’s absorbed by all ratepayers. FIT is meant to encourage investment in renewables and promote “grid parity” between renewables and fossil fuels.
But Xcel officials successfully argued they’re already on-track to accomplish greater parity through the state’s ambitious renewable energy standard (RES) of 30 percent by 2020 – the second highest in the nation behind only California.
“A feed-in tariff would be duplicative of the Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment (RESA), which is the current charge on customer bills devoted to paying the incremental cost of renewable resources,” said Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz. “A feed-in-tariff is a more expensive, less efficient method for accomplishing what we are already achieving under the current [RES].”
But English and other FIT backers say an RES is merely a goal while feed-in-tariff is an actual policy mechanism that’s proven in other parts of the world to help jurisdictions meet or exceed their renewable energy goals.
“FITs create a bigger market,” said Jim Burness, CEO of SolSource, a Colorado solar installation firm. “Under our recently-departed system, solar was only available to those who either had cash, or great credit. Since FIT payments come from the utility, it allows anyone with a good [renewable energy] resource to participate, thereby exploding the market.”
Burness was referring to Xcel’s highly controversial recent proposal to cut off all new applications to its Solar Rewards program and reduce current rebates from $2.35 a watt to $1.25 a watt. Solar industry advocates say the move could cost more than 2,000 Colorado jobs. The move prompted protests by clean energy advocates in Denver over the weekend.
English says FITs would be one way for Xcel to repair its battered image on the small-scale distributed energy front.
“Xcel’s corporate responsibility reputation is on the ropes due to the company’s continuing love affair with fossil fuels, its abuse of the solar industry, and its ongoing resistance to meaningful amounts of locally produced, clean distributed generation,” English said.
Utility scale wind and solar projects come with one major drawback. The best areas for generating renewable energy on such a large scale tend to be in remote rural areas far from the major cities that need the electricity. That has caused a transmission bottleneck and sparked legal battles over power-line location such as the Trinchera Ranch lawsuit in the San Luis Valley.
Finally, Xcel’s Stutz said “feed-in tariffs face legal issues in the United States that remain to be worked out. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL in Golden] says that feed-in tariffs will not work in the U.S. without changes to federal law or to existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] precedents.”
But English counters that an NREL official who’s studied FIT policy appeared at last week’s hearing and testified that feed-in-tariff could work under existing laws and FERC rulings.
Regardless, HB 1228 appears dead for now, leaving proponents to weigh their limited legislative options.
Backers of a bill that would have prompted the study of a “feed-in-tariff” program in Colorado to connect renewable energy generators to the grid say the state’s major utilities quietly killed the legislation in committee last week because of their “continuing love affair with fossil fuels.”
HB 1228 (pdf), sponsored by Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, was shot down in the House Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee, mostly because of the no votes of seven Republicans. Publicly owned Xcel Energy, the state’s largest utility, and the Colorado Rural Electric Association – representing most of state’s rural electric co-ops – opposed the bill.
“Xcel’s business model relies too heavily on the building of large central generation facilities that have major inherent liabilities for grid security and environmental impacts,” said consultant Becky English of Denver-based Rebecca English and Associates, who worked with Solano for the past eight months on the bill. “Distributed generation of clean renewable energy is the wave of the future; feed-in tariff is the market-balancing policy mechanism that gets us there.”
Feed-in-tariff (FIT) is being used in parts of Canada and Germany, where it allows individual property owners and businesses to generate power using small-scale solar, wind, biomass or hydro installations and sell that electricity back into the grid at a premium rate that’s absorbed by all ratepayers. FIT is meant to encourage investment in renewables and promote “grid parity” between renewables and fossil fuels.
But Xcel officials successfully argued they’re already on-track to accomplish greater parity through the state’s ambitious renewable energy standard (RES) of 30 percent by 2020 – the second highest in the nation behind only California.
“A feed-in tariff would be duplicative of the Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment (RESA), which is the current charge on customer bills devoted to paying the incremental cost of renewable resources,” said Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz. “A feed-in-tariff is a more expensive, less efficient method for accomplishing what we are already achieving under the current [RES].”
But English and other FIT backers say an RES is merely a goal while feed-in-tariff is an actual policy mechanism that’s proven in other parts of the world to help jurisdictions meet or exceed their renewable energy goals.
“FITs create a bigger market,” said Jim Burness, CEO of SolSource, a Colorado solar installation firm. “Under our recently-departed system, solar was only available to those who either had cash, or great credit. Since FIT payments come from the utility, it allows anyone with a good [renewable energy] resource to participate, thereby exploding the market.”
Burness was referring to Xcel’s highly controversial recent proposal to cut off all new applications to its Solar Rewards program and reduce current rebates from $2.35 a watt to $1.25 a watt. Solar industry advocates say the move could cost more than 2,000 Colorado jobs. The move prompted protests by clean energy advocates in Denver over the weekend.
English says FITs would be one way for Xcel to repair its battered image on the small-scale distributed energy front.
“Xcel’s corporate responsibility reputation is on the ropes due to the company’s continuing love affair with fossil fuels, its abuse of the solar industry, and its ongoing resistance to meaningful amounts of locally produced, clean distributed generation,” English said.
Utility scale wind and solar projects come with one major drawback. The best areas for generating renewable energy on such a large scale tend to be in remote rural areas far from the major cities that need the electricity. That has caused a transmission bottleneck and sparked legal battles over power-line location such as the Trinchera Ranch lawsuit in the San Luis Valley.
Finally, Xcel’s Stutz said “feed-in tariffs face legal issues in the United States that remain to be worked out. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL in Golden] says that feed-in tariffs will not work in the U.S. without changes to federal law or to existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] precedents.”
But English counters that an NREL official who’s studied FIT policy appeared at last week’s hearing and testified that feed-in-tariff could work under existing laws and FERC rulings.
Regardless, HB 1228 appears dead for now, leaving proponents to weigh their limited legislative options.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
