Showdown looming for solar energy in Colorado

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

Wind and solar power ready to help states meet EPA rule

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

Meeting renewable energy targets turns out to be inexpensive

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

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

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

EPA's Approach on Carbon Limits to Spark Court Challenges

The expected legal battle over the Obama administration's coming limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants could provide a rarity for environmental litigation: a case for which there is scant court precedent. The Environmental Protection Agency is turning to a little-used provision of the Clean Air Act for its new rules, because carbon dioxide isn't regulated under major Clean Air Act programs that address air pollutants. The EPA says it has only used the section, called 111(d), to regulate five sources of pollutants since the provision was enacted in 1970—and none on the scale of CO2, a major greenhouse gas. Enlarge Image Because the provision has been invoked so rarely, courts have had little opportunity to weigh in on it, creating the unusual circumstance in which potential challengers to the carbon rules would be litigating largely on a blank slate against the EPA. The Clean Air Act provision gives the agency authority to regulate pollutants emitted by facilities already in operation, but the expected lawsuits from states and industry could test how far a president can go in using the long-standing air-pollution law to try to address climate change. The coming EPA regulation "is in many ways unprecedented, so it will attract a challenge to its core," said Jody Freeman, a Harvard University law professor and former adviser to President Barack Obama on energy and climate issues. The administration's approach is expected to generate stiff legal pushback from industry groups and states such as West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alaska and Texas, according to lawyers familiar with the matter. Potential challengers face hurdles in court. Under long-standing legal principles, courts give deference to administrative agencies like the EPA as long as they don't regulate in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The looming fights also come amid a legal winning streak for the EPA, in which courts have upheld an array of agency actions in recent years. The Supreme Court last month revived agency regulations that curbed power-plant emissions blowing across state lines, reversing a lower-court ruling that went against the agency. And a key appeals court has ruled for the EPA on several occasions in recent months, in cases brought both by industry groups and by environmentalists. Among the decisions, it upheld EPA regulations of mercury emissions from power plants. The same appeals court previously upheld the EPA's 2009 conclusion that CO2 and other greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health, and it upheld subsequent rules on automobile emissions. A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected next month on one issue related to the EPA's imposition of greenhouse-gas permitting requirements for some facilities. The CO2 rules expected to be announced Monday will set emissions benchmarks and give the states flexibility in meeting them—a partnership mandated by the Clean Air Act. The administration plans to allow states to use cap-and-trade systems, renewable energy and other measures to meet aggressive goals for reducing power plants' carbon emissions. An EPA spokesman declined to comment on the legal underpinnings of the coming regulations, but an informational video posted on the agency's website has top officials saying Congress wrote Section 111(d) broadly, with the intention of giving the EPA leeway to address air-pollution problems not covered by other Clean Air Act programs. The section "gives us room to be creative, innovative and flexible as we think about how to design a cost-effective program to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants," said Janet McCabe, an acting EPA assistant administrator, in the video. Legal objections from industry are likely to center on the EPA's expected interpretation that it can set pollution standards across fleets of power plants, instead of directing individual plants to meet the standard by installing pollution technology or taking other steps at each facility to cut emissions, said Jeff Holmstead, an attorney who represents coal-industry interests at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP. Mr. Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administrator under President George W. Bush, said that because there is so little precedent, the EPA is going to be "as creative as possible," but he noted that it "creates more openings" for industry and states to challenge the agency in court. Washington environmental lawyer Sean Donahue said the lack of court precedent could cut in the EPA's favor: "There's more room to make legal arguments because the courts haven't specified what the statute means and doesn't mean, but it also leaves more room for the agency's judgment." While the specific bounds of the EPA's authority to regulate power plants' carbon emissions haven't been tested in court, a 2011 Supreme Court opinion said the agency had the power to take action to curb emissions. That came in a pro-industry ruling barring a group of states from proceeding with a public-nuisance lawsuit seeking abatement of power-plant emissions. Next week's EPA rules come as the agency is separately proposing greenhouse-gas regulations for future power plants that are more stringent. Those rules are also likely to be challenged in court, and that litigation could affect the agency's regulations for existing plants. The court challenges could for last years, potentially beyond Mr. Obama's second term.

In Colorado, clean energy battle is far from over

Green energy proponents scored a big win recently when a federal judge dismissed a challenge to Colorado's renewable energy standard. However, the fight over clean power generation requirements is far from over. This case is one of many attacks on renewable energy mandates playing out around the country. And even though the Washington, D.C., law firm leading the charge against Colorado's law lost this round, it has vowed to appeal. Coloradans, who created the first version of the state's renewable energy standard via ballot initiative in 2004, should be prepared for a long battle if they want to continue to require utilities to look to renewable sources of power. In all, 30 states have initiated renewable energy standards. Efforts to weaken those standards — whether by legislation or court challenges — have taken place in 22 states during the last year, according to an analysis by Greentech Media, an independent publication focused on the green technology market. In Colorado, for instance, the lawsuit was brought by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, which used to be called the American Tradition Institute. The plaintiffs, who include a Morrison man, contended the Colorado renewable energy standard violates the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause. So, how does the commerce clause come into play? First, it's helpful to understand Colorado's standard. Investor-owned utilities, such as Xcel, must get 30 percent of the power they sell in the state from renewables by 2020. Large cooperative electric associations must get 20 percent by the same deadline. The plaintiffs argued that energy transmission and purchase is fluid, crossing state lines. In requiring renewables, the law burdens interstate commerce by restricting marketplace access to those generating non-renewable energy. U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez disagreed, saying the quota didn't force out-of-state energy generators to do business in a particular way. The plaintiffs wasted no time in saying they would appeal, hoping to ultimately take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. They contend an opposite decision out of Minnesota on renewables makes a high court review probable. We hope they are unsuccessful. Colorado's renewable standard has been a success, prompting energy diversification and job growth. It would be a shame if this home-grown standard were dismantled by outside interests with different priorities. Read more: In Colorado, clean energy battle is far from over - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_25777671/colorado-clean-energy-battle-is-far-from-over#ixzz32SY9uHBw Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

As Coal Plants Shut Down, Electricity Prices Go Up

Electricity prices are probably on their way up across much of the United States as coal-fired plants, the dominant source of cheap power, shutdown in response to environmental regulations and economic forces, according to the Associated Press. New and tighter pollution rules and tough competition from cleaner sources such as natural gas, wind and solar will lead to the closings of dozens of coal-burning plants across 20 states over the next three years, and many of those that stay open will need expensive retrofits, the AP reported. The Obama administration, state governments and industry are struggling to balance this push for a cleaner environment with the need to keep the grid reliable and prevent prices from rocketing too much higher, according to the AP. Coal is the workhorse of the U.S. power system and is used to produce 40 percent of the nation's electricity, more than any other fuel. Because it is cheap and abundant and can be stored on power plant grounds, it helps keep prices stable and power flowing even when demand spikes, the AP reported. Natural gas, which accounts for 26 percent of the nation's electricity, has dropped in price and become more plentiful because of the fracking boom, but its price is on the rise again, and it is still generally more expensive to produce electricity with gas than with coal, according to the AP. Burning coal releases toxic chemicals, soot and smog-forming chemicals, as well as twice the amount of carbon dioxide that natural gas produces, the AP reported. The Supreme Court last month gave an important approval to one Environmental Protection Agency clean-air rule which cleared the way for a new rule expected to be announced by President Barack Obama early next month. This rule, the first to govern emissions of carbon dioxide from existing power plants, could accelerate the move away from coal, according to the AP. Already, the current rules are expected to force power companies to shut down 68 coal plants across 20 states between 2014 and 2017, according to Bentek Energy, a market analysis firm, the AP reported.

With record profits, Xcel still plans to seek rate increase for Colorado Ratepayers

Citizens question the validity of the utility’s six back-to-back rate increases since 2003. A recent report from Xcel Energy detailing earnings on electric energy in Colorado shows the utility exceed the maximum profit set by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) by more than 11 percent. Despite excess earnings for the company’s Colorado subsidiary, known as the Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), a May 1 statement from Xcel says the utility plans to file for future electric rate increases in the state in 2015 and beyond. Documentation compiled by local Xcel watchdog agency Empower Our Future shows that Xcel has asked for, and been granted, six back-to-back rate increases since 2003. With record profits in 2013 and the company’s plan to seek a seventh increase in 2015, some citizens are raising questions about the validity of the utility’s requests. “I think the overall allocation of profits for utilities probably needs to be reviewed — are we setting up incentives correctly so that we get the behavior we want out of the regulated monopoly that provides us with power?” says Boulder City Council member Sam Weaver, who acted as the main author of the report from Empower our Future prior to his election to Council last year. Weaver says he used federal 10-K financial filings and public reports from Xcel to compare the utility’s sales and generating capacity to their pre-tax profits from 2003 to 2012. “When you look through the [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s] 10-K forms where [Xcel/PSCo] file their peak capacity [in megawatts] and they files sales in terms of kilowatt hours, it’s pretty straightforward,” says Weaver. “Demand is not growing. Even though they are not providing us with additional sources of electricity or additional capacity, Xcel is getting huge increases in profits.” According to the Empower our Future report, the Colorado division’s pre-tax profits have grown from $316 million to $691 million between 2003 and 2012. Weaver says the company filed more than 700 million in pre-tax profits in 2013. In a May 1 press release, Xcel acknowledged that as a result of their last rate increase — a first-time, threeyear rate plan that set up tiered increases from 2012 to the end of 2014 — the company has asked the PUC for permission to credit customers across the state with $45.7 million. So beginning Aug. 1, residential customers in Colorado would see a $1.17 credit per month while small business owners will see a $2.33 credit each month. The three-year agreement raised rates by a total of $114 million. “At the time that this three-year plan was approved, it was approved as part of a settlement agreement that was reached by pretty much every party in the case: Xcel, PUC staff, the [Office of ] Consumer Council, a number of medium and large electric consumer groups and trade groups, and all of them agreed this was a fair resolution to the case and provided fair rates to the company and rate payer,” says PUC spokesman Terry Bote. Bote says the commission created the profit-sharing mechanism as a protection, for customers when the utility exceeds their target profit. When asked how he would respond to criticism of the record profits stemming from the multi-year agreement, Mark Stutz, a spokesperson for Xcel/ PSCo, says that “it’s difficult to predict some aspects of our business in terms of weather, in terms of what your expenses will be.” Stutz reiterates Bote’s statement that the authorized profits from the multi-year settlement were found to be “prudent” by all parties involved, and the profit-sharing mechanism had not been so well defined in previous settlements. Regarding the utility’s plan to file for future rate increases, Stutz says it would be the company’s preference to have another multi-year plan, “because we think they’re good for the customer and good for the utility.” While Colorado’s Consumer Council — an advocate for customers of electric, gas and telecommunications businesses — agreed to the multi-year rate increase plan, director Cindy Schonhaut says it’s not in the public’s best interest. “We don’t like multi-year plans in this office,” says Schonhaut. “We think [multi-year plans] allow for this opportunity to overearn and later keep some of [the excess profits] and then give refunds, which is not in the longterm consumer interest. [The longterm consumer interest] is to pay the right rate at the time they are billed.” Weaver says that the system that governs the profit-making of the utility seems “a little broken” to him. “And it’s really not simply Xcel’s fault. It’s a matter of [how] Xcel, PUC, and the state legislature has set up a series of incentives that allows Xcel to make increasing profits as it makes additional investments in generation faculties,” says Weaver. “Xcel has every incentive to build more whether or not additional generation is needed.” The last coal-fired power plant built in Colorado, the Comanche 3 plant in Pueblo, was heavily criticized by environmental groups who questioned the facility’s impact on emissions and surrounding wilderness. “The tragic part of all of this is that Xcel’s back-to-back rate increases during the worst economic crisis in a century have taken hundreds of millions of dollars from their ratepayers, including businesses both large and small as well as fixed and low-income ratepayers, to pay for a billion-dollar coal plant that never should have been built — a billion dollar toxic and polluting mistake that is rapidly becoming a stranded asset,” longtime Xcel watchdog Leslie Glustrom said in an email to the Boulder Weekly. Xcel says that future rate increases in Colorado will go toward completion of infrastructure investments, “including the estimated $1 billion investment in the Colorado Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act,” which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 28 percent. Property tax expenses and “other cost changes” will also be covered by rate increases, according to the utility. “If the legislature was doing to taxes what the PUC has been doing to electric utility rates, all hell would break loose,” Glustrom added.

Xcel, solar industry groups agree on Colorado incentive plan; net metering still at issue

DENVER — Xcel Energy Inc. and two solar industry groups have made a joint proposal to Colorado utility regulators on incentives that encourage customers to put panels on their roofs, they said Tuesday. In announcing their agreement a day before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission opens hearing on Xcel's renewable-energy policy plan, they made clear the contentious issue of net metering remains unresolved. Xcel, the Solar Industries Association and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association called in their agreement for the commission to approve 3 cents per kilowatt-hour of Solar Rewards for customer-owned installations of up to 25 kilowatts, and 1 cent per kilowatt-hour for small installations owned by parties other than the homeowner, keeping the program active pending approval of the overall renewable energy plan. They also proposed restarting a medium program for solar arrays of between 25 and 500 kilowatts that had been closed since October 2013, when that program's capacity was reached. For the medium program, incentives were proposed of 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 6 megawatts and 5 cents for the final megawatt. Terry Bote, spokesman for the utility commission, said the commission will set a shortened notice period of 10 days on the agreement at a meeting Wednesday. If the commission decides to shorten the notice period and hears no opposition to the proposed settlement, commissioners could consider the merits of the settlement at a weekly meeting later this month, Bote said. The agreement will ensure the market is not disrupted, good news for solar companies like California-based Sunrun, said Susan Glick, Sunrun's senior manager for public policy. But she made a clear distinction between the Solar Rewards incentives and net metering. "Net metering is not an incentive. It is a billing mechanism," she said. Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz told The Associated Press the Solar Rewards agreement "does show that there are issues that we can agree on." But Stutz said Xcel still had concerns about net metering, which allows homeowners with rooftop solar arrays to, in addition to Solar Rewards, get credit for the energy they put back into the grid to be sold to others. The commission earlier this year separated a discussion of net metering from the overall review after Xcel proposed taking steps to inform consumers what part of the net-metering credit reflects the value of the energy produced and what part should be seen as a subsidy. Solar proponents have objected, saying they believe Xcel is laying a foundation for changes to net metering that could hurt the solar power industry. Utility companies have been challenging net metering around the country.

Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce Energy Briefing Lunch: Colorado’s Solar Energy Industries Association

May Energy Briefing Focuses On Solar With the weather getting warmer and the days getting longer it seems only appropriate that our next Energy Briefing on May 14th will focus on recent developments in solar energy. Rebecca Cantwell, Executive Director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA) will keynote this luncheon. Colorado is one of the states leading the effort in using renewable energy. About one year ago COSEIA, and solar business leaders kicked off the state’s million solar roofs campaign, an effort to get one million homes and businesses utilizing this renewable resource. All luncheons start promptly at 12:00 PM and registration, including lunch is $15 for GJACC members. When: Wednesday, 5/14/2014 12:00 PM to 1:15 PM Where:Mesa County Libraries 443 N 6th St Grand Junction CO 81501 How Much: $15 Register Here: Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce 970-242-3214 or 800-352-5286

U.S. Solar Capacity Grew Over 400 Percent In The Last Four Years

Solar energy is booming across the U.S., with capacity up an astounding 418 percent in the last four years alone, according to data released this week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Residential and commercial rooftop solar, along with other forms of photovoltaic (PV), have grown steadily over the past four years, specifically those that are net-metered. When customers install their own solar panels in states with a net metering policy, they are compensated for the excess electricity they send back to the grid. According to the EIA, these net metered applications have increased every year by approximately 1,100 MW since 2010. California currently has the largest net metered solar capacity with 38 percent of the nation’s total. Not far behind are New Jersey and Massachusetts, which together represent 21 percent of the total capacity in the U.S. Solar_Capacity Net metering has been at the center of several recent battles between the solar industry, consumers and utilities across the U.S. As rooftop solar in particular booms, utility companies are growing increasingly concerned about the threat it poses to their bottom line. As more customers install solar panels, utilities will sell fewer units of energy and argue they’ll have to charge more in order to cover the cost of maintenance and labor. But distributed energy sources like rooftop solar also provide a benefit to utilities by generating during peak hours, when a utility has to provide electricity to more people than at other times during the day and energy costs are at their highest. Solar panels feed excess energy back to the grid, helping to alleviate the pressure during peak demand. In addition, because less electricity is being transmitted to customers through transmission lines, it saves utilities on the wear and tear to the lines and cost of replacing them with new ones. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the shadowy conservative group funded by fossil fuel corporations and petrochemical billionaires Charles and David Koch, has set its sights on weakening net metering laws across the country. Net metering survived attacks in Colorado and Kansas and Vermont increased its policy in a bipartisan effort. Last year, Arizona added what amounts to a $5 per month surcharge for solar customers, a move that was widely seen as a compromise, particularly after ALEC and other Koch-backed groups got involved. In the most recent net metering fight, Oklahoma took the controversial step of passing legislation to level a fee on customers who install solar panels or small wind turbines on their own property. Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed the measure this week but took the rare step of issuing an executive order emphasizing the importance of renewable energy and fair implementation of the new legislation. According to the new EIA data, “utility scale PV applications, which are 1 MW or greater, have also expanded significantly and currently account for 5,564 MW.” And the third principal contributing factor to the explosive growth of solar energy in the U.S. is from solar thermal energy. Three major solar thermal plants — Solano, Genesis and Ivanpah — came on line in 2013, adding a total of 650 MW of capacity. Solar thermal technology is particularly groundbreaking for its use of a ‘salt battery’ that allows the plants to keep generating electricity even when the sun isn’t shining. While an increase of 9,731 megawatts (MW) in solar generating capacity since 2010 is remarkable, solar still accounts for just 1.13 percent of total electric generating capacity in the U.S. Electricity generation in America is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. As of November 2013, renewable energy sources, including hydro, accounted for about 13 percent of total net generation, according to EIA data.

Ontario Shuts Down Last Coal-Fired Plant

Ontario has become the first jurisdiction in North America to fully eliminate coal as a source of electricity generation. The Thunder Bay Generating Station, Ontario's final remaining coal-fired facility, has burned its last supply of coal and will be converted to burn biomass. According to the Ontario Ministry of Energy, this means the province has fulfilled its commitment to close all of its coal plants in advance of its year-end 2014 target. Ontario has replaced coal with a mix of emission-free electricity sources like wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower, along with lower-emission electricity sources like natural gas and biomass. Last year, Ontario also introduced the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, which the ministry says would ensure coal-fired generation as a source of electricity in the province never happens again. Citing a 2005 independent study, the ministry says the estimated cost of coal generation was approximately $4.4 billion annually when health, environmental, and financial costs were taken into consideration.

Battle Lines Drawn in State-by-State Defense of Net Metering and Solar

It’s been an interesting month on the net-metering front. Investor-owned utilities (IOUs), led by their trade group the Edison Electric Institute, last fall launched a state-by-state campaign claiming that net metering creates an existential threat to their traditional regulated-monopoly business model. Beginning in 1982, net metering laws have been adopted in 43 states, where state legislatures were convinced that the practice was fair value to both utilities and all ratepayers. IOUs want to slash net-metering rates, or impose high fixed-rate connection fees or surcharges, or eliminate net meter entirely. Where they’re successful, they will reduce the value of solar to homeowners and sharply cut the profits of third-party solar providers (often called leasing companies) like SolarCity, Sunrun, Sungevity and Verengo. The solar lease companies have formed their own lobbying group, The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) to defend net metering. TASC finds allies among local installer groups (state solar energy industry associations), advocacy organizations like ASES chapters and Vote Solar, and even with the new, conservative-leaning political group TUSK (Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed), now actively lobbying on behalf of solar in Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, Louisiana and both Carolinas. The name was not chosen randomly: TUSK’s logo features an elephant, and the organization is co-chaired by Tom Morrisey, former chairman of Arizona’s Republican Party, and former Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr. While Vermont last month greatly expanded its net metering provisions, the battle continues in other states. In California, where state law requires a replacement for the existing net metering system by the end of 2015, the Public Utilities Commission voted at the end of March to let existing solar owners keep their existing net metering contacts for 20 years from the time of installation. Here in Colorado, the public utilities commission separated the issue of net-metering rates from the Xcel Energy rate-setting process. A series of meetings to hash out the value of rooftop solar is scheduled to begin April 29. Xcel, which now pays 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour, will argue that the rate should fall to 4.5 cents. TASC and allies like Vote Solar and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (CoSEIA) will argue that the rate should reflect the savings solar provides in all costs of providing power to homes, including the costs of fuel, central power plants, transmission lines and pollution abatement. Xcel’s home state of Minnesota has already begun that process to determine the value of solar (VOS). The result may turn out to be a rise in rates paid to solar homeowners. In Austin, Texas, where the municipal power company pioneered the VOS concept, the VOS tariff paid to solar homeowners dropped from 12.8 cents/kWh to 10.7 c/kWh in January, due mainly to the reduced cost of generating electricity with natural gas. Louisiana’s Public Service Commission last month decided to hire a consultant to figure out VOS issues, and after a false start in the bidding process now hopes to name that consultant within a month. Casting Loose from the Grid? While all this is going on, the Rocky Mountain Institute issued a report claiming that the real long-term threat to regulated utilities lies in the falling cost of energy storage systems. Driven by the growing popularity of hybrid and fully-electric cars and delivery fleets, efficient batteries are growing cheaper. That process will accelerate rapidly as Tesla and Panasonic carry through plans to build the world’s largest battery factory somewhere in the American Southwest. When solar homeowners can afford to store their own electricity in a big, cheap battery bank, they’ll no longer need the grid, RMI argues. In less than 20 years, if electricity prices continue to rise, consumers will begin to leave the grid in droves, just as cell phone owners have cut loose from land lines over the past decade. Source: American Solar Energy Society

Colorado solar advocates speak up for net metering

Rooftop solar advocates raised their voices in Colorado this week. The Alliance for Solar Choice, a solar industry group focused on public policy, coordinated several events aimed at raising awareness and support for solar among Colorado lawmakers and regulators. Colorado is one among many states where utility companies are pushing to reduce net metering benefits. Net metering is the policy in 43 states that require utilities to pay home and business owners for the excess power they generate and feed back onto the grid. Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy pays the retail rate for excess solar – 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour – that rooftop solar customers generate. However, the utility is arguing that the power is only worth 4.6 cents and has asked the Public Utilities Commission to change the net metering policy. Hundreds of Colorado solar industry leaders showed up on capital hill Tuesday for Lobby Day, said Meghan Nutting, TASC member and director of government affairs for SolarCity. “We don’t have a legislative play in Colorado right now,” Nutting said. “We just wanted to get the conversation started. We did have a really good discussion with the house majority leader.” There was also significant public support for solar spreading throughout the state Tuesday. “Colorado Solar Rights was the most trending topic on Twitter in Denver,” Nutting said. On Wednesday, the PUC heard from stakeholders in three hours of comment. The speakers had signed up in advance and brought great insight and perspective to the discussion, but there was no public comment allowed. Commissioners will be taking public comment through April 29 when they are expected to make a decision about how to proceed. PUC Chairman Joshua Epel said he wanted everyone to “put their stake in the ground” and say what they thought the price should be excess power generated with rooftop solar panels. “He’s definitely ready to get into it,” Nutting said. Others said the PUC should commission a study. And still others argued there are already too many studies – it’s time for action. One recurring point in the discussion was that net metering poses no serious threat to utilities yet. Less than 1 percent of Xcel’s energy portfolio in Colorado comes from distributed solar, Nutting said. That hasn’t stopped utilities in other states from fighting net metering either. The Kansas legislature just secured the future of net metering there. The utilities tried to do away with the benefit even though only 201 of 900,000 households have rooftop solar panels or small wind turbines. “With such a tiny solar market, these powerful utilities thought they would be able to completely eliminate net metering without anyone noticing,” according to a release from TASC. “Instead, more than 550 customers contacted their Senator in support of net metering.” The various battles against net metering around the country are just a distraction from the real issue, Nutting said. “This is really about the utility business model,” she said. “It hasn’t changed in more than 100 years. It’s time.”

Xcel Energy Will Offer Solar To Ratepayers at a Higher Price than Customer Owned Rooftop Solar

According to an April 4, 2014 story on KUNC, a public radio station in Northern Colorado, Xcel, a local utility, is asking Colorado state regulators for permission to offer its customers the option to receive some of all of their electricity from a centralized solar power plant. The catch is that those who opt for solar over more conventional forms of energy production will have to pay a surcharge for the privilege. Customers would be able to buy solar created electricity in 25 percent blocks to up to 100 percent of their monthly electric bill. Thus customers can go solar without installing solar panels on their rooftops. Apparently there are a number of residential and business customers who will pay a premium to get their electricity from renewable energy sources. Xcel already has a wind power program called WindSource which charges an extra $2.16 per 100 kilowatt hour. The program has 36,000 customers. The new program, to be called SolarConnect, will start in 2015 pending approval by state regulators. The amount of the surcharge is yet to be determined.

Colorado’s largest solar power facility coming to Pueblo

Xcel Energy and renewable energy developer Community Energy of Boulder on Tuesday announced plans to build the state’s largest solar farm — and the largest east of the Rockies — near Xcel’s Comanche power plant and substation. The solar farm will cover 900 acres of privately owned land. It will feature more than 450,000 small solar panels that move in tandem to track the sun as it crosses the sky. The electricity generated will be equal to the power used by 31,000 homes, according to the developer. Xcel’s main customer base is the Denver area. The project will take about 15 months to build with construction set to begin by late this year or early next year, pending land-use approval by Pueblo County government. The start date for operations is tentatively set for summer 2016. The number of construction jobs tied to the project remains to be finalized, the developer says. The final project cost is undetermined but in excess of $200 million, the developer says. “This project is part of our vision begun in 2010 to bring utility scale solar at a competitive price to Front Range Colorado,” Eric Blank, president of Community Energy’s solar division, said in a statement. “We were drawn to Pueblo County and the Comanche substation as a great combination of high solar insolation, a welcoming community with open land and a strong interconnection point” to the Front Range’s electricity grid, he said. In a telephone interview Tuesday morning, Blank reiterated the company’s yearslong interest in Pueblo and the building site. “We just really liked a number of things about it . . . It just seems a really nice match.” The announcement comes five years after Pueblo County leaders responded to the nation’s call for more solar energy by launching a campaign marketing Pueblo as a prime spot for solar development. Key selling points are the area’s 300 days of sunshine per year and its location on the Front Range grid. Initially, utilities and the solar industry — along with federal and state government officials — opted to focus in Colorado on the San Luis Valley but that push has slowed over the need to build a transmission line to link with the Front Range grid. The Pueblo site is near the electricity substation at the Comanche power plant, which provides a “strong interconnection point with existing infrastructure close to Front Range load centers,” Blank noted. The company says the location offers other benefits: It is under-utilized grazing land surrounded by existing and future industrial users; and the land also is gently sloping that will require minimal grading to prepare it for the solar installation. The solar farm will ultimately be comprised of more than 450,000 mono-crystalline PV modules utilizing a single-axis tracking technology, the company says. The tracking technology follows the sun as it rises in the east and sets in the west, producing power during Xcel Energy’s peak demand periods and generally providing a nice match to daily summer air conditioning loads, the company says. Over the course of its 25-year life, the project will produce more than 6 billion kilowatt hours of solar energy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 3.5 million tons, the company says. Pueblo County Economic Development Director Chris Markuson called the project a “huge win for our community” and a “tremendous shot in the arm for our local economy.” “This project demonstrates that renewable energy is ready for prime time and Pueblo County is perfectly positioned to be the center of utility-scale renewable energy production in Colorado,” Markuson said in a statement. “The clean energy produced by solar arrays in Pueblo is both profitable and sustainable while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. David Eves, president and CEO of Public Service Co. of Colorado, a part of Xcel Energy, issued a statement noting the project continues Xcel’s efforts to diversify its energy portfolio. “We believe strongly that solar is for everyone and it is clear that many of our customers and fellow Colorado citizens share our passion for solar energy,” Eves said. “This large-scale generating facility provides the advantage of renewable energy at a price that is right. Solar energy is a part of our future and we want to make sure that solar energy policy encourages the development of solar technology.” - See more at: http://www.chieftain.com/news/2346770-120/solar-energy-pueblo-project#sthash.zuJyc6e0.dpuf

The "value of solar"— utility-scale or rooftop?

In his March 16 Camera column, "Renewables? Yes!" Bob Greenlee praised the recently announced plan by Xcel Energy to construct a large utility-scale solar PV project in Pueblo County which he claims will be "two to three times more cost-effective than smaller rooftop projects." Although a dubious claim, such a project might still seem like a good idea — to those unaware of the incredibly rapid changes taking place in the energy world. But the ground is moving under Greenlee's (and Xcel's) feet. Over the last year, and particularly in the last few months, the main debate has shifted from fossil vs. renewables to centralized renewables vs. distributed renewables — specifically rooftop solar PV. Just over one year ago, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the investor-owned utility policy and lobbying organization, issued a brief, but prescient report titled "Disruptive Challenges: Financial Implications and Strategic Responses to a Changing Retail Electric Business." The report offered its members a "heads-up" that their basic 100-year old business model was threatened by rooftop solar, and it recommended that they rethink their whole business. The costs of rooftop solar panels (called Distributed Generation or DG) have dropped so dramatically that in some places they are already cost competitive with utility-supplied electricity. The conventional economies of scale of centralized generation is simply gone — solar modules are just as efficient at small scale as large. Public pressure has been mounting for PUCs to adopt new tariffs that recognize the "Value of Solar" to society and to encourage its use by moving beyond the ancient "cost-of-service" regulatory model that does not recognize the externalized costs of traditional generation (e.g., to air, water, health, jobs, environment, etc.) or the benefits of DG. Late in 2013 utilities in California, Arizona, Colorado, and other states began asking their regulators to slash the net metering tariffs that have encouraged the growth of rooftop solar, and to impose onerous fees for solar customers connecting to the grid. In November, the public pushed back in Arizona and won a victory with regulators, in spite of millions spent by utilities on lobbying. In another landmark decision last week the Minnesota PUC actually adopted the nation's first "Value of Solar" tariff. The EEI study warned that a consequence of resisting the trend to solar DG would be that those who could afford to would go off-grid by adding storage to their solar, and then strand the utility as conventional costs were shared by fewer and fewer rate-payers — resulting in a utility "death spiral." Two weeks ago, the Rocky Mountain Institute issued a 70-page cost study that validated the EEI warning, "The Economics of Grid Defection: When and Where Distributed Solar Generation Plus Storage Competes With Traditional Generation." The following general guiding principles ought to be applied in evaluating the present and any future electricity generation projects: 1) produce power as close as possible to where it will be used, and local utilities should 2) only manage the "wires and poles," and 3) let the customers generate the power wherever possible. Some may ask, why not build large-scale renewable projects that could be located on spoiled, unproductive, or ecologically unimportant brown fields near existing transmission facilities? The answer is that society's preference should be to favor smaller-scale distributed renewables located at or near the point-of-use, and on fostering the markets for such technologies and products. Every dollar sucked up by a large utility-scale project is a dollar that cannot be invested in rooftop solar, smart inverters, battery storage, small scale hydro, smart appliances, and other mass market technologies that result in long-term community-based jobs and manufacturing. The big projects tend to be one-time deals that primarily feed short-term construction jobs for outsiders, as well as provide rewards for bondholders, investors, land speculators, and utility's rate-base return-on-capital assets. Transmission losses can waste 8-14 percent or more of the power. If Xcel builds their farm, what they will actually do with the power? Will they will then retire the Comanche (or any) coal plant? For a glimpse of how consumers might see solar in the future in America, look at the present in Germany (http://bosch-solar-storage.com/). Xcel's 900-acre solar farm may be obsolete long before it is off the drawing board. R.J. Harrington is with Clean Energy Action in Boulder; Timothy Schoechle is an engineer and entrepreneur who lives in Boulder.

Xcel approves $200M Colorado solar power project in Pueblo County

Xcel Energy said Tuesday that it plans to buy power from a $200 million solar installation to be built near its power plant in Pueblo County. The move underscores Xcel's move to focus on utility-scale solar, which the utility says is two to three times more cost-effective than rooftop solar. "This large-scale generating facility provides the advantage of renewable energy at a price that is right," said David Eves, chief executive officer of Xcel's Colorado subsidiary, said in a statement. Rooftop solar installers and leasing companies have been critical of Xcel's actions. The energy company is seeking to cut the "net meter" payment for electricity put on the grid by new rooftop systems. "Xcel would have saved its customers money if they'd invested in rooftop solar instead of this utility-scale plant," Meghan Nutting, policy and electric markets director for SolarCity, the largest solar lease company in the state, said in an e-mail. Edward Stern, president of the Colorado Solar Industries Association, said that "utility solar is key, but Coloradans need the option of installing solar on their homes." The project, to be built by Radnor, Pa.-based Community Energy, will meet 70 percent of the 170 megawatt solar generation goal in Xcel's current renewable energy plan. The plan was approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission in December 2013. The 120-megawatt Comanche Solar project will be the largest solar installation east of the Rocky Mountains, according to Eric Blank, president of Community Energy Solar, who is based in Boulder. Community Energy has solar projects in 10 states, including Colorado. The Comanche installation, with a price tag of more than $200 million, will be the largest by far, Blank said. At top performance, the system, slated to come online in 2016, will generate enough electricity to power more than 31,000 homes, Xcel said. "We were told by Xcel that is project was cost-competitive with the alternatives," Blank said. "This may be transformative, where solar becomes a real alternative." The installation, located on 900 acres of private land near the coal-fired Comanche Generating Station — will have about 450,000 photovoltaic panels on carriages that track the sun. Part of the cost-effectiveness of the project comes from being able to tap into the Comanche power plant's substation and transmission lines. "It is a very much cheaper interconnection," Blank said. Read more: Xcel approves $200M Colorado solar power project in Pueblo County - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25271720/xcel-approves-200-million-solar-power-project-pueblo#ixzz2vyeLV2aT Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

New Website Highlights Popularity of Rooftop Solar, Opposition to Xcel’s Attacks on Solar

Coloradans support rooftop solar. They have made that abundantly clear time and time again. A recent poll demonstrated that 70% of Coloradans support net metering, a critical solar policy. In December, hundreds of residents descended on Xcel headquarters to oppose the utility’s attacks on rooftop solar. And at the beginning of February, Coloradans packed a Public Utilities Commission hearing room to voice opposition to Xcel’s proposal to limit energy choice in the state. Homeowners understand that rooftop solar can provide savings on their electric bills and pave the way for a strong, clean energy future. Xcel Energy has chosen to ignore the public – its own customers – and oppose rooftop solar. The utility wants to roll back net metering, a critical policy for Colorado’s environment and economic growth. In 43 states, net metering gives rooftop solar customers full retail credit for the excess energy they deliver back to the grid. Utilities like Xcel turn around and sell this exported energy at the full retail rate to the neighbors, even though they paid nothing to generate, transmit or distribute that cleaner power. Xcel wants to eliminate net metering to stifle rooftop solar and protect its monopoly. This week, The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) launched a new website highlighting Coloradans’ opposition to Xcel Energy’s efforts to undermine successful solar policy. The site, cosolarvoices.com features three Coloradans’ personal stories about why they support rooftop solar. Each of the speakers come from a different background but they share the conviction that rooftop solar is the key to Colorado’s energy future. These voices also share frustration over Xcel’s determination to hold onto its monopoly at any cost. “We should all be able to make the choices that we want to make,” says Jamie, a mom of two from Denver. “The utilities should not be controlling those choices.” Gary, a rancher and rodeo star agrees that “Xcel knows there went some profit for them, and that’s all they care about.” “It’s like they have the gimmes… gimme, gimme, gimme,” says Richard, a Veteran and lifelong Broncos fan. These personal stories echo across the entire state. Coloradans know that rolling back net metering now would have a chilling effect on Colorado’s solar industry, the jobs it creates, and the consumer energy choice it provides. Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/25/new-website-highlights-popularity-rooftop-solar-opposition-xcels-attacks-solar/#AvJpwM08KSQeeB0Y.99

Top ten states for solar jobs: Colorado's on the list, but advocate says the news isn't all good

According to a solar jobs census conducted under the auspices of The Solar Foundation, Colorado ranked ninth in the U.S. for solar jobs, with 3,600 people employed by the industry here during 2013. See an infographic about the findings below. A cause to celebrate? Not according to Margaret McCall, an energy associate with Environment Colorado. That's because the state actually is lower on the roster than it was last year due to hiring stagnation. "In Colorado, we have the fifth greatest solar potential in the country because of all our sunshine," McCall says. "But we saw a 0 percent increase in employment between 2012 and 2013. And that's pretty disappointing." This holding action wasn't mirrored elsewhere, McCall adds. "Other states are bounding forward in terms of solar. Employment in the industry nationwide grew by almost 20 percent last year. But not here." The result was slippage in the solar-jobs rankings. As noted by the Denver Business Journal, Colorado fell three slots from 2012 in terms of both total jobs and solar jobs per capita; the state went from 7th to 10th in this last category between 2012 and 2013. In the view of solar boosters, the situation would have been worsened had a GOP attempt to repeal the rural renewable energy standard been successful; it was defeated last month. But McCall is still concerned about possible changes in net metering, which she describes as "fair credit for homeowners who have solar for sending excess energy back to the grid." As reported by Green Tech Media, Xcel Energy has asked for changes in the net metering standard that advocates believe would cost solar users currently benefiting from it. And while the Public Utilities Commission has not yet approved the plan, the proposal itself concerns McCall. "Our hypothesis is that uncertainty in the future of these policies is contributing to the slowdown," she says. How can Colorado reverse the current trend and begin climbing the solar-jobs list again? "We need to get a firm commitment from leaders with pro-solar policies to turn this around," McCall believes. "And it won't happen on its own."

Public Packs Both Public Utilities Commission Hearing Rooms on Behalf of Net Metering!

More than 100 solar supporters showed up, filling both PUC hearing rooms and over-flowing into the halls. The crowd was a diverse mix including solar home owners and installers- but the message was consistent: Coloradans overwhelmingly support protecting policies that are making rooftop solar more affordable and accessible to Coloradans. Those who spoke were articulate and passionate, noting that rooftop solar makes the grid stronger, gives consumers control over their energy futures, helps our state diversify its economy and safeguards its environment. Many spoke of doing the right thing for our grandchildren. These impassioned rooftop solar supporters outnumbered the few detractors 16 to 1. The session was an opportunity for the public to let the Commission know that as they embark on evaluating net metering, the public wants a transparent and inclusive process that fairly values the benefits of rooftop solar. Public participation couldn't be more important right now. Xcel can't hold all of the cards when it comes to charting the path forward for Colorado's clean energy. If you couldn't make it out to the public comment session, it's still not to late to speak up in support of a fair and transparent process for evaluating rooftop solar. Go to this website http://action.votesolar.org/page/speakout/COfairprocess to let your Commissioners know that you are paying attention to this issue.

Colorado legislature votes Down Rolling Back Renewable Energy Standards

At the start of the 2014 session, Colorado legislators introduced four bills attacking the higher renewable energy standards set for rural electric co-ops in the 2013 session. By Jan. 30, three of the four bills were dead, killed in the first committees to hear them. The renewable energy backlash came in response to Senate Bill 13-252, which passed in the 2013 session under heavy controversy. SB 252 amended the state's existing Renewable Energy Standard for large rural electric co-ops and electric wholesalers serving co-ops. It requires large co-ops and wholesalers to provide 25 percent of their power mix from renewable energy by 2020, up from the previous requirement of 10 percent by 2020. In response, legislators introduced four bills this January that would cut back 252’s requirements. The House Transportation and Energy Committee killed two, House Bills 1067 and 1113, while the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee killed Senate Bill 35. The only active bill is Senate Bill 82, the least aggressive of the four. It focuses on a sliver of the improvements achieved by SB 252, addressing the section governing what is called “distributed renewable energy,” which is the renewable energy systems owned by customers, such as rooftop solar PV. SB 252 requires that 1 percent of large co-op’s total renewable energy come from distributed energy, or 0.75 percent for smaller co-ops. The 2014 legislation, SB 82, would lower that level to 0.5 percent for all rural electric co-ops. SB 82 is sponsored by state Sen. Kevin Grantham, R-Canon City, and 11 other state senators have signed on as co-sponsors. It is assigned to the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee. CLEER is tracking the 17 clean energy bills now moving through the state Legislature on a page on the Garfield Clean Energy website. To learn about all these bills, visit www.GarfieldCleanEnergy.org, and find the “State Legislature” link under the “Government” tab.

Colorado holds hearing on Xcel's solar panel plan

DENVER -- Colorado's Public Utilities Commission is reviewing Xcel Energy's plans for ensuring solar and other renewable sources remain part of the state's power mix as regulators debate rules for compliance with a renewable energy law approved by voters. A key issue at Monday's public comment session is expected to be an Xcel proposal for what it calls more transparency on who gains and loses financially when rooftop solar is fed into the grid. With utilities across the country challenging what is known as net metering as too costly, proponents of solar energy see Xcel's proposal as a possible first step toward reducing what rooftop solar producers are paid. Colorado was the first state in the nation to adopt a renewable energy standard by a vote of the people. After four consecutive years of failing in the Legislature, the measure was taken to the ballot through a citizen's initiative in 2004. Amendment 37 created a renewable standard for investor-owned utilities to be achieved by 2015. The measure also established net metering and interconnection standards for major utilities and programs for solar generation. Minneapolis-based Xcel operates in eight states. Coloradoans make up nearly half its 3.4 million electricity customers. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/03/3910087/colo-holds-hearing-on-xcels-solar.html#storylink=cpy

CO Public Utilities Commission Decision Keeps Rooftop Solar Shining

Today the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved a motion from the Colorado Energy Office that will keep one of the state’s most successful solar programs in place for the near term and provide an opportunity for a diverse stakeholder discussion about the future of rooftop solar in Colorado. This decision follows strong public opposition to a plan from Xcel Energy to roll back the popular solar program, called net metering. Net metering gives solar customers full retail credit on their energy bills for the excess power they contribute to the grid for the utility to resell nearby. Xcel issued a proposal to weaken the popular solar program as part of its 2014 Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan docket (Docket No. 13A-0836E). Today’s PUC decision removes all issues related to net metering to a new docket that will allow a more thorough discussion of the value and design of Colorado’s net metering program. Today’s PUC decision was widely supported by businesses, environmental groups and other Colorado stakeholders: "The vast majority of Coloradans want rooftop solar to be more available and more affordable. This is truly about power to the people. This decision today helps ensure a thoughtful discussion about the value of rooftop solar. We appreciate the Colorado Energy Office and the Public Utilities Commission’s action on this issue," said Edward Stern, Executive Director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA) , which represents a wide range of Colorado solar businesses including manufacturers, distributors, and installers. “Our future national security is directly linked to our ability to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and produce secure, clean and local energy. Private investment in rooftop solar is helping build that cleaner, safer and more resilient energy supply here in Colorado. Operation Free supports clearing the way for more Coloradans to harness homegrown solar energy and removing unnecessary barriers to solar adoption," said Brett Hunt, a veteran of the war in Iraq and the Colorado Spokesman for Operation Free. Operation Free is a nationwide coalition of veterans and national security experts working to secure America with clean energy. “We believe that every consumer who wants solar should have access to it. Colorado residents are becoming more aware of the benefits of solar energy because we care about our environment, our way of life and the future of Colorado. Solar power clearly avoids air emissions and water consumption, and rooftop solar provides the added benefit of transmitting power that is produced locally,” said The Reverend Elias D. Burgos, Executive Director of Colorado Interfaith Power and Light, a non-profit organization focused on a religious response to climate change. “Rooftop solar represents a huge opportunity for Colorado to harness pollution free energy with no fuel costs. We cannot roll back one of the most successful solar programs. Net metering is a fair and appropriate way to compensate people for energy they provide for Colorado's electric system," said Kim Stevens, Campaign Director for Environment Colorado, an organization dedicated to protecting our Colorado’s air, water and open spaces. Statements from additional supporting organizations are available at: http://www.oursolarrights.org/state-campaigns/colorado/puc-decision-statements Rooftop solar helps Colorado families, schools and businesses take charge of their power supply and their electricity bills. This private investment in local clean energy delivers economic, environmental and public health benefits to solar and non-solar customers alike. Groups supporting Colorado’s net metering program include: Advanced Energy Economy, Clean Energy Action, Clean Power Finance, COSEIA, Dynamic Integration, EnergyShouldBe.org, Environment Colorado, Five Star Consultants, Go Green Electric, Interfaith Power & Light, Namaste Solar, Operation Free, Real Goods Solar, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), Sierra Club, Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter, SolarCity, Sunrun, The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC), Verengo Solar and Vote Solar. About net metering: Like rollover minutes on a cell phone bill, net metering gives solar customers full credit on their utility bills for the excess clean power they contribute to the grid. In place in 43 states, this simple crediting arrangement is one of the most important state policies for enabling Americans to generate their own power from solar and other renewable energy resources. Learn more at: www.OurSolarRights.org

The Alliance for Solar Choice Applauds Colorado Energy Office for Leadership on Critical PUC Decision

Today the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) filed a motion with the Public Utilities Commission to sever issues related to net metering from the 2014 Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan docket (Docket No. 13A-0836E) to a new docket. If adopted, this motion will lead to a broad and diverse stakeholder discussion about the critical role net metering plays in the solar marketplace. "We commend the Governor's Energy Office for taking a course of action that aligns with the best interests of Colorado's energy consumers and our state's growing economy," said Meghan Nutting, spokesperson for The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC). "If approved, the CEO's filing will give stakeholders an opportunity to have a thorough discussion about the value of solar and ultimately allow Colorado continue to demonstrate national leadership in solar." Rooftop solar helps Colorado families, schools and businesses take charge of their power supply and their electricity bills. This private investment in local clean energy delivers economic, environmental and public health benefits to solar and non-solar customers alike. Grid benefits: Local solar energy systems reduce the need for expensive centralized power plants and transmission infrastructure, which benefits Colorado's non-solar customers. These grid benefits total up to $13.6 million annually for Xcel's ratepayers in Colorado. Job & economic benefits: More than 300 solar companies currently employ 3,600 Coloradans throughout the state. In 2012, private investment in installing solar on Colorado homes and businesses totaled $187 million. Energy Choice for Coloradans: Recent poll results show that statewide support for net metering exceeds 70 percent in every region around the state and is greater than 60 percent across all of the key voter groups in Colorado. Specifically, the CEO's motion makes the following recommendations: The CEO requests that the Administrative Law Judge refer to the Commission for their opinion as to whether the issue of net metering costs and benefits should be severed from the current proceeding. The CEO further recommends that a Miscellaneous Docket proceeding be initiated to address net metering. Further, CEO recommends that the Commission establish a scope and process sufficient to address the issue of system costs and benefits associated with distributed solar generation, as applicable to the electric utility systems regulated by the Commission. The CEO offers that, at a minimum, the Miscellaneous Docket should address the following concerns: What methodologies should be used to estimate the cost and benefits of net metered distributed generation? What are the effects of DSG on cost allocation and other components of rate design? Determine the appropriate procedure to conduct a study of costs and benefits. Conduct a study of solar distributed generation costs and benefits. The CEO requests a shortened response time of 5-days for parties to comment on this motion, and requests that the Commission act upon this motion by January 31, 2014.

Colorado Governor Appoints New PUC Rep

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper confirmed the appointment of Glenn Vaad (R) to the state public utilities commission over protests from solar energy advocates. Thousands of petitioners opposed Vaad’s appointment because of his affiliation with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative lobbying group known for introducing legislation in more than a dozen states to eliminate renewable energy portfolio standards. Vaad served as of the group’s Commerce, Insurance and Economic development task force in 2011 and 2012. ALEC counts the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobile and the Edison Electric Institute among its members. The Edison Electric Institute published a report in 2013 declaring distributed rooftop solar a “significant threat” to the central utility business model. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to hear arguments on Feb. 3 over an Xcel Energy request to cut net metering payments – credits on solar customers’ utility bills for the excess power they feed back into the grid – from 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour to 4.6 cents, something solar advocates say would cripple the state’s growing rooftop solar industry. Several states have recently battled utility company challenges to net metering. California’s solar industry counts new legislation securing the future of net metering there as a victory. Arizona solar advocates triumphed when the Corporations Commission there voted to allow Arizona Public Service to raise rates for solar customers by up to $5 a month instead of the $50 to $100 the utility requested. The Alliance for Solar Choice, a newly minted lobbying group for the solar industry, said it and other solar advocates spent about $350,000 campaigning to save net metering in Arizona while the utility and lobbyists spent $9 million. Despite a major investment in unraveling net metering benefits and public support for distributed solar energy generation in Arizona, the utility lost. TASC is watching Colorado carefully, considering it the next major battleground for net metering benefits. With the PUC hearing on the horizon, solar advocates have been on high alert and were quick to oppose Vaad’s appoint once it learned of his involvement with ALEC. Watchdog group Common Cause even reported that Vaad received scholarships in 2006, 2007 and 2008 that included funds from Xcel Energy. "There is a clear conflict of interest," said Gabe Elsner, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute said in a statement. "Vaad was a high-ranking representative of a corporate lobbying group that is coordinating a national attack on clean energy.” When Hickenlooper announced on Jan. 7 that he was confirming Vaad, his assistant told the Denver Post that Vaad’s affiliation with ALEC couldn’t be considered in a vacuum. As a former member of the state House of Representatives, Vaad voted in favor of increasing renewable energy requirements for rural electric cooperatives and moves to replace aging coal-fired power plants with natural gas generation, according to the Denver Post article. Vaad’s term has already started and one of the first issues he hears as a new member will be Xcel’s proposal to reduce net metering benefits.

Report: Net Metering Rollbacks Will Not Impact U.S. Solar Markets This Year

Despite efforts from some U.S. states to reevaluate their net-energy metering (NEM) policies, the impact of any potential changes on the U.S. photovoltaics industry is expected to be negligible this year, according to a new report from IHS Inc. IHS reports that 85% of distributed solar PV capacity installed to date in the U.S. is located in states with full retail-rate NEM. An estimated 70% is located in states that are reviewing their NEM policies. The debates in Arizona, Colorado and California has focused on determining the value of NEM PV power to non-NEM ratepayers, and how to recover the difference - if any - between the retail rate and this value. "The proceedings in Arizona, Colorado, and California all indicate that avoided utility costs are emerging as the way to determine NEM PV’s value," says Wade Shafer, senior analyst for North American PV at IHS. "However, with no single methodology for determining avoided costs, the debate over NEM benefits to the greater power system are likely to continue. Given that Arizona is currently positioned for NEM reform in 2015, and that California must create a new NEM tariff by 2016, the arguments are likely to continue through 2014 and 2015." Avoided fuel costs, capacity and distribution losses seem to be common areas of value, but what percentage of these utility-cost categories are avoided will be debated, IHS says. Other categories that are likely to be the subject of debate are avoided transmission and distribution investments, renewable power purchases and emissions. In addition to these debates being shaped by local power market dynamics, IHS says the local political environment will also influence the final determinations and lead to fragmented outcomes across the U.S. Shafer acknowledges that these debates have spurred some concern about the development of distributed solar in the U.S., since NEM incentives are critical to supporting the customer-sited PV market. However, with utility costs generally seen as increasing over time and PV costs expected to continue to decline, he says the future of distributed PV generation could be promising in select areas. "After examining proposed changes and recent utility commission rulings, IHS has determined that net metered PV project economics will not be significantly impacted in 2014," Shafer says. IHS advises distributed solar developers to focus on driving project costs lower through improved installation, streamlined customer acquisition and innovative financing/business models in order to prepare for a future of avoided-cost valuations.

DOE invests $13 million to drive U.S. solar power manufacturing

The Department of Energy announced more than $13 million for five projects to strengthen domestic solar power manufacturing and speed commercialization of efficient, affordable photovoltaic and concentrating solar power technologies. As part of the DOE's SunShot Initiative, these awards will help lower the cost of solar electricity, support a growing U.S. solar energy workforce and increase U.S. competitiveness in the global clean energy market. According to a new U.S. solar industry report, the U.S. solar market continues to grow — reaching record-breaking levels. In Q3 2013, the U.S. installed 930 MW of photovoltaic, up 20 percent over Q2 2013 and representing the second largest quarter in solar installations in U.S. history. Cumulatively, solar capacity has already surpassed 10 GW and by the end of the year more than 400,000 solar power projects will be operating across the country. Matched by over $14 million in private cost share, the DOE's investment will help five companies in California, Colorado, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Oregon develop cost-effective manufacturing processes for photovoltaic and concentrating solar power technologies. For example, Colorado-based Abengoa Solar will develop new methods to produce concentrating solar power trough systems, helping to lower overall production costs and support easy and quick on-site assembly. PPG Industries, headquartered in Pennsylvania, will lead a project to cut solar module manufacturing costs in half, while Georgia-based Suniva will develop a low-cost highly efficient silicon photovoltaic cell.

Xcel receives approval to increase wind, solar capacity in Colorado

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission has approved Xcel Energy’s request to increase the amount of wind and solar power on its system in Colorado by 620 MW, according to a report from the Denver Business Journal. The increase will boost Xcel’s renewable energy capacity in the state by 25 percent. According to the report, 450 MW of the new capacity will come from wind power projects and 170 MW will come from utility-scale solar projects. The new power supplies will meet the power demand for Xcel’s customers in the state through at least 2018, the company stated. Xcel currently has 2,427 MW of renewable energy in its portfolio, with 250 MW coming from solar power and 2,177 coming from wind power projects, according to the Business Journal.

Signatures Delivered to Xcel Energy in Denver

DENVER - A petition bearing 27,000 signatures asks Xcel Energy to withdraw a recent proposal about solar energy. It was delivered with a protest outside Xcel's headquarters in Denver on Wednesday. In their 2014 Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan, Xcel writes that they want to open a dialog about changes to the incentives offered in the on-site solar program. They specifically want to discuss "the equity of that incentive." "Customers deserve credit for all of the solar that's produced on their rooftops and that shouldn't be undermined by Xcel's proposal and it shouldn't be undervalued by Xcel," said Meghan Nutting, Director of Policy and Electricity Markets for SolarCity. But Xcel says the goal is to provide better service. "The folks that have solar on their homes are not going to see any change in incentives they receive," said Xcel spokeswoman Ethnie Treick. "It's merely starting a conversation, making sure it's fair for all of our customers." One of the changes proposed by Xcel for 2014 is to include the cost of new installations in the Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment but credit an equal amount to the Electric Commodity Adjustment. The utility wrote they are hopeful the change will inform debate about the "appropriate level of incentives going forward." For customers who install their solar systems after the start of 2014, Xcel also proposes a surcharge to the Renewable Energy Standard Adjustment. They called it a "fair share surcharge." The utility's RES Plan specifically states, "We do not propose any changes for customers who have currently installed on-site [photo voltaic] systems." In another immediate repercussion of the RES, Xcel is hanging its future plans for distributed generation on the decision about the "transparency" proposal. If the plan is refused, Xcel tells the Public Utilities Commission it will plan to cut the growth of distributed solar generation through two programs by nearly 70 percent. With 237,800 renewable energy credits annually, Xcel's proposal shows it will already be compliant with its distributed generation requirements for 2014. The proposal is currently in the hands of the Public Utilities Commission.

New Poll People of Colorado Oppose Xcel Energy Proposed Changes to Net-Metering

According to a new poll, Colorado residents support solar net metering, a standard policy in dozens of states across the country, but one that has been a bone of contention with Xcel Energy, the state’s largest power provider. Net metering is the process in which homeowners and businesses with solar panel systems are credited with the retail rate of electricity for any excess power they send back to the grid. In other words, it’s basically the same as if they had cut their electricity use by that amount. The bipartisan research team of Public Opinion Strategies and Keating Research recently completed the survey of 400 voters throughout Colorado regarding their perceptions of a proposed change to net metering for rooftop solar systems. The survey finds strong and widespread support for the practice of net metering, and a rejection of the changes proposed by Xcel Energy. Opposition to the proposal is broad based and widespread, but is particularly strong among Xcel’s own customers. Specifically, the survey found nearly four in five Colorado voters (78 percent) support the practice of net metering. Survey respondents received a brief, neutral explanation of net metering in order to ensure all respondents had the same level of information on the topic. Only 11 percent of the state’s electorate indicate opposition to the policy, with a mere 5 percent strongly opposed, and another one in ten (11 percent) unsure of their views on this policy. Support for net metering is just as strong among Xcel Energy customers (79 percent support). In fact, support exceeds 70 percent in every region of the state and exceeds 60 percent with every single key sub group of voters that were examined. Conversely, voters expressed adamant opposition to Xcel Energy’s proposal to change net metering and reduce the credit it provides to rooftop solar energy producers. For its part, Xcel Energy defends it proposal to reduce solar subsidies. The problem, said David Eves, chief executive officer of the utility’s Colorado subsidiary, is that the benefits of rooftop solar do not cover the program’s costs. “This is not about putting the brakes on solar,” Eves said. “It’s about having an honest discussion about costs and benefits.” If changes aren’t made, however, Xcel said it wants to cut back its Solar Reward program to 6 megawatts of new solar arrays from a planned 36 megawatts.

Solar Energy Battle in Colorado

How much for a ray of sunshine? In Colorado it's becoming a hotly contested question. Almost 30,000 Coloradans signed a petition that was delivered to Xcel Energy executives asking the company to withdraw its proposal to reduce the current credit rate for solar power generated by homeowners' rooftop systems from 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour to 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Back in July, Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy -- the leading power provider in Colorado -- proposed a plan to roll back the state's net metering program and reduce its "Solar Reward" rebate levels to less than a penny per kilowatt hour -- or in the words of the Vote Solar Initiative (which is against the proposal), "make solar a bad deal for customers in its service territory." Net metering is used as an incentive to sell solar power, paying homeowners full retail credit on their energy bills for the excess power their solar installations send to the grid. According to Xcel, the current rate includes a "hidden subsidy" that its other customers without solar panels are having to pay for their neighbors' rooftop systems, The Denver Business Journal reported. "Coloradans are not going to let Xcel get away with a dramatic rollback of the state’s most important solar policy. If approved, Xcel would be able to drastically cut the credit solar customers receive for electricity they put on the grid," said Annie Lappe, solar policy director at The Vote Solar Initiative, in a statement. "This proposal is anti-progress, anti-consumer, and simply unfair. Colorado’s solar customers deserve full credit for the valuable power they produce, which is building a safer, cleaner, more resilient grid for all of us." According to a poll released by Public Opinion Strategies and Keating Research last week, 78 percent of Coloradans support solar net metering and 80 percent oppose Xcel’s proposal to change the policy. The U.S. Solar Market Insight for the 3rd Quarter of 2013 even ranked Colorado 7th in the country for solar capacity with enough energy to power over 56,000 homes. “Monopoly utilities across the country, like Xcel, continue to fail repeatedly in their attempts to stop solar competition.” said Bryan Miller, TASC President and VP of Public Policy for Sunrun, in a statement. “In every net metering battle, from Idaho, to Louisiana, to California, to Arizona, states have preserved net metering. The verdict of 2013 is that net metering is here to stay.”

STAND UP FOR SOLAR RIGHTS!

Rally in Denver! Rooftop solar is helping Colorado build a cleaner, safer and lower cost energy supply. It's great news for Coloradans, but now Xcel Energy is asking to change the rules to penalize Coloradans who go solar. Learn more about the utility's anti-solar, anti-consumer plan here. Help us send a clear message that Xcel needs to withdraw its unfair proposal TODAY and keep solar shining in Colorado! Join us at noon on Wed, Dec 11 as we deliver our solar petition to Xcel. We'll have solar-powered coffee, hot chocolate and plenty of good company to keep us warm! Time: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 PM - 1:15 PM MST Host: Vote Solar, The Alliance for Solar Choice, COSEIA, Environment Colorado, Sierra Club, and others Location: Skyline Park (Denver, CO) 1732 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80265

Denver Rally 12/11/13 to Support Solar in Colorado

Rooftop solar is helping Colorado build a cleaner, safer and more resilient energy supply. But now Xcel wants to change the rules on Coloradans who go solar by drastically cutting the credit these customers would receive for electricity they put onto the grid. If the utility is successful, they could destroy the economics of going solar in our state. This proposal from Xcel is a thinly-veiled attempt to protect profits and stand in the way of energy innovation and customer choice. On Wednesday, December 11, we’re going to send a clear message to Xcel executives that Coloradans support fair credit for solar power. Will you join me? Here are the details: What: Stand Up for Rooftop Solar Event and Petition Delivery When: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 PM - 1:15 PM MST Where: Skyline Park (Denver, CO) 1732 Arapahoe Street Denver, CO 80265 12:30: Move to Xcel's Headquarters 1800 Larimer St Denver, CO 80265 Why: Xcel wants to change the rules on its customers who invest in rooftop solar, which helps Colorado build a cleaner, safer and more resilient energy supply. The utility has proposed drastic cuts to the credits it provides for the excess clean energy solar customers deliver to the grid, and that Xcel then sells to their neighbors. If Xcel is successful with this proposal, new solar customers could see bill-saving credits cut in half. More than 20,000 Coloradans have already voiced their opposition to Xcel Energy’s anti-solar plan. At noon on December 11, we will gather in downtown Denver to deliver our petitions in person to Xcel.

Poll: Xcel Energy’s anti-solar proposal is a nonstarter for Coloradans

Poll: Xcel Energy’s anti-solar proposal is a nonstarter for Coloradans A new poll released today shows that an overwhelming majority (78%) of Coloradans support the state’s existing net metering program, an important rooftop solar policy that’s being targeted by the state’s major utility, Xcel Energy. The poll also found that a whopping 4 in 5 of Xcel’s own customers oppose the utility’s proposal to weaken net metering, a view that remains strong among solar and non-solar customers alike. Net metering makes sure that homes, schools and businesses receive full retail credit for the excess energy they deliver to the grid for the utility to sell to their neighbors. This policy is helping Colorado harness its plentiful sunshine to build a cleaner, safer and more resilient energy supply. And as today’s poll results show, Coloradans clearly feel strongly that they want more solar power – and fair, full credit for it. So why is Xcel Energy working against its own customers to penalize investment in homegrown solar energy? Xcel wants to change the rules on Coloradans who have gone solar by drastically cutting the credit these customers receive for electricity they put onto the grid. If the utility is successful, solar customers could see their bill-saving net metering credit cut in half. On Wednesday, December 11, we’re going to send a clear message to Xcel executives that Coloradans support fair credit for solar power. If you live in Colorado, here are two ways you can help: Sign our petition: More than 20,000 Coloradans have already voiced their opposition to Xcel Energy’s anti-solar plan. ADD YOUR SIGNATURE HERE! http://action.votesolar.org/page/s/XcelPetition Show up in person: At noon on December 11, we will gather in downtown Denver to deliver our petitions in person to Xcel. We’ll have solar-powered coffee, hot chocolate, and plenty of good company to keep warm. RSVP TODAY! http://action.votesolar.org/page/event/detail/event/rtl Xcel’s is the latest in a series of attacks on net metering from utilities that are trying to protect their old way of doing business by preventing continued solar adoption among their customers. Within the last year, these traditional energy interests have tried and failed to roll back net metering in states that run the gamut from California and Arizona to Idaho and Louisiana. In all cases, the utilities’ anti-solar proposals were met with strong opposition from a public that increasingly wants to generate its own power from the sun. Let’s do it again! Help us spread the word that Xcel needs to withdraw its anti-solar proposal and keep Colorado solar shining today.

Competitive Solar And Natural Gas To Advance Hand-In-Hand

Unsubsidized utility-scale solar electricity will become cost-competitive with gas by 2025, according to a new report from Lux Research. Moreover, the analysis firm says, increased gas penetration actually benefits solar by enabling hybrid gas/solar technologies that can accelerate adoption and increase intermittent renewable penetration without expensive infrastructure improvements. The U.S. Department of Energy says between 11-21 GW of concentrating solar power can be integrated with existing fossil power plants in the U.S. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from unsubsidized utility-scale solar closes the gap with combined cycle gas turbines to within $0.02/kWh worldwide in 2025, a Lux analysis of 10 global regions found. Solar’s competitiveness is led by a 39% fall in utility-scale system costs by 2030 and accompanied by barriers to shale gas production - anti-fracking policies in Europe and high capital costs in South America. "On the macroeconomic level, a 'golden age of gas' can be a bridge to a renewable future as gas will replace coal until solar becomes cost-competitive without subsidies," says Ed Cahill, a research associate at Lux and lead author of the report. "On the microeconomic level, solar integrated with natural gas can lower costs and provide stable output." Lux Research analysts created a bottom-up system cost model and analyzed LCOE to evaluate solar, gas and hybrid technologies' competitiveness under different gas price scenarios across 10 regions around the world through 2030. Solar can be competitive with natural gas as early as 2020 if gas prices are between $4.90/MMBtu and $9.30/MMBtu, depending on the solar resource, Lux says. In the report's scenario of gas prices above $7.60/MMBtu, solar will be broadly competitive by 2025 in all 10 regions. Lux expects solar power prices to fall to $1.20/W by 2030. According to the report, utility-scale thin film leads the pack with installed system prices that fall from $1.96/W in 2013 to $1.20/W in 2030, primarily due to increasing module efficiencies. Nevertheless, the transition from a subsidized solar sector to an unsubsidized one will be turbulent. The report says turmoil is imminent because standalone solar will not yet be competitive when subsidies start expiring in top solar markets of China, the U.S. and Japan. Companies will need to diversify geographically and transition to areas with fewer gas resources - or develop hybrid systems that take advantage of low gas prices, Lux says.