Posts Tagged ‘solar power’

h1

New Jersey solar installers seek “Endless Summer” at ratepayer expense

May 20, 2012

Michael Giberson

A crisis is coming for the New Jersey solar power installation industry. Stringent solar power purchase requirements imposed on electric utilities (i.e. on electric utility ratepayers) has turned the state into the nation’s second largest for solar power capacity installed, behind only sunny California.

But now that installed capacity is sufficient to meet current requirements, the installation business is expected to drop way off.  (The purchase requirements actually increase each year through 2021, but the rate of growth is slowing.) That expected drop off has lobbyists for both the solar power industry and unionized solar installers descending on the state capital, pleading for imposition of still higher purchase requirements on electric power consumers. The rallying cry has been to “save the jobs” created by the solar power purchase mandate.

Here is one report, “NJ looking to rescue ailing solar industry“:

New Jersey has long been known as the Garden State, but during the last five years, it could have easily been known as the Solar State from all the sunlight-absorbing panels that have cropped up nearly everywhere.

They’re on the roofs of schools, churches, municipal buildings and sewage treatment plants. They’re in farm fields and attached to utility poles. Even one of New Jersey’s trademark diners recently went green and installed panels.

But all is not well with New Jersey’s once-thriving solar industry, which has grown so big, so fast, that it’s now in danger of collapsing on top of itself.

The industry’s future could hinge on the work of the state Legislature during the next several months as lawmakers look to craft a bailout bill that rescues the solar market and the thousands of jobs it created.

A bailout bill was approved by the Senate Environment and Energy Committee on Thursday, but Bill S 1925’s chances of becoming law are far from certain as it relies largely on making power companies buy more electricity from solar generators.

Critics warn that doing so could mean higher bills for the state’s ratepayers. Supporters say without government help the entire industry will likely collapse.

“We have a crisis, and the crisis is this: If the market stays the way it is, there will be no new projects in the future, and the ones out there now will fail,” Sen. Robert Smith, D-17th of Piscataway, said Thursday at the onset of the lengthy hearing on the bill, which drew hundreds to the Statehouse, many of them union members who work in the industry.

At issue is the market for the electricity that solar panels produce, which has crashed during the last year because of an oversupply of solar development.

Under state law, utilities must obtain part of their electricity from solar generation. To do so, most must buy solar renewable energy credits, or SRECs, from solar panel owners.

The market for the credits originally boomed and helped New Jersey become the nation’s second-largest solar power producer behind California. All that development caused a glut in the market that has seen SREC prices decline from $650 or more in 2010 to less than $100 at times this year.

“We’ve become a victim of our own success,” Smith said. “We’ve had so much solar built in New Jersey that the market for SRECs has crashed.”

Historical SREC values are charted at the Flett Exchange.

The crash in the value of an SREC has cut into revenues projected for private businesses and public schools that have had solar panels installed. Banks have become less willing to loan for solar projects as subsidy revenues have dropped off.

A bill circulating to bail out the industry would both increase the mandated purchases, cap the size of solar projects built, and require projects gain approval from state regulators before they are built. The bill has failed, or at least stalled, on the issue of regulator review – the industry wants all existing projects exempted from regulatory review while the Governor’s office and some others insisted on no exemption.

All hope is not lost for the industry, even should the legislature fail to raise the cost imposed on ratepayers in order to bail out the New Jersey solar industry. The chairman of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities has said if legislators don’t act then the BPU might simply impose a higher solar mandate on its own authority.

BACKGROUND: For an extended assessment of solar power incentives in state Renewable Portfolio Standards see Ryan Wiser, Galen Barbose, and Edward Holt, “Supporting Solar Power in Renewable Portfolio Standards: Experience from the United States,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley CA, October 2010. LBNL-3984E.

h1

Net metering in Indiana sees exciting 50 percent growth

April 3, 2012

Michael Giberson

From the Indianapolis Star, “More Hoosiers reap benefits of generating their own electricity“:

[M]ore and more people around Indiana are starting to generate their own electricity, motivated by environmental concerns and feelings of energy independence.

The arrangement is known as “net metering,” allowing customers to offset part of their energy costs and feed the excess back to the utility for credit.

From 2010 to 2011, the number of Indiana customers taking part in net metering rose from 199 to 298 — a 50 percent increase, according to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

Sounds exciting, right? Okay, granted that in a state with about 2.6 million eligible retail electric customers, a move from  0.7 one-hundredths of one percent up to 1.2 one-hundredths of one percent of customers is not exactly a big deal.

The “big” jump in participation came mostly because the state allowed commercial and industrial customers to participate along with residential customers.

But at least a few customers are getting a great deal, right?

The system was expensive, about $30,000, or about as much as a new car. And so far, the savings are relatively modest, a few hundred dollars a year. So even with federal tax credits and a small grant from IPL, the system will take decades to pay for itself.

Decades to pay for itself, for a system with a projected lifespan of maybe two and a half  or three decades tops.

h1

Marc Gunther on the brewing solar PV trade wars

January 10, 2012

Michael Giberson

Marc Gunther asks, “Should we worry about Chinese government subsidies to its solar industry? Or send the Chinese a thank-you note?“ The issue is a “dumping” complaint filed by several U.S. based manufacturers with the U.S. International Trade Commission alleging China so subsidizes its solar PV production that the PV panels are being sold here at a loss.

As Gunther notes, “it takes chutzpah (that’s a technical term in economics) for US solar manufacturers to complain about subsidies in China since they, too, benefit from … [long list of subsidies provided by U.S. federal and state policies].”

ASIDE: Elements of the wind power industry have taken inspiration, as a few weeks ago four U.S.-based manufacturers of wind turbine towers filed a complaint with the ITC against Chinese and Vietnamese wind turbine tower manufacturers.

[HT to AltEnergyStocks.com, where Gunther's column was republished.]

h1

The “first feel-good sustainability story of 2012,” so long as you ignore the costs

January 5, 2012

Michael Giberson

Consider the claim in the headline, “How One Man’s Roof Paid for His Car.” Here’s the introduction:

It’s the first feel-good sustainability story of 2012. A man in Orlando, Florida installed solar panels on the roof of his home, sold the excess power back to the grid, and then used that money to make a down payment on a new Chevy Volt, the plug-in car that gets 60 miles to the gallon.

Now those solar panels are charging his new car.

The nut of the story is that over the last two years the Orlando homeowner netted $5,600 in power sales to his local utility due to the oversized solar power system installed on his roof and in his backyard, and he recently made a similarly-sized down payment on a Chevy Volt.

If we were to assume that the solar panels fell like manna from the skies and were installed by angels refusing payment for their services, it still just isn’t the case that the solar system paid for the car. One indication: it took two years to accumulate $5,600, an average of about $117 per month, and actual monthly car payments for a Volt are likely north of $400. Maybe the homeowner is (reasonably) figuring in foregone electric power bills, but that value is not reported.

The story appearing at StateImpact Texas was based on a newspaper article appearing in the Orlando Sentinel under the more modest headline of “Sun Powers Orlando Man’s Electric Car.” The Sentinel article describes the homeowner’s own investment in the solar power system as “hundreds of thousands of dollars” and mentions “tax breaks and rebates” provided by taxpayers and ratepayers without quantifying them.

Let’s look at it this way: If I poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the ocean and caused other taxpayers and ratepayers to pour tens of thousands of dollars into the ocean, and then the waves washed a few hundred dollars back each month, the claim that “the ocean paid for my car” would seem a little silly.

The Sentinel reported the owner’s own estimate of the payback period at an astounding “50 years or more.” (Astounding because, as the NPR story discussed yesterday indicates, the projected lifespan of the system is much closer to 20 or 25 years.)

h1

Cheap natural gas undermining solar dreams

January 5, 2012

Michael Giberson

NPR reports from Pennsylvania how low natural gas prices have helped put the damper on some solar power dreams:

Barbara Scott had 21 solar panels installed last March on her house in Media, Pa. Scott’s family was the first in the community, and she was prepared to evangelize, “We can have open houses and write newsletter articles and promote the idea of solar,” she said. But that was before the economics changed.

With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system. She figured it would take eight years to recoup that investment.

But that eight year (private) payback period turned out to be too optimistic. First, too many other Pennsylvanians also invested in solar, which caused the price of solar power credits to drop sharply.  Scott figures the change added seven more years to the payback period. Second, the price of electric power is lower than it would have been because of low natural gas prices. Scott adds another two years to the payback period for that effect.

With a new total of a seventeen-year payback period, Scott observed: ”We’re up to 17 years, which is, essentially, the life of the system. And we haven’t even considered what happens if the system breaks or what it’s going to cost to take the system off the roof and dispose of it. “

As noted, this is a private payback estimate, it only reflects the homeowners expenses and net electric bill reductions. Omitted from the calculation are the taxpayer- or ratepayer-funded subsidies (likely large) and external benefits of the system (likely modest but could be significant). Furthermore, these sort of casual payback calculations frequently omit consideration of opportunity costs (i.e. the time value of money or foregone interest income.)

But isn’t it sort of interesting that the story builds around the effects of low natural gas prices as a culprit even though the effect is relatively modest compared to the much larger solar credit price effect resulting from too many other Pennsylvanians getting into the subsidized solar game?

h1

Is subsidising renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels?

November 17, 2011

Michael Giberson

The Economist is hosting an online debate on the motion, “This house believes that subsidising renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.” Matthew Fripp of the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University has presented the affirmative case for the motion, Robert Bradley, Jr., of the Institute for Energy Research has argued the negative.

In closing arguments, Fripp makes what seems to be the best possible case for a combination of directed renewable energy subsidy (either renewable portfolio standards or feed-in tariffs) and gradually increasing carbon tax. While actual policy is unlikely to be as gradual, certain, and efficient as Fripp suggests, it seems desirable for policymakers to at least try, right?

That is, it seems desirable for policymakers to aim for gradual, certain, and efficient policy support for renewable energy assuming we accept the goal of weaning the world off fossil fuels. Bradley doesn’t.

Against a proposition that is formally about the means to an end, Bradley closes by arguing against the end. He argues cheap energy is good energy:

Good public-policy intentions are not enough …. Higher-quality, less-expensive energy enhances living …. This fossil-fuel dividend, if you will, enables a variety of lifestyle enhancements, including those for better health. Wealth is health, and human health should be at the core of environmentalism.

To me Fripp’s polished policy scenario is unappealing in part because of how appealing he makes it seem. (!) I’m not at all ready to turn the energy industry over to a central planning bureau, even Fripp’s ideal which would limit its interventions to minimally intrusive ways of promoting renewable power while a carbon tax was phased in and then disappear. Government attempts to manage the economy tend to destroy economic value; Fripp hasn’t convinced me government has overcome the knowledge problems and coordination problems inherent in economics action.

When renewable energy sources earn a place at the “high-quality, less-expensive” table, we’ll all be wealthier and healthier for it. In the meantime, in a world with significant problems of poverty and disease, wasting resources to install inefficient technology on large scale is destructive of wealth and health.

NOTE: At the moment I’m posting, the reader voting shows 49% in agreement with the motion and 51% opposed. Today, November 17, 2011, is the last day for reader voting. My recommendation: if you like government planning for the energy economy, vote Yes; if you prefer wealth and health, vote No.

h1

California regulators approve generous contract to multinational corporation at California ratepayer expense

November 11, 2011

Michael Giberson

Discovering that renewable power mandates can be expensive, California-style: “California Approves Solar Contract Despite High Cost“:

Ultimately, the commissioners voted for Abengoa’s contract mainly because Abengoa already has spent five years and $70 million to develop Mojave Solar and has gotten all the permits and financing to start construction. They noted that getting permits and financing are so tough that many other renewable energy projects had floundered as a result.”

This is their reasoning? So the high-cost contract is sort of a bailout for Abengoa because otherwise they’d take a loss?

A few details about the project are included in the California PUC staff’s recommendation to deny PG&E’s request to stick its customers with this bill. The staff concluded: “approving the PPA would have PG&E’s ratepayers incur significantly higher costs than might otherwise be necessary to meet PG&E’s RPS targets. [PG&E's own assessment] clearly shows that the contract is not competitive.”

Abengoa takes in billions of Euros in revenue every year – we don’t need to feel bad that a project or two they’ve pursued have turned out to be uneconomic. The company doesn’t need charity from California ratepayers.

Solar PV prices are at least temporarily down sharply from a few years back, but the Mojave Solar project is a concentrating solar power (i.e. solar thermal) project. While other solar thermal projects have switched technologies to reduce cost, not Mojave Solar. Many of the CPUC commissioners viewed this additional technological diversity a reason to make consumers pay extra:

“It’s worthwhile to spend a little more on projects like the Mojave Solar so the (state’s) renewable portfolio doesn’t rely heavily on a single technology. In other words it’ll be more balanced,” said Michael Peevey, the commission president who led the effort to approve the Mojave Solar contract.

Every once in a while I think, “Gee, wouldn’t it be nice to find some small California college near the coast to work for?” And then I go spoil the fantasy by reading about California energy policy.

h1

At Freakonomics, the realization that state solar power policies may be less than optimal

August 11, 2011

Michael Giberson

File it under “Ya think???”

A post at Freakonomics by Steve Sexton concludes that California’s solar power subsidies may not be making the best use of the technology. Sexton points out, for example, the 1,923 residential rooftop systems installed in cloudy San Francisco rather than sunnier California locations:

If San Francisco’s residential solar panels were relocated to Apple Valley, they would produce another 2.1 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each year—enough to power 320 average California homes.

Similarly, we could consider state policies that made New Jersey one of the fastest growing markets for solar power panels. Installing solar panels in New Jersey instead of the sunnier desert southwest is like throwing away about 30 percent of the power production potential of the equipment.

h1

Cheap natural gas upsetting wind development plans, and other energy stories

May 23, 2011

Michael Giberson

Energy stories from around the web.

  1. Financial Times, Gas threat to wind farm growth – “Construction of new wind farms in the US is set to decline next year because of competition from cheap natural gas for power generation, the country’s largest developer of new wind power projects has said.”
  2. Greentech grid, California ISO opens new high-tech control room - “We partnered with Google and we went from your typical map board made of plastic tiles, with digital readouts, to an 81-foot video display wall.”
  3. Reuters, “Japan eyeing plan for solar panels on all new buildings-Nikkei” – Japan may this week announce proposal to require all new buildings to have solar PV panels by 2030.
  4. San Antonio Express-News, “Eagle Ford’s calling card: help wanted” – Fracking not just for natural gas. Oil from shale big in South Texas. “But drilling in the Eagle Ford, a 400-mile-long formation stretching from East Texas to Webb County, has touched off a hiring frenzy in South Texas that is generating thousands of jobs. Now, drilling is moving so swiftly that the scramble for workers has caught some short.”
  5. Houston Chronicle, “Nat gas feud pits prosperous N. Texans against energy industry” – Oil and gas wells not always the best of neighbors.
  6. Reuters, “Chesapeake handed record fine for Pennsylvania gas drilling” – The company was fined a total of $1.1 million for problems at two sites in Southwestern Pennsylvania: $900,000 for seepage from non-shale shallow gas formations due to a poorly-done well casing and cementing job, and $188,000 for violations associated with a fire that injured 3 workers. (See also this Associated Press story.)
  7. Houston Chronicle reporter Richard Dunham, “Why Washington is no help at the pump” – Dunham says “politics as usual” is causing Washington to be of no help in solving our energy problems. (My view: For the most part we’d be better off without Washington trying to “help” consumers. If politics-as-usual is keeping Washington out of the energy business, that is probably a good thing.)
  8. William O’Keefe at the FuelFix blog, “3 Myths About Breaking U.S. Oil Habit” – Counter to some prevailing wisdom (while at the same time affirming popular views held by others) about climate change, energy independence, and resource scarcity.
  9. The Hill’s E2-Wire, “Greens, industry draw battle lines in fight over oil pipeline” – More on the political maneuvering surrounding the Keystone XL pipelines. Environmentalists are mostly opposed to the pipeline since it will mostly be supplied from the Alberta tar sands, and environmentalists are mostly opposed to tar sands development.
h1

New Jersey is not exactly the sunshine state, but solar panels spring up with help of state government

April 28, 2011

Michael Giberson

Casually scanning a solar resource map wouldn’t naturally lead you to think that New Jersey would be a good candidate for solar power, but state government policies have resulted in it leaping into second place in PV installations (after California) in 2010.

NREL PV Solar Resources Map

NREL PV Solar Resources Map

More PV was installed in New Jersey last year than in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, or Utah. Much more than Oregon, which has a lot better quality resource for PV solar, is about 12 times larger, and no slouch when it comes to flashing its environmental credentials.

The New York Times reports that not all residents of the state are happy with the solar panels popping up on utility poles and other places. Guess you can’t make everyone happy, right? Whether they like it or not, electric ratepayers throughout the state have been helping to fund the project.

Some highlights from the Times:

ORADELL, N.J. — Nancy and Eric Olsen could not pinpoint exactly when it happened or how. All they knew was one moment they had a pastoral view of a soccer field and the woods from their 1920s colonial-style house; the next all they could see were three solar panels.

“I hate them,” Mr. Olsen, 40, said of the row of panels attached to electrical poles across the street. “It’s just an eyesore.”

Like a massive Christo project but without the advance publicity, installations have been popping up across New Jersey for about a year now, courtesy of New Jersey’s largest utility, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Unlike other solar projects tucked away on roofs or in industrial areas, the utility is mounting 200,000 individual panels in neighborhoods throughout its service area, covering nearly three-quarters of the state.

The solar installations, the first and most extensive of their kind in the country, are part of a $515 million investment in solar projects by PSE&G under a state mandate that by 2021 power providers get 23 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. If they were laid out like quilt pieces, the 5-by-2.5-foot panels would blanket 170 acres.

New Jersey is second only to California in solar power capacity thanks to financial incentives and a public policy commitment to renewable energy industries seeded during Gov. Jon S. Corzine’s administration.

But his neighbor Tony Christofi, a 47-year-old contractor, wondered aloud whether Fair Lawn, by not fighting, was getting more than its fair share.

“I’m fine with green energy,” he said, “but are the savings going to be passed on to consumers?”

PSE&G officials said solar energy was still more expensive to produce than more traditional power sources and acknowledged that bills were going up 29 cents a month. Each panel produces 220 watts of power, enough to brighten about four 60-watt light bulbs for about six weeks. When complete, this project is expected to provide half of the 80 megawatts of electricity needed to power 6,500 homes.

The article notes a shift in priorities that came in with the state’s new governor: “Although he supports renewable energy, Gov. Chris Christie, through a spokesman, characterized the mandates that spawned the panel project as ‘extremely aggressive.’ He has already asked that they be re-evaluated.”

In February, a New Jersey newspaper reported, “The state will move away from subsidizing residential solar projects to emphasize commercial installations and encourage the construction of more gas power plants in a revised energy master plan….”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers