Some changes will be physical–transmission, for example.  Others will be in grid operations–redesigning protocols to maximize efficient usage of all the integration tools available, from demand response to compensated curtailment.  Some changes are best categorized as market redesign.  And finally, some will be technological–commercializing helpful new technologies, from smart-grid software to telemetry and monitoring devices.  If you like challenges, well, you are in luck.  It’s a good time to be alive.

Energy storage is an issue that covers all these categories.  As the California Public Utilities Commission points out, ”California’s energy markets are currently operated under the premise that energy cannot be stored in a practical, cost-effective manner.”  Yet, the challenge of integrating 33% renewable energy (and more!) will be helped by the commercialization and usage of energy storage.  How do we get from here to there?  The CPUC has opened a docket to examine that question, and Vote Solar is a party.  Order instituting rulemaking is here.  Our initial filing is here.  Reply comments here (pdf). All filings can be found here.

In order to achieve deep levels of grid penetration of renewables–the levels necessary to be successful in the fight against climate change–we are going to have to make wholesale changes to grid operations.  Our goal is to reform grid operations to maximize renewable usage and benefit.  Call it the Heliocentric Reform Initiative.  And to that end, this is just one of ~eight proceedings that VSI engaged in to get us there.

Some relevant facts:

• 4 MW of total contract capacity available for wholesale power.
• Minimum project size is 100 kW.
• Price: $0.14/kWh for 20 years.
• If there is more interest in the program than available contract capacity, then potential participants will be asked to bid, and contract winners will be selected by best price. That’s a better way than a lottery.
• The city estimates that the ‘green premium’ (i.e. above-market costs) for this program, if fully subscribed, would be $0.02/kWh, or 0.2% rate increase (see pages 5 + 6 of attachment E, at the link below)
• If fully subscribed, it would provide electricity sufficient to power the equivalent of 1,000 homes, and provide 0.6% of the city’s annual electricity usage.
• Rebates are still available for home and business owners that want to go solar to lower utility bills.

You can get the details here (big-ish file)

Fourteen cents per kWh for a peaking resource (solar produces most when electricity is the most expensive) is a price that can scale.  But will it be enough to work?  Sacramento Municipal Utility District offered 100 MW at that price, and sold out instantly–but the winning projects were all around 5 MW in size.  That’s ~25 acres per project, and with the price of land in Palo Alto–well, that’s an entirely different ballgame.  Some developers tell us its too thin, other think they can make it work.  Seems to us that it is worth finding out.

We think this is a program worth supporting…and if you live in Palo Alto and think so too, how about sending the City Council a note to that effect?  Their website is here, or by email, here.  We pre-filled the form a bit for you, but should really just use your own words.

[more: see GTM's great piece, here]

[more: new details on a new dedicated page -- http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/renewablefit -- includes a summary of the program rules, an application package, and maps.  The City Council date is March 5, 2012, and if the program documents are approved they will begin accepting applications on April 2, 2012.  The first contracts would then be awarded on May 1, 2012 ]

Just introduced by Representative Debbie Lesko, HB 2789 would require the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) — the publicly elected body that has sole authority to regulate power rates under the State Constitution —  to get approval from a majority in the Legislature before it can approve or amend programs or policies that would advance renewable energy or energy efficiency. This would add a layer of government regulation with no benefit for Arizonans, who not only directly elect ACC Commissioners but also already have the opportunity to provide comment throughout the ACC decisionmaking process.

In fact, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to squash progress on clean energy and energy efficiency. Representative Lesko has a history of opposing renewables: see, for example, her failed attempt to pass a bill that would have allowed nuclear energy to count as renewable. In recent years, the ACC has enacted strong new policies like the Renewable Energy Standard that have made Arizona the clean energy powerhouse it is today. But if Lesko’s bill becomes the law of the land, the ACC’s hands will be needlessly tied by a new requirement to first get majority support in both houses of the legislature. That sets up a huge roadblock to the kinds of changes that will be needed to make a clean energy future real in Arizona, and will surely lead to time-consuming and costly lawsuits over who has proper authority.

Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Arizonans want to build the state’s economy by investing more in solar and other renewables. Passage of HB 2789 would severely hamper the ability of future ACC Commissioners, including those elected in November 2012, to enact public policy that matches the interests of Arizona ratepayers. Members of the House Energy and Natural Resources committee are set to vote on the bill on Monday, Feb 13. Stay tuned!

An expected performance based buy-down (EPBB) for PV systems purchased outright
• A performance-based incentive (PBI) for systems that are leased to the homeowner or that the homeowner buys the electricity from under a power purchase agreement (aka third-party-owned systems)
Open access of all incentive funds to both systems purchased outright, and third-party owned systems.  This means the money will flow to whichever financing model consumers prefer.
A transparent, web-based incentive application and tracking system supported by innovations in metering and monitoring technology
A marketing program designed to lower customer acquisition costs for solar contractors

The results? Overwhelmingly supportive:

Nearly four out of five citizens polled believe that the California desert is a great resource and should be used to develop solar power projects.

The majority of respondents are also concerned about global warming (Editorial note: Rightly so! These ecosystems and the communities they support face a tremendous challenge in climate change – more on that from our friends at Environment California below).

Two out of three agree that renewable energy is an important part of our state’s future and that the state and federal government is right to provide financial support and tax incentives for renewable energy projects.

Jobs and the economy are by far the most important issues concerning voters in California desert counties.  Unemployment rates in the counties polled are high, peaking at a high of 26.8% unemployment in Imperial County.  The construction sector in particular is facing 18.9% unemployment across the state.

Considering utility-scale solar’s job creation benefits, it’s not surprising these communities are largely supportive. The majority of solar jobs are related to system development and installation, representing local jobs that are virtually non-outsourceable. These kinds of high quality labor and trade jobs are critical for rebuilding our state’s struggling middle class. Just this week, Next 10 released a report showing that renewable energy generation jobs actually bucked the recession trend here in California – adding jobs while the general economy lost them.

“Utility-scale solar development is a huge job creator and economic engine and will make a very meaningful impact in the communities in which they are located,” said William Perez, executive secretary and business manager for the San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, Building and Construction Trades Council. “The two gigawatts-worth of large-scale solar projects currently under development in Southern California are expected to put nearly 4,000 people to work in the hard-hit construction sector and providing an immediate economic boost in their local communities.”

“There is a huge job creation benefit to solar projects,” said Greg Devereaux, San Bernardino County CEO. “It’s an economic issue and a social justice issue, and a priority for the county.”

Polling data also showed that citizens of the California desert became even more supportive of utility-scale solar development in their county when informed that solar facilities will improve the overall air quality in their region.  Solar power facilities will reduce dependence on California’s aging, polluting fossil power plants by providing clean solar power, avoiding millions of tons of carbon-dioxide emissions and other air pollutants.

“This survey demonstrates the strong support for large scale solar projects as a way to improve our air quality.  These projects will reduce air pollution, combat climate change and lessen our dependence on the fossil fuels that have caused such great harm to public health,” said Jane Warner, President and CEO, American Lung Association in California.

“Renewable energy will improve the air quality in the region and with better air quality, a better quality of life,” said Anupom Ganguli, PHD, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District.

SEIA says that as of January of 2012, California had 524 MW operating making the state far and away the nation’s leader: the next highest is Nevada with 150 MW. There’s another 3.25 GW under construction and another 15.5 GW under development – although only some portion of that will ultimately be put into operation. To put those numbers in perspective, an average coal fired power plant is about 500 MW.

California has made a strong commitment to renewable energy development to meet a number of public policy priorities: combatting climate change, building the clean energy economy, creating local jobs, improving public health and improving energy security. The primary mechanism in place to help the state achieve these goals is something called the Renewables Portfolio Standard that requires the state’s electricity providers to get 33% of their electricity from renewables by 2020. It’s the most aggressive renewable target in the nation, and achieving it reliably & cost effectively requires a portfolio approach that includes large-scale solar development.

A fact-based look at our carbon reduction targets and electricity needs confirms that California needs to be pursuing utility scale solar as part of a portfolio approach that also includes rooftop solar, wind, geothermal, efficiency and all the other aspects of a modern clean electric system. Utility scale solar development that accounts for conservation strategies and local interests is a necessary part of the solution.

“Climate change is the foremost environmental challenge facing these desert ecosystems. A business-as-usual approach to energy will cause irreversible extreme weather and severe water shortages for the animals, plants and people that live in these desert ecosystems. Utility scale solar that takes into account careful conservation strategies & local interests is a powerful part of the solution,” added Michelle Kinman, Clean Energy Advocate at Environment California.

More fine print about the study: The survey was underwritten by BrightSource Energy, a utility-scale solar developer, in order to assess public views about solar within local desert communities. Probolsky Research designed the questionnaire and surveyed voters in the Southern California pan-Desert counties of Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, Inyo and Kern. A total of 1019 telephone surveys were collected.  A study of this size yields a margin of error of +/- 3% with a 95% degree of confidence (+/- 6.9% in each county).  Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish with voters on both landline and cell phones. The survey took place between December 15 through December 18, 2011 and again from January, 12 through January 15, 2012. This was a seriously robust survey!!

To help folks participate in the rulemaking, PACENow, NRDC, and Vote Solar are hosting a webinar.  This webinar will describe the court order, explain the rulemaking process, and provide participants with the information and tools necessary to effectively participate in the process.
The webinar is designed for city and state officials, renewables and energy efficiency professionals, advocacy groups, and concerned citizens.

Wednesday, February 15
10:30–11:30 PST / 1:30–2:30 EST

To register:
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/440604225

Your go-to for more information:
http://pacenow.org/blog/

Please share widely–the more participants the better.

Recently introduced as Senate Bill 595, state lawmakers will be considering a proposal that would enable Maryland residents and small-businesses to join together in sharing the costs and benefits of renewable energy.

Most commonly conceived as a single renewable energy system in which individuals can invest in a portion of a facility’s clean generating potential, these arrangements offer a direct experience for those unable to install on-site renewable energy.  For those that have a shaded roof or rent, community solar offer the promise of renewable energy access.

As an increasing number of jurisdictions look to broaden accessibility to the solar economy through this concept (e.g., here), we applaud these efforts for bringing solar into the mainstream.  We look forward to this trend.

Hats off to Maryland for getting out of the gate early.

The California Solar Initiative (CSI) is a program that provides gradually declining incentives for behind-the-meter solar systems.  The goal (s): help home and business owners reduce their costs by generating their own electricity with solar; and, by gradually reducing incentives down to zero, build a long-term, sustainable solar industry that can stand on its own.

How’s it working?  Well, the energy savings part is certainly working out well.  A local paper recently took a look at school investment in solar.  By their calculations,

The California Solar Initiative launched in 2007 offered rebates for installation, resulting in 191 megawatts of active K-12 and community college installations as of June, with another 141 megawatts planned or under construction.

Over 30 years, the projects are expected to save schools and colleges about $3 billion in energy costs, with an anticipated net savings of $1.5 billion, after subtracting installation and maintenance costs…

Emphasis added.  That’ll save taxpayers a lot of money, and will buy a lot of chalk.  Not to mention teacher salaries.

How about the market transformation goal? January saw 42.4 MW of behind-the-meter solar installed–that’s a record in the history of the program.  The month also saw 49.5 MW in received incentive applications (not a record, but higher than normal).  (Great data source here).  This is all the more remarkable given that the incentives have come down from $4.50/W in 2005 to $0.25/W for most residential installations today.

As costs come down, the market is expanding, and the industry is transitioning off of state subsidies.  It’s  the way it was supposed to work, and kudos to the solar workers of the state that have made the program such a success.

These days, we’ll take good news wherever we can get it.

[Note that the CSI program is different than the RPS program, which is designed to increase wholesale generation of renewables.  CPUC reports that 2011 saw 830 MW of new renewable generation come online, and utilities signed 4.5 GW of new projects — pdf)

It’s a 5 MW pilot, with a project size floor of 100 kW.  Given the price of land in Palo Alto, we’d expect most projects to be rooftop.  It’ll be interesting to see if the proposed price is sufficient to attract participation.  SMUD’s 100 MW of FITs sold out instantly at ~14 cents/kWh–but those were for projects up to 5 MW in size.  On the other hand, panel prices have come down since then.

As we’ve written before, one of the most interesting things about the proposal is how it deals with oversubscription.

We’ve sent in notes of advice and support.  If you’d like to, details on the meeting here, and the proposal, here.

Many parties (including Vote Solar) intervened, arguing it was not only bad for solar and bad for San Diego, but also illegal.  On January 18, CPUC Commissioner Ferron issued a ruling (pdf) agreeing that the proposed charge is inappropriate, and required SDG&E to refile their ratecase without it.

Big win.  Special thanks to UCAN, and of course to Commissioner Ferron.