Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Why Solar PV Has Reached Escape Velocity: Top 10 Reasons
March 2nd, 2016 by Rocky Mountain Institute
Originally published on RMI Outlet.
By Laurie Guevara-?Stone and Joseph Goodman, Ph.D.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/02/why-solar-pv-has-reached-escape-velocity-top-10-reasons/
With Nevada rolling back net metering and solar company stock prices falling, one might think the solar industry is in big trouble. In fact, a recent New York Times article stated that SolarCity and other residential solar companies face a cloudy future. The article implies that the solar business model is based largely on subsidies (federal, state, and local), and therefore highly exposed to regulatory changes. Yet we believe the opposite is true: the solar industry will continue to have sustained and significant growth despite SolarCity stock woes and net metering policy changes. And here are ten reasons why:
1. PV companies are diversifying
The PV industry is increasingly diversifying, making it more resilient to incidents of bad policy. “While the New York Times article focused on residential solar, that segment is less than 25 percent of the market,” according to RMI Associate Kevin Brehm. In fact, SolarCity, a company commonly associated with rooftop solar, is now building and owning utility-scale solar projects. As companies diversify they are less exposed to policy risk that may affect one segment, such as the Nevada policy change.
2. The PV industry is global
On a global scale, new markets will enable the U.S. PV industry to grow despite short-term recessions in local markets. In October of 2015, global information and analysis company IHS predicted 2015 global PV demand would reach 59 GW, 33 percent higher than 2014, and 2016 would reach 65 GW. This growth is largely due to increased demand in China, India, and other emerging economies. “It’s a growing global market and U.S. developers are really well positioned to capture that market,” says Brehm. For example, SunPower has been diversifying into markets including the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa, and 50 percent of SunEdison’s project pipeline is outside the U.S. First Solar is also going global with over 60 percent of its 2015 Q2 potential booking opportunities (16.7 GW) coming from international markets. “This global diversification mitigates local, state, and federal electricity policy changes to a great extent and helps to insulate the solar PV industry from microeconomic vagaries,” according to Anthony Coker, VP of Market Development for Hanna Solar.
3. Solar PV is a proven and robust technology
Standard solar PV module warranties currently range from 25–30 years and product lifetimes are far exceeding manufacturers’ warranties. Many early off-grid adopters are still harvesting solar energy from modules installed in the ‘70’s. Even inverters are getting out of the reliability hot seat with over 20 year warranty extensions based on the belief that if products fail at 15 years they will delight customers with higher-efficiency longer-lifetime replacements.
4. Solar PV cost is beating fossil fuels
According to Lazard’s latest Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 9.0), the levelized cost of electricity for utility-scale solar PV without subsidies is beating conventional alternatives in many parts of the U.S.—even with current low fossil fuel prices. First Solar recently agreed to sell power from its 100 MW solar plant in Nevada for 3.87 cents per kilowatt-hour (escalating at 3 percent per year), thought to be the lowest electricity price ever. And last June, Austin Energy received bids for over 1.2 MW of PV projects under 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
5. Cost of solar PV will continue to fall
PV costs in all segments are expected to continue down. According to LCOE 9.0, “The levelized cost of rooftop solar PV is expected to decline in coming years, primarily as a result of more efficient installation techniques, lower costs of capital, and improved supply chains.” Canadian Solar estimates that the cost of the modules will fall 25 percent in the next three years, and GTM Research predicts that through balance of systems cost reductions, PV system prices will fall an average of 40 percent by 2020. Economies of scale along with improved business processes in a newly emerging industry will continue to drive down costs.
6. The industry is attracting top talent
Forbes “Top 30 under 30” list of the brightest entrepreneurs and change agents under the age of 30 has a disproportionate share of PV talent compared to market cap. The new generation of leaders is bringing a pragmatic outlook honed in the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Yet, where previous generations largely fled green agendas this pragmatic generation has analyzed the long-term trends that will play out in our lifetime and see renewable energy and energy efficiency as sure bets for both job security and satisfaction.
7. Decommissioned coal plants will drive surge in PV demand
Even with the unknown outcome of the challenge to the Clean Power Plan, a total of 46,000 MW of coal generation is on track to close in the ten years spanning 2012–2022. Just last July the 200th coal plant shut down in the U.S. As coal assets are decommissioned, solar PV is likely to step in and cover a large share of the capacity need. Solar PV is affordable, and with falling storage prices, it can be a great alternative to coal. According to Brehm, “The war on coal is over. Now it’s just a question of rebuilding and solar will be a large portion of that generation capacity.” Duke Energy, which installed over 200 MW of solar in 2015, has stated that despite what happens with the Clean Power Plan, any new generation it installs will be in natural gas and renewables. Coker adds, “No one is arguing for a single silver bullet—one generation source for the global economy’s electricity. Rather, we are seeing a displacement of coal by lower-priced gas, solar, and wind in many regions. Economics are dictating the change.”
8. Completely untapped markets still exist
New solar business models will create access for more customers. There is currently a huge market for low-to-moderate income households in the U.S. Less than 0.04 percent of these families have solar PV systems, which we estimate at a $250 billion dollar market in the U.S. alone. And worldwide, over a billion people have no access to electricity at all. As PV costs continue to decline and more developing countries enact policies supporting renewable energy expansion and continue to push for electrification to drive economic development, the solar PV market is poised to grow at an incredible rate in those countries. Solar PV can reach these populations providing them with clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.
9. New solar markets segments are emerging in mature markets such as the U.S.
Even if some currently active solar market segments stagnate, there are significant new markets opening up. Community solar is a large currently untapped market. There are currently 65 MW of community solar installed in the U.S. with an estimated 250 GW market potential. “Community-scale solar is an exciting segment of the market. Increasing demand from rural electric coops, community-based organizations, and local municipalities is driving developers and service providers to innovate new technology and business solutions,” according to RMI Associate Kieran Coleman. “Clearly this is a very early stage nascent sector that has huge potential to meet broader need.”
10. Business models are being continuously innovated
While the New York Times article makes it sound as though SolarCity and other companies’ business models have inherent flaws and risks, we believe that business models are continuously changing. Whether it is a non-profit organization like Clean Energy for Us, a for-profit solar company such as PosiGen, or a utility such as Kit Carson Electric Cooperative, there is continuous innovation to make solar more affordable, accessible, and profitable. Even large, conservative investor-owned utilities are adding more solar (e.g., Southern Company with its three military bases of over 90 MW under construction and several large utility scale solar farms publicly announced by Mississippi Power) forging new solar business models in highly regulated markets. “And regulators like the New York Public Utilities Commission play an equally important role in opening the field in business model innovation in current and emerging sectors,” adds Coleman.
A Bright Future
So while states like Hawaii and Nevada end net metering, and solar companies’ stock values fall with the market like oil and gas or banking stocks, we feel the solar industry does not face a cloudy future. Far from it. Policies, regulations, and the stock market can’t stop the continued growth of this clean, affordable, reliable technology; the future of solar PV is bright.
Photo courtesy of Living Off Grid via Flickr, Creative Commons license (CC BY 2.0).
Reprinted with permission.
Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report — “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” And tell us where you’d like to attend electric vehicle and/or solar power events conducted by CleanTechnica
Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.
Audio only:
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/vKs4IQ14fPAw.mp3
He claims $100M for 2016 with current set up.
Planning more acquisitions....
Clean disruption? Stanford group plans for 100% green-energy future
Green analysts say fossil-fuel industry could be obsolete by 2030 as clean energy takes over
By James Roberts, CBC News Posted: Mar 02, 2016 11:00 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/clean-disruption-renewable-energy-canada-1.3470590
A Stanford University team has calculated exactly how Canada can fully move away from fossil fuels, relying on wind, solar and other renewable sources alone. (Carlos Barria/Reuters )
An environmental research team from the prestigious Stanford University in California has calculated exactly how Canada can move away from fossil fuels, transitioning to a totally clean-energy future through existing technologies.
But the assertion that this transition is just over a decade away is the source of hot debate.
Investment in renewables fell by half last year, Clean Energy Canada says
Clean-technology investors call for federal task force
'Historic' Paris climate deal adopted
The Solutions Project has evaluated the wind, water and solar (WWS) potential for all 50 U.S. states and 139 countries around the world, including Canada, providing data on the costs and benefits for each nation.
The goal of the group — which is backed by Hollywood heavyweights Mark Ruffalo and Leonardo DiCaprio — is to ultimately move the world toward 100-per-cent renewable energy use.
After measuring Canada's clean-energy resources, the Stanford team says Canada can reach this goal through the following breakdown:
58 per cent wind.
22 per cent solar.
16 per cent hydro.
Two per cent wave.
Two per cent geothermal.
"That would power Canada for all purposes," says Mark Jacobson, a co-founder of the Solutions Project and a civil and environmental engineering professor at Stanford University, in the heart of Silicon Valley.
"I feel we know it's technically and economically possible to transition the energy infrastructure, which is built primarily on fossil fuels and nuclear power, to entirely clean, reliable and safe renewable energy," he says.
"In all sectors — electricity, transportation, heating and cooling, agriculture, forestry and fishing — we can transition all those sectors to clean, renewable energy at reasonable cost and make it reliable and make it secure for generations to come."
Eliminating fossil fuels
While Jacobson and the Solutions Project believe that 80 per cent of all energy will be renewable by 2030, there are some, like Stanford business professor Tony Seba, who say this could happen even faster.
Seba, whose advice has been sought in boardrooms from Tokyo to Paris, is confident that solar and wind are key to sweeping away the industrial age of transportation and energy — and fast. He suggests we can reach that magic number of 100 per cent within 15 years.
"The solar-installed capacity has doubled every two years since the year 2000. Doubled every two years," he says. "If you keep doubling that capacity, all you need is seven more doublings in order for solar to be 100 per cent of the world's energy supply."
Seba — also author of Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation — points to the demise of Kodak in 2012 to illustrate what he sees as an impending market disruption in the energy sector.
In the blink of an eye, Kodak, the world's top film-photography company, was forced into bankruptcy by advances in digital photography and photo-sharing.
Seba cites bankruptcies in in the coal industry as the "start of the end" for the non-renewable energy sector. According to Bloomberg Business, five major U.S. coal companies have filed for bankruptcy over the last two years.
What's more, the low cost of oil has not slowed investment in clean energy: $367 billion US was invested in green energy in 2015, the Solutions Project says, compared to $253 billion US for fossil fuels.
Silicon Valley driving the transition
Silicon Valley, home to two of the world's most-valuable companies, Apple and Google, is making the case that software engineers and venture capitalists, the people who ushered in the digital revolution, are on the verge of another breakthrough — this time in energy.
The suggestion is that the combination of falling prices for solar power, energy storage and electric vehicles will create serious challenges for fossil-fuel companies in the coming years.
"There's going to be a moment over the next five years where electric cars will be cheaper than the gasoline cars," says Seba. "But, also, it's going to be 10 times cheaper to charge on a per kilometre basis, and it's also 10 to 100 times cheaper to maintain because the electric vehicle has one per cent of the moving parts."
At this point, 20 U.S. states have reached what economists call "grid parity" for solar power: the point at which solar energy costs no more than fossil fuels. Energy research company GTM estimates 42 states will reach that point by 2020.
Meanwhile, the cost of wind power has fallen 61 per cent since 2009 and is still falling.
Adding up the benefits
The group also claims air pollution from burning fossil fuels would be eliminated, saving Canada more than $100 billion every year; energy prices would stabilize; and Canada would be able to reach the target recently set at the Paris climate change summit.
Not so fast
While Silicon Valley is home to many who believe the transition away from fossil fuels will be quick, there are dissenting voices — even among those pushing for the transition.
"The evolution is gradual," says Denis Giorno, president and CEO of Total New Energies, a spin-off company of French energy giant Total, the world's fourth-largest fossil fuels company. "I cannot see a transition where all of a sudden, in 2030, oil won't be necessary."
Though Total is investing in solar power and other renewables, the Silicon Valley-based Giorno questions the ambitious timeline of a possible energy revolution.
"This is a view we do not share at all," he says. "If you look at how much energy we need, and look at the energy metrics of the world, globally, we will still consume, in the best case in 2030, 70 per cent of [our energy] from fossil fuels."
Jacobson believes estimates from oil companies are just plain wrong, and he maintains it is technically possible to transition to 100-per-cent clean energy by 2030.
But he admits the transition will likely take longer "because of political and social reasons." Still, he's betting on an 80-per-cent transition within 15 years.
Seba remains the most optimist, arguing that innovations from Silicon Valley and high technology in particular will amount to a "clean disruption." His analysis is based purely on economics — and more specifically on falling energy prices.
"Solar, electric vehicles, self-driving cars, storage for the home are technology-driven; they are going to be consumer-driven," he says. "Unsubsidized solar is going to be cheaper than subsidized fossil fuels. Unsubsidized electric vehicles are going to be cheaper than subsidized gas vehicles."
Stranded assets
"My advice for those people who are holding back and claiming their livelihoods are going to be hurt, well, their livelihoods are going to be hurt more if they don't transition," Seba says.
Most of the globe's coal, natural gas and oil investments will ultimately be affected by the transition, Seba suggest, at risk of becoming "stranded assets" — resources that lose their value before the expected end of their economic life.
"They are going to be stranded over the next five to 15 years," he maintains. "It's not going to take us over 40 years."
Latest progress report:
$BSRC nice day coming IMO
34,687 pitiful isn't it?
Must mean that it's a hold..
Pretty exciting stuff. I can trade SUNW on my schwa but not on scott.
My account was messed up. Emailed Scottrade. Went to a meeting. And came back all fixed...
Install at 33 panels per hour....
Plug and play installation...
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/dnv-gl-conducted-install-time-test-on-sunpowers-helix-roofing-system
DNV GL conducts install time test on SunPower’s ‘Helix’ roofing system
By Mark Osborne Feb 29, 2016 12:43 PM GMT
SunPower said that its recently launched ‘Helix’ Roof product was able to be installed by at least two and a half times faster than competing commercial rooftop systems, after DNV GL undertook a ‘Mounting System Installation Efficiency Test’ in December, 2015.
Major PV energy provider SunPower has said its recently launched ‘Helix’ Roof product was able to be installed by at least two and a half times faster than competing commercial rooftop systems, after DNV GL undertook a ‘Mounting System Installation Efficiency Test’ in December, 2015.
SunPower said that the test proved that its commercial rooftop product could be installed at more than 33 modules per installer hour, compared to other publicly reported maximum install speeds of 12 to 13 panels per installer hour.
"The SunPower Helix Roof product delivers value through innovation, benefiting our commercial customers with an exclusive combination of the most efficient solar panels installed at world record speed," said Howard Wenger, SunPower president, business units. "For businesses and organisations choosing SunPower Helix systems, installation time that is two and a half times faster means less business disruption and the opportunity to fast track cost savings and sustainability goals."
DNV GL was said to have conducted tests on a 21.6-kilowatt (DC) rooftop system composed of 66 modules, using a three-person team that was noted for having had no previous experience installing SunPower’s Helix system.
CHEAP AWARD?
SUNation Solar Systems Honored with SunPower’s 2015 “Residential Regional Top Producer of the Year” Award
Baker was named SunPower's Residential National Top Producer for 2015
Sunpower CEO:
Correlation between oil and solar is nonexistant
So much for the "cost" of renewables....
http://news.yahoo.com/war-coal-long-over-guess-140238921.html#
Blue-collar families can spend as much as 22 percent of their incomes on energy, including both gasoline and electricity,
Texas has been a leader in deploying wind energy, and its rates have dropped 9 percent since 2008, while the national average rose 7 percent,
"Surging renewables build and coal retirements have not triggered a dramatic leap in retail power prices,'' the council said in a report this month. "Year on year, retail rates in 2015 fell 1.3 percent in real terms, even as real GDP grew by 2.4 percent."
? markp
I saw the numbers on the solar panels that will be produced at their new New Your panel factory...
360W per panel...
65¢ per watt
Which works out to $234 per panel....
TODAY is the day that he should issue one of his PRs....
Put us on steroids!
USGS just blew their arguments against solar.
They said that we had 250 years of coal in Wyoming....
It's more like 40.....
Stay with coal and we will be very much in trouble.
USGS analysis greatly reduces coal industry's life expectancy
By The Associated Press | Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016, 11:00 p.m.
http://triblive.com/business/headlines/10024936-74/coal-usgs-department
Updated 19 minutes ago
BILLINGS, Mont. — Vast coal seams dozens of feet thick that lie beneath the rolling hills of the Northern Plains once appeared almost limitless, fueling boasts that domestic reserves were sufficient to power the United States for centuries.
But an exhaustive government analysis says that at current prices and mining rates, the country's largest coal reserves — along the Montana-Wyoming border — will be tapped out in just a few decades.
“You're looking at a forty-year life span, maximum, for Powder River coal,” said USGS geologist Jon Haacke, one of the authors of the analysis.
Claims that the nation had reserves sufficient to last as long as 250 years came from greatly inflated estimates of how much coal could be mined, Haacke added. They were based on data put out by the U.S. Energy Department last updated comprehensively in the 1990s.
For your market Studies. FSLR is out....
Trading higher....
FSLR 61.79 -3.80% 63.85 64.00
First Solar Profit Slips With Power Plants Held on Balance Sheet
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-23/first-solar-profit-slips-with-power-plants-held-on-balance-sheet
First Solar Inc. reported a lower profit in the fourth quarter as the largest developer of utility-sized solar farms continued to invest in new projects while holding off on selling other ones.
Net income fell to $164.1 million, or $1.60 a share, from $193 million, or $1.90 a share, a year earlier, Tempe, Arizona-based First Solar said in a statement Tuesday after the close of regular trading. That was more than double 76-cent average of 11 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Sales slipped to $942 million from $1 billion a year earlier.
First Solar expects to produce as much as 3 gigawatts of its cadmium-telluride thin-film panels this year, affirming its December forecast.
The company shifted its strategy last year, and typically retains power plants on its balance sheet until it can sell them to a joint venture it formedlast year with SunPower Corp. First Solar previously focused on selling these projects to third parties, and the change affects when it may recognize some revenue. That also makes it tough for analysts to determine what to expect from quarter to quarter.
“It is always difficult to predict specific timing of revenue recognition on key projects being constructed or completed during each quarter,” Sven Eenmaa, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus & Co., wrote in a research note Monday.
The joint venture, 8point3 Energy Partners LP, sold shares through an initial public offering in June. It was created to buy and operate power plants and in January announced its first such deal, for 22 megawatts of solar systems that SunPower is developing at school sites in California.
(First Solar scheduled a conference call to discuss results at 4:30 p.m. in New York. Access on the company website at http://investor.firstsolar.com)
U.S. Solar Surged 17% in 2015 Led by Demand for Rooftop Power
Christopher Martin
Feb 22, 2016 6:40 am ET
http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-O2T2PCSYF01U01-7MB5QUKI9LH50C81IBD8BT3PUV
(Bloomberg) -- Solar power developers added a record 7.3 gigawatts of capacity in the U.S. last year, up 17 percent from 2014 and surpassing natural gas installations for the first time.
Residential installations climbed 66 percent, the fastest- growing segment, and accounted for 29 percent of all photovoltaic systems,
First Solar, Inc. (FSLR) Scheduled to Post Quarterly Earnings on Tuesday
(after the bell)
Canadian Solar Secures $300 Million Credit
Isn't it nice that we expand debt free!
Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA)
http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/other-regulatory-efforts/public
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/strengthen-policy/public-utility-regulatory.html#.VsrbpBiIOL9
Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA)
The Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) was passed in 1978, in the midst of the energy crises that ripped through industrial world economies. Faced with predictions that the price of oil would rise to $100 a barrel, Congress acted to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to promote alternative energy sources and energy efficiency, and to diversify the electric power industry.
One of the most important effects of the law was to create a market for power from non-utility power producers, which now provide 7 percent of the country's power. Before PURPA, only utilities could own and operate electric generating plants. PURPA required utilities to buy power from independent companies that could produce power for less than what it would have cost for the utility to generate the power, called the "avoided cost."
PURPA has been the most effective single measure in promoting renewable energy. Some credit the law with bringing on line over 12,000 megawatts of non-hydro renewable generation capacity. The biggest beneficiary of PURPA, though, has been natural gas-fired "cogeneration" plants, where steam is produced along with electricity.
Much has changed since PURPA was implemented. The price of oil has declined and supplies of natural gas have increased, driving down the cost of electricity. Many independent power producers signed contracts in the 1980s with prices that are higher than current spot market prices. Critics of PURPA say it is unfair to make utilities honor those contracts, and they blame independents for high power prices. In fact, all of these contracts were based on the avoided cost of electricity at the time; in other words, if utilities had built their own power plants, prices would be even higher now.
Critics also complain that PURPA is not compatible with an increasingly competitive power market. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 encouraged wholesale power competition, and recent rules by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) opened up transmission lines to all generators equally. But utilities are still able to generate wholesale power and compete unfairly with independents. And there is no other law that requires utilities to use competitive bidding to find the lowest power prices.
PURPA is the only existing federal law that requires competition in the utility industry and the only law that encourages renewables. Both of these goals must be preserved. But despite its benefits, PURPA is no longer much help for renewables. Due to current low avoided costs, few renewables are able to compete with new natural gas turbines. Technically, PURPA only calls for renewable energy if it is cost competitive with conventional polluting resources. Many of the benefits of renewables are not included in the price, such as clean air, but PURPA makes no provision for including these. By strictly interpreting the law, FERC has expressly forbidden non-price factors in PURPA decisions. Moreover, as the guaranteed prices of PURPA contracts signed in the 1980s expire, many renewable power generators are going out of business.
The bottom line is that as long as fossil fuel price forecasts are low, there will be very little development of new renewable energy. What is needed is a new law that accounts for the full range of benefits of renewable energy, like reduced pollution, less global warming, domestic and local economic development, and reduced dependence on foreign energy sources. Such a law must be part of electric industry restructuring legislation. The renewables portfolio standard can move large amounts of clean energy into the mainstream; the system benefits fund can support new and emerging energy sources; and closing loopholes in the Clean Air Act for old coal plants will reduce the unfair advantage those gross polluters enjoy.
In short, PURPA can only be replaced with a better law, not with no law. Any legislation must create an equal playing field for utilities and independent power producers, and must protect the environmental benefits of renewable energy and cogenerators.
What do you make of the recent super majority given to Mr Beifuss?
Any guesses on what is going on? Not enough market cap to even consider a R/S to uplist.
I'm still just jaw-dropped at the audacity of the Nevada PUC. I can't wait until there is a major ruling against them, IMO it's just a matter of time.
Sigh …https://t.co/VelOzAKIW6
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 19, 2016
NasdaQ listing was a disaster, or have you another opinion for that?
Oil+gas at/near record lows.....
Holding up pretty nice. It would be GREAT to see some earnings.....
I'll be happy with $10....
Warm weather forecast.
Lower Nat gas prices.....
Crude oil build.
While it shouldn't it is........
2nd half of the article applies to our business......
Energy
From The Ashes Of Some Coal Plants, New Energy Rises
Updated February 17, 20163:32 PM ET Published February 17, 20164:57 AM ET
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/17/466033966/from-the-ashes-of-some-coal-plants-new-energy-rises
The coal industry is hurting. For decades, coal was the go-to fuel for generating electricity. Now that is changing.
The connection between coal and generating electricity goes back to the late 19th century. A good place to get a sense of that history is the small town of Sunbury, Pa. — specifically at the corner of Fourth and Market streets at the Hotel Edison.
"This is the place where, on July 4, 1883, Thomas Alva Edison lit the hotel with the first commercial three-wire electric system," says hotel co-owner Meghan Beck.
The famous inventor chose Sunbury to demonstrate his lighting system because the existing gas lamps in town were expensive to operate. There was plenty of cheap coal nearby, and Edison used it to power his generators.
This part of central Pennsylvania has long been coal country. "It was a huge part of our economy in this area," Beck says. "We actually have a power plant just across the river that was coal-fired up until a year ago."
That plant and its huge smokestacks can be seen for miles. It's a local landmark that delivered electricity to this region for more than six decades. But now things are about to come full circle, and the lights in Beck's hotel may once again be powered by gas.
Right next to the old coal plant, a brand new natural gas power plant is under construction and scheduled to be completed by the end of 2017. Companies building the plant say it will be more efficient than the old coal plant.
While a coal plant pretty much has to run all the time, a gas plant can be shut down and fired back up more easily to meet regional electricity demands, according to Dave Meehan, head of Sunbury Generation, which owns the site where the new plant is being built.
It's easier on the environment, too. There's no coal ash to deal with, it uses less than 5 percent of the water for cooling than the coal plant used, and it emits less pollution. Here's the real kicker: The new gas plant will produce more than twice as much electricity as the old coal plant — enough to power about a million homes.
"Gas is taking more and more market share from coal, and that's a reality that is here to stay," Meehan says.
U.S. coal production peaked in 2008, according to the Energy Information Administration. It's been trending down since. Last year, it fell 10 percent, and that's hurt companies and the communities where they operate.
"Right now I think we're simply in a survival mode," says Luke Popovich, vice president for external communications at the National Mining Association.
In part he blames environmental regulations over the decades. But the coal industry's problems go beyond that. Despite falling demand here in the U.S., the industry thought global demand would continue to rise. Popovich says coal companies borrowed a lot of money to prepare for that new business, but it never came.
"Now they're faced with paying off those debts at the same time that prices for all fossil fuels — not just coal but natural gas and oil — have virtually collapsed," Popovich says.
Coal's problems don't stop there. The renewable energy building boom also is stressing the industry. Once solar and wind projects are built, the power is cheap to produce.
"Gas puts the immediate threat to coal, but the combination of gas and renewables places a longer-term threat to coal," says Andy Roberts, analyst in international thermal coal markets for the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.
He says last year was tough for coal companies, and the future likely will be even more painful.
"Probably, over the long, long time, only the strongest of them are going to survive," Roberts says.
One way to stay strong is to declare bankruptcy. That's the route Arch Coal is taking. It's the second-largest coal company in the U.S., and it filed in January. The company says it expects to shed more than $4.5 billion in debt. Executives hope that will position Arch to be one of the few companies that will survive the tough years ahead.
This Proves Why Solar Energy Is an Unstoppable Megatrend
By John Persinos on February 17, 2016
Put aside any preconceptions that solar power is the impractical dream of tree-hugging, granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing environmentalists. The industry is poised for a long-term boom that should generate market-thumping gains for decades.
Consider this: 10 billionaires have rushed to invest massive sums in renewable energy technologies such as solar. Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates, and their super-wealthy peers can hardly be considered as naïve and utopian.
If you believe that fallacy, you’ll miss one of the most exciting investment opportunities to come along in decades. Fact is, the infrastructure for the solar industry is now pervasive and entrenched, leading to a “price decoupling” of solar and fossil fuels. Solar and other renewable energies are now part of the energy status quo and no longer need high oil and gas prices to attract users.
Traditional Energy Industry Declares War on Solar Energy
Nick Cunningham / Oilprice.com @oilandenergy 1:13 PM ET
Solar's threat to the utility industry is deeper than not having to purchase electricity
http://time.com/4225677/fossil-fuel-solar-war/
Now that solar power is reaching prime time, the fossil fuel industry is doing all that it can to stop its growth.
For many years solar was on the periphery, installed by early adopters and helped along by government subsidy. But over the last several years, solar has emphatically become mainstream. It is still growing from a low base, but it is now one of the most preferred sources of new electricity generation. The cost of residential solar have been cut in half since 2010, and utility-scale solar has achieved even greater cost declines.
In 2015, the U.S. saw 16 gigawatts of new renewable energy capacity installed, which accounted for two-thirds of the total. Solar alone accounted for about one-third of new capacity last year. Natural gas only captured 25 percent of the newly installed capacity despite several years of incredibly low prices. The banner year for clean energy occurred while 11 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity came offline as old plants were retired amid rising costs and stricter environmental regulation. The clean energy transition is very much underway.
But the backlash from incumbent industries has also sprung to life. With solar and wind suddenly eclipsing fossil fuels as a preferred option for new power plant capacity, utilities and other fossil fuel interests are moving quickly to disrupt the progress of clean energy.
The industry argues that homeowners with solar must pay fees to cover their costs of using the grid. Solar proponents dismiss that argument, pointing to the costs saved by not needing to build new power plants.
However, the threat that solar poses to the utility industry is deeper than customers no longer needing to purchase electricity. Building new power plants and other large infrastructure is at the core of utility industry’s business model. Since those costs can be passed onto the ratepayer in the form of regulated rates, building expensive infrastructure is actually a source of profit. Customers switching to solar ends up hitting the utility’s bottom line twice by no longer buying as much electricity and upended the utility’s case for costly new power plants and transmission lines.
That is why utilities have become much more aggressive in beating back solar. One of the most high-profile cases is in Nevada, where a NV Energy, subsidiary of Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, convinced the Nevada Public Utilities Commission to abruptly and harshly alter the rules of the game for solar power in the state.
Oilprice.com: Struggling Venezuela Buys U.S. Crude, But Who Will Pay for It?
Not only did state regulators gut the net metering payments to homeowners with solar on their rooves, but they also refused to grandfather in those that have already signed up or purchased solar panels on the basis of the net metering rule. Homeowners with solar will now see their electricity rates increase in the coming years. Some residents may see their electricity bills spike by 300 percent above what they likely would have been had they not purchased solar in the first place. Under the net-metering rules, purchasing or leasing solar made sound financial sense for more than 17,000 homeowners. Now, all of a sudden, it doesn’t.
The move sparked outrage from both homeowners and the solar industry in December when the PUC made its original decision. SolarCity immediately announced its decision to pull out of the state and lay off most of its Nevada workforce. On February 12, the PUC upheld its decision, although it slightly delayed the rate increase for solar homeowners from 4 to 12 years, which was still much quicker than the utility industry had even asked for. NV Energy proposed rate increases for solar customers to be phased in over 20 years.
By the stroke of a pen, Nevada just became a much more difficult place to do business for solar companies. SolarCity’s share price has plummeted by more than 60 percent since the December ruling.
But Nevada is not the only state where the fight to block solar’s rise is taking place. The signs of obstruction abound. In 2013, Arizona regulators slapped a fee on solar customers of $5 per month after a campaign by the state’s utilities. The fee was lower than what the utilities wanted after protests from a collection of solar companies and conservative groups advocating for freedom of energy choice. That fee remains in place, but the state’s largest utility is reportedly looking to submit a request to regulators this year to raise the fee to $21 per month.
Rolling Stone just published a long article on the monopoly power held by the utility industry in Florida, where they have succeeded in keeping Florida a solar backwater, despite the state having the third-best solar generation potential in the country. Unlike most other states, nobody except the utility is allowed to buy and sell electricity, so the power-leasing model that SolarCity has made popular is illegal. “We live in the Stone Age in regard to renewable power,” said Florida state Rep. Dwight Dudley. “The power companies hold sway here, and the consumers are at their mercy.”
The anti-solar initiatives are spreading around the country. Oklahoma’s utility industry is proposing new fees, which sparked protest in December. Renewable portfolio standards are being rolled back in Ohio, Kansas, and other states.
The fight will only escalate moving forward as solar makes further inroads. Worldwide, the clean energy sector enjoyed a record year in 2015, attracting $329 billion in investment, a staggering figure that is set to rise.
Utilities may be able to buy themselves some time, but as solar continues to see costs decline, more and more people will want to defect from the grid.
This article originally appeared on Oilprice.com
The Koch Brothers' Dirty War on Solar Power
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-koch-brothers-dirty-war-on-solar-power-20160211?page=2
After decades of false starts, solar power in America is finally poised for its breakthrough moment. The price of solar panels has dropped by more than 80 percent since President Obama took office, and the industry is beginning to compete with coal and natural gas on economics alone.
Sidebar
Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire »
But the birth of Big Solar poses a grave threat to those who profit from burning fossil fuels. And investor-owned utilities, together with Koch-brothers-funded front groups like American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), are mounting a fierce, rear-guard resistance at the state level – pushing rate hikes and punishing fees for homeowners who turn to solar power. Their efforts have darkened green-energy prospects in could-be solar superpowers like Arizona and Nevada. But nowhere has the solar industry been more eclipsed than in Florida, where the utilities' powers of obstruction are unrivaled.
The Sunshine State has the best solarity east of the Mississippi, and the third-best rooftop solar potential in America. Yet measured by solar production, it ranks just 16th in the nation. It's dwarfed by solar giants like California. Florida even lags behind Northern states like New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York. "It defies logic," says former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. "It's absolutely absurd."
The solar industry in Florida has been boxed out by investor-owned utilities (IOUs) that reap massive profits from natural gas and coal. These IOUs wield outsize political power in the state capital of Tallahassee, and flex it to protect their absolute monopoly on electricity sales. "We live in the Stone Age in regard to renewable power," says state Rep. Dwight Dudley, the ranking Democrat on the energy subcommittee in the Florida House. "The power companies hold sway here, and the consumers are at their mercy."
The full political might of Florida's IOUs was on display in December, when a deceptive campaign, funded by the state's electric utilities, crushed a citizen-led effort to open Florida to solar competition through the 2016 ballot. "When your opponents have no ethical foundation, have unlimited resources and are willing to say and do anything to defeat you," says Stephen Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which led the pro-solar effort, "it's a tough hurdle to overcome."
It should come as no surprise that the utilities have fought so hard. The rise of cheap, distributed solar power poses a disruptive – and perhaps existential – threat to the traditional electric utility business.
Monopoly electric utilities used to make sense. Dirty power, generated at a distance from population centers, was carried over a set of transmission lines to homes and businesses. Consumers got reliable power from a single provider. IOUs were guaranteed a profit – both for building power plants and transmission lines as well as for the electricity itself.
But in recent years, the nation's IOUs have been abusing their monopoly powers to profit from massive infrastructure projects. Utilities more than doubled their capital expenditures last decade; costs were paid for by electric customers, whose power bills have soared nearly 40 percent. For investors, the formula is simple: More infrastructure equals more profit.
The rise of distributed solar power poses a triple threat to these monopoly gains. First: When homeowners install their own solar panels, it means the utilities build fewer power plants, and investors miss out on a chance to profit. Second: Solar homes buy less electricity from the grid; utilities lose out on recurring profits from power sales. Third: Under "net metering" laws, most utilities have to pay rooftop solar producers for the excess power they feed onto the grid. In short, rooftop solar transforms a utility's traditional consumers into business rivals.
The surge of solar competition has caught the nation's dirty-power generators flat-footed: The utility trade group Edison Electric Institute (EEI) warns that rooftop solar could do to the utility industry what digital photography did to Kodak, bringing potentially "irreparable damages to revenues and growth prospects."
Few industries are worse equipped to deal with disruption than power utilities. Their profits depend on infrastructure investments that pay off over a generation or more. "Utilities are structured to be in stasis," says Zach Lyman, partner at Reluminati, an energy consultancy in Washington, D.C. "When you get fully disrupted, you've got to find a new model. But utilities are not designed to move to new models; they never were. So they play an obstructionist role."
The Sunshine State is a gold mine for its monopoly IOUs. Air conditioning drives the second-highest electrical consumption in the nation; the average Florida household spends $1,900 a year on power – 40 percent more than the national average. Fossil fuel dominates electricity generation: Florida is 61 percent dependent on natural gas, followed by coal at 23 percent. Solar makes up less than one percent of the state's energy mix.
Solar activists in Florida face stiff opposition from utilities. "The power companies hold sway here," one state lawmaker says, "and the consumers are at their mercy." Chris Zuppa/AP
Key policies that have spurred a rooftop solar revolution elsewhere in America are absent or actually illegal in Florida. Unlike the majority of states, even Texas, Florida has no mandate to generate any portion of its electricity from renewable power. Worse, the state's restrictive monopoly utility law forbids anyone but the power companies from buying and selling electricity. Landlords cannot sell power from solar panels to tenants. Popular solar leasing programs like those offered by SolarCity and Sunrun are outlawed. Rooftop solar is limited to those who can afford the upfront expense; as a result, fewer than 9,000 Florida homes have panels installed.
Florida's anti-solar policies are zealously defended in Tallahassee. "It's no secret we play an active role in public policy," says Mark Bubriski, spokesman for Florida Power & Light (FPL), the largest IOU in the state. FPL is the monopoly power provider for 4.8 million customers, whose electric bills generated $1.65 billion in profit for the company last year.
The utilities are top political donors in Florida. Since 2004, the state's four largest IOUs contributed at least $18 million to state politicians and political committees – a preponderance to Republicans, who now control state government. In addition, since 2007, the companies spent at least $12 million on lobbying, employing an average of one lobbyist for every two legislators in Tallahassee. "They've got a pretty good harness on the whole deal up there," says Crist.
The capital city of Florida is more "Southern Gothic" than "South Beach." Tucked away on Florida's panhandle, Tallahassee is a slow-walking city of whitewashed churches, wide verandas and dusky oaks, draped with Spanish moss. Nothing from its outward appearance would suggest this city of 190,000 is the seat of power for a state whose economy rivals Indonesia's.
A seven-hour drive from Miami, four hours from Tampa and another three from Jacksonville, Tallahassee sits at a far remove from the watchful eyes of voters in Florida's biggest cities. The business of the state transacts in a tiny three-block district in the shadow of Florida's modern Capitol building, a white 22-story tower flanked by a pair of low-slung domes that look – how to put this – happy to see you.
Sidebar
Obama Takes on Climate Change: The Rolling Stone Interview »
Florida is served by a part-time legislature. Lawmakers make less than $30,000 a year and are subject to strict term limits. The paltry pay and constant turnover combine to fill the capital with baby-faced lawmakers who run point on policy matters in which they have little expertise. Even Republicans say the model enhances the power of special interests. "Out in eight years?" says one GOP state representative, referring to term limits. "You're giving more power to lobbyists." ?Florida's pay-to-play energy politics outrage honest conservatives. Nancy Argenziano is a 61-year-old firecracker of a politician with short dark hair and piercing eyes. She served as a GOP state legislator for more than 10 years. Until 2010, she chaired the state's Public Service Commission (PSC) – the arm of the legislature that regulates Florida's power companies. Argenziano is unsparing in her assessment: "The legislature is owned by the utilities. To me, it's extremely corrupt. The legislature takes millions from utilities, who make billions from [the decisions of] the PSC. They get what they pay for."
The utilities' political reach even extends to the governor's mansion, a stately brick building graced by a classical portico that – only in Florida – sits a 10th of a mile from a pawnshop where you can turn your gun into cash. Republican Gov. Rick Scott's narrow 2014 re-election was financed by more than $1.1 million in contributions from the IOUs.
The governor did not respond to interview requests. But Scott has earned ridicule for allegedly banning state officials from using the terms "global warming" and "climate change." Shortly after his re-election, he filled an open slot on the PSC with Jimmy Patronis, then-Florida state chair of ALEC, which fights renewable-energy mandates and climate regulations.
Bowing to the businesses the PSC is supposed to regulate, the commission recently scaled down Florida's energy-efficiency mandates and terminated a modest rebate program for the private purchase of solar panels. "I don't want to give handmaidens a bad name," says state Rep. Dudley, "but they're servants of the utility industry."
Even as it rolls back green initiatives, the PSC has rubber-stamped fossil-fuel boondoggles. In an unprecedented move, it approved FPL's proposal to frack for natural gas – in Oklahoma. FPL convinced the PSC that the project, financed by the electric bills of its customers, would save money. But after a rocky first year, the project has already cost ratepayers nearly $6 million. "It's a total rip-off," says Dudley.
Dudley has the fire of a reformer. A tall man who favors pinstripe suits, he has repeatedly introduced legislation to curb the abuses of the PSC and open Florida to solar competition. But he says he can't even get a hearing in the Republican-dominated capital. "From a legislative perspective," he says, "we've really been stonewalled."
Seeking to crack open Florida's energy market at the ballot box, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) mounted a $2 million campaign to qualify a "Solar Choice" amendment for the 2016 election. The constitutional amendment would have ended Florida's rare lock on electricity sales; only Kentucky, Oklahoma and North Carolina have similar prohibitions. It would have freed consumers to install leased solar panels on their rooftops at no upfront expense. Retailers could have installed solar arrays and sold power to tenants in the same shopping complex.
SACE is directed by Stephen Smith, a tall Tennessean with water-blue eyes who dresses like Tom Wolfe on casual Friday. To advocate for solar choice, SACE knit together an implausible "green tea" coalition – comprising Tea Party activists and environmentalists like the Sierra Club, in alliance with Florida's retail and restaurant federations, as well as religious groups like the Christian Coalition of America.
The campaign led with voices from the far right. Coalition member Debbie Dooley helped found the Tea Party and today directs Conservatives for Energy Freedom. The 57-year-old grandmother may run her shoestring outfit out of the back of a 2010 Hyundai Sonata, but she has an impressive track record, spearheading a two-year fight that overturned anti-solar restrictions in Georgia in 2015 – creating thousands of clean-energy jobs.
At a campaign luncheon in a Presbyterian church in downtown Tallahassee in November, Dooley is wearing a lime-green suit jacket and matching jeweled earrings, and lamenting that she had to leave her Chihuahuas – Chi Chi and Chico – back home in Buford, Georgia. With a delicious drawl, Dooley insists that her view is the right view: "Conservatives champion free-market choice, not government monopolies that stifle competition."
Dooley embodies a political trend that many environmentalists don't appreciate, says Jigar Shah, the former CEO of SunEdison who now runs his own investment firm, Generate Capital. A passion for solar has taken root among people who may not "give two shits" about the environment, Shah says. "The reason Debbie Dooley is involved is that the Tea Party people who support Ted Cruz believe very strongly that the electric utility company is every bit 'the man' as the government is."
Confronting a popular threat to their monopoly power, the utilities fought back – with a vengeance. But rather than campaign directly against the Solar Choice amendment – which polled at nearly 70 percent – the IOUs mounted a competing ballot initiative called the "Smart Solar" amendment. Despite the name, their amendment doesn't advance the cause of solar power. Quite the reverse: "It locks existing statute into the constitution," says a skeptical Republican Florida lawmaker.
"They've twisted the words around so that it keeps the monopolies in place," former Vice President Al Gore explained at a Climate Reality Project conference in Miami, blasting the utility initiative as the "dumb" solar amendment. Even Jack Abramoff, the infamous influence peddler, traveled to Tallahassee to denounce the utility amendment as "right out of the lobbyist playbook." Abramoff, who served four years in federal prison, is now seeking atonement by crusading against special-interest corruption. The Smart Solar campaign, he says, "reminds me very much of what we used to do in the old days ... Now it's a fight between two amendments – so they can obfuscate what's going on."
The Smart Solar amendment is financed, nakedly, by the state's top investor-owned utilities, which ponied up $4 million through December, more than half the campaign's total haul. "We are proud of who supports our campaign," says spokeswoman Sarah Bascom. Other supporters include conservative pressure groups funded by fossil-fuel interests. 60 Plus – a seniors group that has received $15 million from the Koch donor network – donated more than $1 million. The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), a tiny organization with an oversize name, added $100,000. The NBCC is funded by major polluters, including Exxon; its latest convention was sponsored by Koch Industries and Gulf Power. NBCC founder Harry Alford, unabashed, touts the "cozy, productive relationship we have with the fossil-fuel corporations." The Koch grassroots political group, Americans for Prosperity, does not appear on Smart Solar's donor rolls, but did issue a call to arms for its Florida activists to fight solar choice.
Sidebar
Why We Have to Kiss Off Big Carbon Now »
The Smart Solar campaign played dirty. In a seemingly transparent effort to confuse petition-signers, the utility-backed measure aped the "choice" language of the rival pro-solar campaign with its formal ballot title. Smart Solar called itself Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice. "It's pure deception," an exasperated Smith tells Rolling Stone. "Many, many people have been misled into signing their petition – it's fraud!" Bascom insisted there was no intention to mislead. "It would defy all logic," she tells Rolling Stone. "Why would we confuse ours with one that does not have public support?"
In the end, the utilities crushed the Solar Choice campaign by spending it into submission. Qualifying an amendment for the ballot in Florida is onerous and expensive under the best of circumstances. It requires nearly 700,000 signatures, and any serious campaign hires paid gatherers.
By mounting a competing measure, the utilities sparked a financial arms race – with the utility-backed measure typically paying gatherers twice as much per signature. "When we were paying a dollar on the street, they were paying $2," says Smith. "When we were paying $2, they went to $4." Soon, the IOUs had forced solar proponents into a burn rate of $350,000 a week. It was unsustainable.
Solar Choice threw in the towel in January. The campaign is now regrouping, aiming to qualify instead for 2018, when more than 400,000 signatures it has gathered would still be valid. Smart Solar is pressing ahead for the November ballot. If it passes, the utilities will be entitled, under the constitution, to hit rooftop solar customers with high fees simply to maintain their connection to the grid.
But Florida Power & Light isn't waiting until November to take a brazen victory lap. In January, it submitted a proposal to the PSC, seeking to hike its electric rates by nearly 24 percent over the next three years and asking the commission to reward FPL investors with a higher guaranteed rate of return. If approved, FPL's electric consumers would typically pay an extra $13 a month.
"FPL spent millions fighting to deny consumers solar choice,"says Dooley, furious. "Now they have their hand out, asking for a subsidy."
Florida is an extreme example of utility-funded efforts to thwart the rise of solar power at the state level. But it's not unique. Major utilities across the nation are seeking to undermine competition from rooftop solar by hiking its cost. "The utilities have realized they're completely up a creek without a paddle," says Shah, who sees the utilities lashing out at solar not from a position of strength but of desperation. "They can certainly fight it. But they're going to lose."
The utilities are working from a playbook developed by ALEC – the Koch-funded group that promotes "model" bills, often adopted virtually wholesale by Republican legislatures – and the Edison Electric Institute, the utility trade group.
The political argument advanced by ALEC and EEI is that rooftop solar generators are freeloaders on the traditional grid infrastructure: They rely on conventional power when the sun isn't shining, but because they sell power back to the grid, they don't pay much on net. An ALEC report on rooftop solar implausibly holds up utilities as champions of the economically vulnerable, arguing that net metering creates a "regressive tax, subsidizing the rich by picking the pockets of the poor."
Such arguments ignore the clear value rooftop solar producers create for other customers on the grid – including producing power at times of peak demand and adding resiliency against outages. Most obvious: Rooftop solar producers pay for their own equipment and volunteer their real estate – avoiding expenditures by utilities that would otherwise get passed along to ratepayers. A 2013 study for Arizona's largest utility found the benefits of rooftop solar "exceed the costs by more than 50 percent."
After some initial legislative setbacks, the utilities and their allies are now working in the shadows – seeking to persuade utility regulators to put the brakes on solar by, in essence, taxing rooftop producers.
Arizona – a state that spends up to 85 percent of the year in sunshine, and stands second in the nation with a solar capacity of 1,800 megawatts – was ground zero for this approach. Last winter, the Salt River Project (SRP), the utility that serves Phoenix, hiked fees for rooftop solar customers and tacked on a murky "demand charge." The effect was to increase bills for customers with solar panels by a whopping $50 per month.
SRP touts itself as a "community-based nonprofit." But in an internal e-mail, an SRP director condemned solar advocates as "the enemy." (SRP would disavow the comment as a joke.) The utility's price hike puts into action policies long promoted by ALEC, which endorses "a fixed grid charge" for solar customers. SRP's new fees have throttled the local rooftop market: Solar lease applications are down as much as 96 percent, according to SolarCity. In a scathing open letter, CEO Lyndon Rive blasted SRP for working to "entrench" its monopoly by "shuttering the solar industry in one of the sunniest places in the United States." SolarCity is now suing SRP, alleging violation of federal antitrust laws.
Florida is an extreme example of utility-funded efforts to thwart the rise of solar power at the state level. But it's not unique. Major utilities across the nation are seeking to undermine competition from rooftop solar by hiking its cost. "The utilities have realized they're completely up a creek without a paddle," says Shah, who sees the utilities lashing out at solar not from a position of strength but of desperation. "They can certainly fight it. But they're going to lose."
The utilities are working from a playbook developed by ALEC – the Koch-funded group that promotes "model" bills, often adopted virtually wholesale by Republican legislatures – and the Edison Electric Institute, the utility trade group.
The political argument advanced by ALEC and EEI is that rooftop solar generators are freeloaders on the traditional grid infrastructure: They rely on conventional power when the sun isn't shining, but because they sell power back to the grid, they don't pay much on net. An ALEC report on rooftop solar implausibly holds up utilities as champions of the economically vulnerable, arguing that net metering creates a "regressive tax, subsidizing the rich by picking the pockets of the poor."
Such arguments ignore the clear value rooftop solar producers create for other customers on the grid – including producing power at times of peak demand and adding resiliency against outages. Most obvious: Rooftop solar producers pay for their own equipment and volunteer their real estate – avoiding expenditures by utilities that would otherwise get passed along to ratepayers. A 2013 study for Arizona's largest utility found the benefits of rooftop solar "exceed the costs by more than 50 percent."
After some initial legislative setbacks, the utilities and their allies are now working in the shadows – seeking to persuade utility regulators to put the brakes on solar by, in essence, taxing rooftop producers.
Arizona – a state that spends up to 85 percent of the year in sunshine, and stands second in the nation with a solar capacity of 1,800 megawatts – was ground zero for this approach. Last winter, the Salt River Project (SRP), the utility that serves Phoenix, hiked fees for rooftop solar customers and tacked on a murky "demand charge." The effect was to increase bills for customers with solar panels by a whopping $50 per month.
SRP touts itself as a "community-based nonprofit." But in an internal e-mail, an SRP director condemned solar advocates as "the enemy." (SRP would disavow the comment as a joke.) The utility's price hike puts into action policies long promoted by ALEC, which endorses "a fixed grid charge" for solar customers. SRP's new fees have throttled the local rooftop market: Solar lease applications are down as much as 96 percent, according to SolarCity. In a scathing open letter, CEO Lyndon Rive blasted SRP for working to "entrench" its monopoly by "shuttering the solar industry in one of the sunniest places in the United States." SolarCity is now suing SRP, alleging violation of federal antitrust laws.
Emboldened, for-profit utilities went for the jugular in America's solar giant, California. Other states measure solar output in megawatts; California produces more than 10 gigawatts – nearly half the nation's total. Rooftop solar has exploded thanks to bountiful sunshine and a generous net-metering
law. Today, nearly five percent of California's power is generated by rooftop solar. But this success also triggered a state review of the payments to rooftop producers – opening the door for utility monkey-wrenching.
The state's biggest utilities lobbied the California Public Utility Commission (PUC) last year to hit rooftop producers with Arizona-style fees. Southern California Edison sought increases averaging $800 a year for its rooftop solar customers. But in the Golden State, solar producers are now a formidable political constituency all their own. In November, advocates of preserving the state's net-metering program delivered 130,000 signatures to the PUC in wheelbarrows.
In December, the head of the PUC declared the utilities had failed to provide "a real basis" or "evidence" to justify the massive rate hikes on solar customers. In January, the PUC adopted only minor changes; the ruling was hailed as a huge win by the solar industry.
Nevada has some of the greatest solar potential in America; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid touts his home state as the "Saudi Arabia of solar energy." But where California rejected the Arizona model, Nevada is taking it to the next level.
In late December, the state's PUC commissioners – all appointed by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval – announced huge price hikes for rooftop solar customers. The changes will add nearly $40 a month to solar homeowner electric bills – wiping out the $15 a month in typical solar savings. The Nevada charges were put into effect despite the PUC's own admission, reported by Forbes, that rooftop solar customers "do not impose any significant additional costs" on other ratepayers. In an unprecedented move, the new charges were also made retroactive, punishing the state's 17,000 existing solar customers.
Until recently, Nevada was one of the fastest-growing solar markets, but providers are now fleeing the state: SolarCity, Sunrun and Vivint are winding down their operations. "This is the first state to close up a solar market, eliminating thousands of jobs as we speak," says Bryan Miller, vice president of public policy for Sunrun. His company is suing the state, promising to expose cronyism between Sandoval and the state's biggest utility, Nevada Energy. Noting that the governor's top two political advisers are lobbyists for the utility, Miller insists, "This is a story of political corruption." ("Of course, we reject this latest spurious and reckless charge against Nevada's state government," Sandoval spokeswoman Mari St. Martin tells Rolling Stone.)
Roiling the economy of an early-voting state in an election year, Nevada's solar politics have already become a growing issue in the presidential campaign. At a Las Vegas rally just before New Year's, Bernie Sanders called the PUC decision "just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard."
Even as the solar industry faces unprecedented regulatory obstruction at the state level, its future on the federal stage has rarely been brighter. In mid-December, Congress stunned activists, solar-industry executives and investors by cutting a deal to renew billions in federal support for solar power that had been slated to expire at the end of 2016 – avoiding a "solar cliff" that could have staggered the industry.
Signed into law with the $1.8 trillion year-end budget, the solar accord extends a tax credit that offsets up to 30 percent of solar project costs – even as those costs continue to plummet. The impact is projected to be massive: 20 gigawatts of new solar power added over the next five years, nearly doubling the nation's output.
But this freakish fit of solar bipartisanship is fragile. In no uncertain terms, the American solar industry will be on the 2016 ballot. Last year, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency finally unveiled its mechanism to curb the power sector's carbon emissions. By 2030, the Clean Power Plan would reduce national electricity sector emissions by one-third. Under the plan, the administration projects renewables like solar will rise to 28 percent of U.S. power generation.
Clean Power will be implemented – or not – depending on the will of Obama's successor. Republicans have made clear their ambition to dismantle the work of the current EPA. Donald Trump calls global warming "bullshit" and a "hoax." Ted Cruz calls the Clean Power plan a "radical attempt to destabilize the nation's energy system."
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has promised to build on Obama's plan, vowing to treat it as the "floor, not the ceiling." Clinton has an ambitious plan for solar energy. She calls for the installation of half a billion solar panels in her first term – a move that she says would drive a sevenfold increase in U.S. solar-power production. For his part, Sanders has not detailed a specific solar policy, but has promised "massive" investments in clean power to drive an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050.
Over time, Dooley believes, solar power will win out, not only on the economics, but because there's nothing partisan about it. In fact, she says, solar power is one of the few things on which Democrats, Republicans and independents can find common ground. "Who doesn't want to be able to have solar panels on their rooftops?" Dooley asks. "Who doesn't want to become an entrepreneur – selling energy generated on their private property to their neighbors, and make a profit off of it?"
Other than the monopoly utilities and the Koch brothers, who have their backs, she asks, "Who doesn't want energy freedom?"
From The Archives Issue 1255: February 25, 2016
A Monday that we are not losing money!
Sanders calls out Warren Buffett over solar energy
February 13, 2016, 04:38 pm
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/269380-sanders-calls-out-warren-buffett-over-solar-energy
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on billionaire investor Warren Buffett to support the solar energy industry during a campaign stop in Reno, Nevada on Saturday.
Buffett, who is backing Sanders's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for president, is the owner of the largest energy utility company in Nevada, where the state's public utility commission recently issued a ruling that activists say has hampered the solar industry.
"Warren Buffett is somebody who might be interested in hearing from constituents in Nevada. This is a terrible, terrible decision. The ruling went exactly the wrong way," Sanders said, according to a pool report of the event.
"So you might want to be thinking about writing a letter with a few hundred thousand signatures on it saying 'you know what? what you're doing here in Nevada is exactly wrong."
Activists say that the ruling has effectively eliminated the return on investment for those using solar in their homes.
Sanders, an outspoken proponent of fighting climate change, called the use of alternative forms of energy a "moral responsibility."
"The decision by the public utility commission is exactly the wrong decision," he said. "We should be making it easier for people to move to sustainable energy like solar, not harder."
Sanders beat Clinton on Tuesday in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary.
"The race will be on to find the next Solar City, the next Sunrun who can pioneer a sustainable business model for the future."
The new 'peak oil'? A dollar invested in solar yields more energy than a dollar invested in oil
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987160/the_new_peak_oil_a_dollar_invested_in_solar_yields_more_energy_than_a_dollar_invested_in_oil.html
According to oil company executives, oil is going to be a major energy source to 2100 and beyond. So after hearing an oil man make his case, Chris Goodall went home and crunched some numbers. Money invested in solar power already produces more energy than if it's put into oil exploration and production, and the gap is only going to widen from here. Is this the new 'peak oil'?