Clean Technica took note on Thursday of new developments in the growing partnership between Solar Energy International (SEI) and the United States military. The former is an educational organization, founded in 1991, that offers training in solar power jobs as well as other renewable industries. They just recently passed the 30,000 alumni mark.

Now SEI is establishing a new scholarship program for both current and former military personnel who are interested in both expanding the military’s solar technology and entering the solar industry after they leave the force:

SEI’s scholarship offer extends to both active duty and military veterans. It consists of a full ride on the organization’s PV101 Online course, which is the first in its Solar Professionals Certificate Program.

The PV101 course can also lead to a train-the-trainers path for active duty military trainers and program managers, which SEI describes as the “deepest level of training in the industry.” That program is available to active duty military trainers who are involved in introducing solar technology to their facilities.

The new scholarship is a direct response to an uptick in demand, probably driven by the military’s big ongoing push into renewable power and energy efficiency.

Between vehicles and power generation, the military is the single biggest consumer of oil on the planet, meaning it has an immediate strategic interest in getting off fossil fuels. The stuff is heavy and costly to transport, reliance on it leaves bases — either established or on the front lines — vulnerable and dependent on outside forces, the supply lines to move it are vulnerable to attack, ands carrying it around isn’t exactly easy for individual soldiers either.

As a result, the military is pushing ahead with everything from geothermal projects, to electric vehicles, to solar cells that can be stitched into backpacks, clothing, tents, or that can even be rolled up or unfurled like placemats — thus relieving soldiers of the need to cart around much heavier battery packs.

Given all that, it’s little wonder there are more soldiers and veterans looking to carry those skills and experiences into the private sector.

Full report available here.

Low-Cost Incentives Can Spur Innovation in the Solar Market

Concentrating solar power — also known as concentrated solar power, concentrated solar thermal, and CSP — is a cost-effective way to produce electricity while reducing our dependence on foreign oil, improving domestic energy-price stability, reducing carbon emissions, cleaning our air, promoting economic growth, and creating jobs. One energy expert has even touted it as the “technology that will save humanity.”

The U.S. Department of Energy has created the SunShot Initiative to lead research into the technology — work that aims to increase efficiency, lower costs, and deliver more reliable performance from concentrating solar power. Additionally, high-profile U.S.-based companies such as IBM have invested in CSP research. Increasingly, private and public stakeholders believe that the technology holds the greatest potential to harness the power of the sun to meet national sustainability goals.

As the White House prepares a climate change reform agenda that embodies the bold spirit of this year’s State of the Union address, in which President Barack Obama emphasized executive authority to regulate greenhouse gases, Congress has begun debating the nation’s new energy future. Concentrating solar power should be a key component of this dialogue.

Some are concerned that clean technologies are too immature and unreliable to produce the vast stores of affordable baseload energy needed to power the 21st century American economy. Others are worried that the nation cannot switch to carbon-free electricity without ruining the economy. CSP technology, however, presents a compelling response to each of these concerns.

In this report we detail why the United States should invest in concentrating solar power and delineate the market and regulatory challenges to the innovation and deployment of CSP technology. We also offer the following low-cost policy solutions that can reduce risk, promote investment, and drive innovation in the CSP industry:

Read more

The fight to bring cheaper, clean energy to Georgia is uniting some unlikely allies. Renewable energy advocates and leaders of the Atlanta Tea Party are taking on utility giant Southern Co., and its subsidiary Georgia Power, over resisting the call to expand its development of solar energy.

As Debbie Dooley, co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party explained in an interview with Climate Progress, the group’s interest in the debate is quite simple: “The free market has been one of the founding principles of the Tea Party since it began and a monopoly is not a free market.”

In Georgia — as in many states — utilities are granted a monopoly over the ability to sell power, which means that customers have no choice in where they get their electricity. A major provision of the monopoly is that Georgia Power act in the best interest of ratepayers, regulated by the Public Service Commission.

Dooley said the Tea Party believes consumers should be able to exercise choice when it comes to their energy source and the activists she works with don’t want to be dependent on one or two energy sources. And Dooley’s effort is not aimed at reducing carbon emissions — in fact, she doesn’t believe in global warming — but based on their view that solar is a commonsense alternative for Georgia ratepayers that could function without subsidies.

As this atypical coalition has come together to introduce competition into the electrical provider market and challenge Georgia Power’s long-held monopoly, Southern Co. continues to ignore consumer demand and market trends. In a recent speech to the Atlanta Press Club, Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning said, “There may come a time in the next decade when these things will be more competitive. It’s just not right now.”

One reason for this may be that distributed energy resources, like solar, threaten the core business model of utilities. As David Roberts explains in depth on Grist, an expansion of rooftop solar, for example, is a major risk to the utility model because it reduces demand for their most valuable product and goes straight at utilities’ main profit centers.

And the Tea Party isn’t the only unlikely voice for solar in Georgia. Lauren “Bubba” McDonald of the Public Service Commission also wants more solar in Georgia, although his plan would work within the existing utility structure. McDonald told Climate Progress that his decades of experience as a state lawmaker and as an elected member of the PSC, along with research and observation of the solar industry, has led him to believe the time is right for a significant expansion of solar energy in Georgia. He cited a study conducted by Arizona State University that ranks Georgia in the top five for potential benefits from solar expansion, but 38th in actual solar deployment.

Read more

The largest coal company in the world, Coal India, is aiming to cut its own utility bills by installing solar photovoltaic panels at its facilities across the country. The coal giant is seeking proposals from solar energy companies to build a modular 2 megawatt solar plant on 9 acres of its own land. This plant could be scaled to export power to the grid.

Not only is Coal India pursuing commercial solar power plants, it’s also “mulling” the installation of rooftop solar panels at the Ranchi Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, where it does mining research. The panels would go on “staff colonies” and in mining areas, with the goal of reducing the company’s energy bills.

Coal India explained the reason for these moves in its bid document:

“India has an abundance of sunshine and the trend of depletion of fossil fuels is compelling energy planners to examine the feasibility of using renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, and so on.”

This is a remarkable statement from the largest coal company in the world. Coal India produces 90 percent of India’s coal, and not only is it turning to solar as an efficient business practice, it understands India cannot power itself by coal. In fact, a coal-based electricity system is not reliable: solar energy is. And solar may be the only hope for much of rural India to become electrified after decades of failed grid expansion plans. With so much potential solar capacity across the country (see below for how much potential solar energy hits India every year), there is little wonder that even fossil fuel companies are looking to get in on the game.

A Pike Research report last year predicted that the global mining industry would invest $20 billion in renewable energy by 2020. Coal India may be among the first coal companies to commit to solar in the way it seems to be, though in 2012 a British coal mining museum in south Wales recently outfitted two rooftops with 400 solar panels. Neyvili Corp produces coal in India and is building a 10 megawatt solar power plant that could be upgraded to 25 megawatts, along with a 50 megawatt wind farm. Oil India has also started investments in wind and solar.

These companies see something that oil giant BP did not: After decades of investment in solar energy, CEO Bob Dudley said “We have thrown in the towel on solar.” Most coal and other fossil fuel companies around the world have not embraced renewable energy in the way that these Indian companies have. Why?

Read more

Heat wave conditions have claimed the lives of over 500 people in India since April. India’s Department of Disaster Management reported that 524 people have died of sunstroke since April 1. The Indian Meteorological Department said tomorrow’s forecast called for clear skies and continued heat, warning that “the heatwave will continue.”

The Times of India reported that the state of Hyderabad’s 500 sunstroke deaths in just three days is the highest such death toll in recent history.

New Delhi saw 43 degrees C (or over 109 degrees Fahrenheit) today, western states such as Gujarat saw highs between 116-118 degrees Fahrenheit, and the northern state of Uttar Pradesh hit 45 C (113 F). This state is one of the nation’s poorest, with 190 million people. Its energy infrastructure is inadequate to the demand of so many residents trying to cool themselves. Since pumps are often required to provide water, this also means that a power outage comes with a water outage. Angry residents attacked power company officials and even set fire to a power station. For the rest of the population, power outages combined with humidity caused most people to stay indoors.

India’s neighbor Pakistan has responded to its own extreme heat by turning off the air conditioning government offices and telling civil servants not to wear socks.

The government may be moving to include heat waves as natural disasters covered by the National Disaster Relief Fund, which provides financial compensation for victims’ families.

It isn’t just the daily highs during a heat wave that cause suffering, the daily lows are also dangerous. State capital Jaipur saw a low of over 90 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday, well above average.

Kanpur resident Bholanath Paul said, according to Newstrack India: “Summers are always difficult but usually the temperatures come down in the evenings. But this time even that is not happening. It remains hot during the night too.”

One odd development: fruit prices dropped as sellers tried to clear out their inventory in anticipation of food spoilage.

Tourist Eijaz Ahmed came to India to escape the heat in Mumbai, and instead found record-breaking heat no matter where he went: “I am here with my family and have come from Mumbai to enjoy the cold weather, but it is very hot right now.”

Read more

Last week, Governor Mark Dayton signed an economic development bill that contained several powerful incentives for solar development. This confirms what many have been saying for quite some time – that solar is careening toward widespread adoption and will create jobs while reducing emissions along the way.

This development is a good indicator of some fundamental dynamics that are playing out in the energy space. First, if you were to look at a map of US solar potential, Minnesota would not be the first place you’d put solar panels. This can also be said of Germany — not exactly heralded for its sunny weather — but which still has 1.3 million installed solar power systems that just set a new peak output record of 22.68 GW. So why is solar getting traction in these places?

Well, with the cost of solar PV dropping 80 percent since 2008 alone; the truth is that economic inertia has made solar practical even in places like Minnesota and Germany. In addition, the secret to solar success has not been finding the places with the most sun, but rather finding places where the political will is ready to galvanize around smart, forward looking investments that create good jobs.

The Minnesota bill isn’t perfect, but it’s a great, replicable model for future legislation. Here are the three best parts that others should look to:

The Solar Standard

Minnesota is now home to a solar energy standard that requires 1.5 percent of the state’s electricity to come from solar by 2020. The law stipulates that 10 percent of those projects must be under 20 kilowatts. This will encourage widespread development of distributed generation across the state, with utilities needing to add about 450 MW of solar power to their portfolio.

The bill will also transition the state from a rebate-based system to a production-based system. In other words, instead of providing consumers with up-front compensation for their investments, they will be compensated based on the amount that their solar panels produce. There will be $5 million per year available in the fund to compensate electricity generation. A particularly interesting aspect of this program is the “Made in Minnesota” provision, which gives special incentives to locally produced panels. This allows the solar standard to save consumers money while simultaneously spurring local industry.

So a ton of solar is going to have to be built between now and 2020, the only remaining question is: when?

Advocates are debating this question, but many are leaning toward “frontloading” the mandate by building lots of solar right away. This is because solar projects currently qualify for the Investment Tax Credit, meaning that Minnesota could take advantage of available federal dollars to help pay for meeting this mandate. However, others believe that with rapidly falling costs it may be cheaper to “backload” the mandate and build progressively more solar as the years go on. This is not a settled question, but in either case, meeting the mandate will spark investment and be an economic boon for the state.

Solar Gardens

Read more

John Farrell via Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Going solar keeps getting cheaper, but most of the cost savings have come from less expensive solar panels. “Soft costs,” like permitting and inspections, are a rising share of the cost of a solar installation. Several years ago, these permits could increase the cost of a residential solar project (then around $8.00 per Watt) by 5-10% , highlighted in a 2010 study by Sunrun. But as solar gets cheaper, permitting is going to be a much bigger problem.

A recent analysis by Lawrence Berkeley Labs [pdf] illustrates the benefits of streamlining solar permitting rules: it can cut the cost of a 2011 residential solar project (at $6.00 per Watt) by 5-13%, today’s (at $4.00 per Watt) by 8-19%, and tomorrow’s by as much as 40%!

The report confirms the earlier Sunrun study with a statistical analysis of actual solar permitting rules and the impact on final installation costs. It also lends credence to streamlined permitting schemes (like Vermont‘s) and to the broader efforts to improve solar permitting, like Vote Solar’s Project Permit.

 

 

In the new report Rate Design Matters: The Impact of Tariff Structure on Solar Project Economics in the U.S., GTM Research uncovers the often-not-discussed effect of utility rate structures on distributed solar generation.

In the report, GTM analyzes the electricity rates charged by Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and calculates the avoided cost (i.e. rate savings) for a 500-kilowatt commercial photovoltaics (PV) system within each utility. This is where the importance of rate design comes in.

Generally, there are three types of utility rates for commercial electricity customers: fixed charges, which are set fees; demand charges, which are calculated based on the customer’s maximum kilowatt usage (usually measured in 15-minute intervals); and consumption charges, which are based on total kilowatt-hours of energy used. Consumption charges offer customers with installed solar the highest potential for avoided cost, especially when time-of-use pricing (rates increase when electric demand is higher) is in effect since solar can help to avoid the higher costs during peak hours.

The bottom line is that when fixed and demand charges are a large share of the commercial utility rates, distributed solar does not make as much economic sense for the commercial customer. Alternatively, when demand charges are reduced and time-of-use rates apply (what GTM calls a “solar-friendly tariff structure”), distributed solar becomes an attractive investment that can provide electricity at lower-than-retail rates.

GTM came to this conclusion by analyzing the effect of two rate scenarios at SCE and SDG&E: a default (incentive-free) rate structure and a solar-friendly rate structure. The results from their analysis are included in the figure below (Figure 2.8 on page 13 of the report).

Commercial Solar Discount to Retail Rates, 2013 & 2017

The figure above demonstrates the role that utility rate structures can play when it comes to determining the cost effectiveness of installing a commercial PV system. Note that the dotted line at 10 percent represents GTM’s assumption that solar would become competitive with traditional generation at that point and the solar discount in 2017 takes into account the decline in investment tax credit (ITC) from 30 percent to 10 percent.

Even though “rate design” doesn’t sound quite as exciting as net metering, the GTM report points out that it is just as important in “determining the long-term viability of distributed generation, particularly as the U.S. transitions to a post-subsidy reality.”

As we consider the policies that are needed to incentivize distributed generation, it’s clear that we should also consider how utility rates are designed and how they affect the economics of distributed solar.

Mari Hernandez is a Research Associate in Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program was started in 2005 under the Bush Administration, but ramped up thanks to the 2009 stimulus passed by President Obama and the Democrats. It has gotten a bad rap ever since the high-profile failure of Solyndra, one of the solar tech companies the program invested in.

But, of course, a certain amount of failures and losses just come with the territory of investments in new technology. And The Atlantic Wire reports that the latest numbers reveal the program’s successfully shepherded 28 companies with various renewable energy projects, while creating over 20,000 jobs. Throw in the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program, and the total created jobs come to around 60,000.

The purpose of the program, which is no longer handing out new loans, was to help companies cross the “valley of death” — the point when a company’s debt is at a maximum, because it’s already spent money investing in capacity and research and development, but hasn’t yet seen enough success in the market to have the revenue to begin paying those loans back. The government guarantee then encourages private investors, who must ultimately make up at least 20 percent of the investment pool under the programs rules, to take the risk of backing the company. The government’s own contributions are also structured as a loan, meant to be paid back over time.

As The Atlantic Wire notes, that last point is especially important to remember. The loan program has paid out $26 billion in total, resulting in a less-than-impressive ratio of $1.2 million per job created. But that’s with the government’s expenditures all out the door, and the returns from the companies yet to come in:

The loan guarantee is often considered a cost, which it isn’t. Some programs — like that wind farm out in Hawaii, are already repaying the loan, though it’s not clear how much. Others, like NextEra Energy, never received the full loan amount. We are currently at the high point of the dollars-for-jobs-created ratio. Given the nature of the program, the amount the government is out is reduced gradually over time.

The calculation is only temporarily that 0.8 jobs were created for every $1 million spent. It is nearly as fair to say that the ratio is 20,000-to-zero.

Obviously, the 20,000 jobs for $0 is an almost-certainly unattainable ideal, but that’s the direction in which the ratio is headed. And for the curious, here’s a map The Atlantic Wire compiled of the various projects and their numbers:

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the loan program has already brought one utility-scale solar project to operation, with ten more in the process of construction, in states such as Michigan, Kentucky, and Alabama. When they’re all completed, the eleven projects will supply over 2,700 megawatts — enough power to run roughly half a million homes. Another one of the loan program’s projects is expected to install 750 megawatts of solar arrays on commercial rooftops, across 28 different states.

By Chris Robertson

The Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association has just published a major new peer-reviewed study, Vision to Integrate Solar in Oregon (VISOR). Bonneville Environmental Foundation was the principal sponsor of this work by Chris Robertson & Associates. The VISOR report can be found here.

The key findings are that:

1. Large scale PV power plants are now cost effective in both PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric service areas, using PURPA avoided cost rates as the revenue stream for the plants.
2. Oregon could produce 20% of its electricity from 65 square miles of land. If this was all agricultural land it would be 1/4 of 1% of Oregon’s farm land.  Agricultural production (e.g. grazing small animals, honey production) could be maintained on the land.
3. Building-level distributed generation is not yet cost-effective. This is due mainly to a market design that is small, fragmented and does not enable contractors to get to economies of scale.
4. Remaining market barriers will need to be addressed. These include finance, land use, improved interconnection processes, transmission and distribution upgrades, permit streamlining, and others.
5. A Feed-in-Tariff regime should be designed to accommodate both utility scale and building level PV DG so as to drive down costs in both market segments and achieve a “reasonable” long term average cost of solar energy resources for the grid.
6. Monetizing the carbon value from installing solar makes it even more cost-effective (see figure).

The economic performance of a solar power plant built in Central Oregon and interconnected to PacifiCorp’s transmission and distribution system. The energy would be sold to PacifiCorp via a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA). PPA revenue is based on the utility’s 2012 avoided cost rates as regulated by the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC). The levelized $/MWh is shown for the production cost (red bars), PPA revenue (blue bars) and PPA revenue plus the value of avoided carbon emissions (green bars).

The full study is here.

– Chris Robertson is a business consultant, innovator and entrepreneur in the clean energy technology industry. For more than thirty years his work has been focused on how to accelerate the transition to a sustainable energy economy powered by renewable energy systems. Robertson can be contacted at cnrobertson@comcast.net