Joseph Wiedeman IREC Community Solar

Download Report

Transcript Joseph Wiedeman IREC Community Solar

Community Solar: Removing Barriers to Market Expansion

Joseph F. Wiedman Keyes & Fox, LLP [email protected]

1

Overview of Today’s Presentation

• Basics of Current Policy • Why Community Solar?

• What does Community Solar look like?

• CS Resources & Contact Information • Appendix - Overview of State Programs 2

Net Metering

3

Meter Aggregation

Customer’s energy load Customer’s best sites for PV

4

Why Community Solar?

Why Community Solar?

~ 145000 HH in DC ~60% of the housing in DC is mult-tenant ~ 60% of the HH are renters If 5% subscribe to 3kW of community solar per year: ~22 MW of community solar per year!

!

Simplified Model of Community Solar

Community Solar Programs

kWh blocks of NEM credits: • SMUD – Solar Shares – CA • Tucson Electric Power – Bright Tucson Community Power – AZ Net Metering Credits based on Production: • United Power – Sol Partners Cooperative Solar Farm – CO • City of Ellensburg – Ellensburg Comm. Renewable Park – WA • FKEC – Simple Solar – FL • St. George – SunSmart - UT • City of Ashland – Solar Pioneers II – OR • Holy Cross Energy – Gleenwood Springs, CO • Seattle City Light – WA • Colorado – Xcel and Black Hills service territories • Delaware – statewide 8

Holy Cross Community Solar Program

System SIZE:

120% of the participant’s 12-mo historical usage

OWNERSHIP:

Participants own; Clean Energy Collective manages the system

PARTICIPATION:

C ustomers in Holy Cross’s service territory

Total Program Size:

3.5 MW

BENEFITS:

• • • CEC is paid for the value of generated electricity to Holy Cross under a PPA Participants are paid for the power on their utility bills Residential – about 30% higher than current retail rates 9

TEP “Bright Tucson” Community Solar Program

System SIZE:

100% of participant aggregate average consumption

OWNERSHIP:

1.6 MW utility-owned array at UATechPark

PARTICIPATION:

TEP’s customers

BENEFITS:

• • Participants purchase 150 kWh/month “blocks” Price of kWh is fixed for term of participation 10

Decision Points

• • • • • • • • • • •

Ownership and competition Valuation of VNEM credits

– retail rate? Gen only? Mix?

Distribution of benefits

– NEM credit/check?

Aggregate Net Metering Interconnection Participation

by low-income/ag customers

Program segmentation Metering Securities issues

– state and federal

Transfer of subscriptions Billing issues

Community Solar Resources

IREC Model Program Rules: http://www.irecusa.org

A Guide to Community Solar: http://bit.ly/SACCSGuide VoteSolar: http://votesolar.org/communitysolar/ State policies and maps at http://www.dsireusa.org/ Assistance to commissions and other stakeholders in developing community renewables programs – please contact [email protected]

Thank You!

Policy Approach States Overall System Size Group Billing VT

Up to 250kW

Virtual Net Metering CA, MA, ME, RI, CO, DE

Same as NEM program

CO

– 2 MW

Valuation of kWh Number of Participants

Retail rate (minus program charges) unlimited • •

CA

– same as NEM

MA(n), DE*

– retail rate • • • • minus distribution charges

MA(g) ME RI CO

- same as NEM – same as NEM – same as NEM – aggregate retail rate

CA, CO, DE

– unlimited

MA(n)

– up to 10

MA(g), DE

– unlimited

ME RI

– up to 10 – up to 10; cities, towns, schools, farms and the Narragansett Bay Commission

Community Ownership ME, WA ME

– up to 10 MW

WA

– up to 75 kW •

ME

– Systems receive either (i) 150% REC credit, or (ii) long-term power sale • contract with utility

WA

– retail rate plus production credit

ME WA

– unlimited – unlimited MA(n) – neighborhood NEM MA(g) – general NEM * - participants on same distribution circuit as facility receive full retail rate credit 13

VT States Required Ownership Interest

Same as NEM

Geographic Scope Admin

Service territory of an electric utility Customer rep allocates benefits

CA, MA, ME, RI, CO, DE

• • • • • •

CA MA

– Same as NEM – Same as NEM

ME RI

– Same as NEM – Same as NEM

CO* DE

– Same as NEM – Same as NEM

ME, WA

• •

CA

utility – on low-income, multitenant property

ME, MA, RI, CO, DE

– service territory of an electric •

ME

– requires minimum 51% ownership by in-state interests •

WA

–incentive program for locally jointly-owned systems providing retail power •

ME/WA

– service territory of an electric utility Same as NEM (utility allocates credits on to participants’ electric bills) Investors admin. payment and incentives * CO also has a community-based system rule that requires local ownership but it is not well defined in statute.

14