On July 14 we attended LADWP's morning workshop on the re-launch of the Solar Incentive Program (SIP), here is our report.
The program got underway with an introductory statement from LADWP General Manager, Ron Nichols, who told the 150 or so participants that the SIP was an "important part of the big transition that LADWP needs to make" and he thanked us for coming and providing our insight into how to make the program better. The rest of the program consisted of four parts - an overview of the SIP followed by the participants being divided into breakout groups to address specific issues, then a presentation about the proposed Feed-in Tariff (FiT) program with a breakout session for the Fit as well. (We will have a later post just about the FiT - the balance of this post will only concern the SIP.)
LADWP promised to make all of its presentation materials available online and you can find them here. There were some interesting aspects that popped out of the presentation, for example:
- Staff mentioned several times the desire to avoid the "boom-bust cycle" so common with solar incentive programs. Instead, they were hoping that this program would:
Maintain [a] steady pace of installations and funding so that our customers and [the] solar industry know what to expect and can plan appropriately. Foster and grow [the] sustainable solar industry in L.A.
- However, it was made clear that the program will allocate up to $40 million per year in rebates. Once that amount is reached, the program will stop accepting rebate applications until the next fiscal year. That doesn't really sound like a "steady pace".
- The program, before the current hiatus, was on track to be fully subscribed (i.e., out of money) by 2012. The new program expects to be out of money by the end of 2014. That's an improvement, but still not great for a program that was intended to continue until 2017.
- All of the rebates under the SIP will be EPBB rebates - that is, paid out all in one lump sum. This is a good deal for system owners, but a rotten deal for LADWP (click here for our general discussion of PBI vs EPBB rebates.) The LADWP rep suggested that the overhead problem was too much to handle to implement PBI rebates. Really? It would seem that the greater productivity insured by PBI rebates would more than offset the cost, and smaller utilities - like PWP - somehow seem to manage it.
- Even under the new SIP, there will be no payments made to system owners who produce more energy than they consume over the course of the year. (In other words, no AB 920 compensation is being implemented.) It is true that LADWP is expressly exempt (albeit in a very roundabout way) from the requirements of AB 920, but no cogent argument was advanced for not providing compensation along the lines of what every other utility in the state must do.
You can read our full report, including our questions to LADWP staff, in our article, Report from LADWP SIP Workshop, at our blog.
|