Thoughts on Solar

The California Solar Initiative (CSI) is responsible for overseeing solar rebates for California’s three Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs): PG&E, SCE and SDG&E, and in that role the CSI program collects some very interesting data.  As we have in the past, we decided to dip into the data from the first half of this year to gain some insights into the State of Solar in California.  Over the next several days we will be reporting on what we have learned - and there are some very surprising things in here to be sure!

Overview & Methodology

A word first about how we processed the CSI data.  We downloaded the most recent active data set as of this writing (the August 24, 2011 data set to be precise) and parsed it into Excel.  Since we were only concerned about systems in our service area, we excerpted out just the data from SCE.  To narrow our focus more, we wanted to only look at applications that had significant status during the first half of this year.  The CSI data has a host of date fields - we took the latest of the fields ranging from First Reservation Date to First Completed Date as our Status Date and excerpted those that fell between 1/1/2011 and 6/30/2011 - a total of 6,306 data points.

That’s a fair amount of data but it necessarily omits any data at all from the municipal utilities such as Pasadena Water & Power (where we do much of our work) or LADWP.  Unfortunately, none of the munis make their program data generally available - which is particularly odd given that the local residents actually own those utilities (and thus, their data) - but that is a topic for another day.

Finally, for the purpose of these posts, all system sizes are reported in CSI Rating AC Watts (to account for differences in equipment choice and system design) as opposed to DC (or nameplate) Watts.

What can we say about those 6,306 projects?  Collectively they account for 164.7 MW of new solar power at a total installed cost of just over $1 billion - with incentive amounts totaling $219 million - roughly 21% of the installed cost.  Unfortunately, not all of those are built - or even ever will be.  Fully 11% (698) of those projects have the status ‘Delisted’ - meaning that they have been cancelled for one reason or another.  Those delisted projects account for 37.8 MW of potential solar power that presumably will never see the sun.  (Do some installation companies have a significantly higher rate of “delisted” systems?  We will answer that question in a subsequent post - stay tuned!)

The remaining 5,608 are split between “Installed” and “Pending” with 55.8% (3,131) installed and 44.2% (2,477) pending.  Breaking that down a little more, the installed projects account for  33.8 MW worth $240.1 million with incentive amounts totaling $57.1 million.  In contrast, the pending projects account for almost three times as much capacity at 93 MW worth $575.8 million with incentive amounts totaling $120.6 million.  (That is, nearly three times the to-be-installed solar cpacity for roughly twice the rebate dollars.)  On average, installed projects cost $7.09/Watt whereas pending projects cost $6.19/Watt - a positive trend for consumers since it shows the cost of solar power systems declining over time.

Does Bigger = Lower Cost?

Finally, for today, let’s examine whether the data supports the notion of solar economy of scale - that is, as system size increases does the installed cost/Watt decline?  To get a handle on that, we took two different cuts through our data set - “small” installed or pending systems <10 kW, and “large” systems ranging between 10 kW and 1MW.

First, here’s the graph for the “small” systems (consisting of 4,992 installed or pending systems - click on the graph to view full size).  As the trend line makes clear, larger systems really do drive down costs - decreasing from over $10/Watt at the small end of the range to just above $6/Watt for systems around 10 kW.

Another interesting observation from this graph are the outliers - with some data points below $3.00/Watt (mostly from self-installed system) all the way up to nearly $18/Watt!!! (We will have way more to say about those data points - and who is responsible for them - later in this series.)

If we now look at larger systems - those between 10 kW and 1MW - our data set has 587 such systems and again, the trend line shows the decline in system costs as system size increases.  (Note, because there is such a huge range in system sizes on this graph, we plotted the system size on a log scale.)  Some of these outliers are also pretty curious - a 200 kW system coming in at over $14/Watt?

Of course, this data is showing what happens when an individual project gets larger and there the trend is clear.  One might well ask, does the same trend apply to larger installation companies?  In other words, as a company has more and more installs, does that economy of scale translate into lower costs for the end consumer?  That’s a very interesting question and the answer - coming in our next post - just might surprise, or maybe even disturb you.

If there are some other cuts of this data that you would like to see, just let us know in the comments.  Trust me, we are just getting started!

A recent article in USA Today/CNBC online asks the question, “Does the solar industry have a PR problem?"  Yes, concludes the article, and that bad press is well justified because “solar technology is not quite ready for prime time".  Well, if the USA Today article is any indication, the solar industry clearly does have a PR problem, but it is not because of any failure in existing technology.  The failure, rather, is in media reporting that allows interested parties to speak as experts who denigrate existing solutions, without ever bothering to disclose the expert’s inherent conflict of interest, or even to report on the facts as they pertain to actual solar clients.

There can be little doubt that those of us who believe in the benefits of solar power systems have done a poor job of informing the public about the value of solar today.  (This blog, and the writings of folks like Tor “SolarFred” Valenza notwithstanding, there is a great deal of work to be done on this front.)  So it is hard to argue with the general proposition that solar has a PR problem - as in not nearly enough PR to counter the spin coming from the naysayers and the apologists for the status quo.

But the article takes a different tack.  It quotes at length from someone named Jim Nelson, the CEO of solar start-up Solar3D, to explain why solar has earned its bad rap:

The problem, says Nelson, is that solar is generally still not price competitive with fossil fuels for energy generation, says Nelson [sic]. Paradoxically, government efforts to subsidize the purchase of solar panels actually slow down the adoption of innovation that should ultimately make renewable energy more affordable.

By encouraging consumers to buy immature and inferior solar technology right now, government subsidies risk locking people into solar systems that are inefficient, expensive, and may or may not ultimately pay off to the consumer. “They’re encouraging people to use things that don’t work,” he says.

At current kilowatt-per-hour rates, solar energy costs about 4 times more than power drawn from the grid, says Nelson.

Wow.  Lots of troublesome statements in that blockquote.  Let’s break this down and see what’s what.

First off - what do people actually pay for electricity from their utility versus from a solar power system?  In Run on Sun’s southern California service area, the actual loaded cost of electricity ranges from $0.15 to $0.29/kWh.  For a commercial solar client, the cost per kWh - after allowing for rebates, tax incentives and O&M costs - is around $0.11/kWh.  These are the real world costs and benefits for clients adding solar right now.  For a 50 kW commercial installation, that translates into payback occurring between years 4 and 5 with an internal rate of return over the 25 year lifetime of the system of 17% or more.  Moreover, every year the client’s savings will grow as the cost of electricity from the utility continues to rise while the cost for electricity from their solar power system remains constant.

Second - solar today is far from something that doesn’t work.  To the contrary, solar power systems work day in and day out with minimal maintenance beyond occasionally directing a hose at the panels to clean them off.  True, inverters will likely need to be replaced about halfway into the 25 year lifetime of the system (although newer designs like the Enphase M215 micro-inverter are now pushing inverter lifetime far beyond older products) but that cost is part of the O&M cost considered above.  While solar panels will degrade over time, modern panels are warrantied to produce 80% of their rated power after 25 years and even older designs are still operating just fine after 40 years.  What other major asset can a business owner purchase that will pay for itself within five years, require minimal maintenance over its entire lifetime, and still be working well after 25 years?  Oh, and save the business owner many times over the initial investment during those 25 years?

Too bad more things “don’t work” as well as a solar power system.

Finally, what is Mr. Nelson’s perspective on all of this?  The article describes his company as a “solar manufacturer” but manufacturers typically have products for sale.  Touring the Solar3D website reveals lots of PR, but no products.  Rather, Mr. Nelson’s company, “Solar3D, Inc. is developing a breakthrough 3-dimensional solar cell technology to maximize the conversion of sunlight into electricity."  The key phrase being, “is developing".

Now we are all for more efficient solar technologies being developed into real-world products that we can put on roofs. We sincerely wish Mr. Nelson well in his efforts to bring ever better products to market.  But it is just silly to tell the solar-buying public that present technology is “immature” and “doesn’t work” when Gigawatts of installed solar power systems prove just the opposite.  And it is sloppy journalism to quote him without revealing his true position in the industry.

The April 28, 2011 edition of the Pasadena Weekly has a very nice article by Sara Cardine titled, The City of the Future, which includes an interview with Run on Sun Founder & CEO, Jim Jenal.

Part of its month-long series of articles on going Green, Cardine’s piece looks specifically at how Pasadena has taken long strides toward turning itself into a truly Green City.  Starting with its adoption of a “Green Action Plan” in 2006 - the same year that Run on Sun was founded - Pasadena is working hard to turn its good intentions into practical actions.  For example, Pasadena has made major reductions in its own energy usage and is pushing to do much more.

From the article:

Since the Green Action Plan was established, the city has seen improvements on multiple levels, said Ursula Schmidt, the city’s sustainability affairs manager. In addition to increased water and energy conservation, renewable energy use and recycling, the city is also making headway in its green building program and in an effort to establish an alternative-fuel fleet.

Last year alone, Pasadena trimmed its peak power demand by 4.45 megawatts and saved enough energy to power 3,640 homes for one year. Officials now hope to see a citywide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 25 percent by 2030, along with an increase in the citywide use of green energy sources beyond recently adopted statewide standards. Last month, state lawmakers passed SBX1 2, a law requiring that 33 percent of the state’s energy come from renewable sources by 2020. Pasadena is already pushing itself past that benchmark; last year the City Council adopted a comprehensive integrated resources plan that set a goal of 40 percent renewable energy use by 2020, according to Gurcharan Bawa, PWP assistant general manager.

Encouraging commercial and residential customers to Go Solar is a big part of the strategy to meet those goals.  Caltech, one of the largest energy users in the City, has installed over 1.3 megawatts of solar power on its campus with more planned.  Yet some customers have been reluctant to follow Caltech’s lead.  To get the installer’s view, Cardine interviewed Jim Jenal and quoted him as he described the process of working with an installer to get a proposal and ultimately, an installed system.

Please check out the article online or pick up a print copy (which features a wonderful picture of Jim with that famous Solar Kid) and let us know what you think.

As Cardine concluded:

“This isn’t rocket science — it’s truly something normal, everyday people can understand and feel comfortable with,” Jenal said.
It just begins with a little knowledge and the commitment to make a difference.

We couldn’t agree more!

(Editor’s Note: Part 1 of this series - Understanding Your Bill can be found here.)

Commercial solar power systems are economical now - and in the first part of our series we explained how understanding your bill is the key to understanding what is currently driving your costs and how much you will be able to save.

Now we turn to the next step in preparing to install a commercial solar power system - understanding the applicable rebates and tax incentives.  We have written at great length before about these topics, including a blog post summarizing the year-end state of all solar power rebates in the Run on Sun service area and our solar tax incentives page provides great detail into this topic for all types of system owners - commercial, residential and non-profit.  In this post we will analyze just those rebates and incentives that are applicable to commercial solar power installations.

PBI vs EPBB Rebates for Commercial Solar Power Systems

Rebates for commercial solar power systems come in two flavors - Performance Based Incentives (PBI) and Expected Performance-Based Buydown (EPBB) - but PBI rebates are by far the more common for commercial systems above 30 kW.  EPBB rebates are lump-sum payments made based on the expected performance of the system.  The rebate rate is denoted in dollars per Watt based on the calculated AC Watts for the system.  EPBB rebates are nice for the consumer as the money is paid as soon as the system is approved, but for larger systems, they represent too much upfront risk for the utility.  Since there is usually no requirement to monitor the performance of the system, the utility ends up putting out its money with little guarantee of reaping the expected benefit.

PBI rebates, on the other hand, are paid out over five years based on the actual performance of the solar power system as verified by monitoring devices attached to the system inverter(s).  PBI rebates are denoted in cents per kilowatt hour generated.  Since the utility only pays for power actually provided, rebate dollars are guaranteed of providing the bargained for benefit. However, because of the need to provide the utility with verified performance data, PBI rebates increase the Operations & Maintenance expense of a commercial solar power system - at least for the five years of the rebate.  On the other hand, if your system is well maintained and conservatively designed, you may actually receive more in rebate payments than originally projected.

Each utility will have a threshold system size beyond which the system owner must take a PBI rebate.

Regional Rebate Amounts for Commercial Solar Power Systems

Of late there has been a great deal of turmoil among the local municipal utilities regarding their rebates.  This has lead to uncertainty and delays.  As of this writing, here is the landscape for commercial solar rebates in the Run on Sun service area:

This means that as of this writing, only SCE and PWP are paying rebates on commercial solar power systems greater than 30 kW. While LADWP is expected to come back online this summer, in what form remains to be seen.

We believe that these suspensions have come about because the lobby for commercial solar rebates is small and too often silent.  Of course, when no public discussion occurs before the decision is made to suspend rebates - as happened in both Glendale and Burbank - it is pretty hard to organize solar supporters.  Indeed, in Los Angeles, where the plans to severely limit solar rebates were publicly debated, the solar community came out in numbers to argue for those rebates - which resulted in LADWP only suspending their program for a comparatively short time.

The conclusion in inescapable - until there is a statewide feed-in tariff at a reasonable rate that offers predictability along with economic viability, the market for commercial solar in this state will continue to be subject to the caprice of unaccountable bureaucrats.

Tax Incentives for Commercial Solar Power Systems

While the news regarding rebates remains murky, the news on the tax front is - at least for this year - very good.

One caveat before we begin - while we believe this information to be accurate as of the date that it is written, you must always consult with your tax professional as to the applicability of these incentives to your tax situation.  Accountants shouldn’t design solar power systems and we don’t give tax advice.

Commercial solar power systems qualify for a federal Investment Tax Credit of a full 30% on the direct cost of the system.  (By “direct cost” we mean those costs directly associated with installing the solar power system.  The applicability of the Credit to indirect costs - such as deciding to re-roof your building before adding solar - must be decided on a case-by-case basis - see why that tax pro gets paid the big bucks?)  That Credit can be taken over two years and is a substantial incentive if you have the tax liability to offset.  Fortunately for systems that are put in service in 2011, commercial solar power system owners can elect to receive a Grant directly from the Treasury for the full 30%, regardless of their tax appetite.  Moreover, that Grant is paid out typically within 60 days of project completion, as opposed to being credited in the next tax payment cycle.  This provision in the tax code is subject to expiration at the end of this year, and there is no telling whether a more conservative Congress will renew it.  (The tax Credit, however, continues through 2016.)

Commercial solar power systems also qualify for accelerated depreciation.  For the past several years, that was a five year period with 50% in Year 1 and the remaining 50% divided evenly over the next four years.  (California offers a similar depreciation schedule.)  However, once again 2011 is special.  This year alone, that depreciation is 100% in Year 1, meaning that system owners may realize more of their savings sooner.

Collectively, rebates and tax incentives can reduce the cost of a commercial solar power system by 50% or more.  When combined with the savings from the energy generated, it is easy to see why a commercial solar power system is one of the best investments a building or business owner can make.

Up Next - Part 3 of Our Series: Understanding Your Bid for a Commercial Solar Power System