Tag:

CPUC

Ivanpah’s Contract Is Totally Legit, CPUC On Point

Originally published on CleanTechnica.

A completely innovative technology that is one of the keys to slowing climate change was today allowed by the CPUC to fine-tune energy production. The decision results in no harm to ratepayers.

Ivanpah

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has approved PG&E’s December 18 request for a Forbearance Agreement for Ivanpah Units 1 and 3, giving the two units at least six months, and possibly a year, to meet current production targets of 448,000 MWh annually.

In unanimously approving the resolution, the CPUC noted that the plant has “substantially increased” its production.

The production targets escalate for a four-year ramp-up period till 2018, when 640,000 MWh should be generated by the two units under contract with PG&E. But there is a ramp-up period of 4 years.

Under averaged annual generation over its first two years, according to filing documents quoted by KQED’s Pete Danko, Units 1 and 3 were contracted to generate 70% of the 640,000 MWh; or 448,000 MWh.

Ivanpah I

Ivanpah III
In the first two years, according to the EIA data seen above, Ivanpah 1 and 3 generated an average between both years of 361,576.5 MWh, falling nearly 20% short of the targeted 448,000 MWh. But 2015 ramped up considerably.

Adding up Ivanpah’s — much improved — 2015 output, generation increased to 433,331 MWh of its 448,000 MWh target; around 97% of the goal.

“There was a more than 50% increase in production during the second year of operation compared to the first,” said Joe Desmond, spokesman for BrightSource, the initial developer and solar technology provider of Ivanpah, now operated by its partner NRG on behalf of Solar Partners (Google was the third partner).

Desmond told Cleantechnica that the Solar Partners are confident the plant can ramp up to full production by 2018 as originally planned.

“Now entering its third year, this first-of-its-kind solar thermal project continues to set new production records,” he said.

In December, PG&E had petitioned the CPUC to approve a Forbearance Agreement between PG&E and Solar Partners, giving more time for Ivanpah Unit #1 and Unit #3 to reach the contracted percentage of targeted generation under the PPA.

PG&E’s contract had envisioned a four-year ramp-up, because of the size and degree of innovation in Ivanpah.

As the largest CSP tower in the world, Ivanpah had over six times the capacity of its only US predecessor at the time. Nevada Solar One, a single tower, was just 60 MW net. (It also used molten salt-based technology, unlike Ivanpah).

Ivanpah was an enormous jump, as the first to use purely water-based thermal power towers, and the world’s largest CSP tower project, going right to 390 MW gross, of which 377 MW is available for net generation to the grid.

03/18/2016 0 comment

Renewable Energy

Will California Protect Customers’ Right to Self-Generate?

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

Should you be able to reduce the amount of energy you buy from your utility by generating your own power? Or does a utility have the right to demand that you buy all your power from them, even if you have a solar system on your roof?

This question is at the heart of California’s new proceeding to determine the future of net metering in the state. In comments to the California Public Utilities Commission in October, California’s three big investor-owned utilities argue that net metering should be unavailable to new customers after the current 5% program cap is reached, and that customers should have to move to a ‘buy all-sell all’ feed-in tariff (FiT) instead. Customers who want to go solar after 2016, the utilities argue, should no longer be allowed under state law to reduce the utility-generated energy they buy by generating their own renewable energy onsite. Instead, they want their customers to have to buy all the electricity they use from the utility, and sell all their onsite renewable generation back to the utility at a pre-determined price.

What price, you ask? Well, the utilities are all over the map on that one.

PG&E proposes the FiT price should vary by technology and should be set at “the avoided cost of the energy minus any costs incurred accommodating the generation that are not paid by the participating customer” (this would equal approximately 4 cents/kWh, minus integration costs). PG&E proposes an adder could be included if needed to allow continued growth of rooftop solar, with that adder declining over time.
SDG&E proposes that the FiT price should vary by technology like PG&E, but argues the price should be set based on production cost, rather than on the value of the energy to the rest of the system. (SDG&E follows up by proposing yet another alternative for determining the price: that it be based on the competitively-set ReMAT price already being used for systems of 1-3 MW.)
So Cal Edison agrees with PG&E that “the FiT rate should be based on market price benchmarks in the wholesale energy markets, such as the CAISO’s default load aggregation point (DLAP) prices” but says the price should not vary by technology and doesn’t suggest an adder to go on top of the short-run energy-only price.

We see some significant problems here. Foremost among them is that throwing out net metering and replacing it with a ‘buy all-sell all’ arrangement would be at odds with Americans’ fundamental right to self-generation. Net metering allows customers to first meet their own electricity needs with the clean energy they generate, and then receive full retail credit on their utility bill for excess electricity they send back to the grid. In California, about two thirds of the power generated from net metered systems is currently used by customers onsite. A FiT is something else entirely – the utility credits customers for all of their solar power production at a set price. In this situation, solar customers are no longer self-generators empowered to use their solar energy to primarily reduce their own load. They instead become power producers that must send all of their power to the utility.

A FiT that accurately values the net benefits of rooftop solar generation— fully building in public health, environmental, economic and grid benefits– is a fine option for those who want to be in the business of delivering power to the utilities, but it should be the customer’s choice whether they move to a FiT or choose to primarily use their solar energy onsite as a way of reducing their electricity purchases from the utility. PURPA, a federal law approved by Congress back in 1978, affirms this common-sense customer right to self-determination. (See our earlier blog post if you’d like to read our principles for designing an expanded net metering program, highlighting the importance of the right to self-generate.)

Beyond the issue of customer rights, there are other practical concerns. Arriving at the right FiT price to compensate customer-sited renewables is a difficult and contentious proposition. As outlined above, the utilities’ proposals for how that price should be calculated vary greatly from each other—and none inspire much confidence in reaching proper valuation. In fact, in recent years several CPUC proceedings considered developing value-based renewable procurement programs (AB 1969 expansion, AB 920 implementation, SB 32 implementation), and in each of those proceedings, utilities fought comprehensive valuation of clean energy tooth and nail. And the Edison Electric Institute, the trade association representing all investor-owned utilities in the US, has repeatedly stated its opposition to crediting distributed renewables with any value beyond the short term price of polluting fossil-fuel generation: see Greentech Media articles here and here. Until the monopoly utilities are willing to properly value distributed generation, a policy that secures value for customers by offsetting retail purchases is a much more pragmatic approach.

Net metering is a simple and proven policy tool for supporting self-generation, and has been enormously successful in California. The real issue here is rate design, where solutions are available, as noted in a recent DOE Sunshot paper that proposes three-pronged approach of revenue decoupling, a minimum bill and time-of-use rates that are gradually phased in for all customers. Since the CPUC is set to approve changes to residential rate structures in 2015 that will kick in over the next several years, we simply can’t know yet how the benefits of net metering to all Californians will stack up against costs (though a proper accounting of both sides is very likely to show continued net benefits for everyone). Meanwhile, California remains far from achieving its long-term goals to protect the climate, and we need to expand solar access to more Californians who live in disadvantaged communities. We hope that in 2015, solar supporters all across the state will come together to urge the CPUC take a common sense approach: extend and expand net metering beyond 2016, enabling more Californians to help tackle our collective climate challenge, and to control their own energy future.

11/17/2014 0 comment

Renewable Energy

California PUC Kicks off Big Debate on the Future of Net Metering

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

The future of rooftop solar in California was front and center this week at the California PUC’s first workshop on the design of the expanded net metering program. Following a strong recent decision keeping the rules stable for existing net metering customers for at least 20 years, the CPUC must next decide what the net metering rules will be for customers who install onsite renewable generation after the sunsetting of today’s net metering program, ie. after about July 2017. More than 60 people packed the hearing room for the workshop, including clean energy advocates, utility representatives, groups representing schools and other large customers that have gone solar, and ratepayer advocates.

First on the agenda, Commission staff asked for input on the ‘guiding principles’ to be used when designing the expanded net metering program (see below for our proposed guiding principles). Next, CPUC Energy Division staff discussed plans to develop a public spreadsheet tool by the end of this year that will help quantify the costs and benefits of various successor program structures. Since the Commission is also set to approve changes to residential rate design by spring 2015, assessing the costs and benefits of various program designs will be no small task, because the ratepayer impacts of net metering flow directly from the structure of underlying rates.

The reality is, no one – including the big utilities that argue so strenuously against the current net metering rules – has provided any real evidence that our current net metering program is anything other than a fair way to value rooftop solar and enable ordinary Californians to control their own energy future and help tackle our climate challenge. California is a solar leader due in large part to net metering’s success as a simple, predictable way to compensate solar customers for the valuable local power they feed back onto the grid — and we are all reaping the benefits of that success via cleaner air, local job growth and climate progress. No other method for compensating rooftop solar customers has achieved anywhere near that kind of real-world success in the U.S.

We think it’s smart that CPUC has kicked off public discussion on the future of net metering early, well in advance of its decision deadline of December 2015. But we also think the Commission must have strong evidence that something is broken before it makes big changes to a program that has made solar a classic California success story. Stay tuned as this critically important policy discussion continues to unfold. In the meantime, we leave you with . . .

Vote Solar’s Guiding Principles for an Expanded Net Metering Program in California:
1) Protect customers’ fundamental right to use as much or as little energy behind the meter as they choose, including reductions in their demand from the grid using renewable self-generation and other clean distributed resources. Only customer generation exported to the grid is relevant for the successor tariff.

2) Keep compensation structures simple, stable and predictable over the long-term so that solar customers, developers and investors can reasonably predict their return on investment.

3) Encourage customer adoption of storage and other customer-side innovations that improve grid functionality and balance supply with demand.

4) Minimize customers’ exposure to stranded assets. Utilities must plan for investments in the grid properly taking into account likely future growth in renewable behind-the-meter generation, storage, energy efficiency and other distributed resources. If a utility does not appropriately account for the benefits associated with distributed generation and other distributed resources, and the result is partially or fully stranded assets, then shareholders should bear the cost, not ratepayers.

5) Ensure that customer-sited renewable distributed generation continues to grow sustainably, as required by AB 327. Statutory language states that the market for distributed generation must be uncapped after July 1, 2017, and implies that the installation rate should be similar to or faster than what we see today. In order to achieve the state’s sustainability goal of 80% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, studies show substantial increases in customer-sited and other renewable generation are likely to be needed in excess of current goals, in addition to electrification of the majority of the transportation sector.

6) Ensure that the total benefits and costs of the tariff to all customers are approximately equal, as required by AB 327. Put another way, customer generators must receive fair compensation for the benefits of their exports. Updated analysis is needed to determine if benefits and costs will be approximately equal, assuming revised rates and including societal as well as grid benefits, under the current NEM tariff. If the updated study finds costs and benefits are approximately equal, no major policy change is warranted at this time.

7) Encourage growth in customer-sited renewable distributed generation among disadvantaged residential customers, as required by AB 327.

04/25/2014 0 comment

Energy Efficiency

California’s Energy Future: An Interview With CPUC Chairman Robert Weisenmiller

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

Before its retirement in 2012, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) represented about 16 percent of the local electricity generation supply covering an average of 1.4 million homes serviced by Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and the City of Riverside in southern California. The plant was especially important because of its location on a critical transmission path between Orange County and San Diego. As a result, its closure created a shortage of electricity, and a shortage of voltage support that is necessary to move power between Los Angeles and southern Orange County/San Diego.

Energy Efficiency Markets interviews Robert Weisenmiller, chairman at the California Energy Commission, about what the retirement means to energy efficiency markets in California.

EEMarkets: Earlier this month, the CPUC decided to replace much of the energy from the retired SONGS with new energy efficiency capacity. Can you give me some background about how and why this decision came about?

Robert: Following SCE’s announcement of its intentions to retire San Onofre, the California energy agencies examined Southern California reliability issues exacerbated by the short-term closure and permanent retirement of San Onofre. A preliminary plan was prepared by the staff of the member organizations and discussed at a public workshop conducted by the energy commission in September 2013. The plan relies upon a mix of resource additions and transmission system upgrades in the appropriate Southern California regions.

Resource additions can help mitigate against reliability threats as a result of growing loads. These include pursuit of additional capacity with a goal of 50 percent preferred resources and 50 percent conventional generation with triggers and contingency plans if any of these resources do not come to fruition. The 50 percent level was an increase over what was approved for SCE in December of 2012.

The recommended reliance upon 50 percent preferred resources is acknowledged to require changes from business as usual, and current EE and DR programs will need to be reformed and expanded to meet the targets. The CPUC decision is the next step forward toward the 50 percent preferred resources as outlined in the Joint Southern California Reliability Plan.

EEMarkets: What does this decision mean for the energy efficiency market in California?

Robert: This decision reinforces California’s historic and ongoing commitment to invest in energy efficiency. It will enhance that market by increasing opportunities for energy efficiency providers and ratepayers when it comes to energy efficiency upgrades that save energy and money. This is especially critical in the Southern California area that was served by SONGS. For the first time, California is trying to pursue these preferred resources in very specific geographical areas.

EEMarkets: Specifically, the CPUC decision requires SCE and SDG&E to procure capacity from preferred resources or energy storage. What are these preferred resources and why are they preferred over other resources?

Robert: The collaborating agencies worked with SCE and SDG&E to develop a comprehensive blueprint to ensure reliability while balancing carbon-reduction strategies to help fight climate change. One of the recommendations included targeting 3,250 MW of preferred resources – including local energy efficiency, demand response, renewable generation and storage – to meet approximately 50 percent of needs. The only way to meet energy needs of a growing population and recovering economy in the face of climate change and loss of power plants is to create a balanced portfolio of preferred and conventional resources. These recommendations were then refined in the CPUC proceeding.

EEMarkets: Does this decision differ from decisions in the past about how to replace retired generation capacity? How so?

Robert: California’s energy resource loading order policy that provides a higher priority to investment in energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy and distributed generation (preferred resources – localized solar PV, fuel cells, energy storage, combined heat and power systems etc.) than investing in natural gas power plants (conventional resources) and electricity system upgrades to meet California’s growing electricity demand. The state is committed to investing in cost-effective low-environmental impact preferred energy resources. Electricity reliability is of the utmost importance and with the closure of SONGS, a combination of preferred and conventional energy resources are necessary. This is a unique opportunity to fundamentally transform the electricity system in southern California as we work to meet our energy and environmental goals.

EEMarkets: Will energy efficiency capacity procurement be more common in California and across the country as a way to meet energy demand in the future?

Robert: Yes. Preferred resources will play an increasing role in California’s energy future.

EEMarkets: The energy commission released a report in January 2014 that looked at how to replace energy from SONGS with energy efficiency resources. Did this report influence the CPUC decision in March? How closely did the Energy Commission and CPUC work together?

Robert: The energy commission and CPUC worked closely over the last year. The partnership encompassed several agencies and solicited public input. However, the CPUC decision was based upon the evidentiary record in their proceeding.

EEMarkets: Who came together, in addition to the energy commission and CPUC, in order to make this decision? Utility partners, policy-makers, business owners, etc.?

Robert: The energy commission, the CPUC, Air Resources Board, the California Independent System Operator, State Water Resources Control Board and Southern California Air Quality Management District collaborated as a cross-agency working group. Public input was also important and the group spent months gathering and analyzing information. As discussed above, the CPUC commissioners unanimously adopted their decision based upon their evidentiary record.

EE Markets: Is there anything you would have liked to have seen in the CPUC decision? Any improvements in future years?

Robert: The agencies will track progress in acquiring the portfolio of preferred and conventional resources, and may further refine these programs in future years.

EEMarkets: In the next year, what are you most excited about for the energy efficiency industry in California?

Robert: In early 2014, the energy commission released its Integrated Energy Policy Report that focused on strategies and actions to increase the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings. We are excited about:

The roll out of the Prop 39 programs to retrofit California schools so dollars can be shifted from paying energy bills to funding education.
Implementing new building efficiency standards (Title 24) in July.
Continuing the public dialogue under AB 758 on the best ways to achieve deep retrofits to existing buildings.
Developing and approving new appliance standards to conserve both energy and water.

Article by Reid Smith, appearing courtesy Energy Efficiency Markets.

04/16/2014 0 comment

Renewable Energy

CPUC Decision Creates Certainty for Existing Net Metering Customers

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

A decision from the California PUC today brought some welcome certainty to solar customers in the state. As you’ll recall, legislation passed last year, AB 327, removed a looming net metering suspension date and opened the door for the California Public Utilities Commission to uncap the successful crediting program altogether. As a first step in the implementation of AB 327, the CPUC was required by the end of this month to decide how long existing solar customers can keep receiving their current net metering benefits before they transition to the new program. We argued that changing the rules on these pioneering customers who have made a personal investment in solar that benefits all of us would not be fair.

Today, the CPUC issued a strong final decision that allows customers who net meter under the current program to keep the current rules for 20 years from the year they go solar. This rule applies to the state’s 200,000 existing IOU solar customers plus any other IOU customers who go solar before July 2017 or before their utility hits the current 5% program cap. With this decision, the Commission continues its proud tradition of standing strong for rooftop solar rights. California’s solar customers and businesses can now move forward with the certainty that their net metering benefits will stay consistent for twenty years after system installation. We applaud CPUC President Peevey, the Commission and Governor Brown for protecting these early solar adopters.

In the lead-up to today’s decision, utilities had continued their efforts to make rooftop solar a bad deal, lobbying the Commission to change the rules on these customers in as little as six years. Vote Solar was part of a coalition of organizations that asked Californians to speak up for rooftop solar in advance of the decision, and we were awed and inspired by an outpouring of public support that resulted in over 50,000 public signatures. Californians overwhelmingly want to build a healthier, more prosperous, more resilient solar-powered state, and the Commission heard that message loud and clear.

Today’s decision will protect customers and allow Californians to keep going solar in the near-term, but the battle is far from over. By the end of 2015, the Commission must decide what the rules will be for customers who net meter after July 2017 (and for existing customers after the twenty year transition period has expired). If the Commission continues to stand up to pressure from the utilities and designs a future net metering program that keeps it a good deal to go solar, we’ll have the long-term policy in place to truly make good on our solar potential. Some schools, farmers and other customers will need more than 20 years to recoup their initial investment in solar, which only underscores the importance of the PUC’s 2015 decision setting the rules for the future expanded net metering program.

During today’s vote, we appreciated Commissioner Florio’s comment that the discussion on the future of net metering should focus only on exports to the grid, given that customers have the right to reduce their onsite purchases of utility power in any way they choose. What happens behind the customer’s meter is nobody’s business but the customer’s! However, we were concerned to hear a Minnesota-style Value of Solar Tariff offered as a possible alternative to our existing net metering system. Californians deserve fair, predictable credit for the valuable power they export to the grid, and VOST is a far-from-perfect way to accomplish that objective. You can read about the drawbacks of the VOST approach in a post from earlier this week.

Currently, the Golden State has more than 2 GW of clean, local rooftop solar that is reducing the need for expensive and polluting utility infrastructure. Independent analysis from Crossborder Energy estimates that these ratepayer benefits will net out at $92 million annually when the current 5% program cap is reached. Two out of every three new rooftop solar installations are now happening in low- and middle-income communities, delivering savings and economic opportunity where it’s needed most. And all that private solar investment has put more than 47,000 Californians to work statewide, a number that is growing fast.

Californians want more rooftop solar, and Californians benefit from more rooftop solar. We look forward to working with the Commission through the next phase of the AB 327 process to ensure that Californians continue to receive full, fair credit for their valuable solar investment.

03/27/2014 3 comments

Renewable Energy

Exciting Times for Shared Solar at the California PUC

written by Walter Wang

California is moving closer and closer to a clean energy program that will give renters and others a chance to go solar for the first time. Last year, state lawmakers passed SB 43, which requires California’s three big investor-owned utilities – PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E – to develop new shared renewables programs totaling up to 600 megawatts (MW). These

02/11/2014 0 comment

Renewable Energy

Latest CPUC Report on Cost of Renewables in California

written by Walter Wang

The California Public Utilities Commission prepares quarterly reports on the status of the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. The latest was released in November. You can read the whole thing here (pdf).

Some of the highlights include:

12/09/2013 0 comment

Renewable Energy

Governor Brown Signs California’s AB 327 Into Law

written by The Vote Solar Initiative

Yesterday, Governor Brown signed into law AB 327, a comprehensive rate reform bill authored by Assembly member Perea. AB 327 creates more certainty for Californians who want to go solar, ensuring rooftop solar is here to stay in California! We applaud Governor Brown for his vision and leadership in helping to make good on our state’s

10/08/2013 2 comments

Renewable Energy

Shared Solar Bills Pass California Senate, Assembly

written by Walter Wang

This is getting real, folks. California legislators voted this week to advance two different bills that open up access to solar to the 75+ percent of energy customers who can’t put it on their own roof. Here’s the skinny on the two bills and what we need you to do to make sure shared solar becomes a reality in California this legislative session.

06/01/2013 0 comment

Renewable Energy

First RAM Projects Online in California

written by Walter Wang

The first solar projects from California’s Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM) are now online. This is some of the world’s lowest-cost solar, now up and running.

For those that need a primer, the RAM is a 1.3 gigawatt program to procure renewable projects

05/02/2013 0 comment

Renewable Energy

Using Renewables to Serve Local Capacity Requirements

written by Walter Wang

On January 24, the California Public Utitlies Commission will vote on an important precedent for using renewables to enhance grid reliability.

Grid reliability requires that there be a certain amount of local generation–known in wonkspeak as ‘local capacity requirements’, or LCR.

01/21/2013 0 comment

Renewable Energy

California Meets 20 Percent of Electricity Demand With Clean Energy

written by Yale Environment 360

California power utilities are now achieving more than 20 percent of the state’s electricity needs with renewable energy sources, state regulators say. In its latest quarterly report, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) said that the state met 20.6 percent of its electricity demand with renewable sources — including wind, solar, and geothermal —

08/07/2012 0 comment

Renewable Energy

California Hits Solar Power Milestone

written by Walter Wang

1.255 GW of solar power is now generated from more than 122,000 rooftops across California. The migration to solar by low- and middle-income homeowners is the main reason behind the popularity of solar power in the Golden State. The data is revealed in the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) 2012 California Solar Initiative

07/12/2012 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts