By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) Friday ousted long-time executives Tom Kimbis and Christopher Mansour in a shakeup executives say has nothing to do with the financial soundness of the organization. Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA’s president and CEO, said revisions to its overall strategic vision required a realignment of resources and rendered Kimbis and Mansour expendable. Hopper said SEIA would replace Mansour, who had served as SEIA’s vice president of federal affairs since 2013. She did not say if it would replace Kimbis, who had served as the organization’s interim president and CEO before Hopper was appointed in 2017. Tom Kimbis was currently serving in the role of executive vice president and general counsel. He served as SEIA's interim CEO in from April 2016 until January 2017 when the previous President and CEO Rhone Resch stepped down. “We have nothing but positive things to say about Tom and Christopher, and we wish them well in the future endeavors,” Hopper said. “Their service to SEIA is well known, and we couldn’t have accomplished what we have without them.” Hopper said that with that trade case closed for now, the priorities of the association are shifting toward the regional transmission organizations, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and state battles. With such shifts in priorities came a need to evaluate where the best use of resources, and though Kimbis and Mansour had long served in the SEIA executive structure, Hopper made the decision to move on without their services. The changes, Hopper told SolarWakeup, are in line with the new strategic plan presented to the board earlier this year. “Don’t misunderstand the moves - trade is still a significant issue,” Hopper said. “But with new priorities come the need for personnel changes, and we made decisions we think are in the association - and the industry’s - best interests.”

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Wow....The fight over the Arizona renewable portfolio standard (RPS) just got ugly. Arizonans for Affordable Energy, a political action committee backed by Arizona Public Service (APS) - the state's largest utility - has alleged in a lawsuit that 75% of the signatures gathered to put a ballot initiative to raise the Arizona RPS are fraudulent. The action comes as a competing proposal to raise the Arizona RPS, put forth by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) (which oversees APS), moves its way through the process. To review: The Arizona RPS ballot initiative is backed by progressive billionaire Tom Steyer, who is putting forth this effort in Nevada and was putting it together in Michigan before his group negotiated an agreement with the state's utilities. It is pushing for a 50% RPS by 2030. The ACC Arizona RPS proposal, which has the backing of the utility, would make the RPS 80% by 2050. The only difference between the two proposals is that the ACC proposal considers nuclear power as a clean energy source (it's not), while the Steyer-backed proposal excludes nukes. Guess who owns a pair of nuclear generation facilities (you get three guesses, and the first two don't count)? Rachel Leingang of The Arizona Republic and Adrian Marsh at the Phoenix Business Journal both report that the lawsuit, filed last Thursday, alleges widespread fraud in the 480,464, including double-signings, illegal signature gatherers and people who are not registered to vote (being registered to vote is a requirement to sign the petition validly). As Leingang notes, fewer than 106,441 signatures are valid if what the APS-backed group says is true, which would leave them well short of the required number of signatures to get on the ballot. Matthew Benson, a spokesman for the APS-backed group, offered the totally breathless, over-the-top statement to Marsh:

“Our painstaking review of every petition submitted by the initiative campaign has uncovered widespread forgery and deception and an utter disregard for Arizona law and elections procedures. This is truly fraud on a grand scale."

I'd urge Benson to perhaps seek treatment for hysterics, because it sure seems like he's suffering from a severe case. For measures like Steyer's, it's not unusual to see challenges made to the amount of signatures collected. What is unusual is that so high a number (75%? Really?) are challenged and for so many different reasons. My guess is the lawsuit is more harassment than anything else, and I'd be shocked if enough signatures are invalidated (some will be - that's inevitable) to pull the initiative off the ballot in November. Steyer is no amateur. More: Arizonans for Affordable Electricity sues to block renewable energy initiative vote APS-backed group sues over clean energy ballot measure, claims 300K invalid signatures

$10 Billion Question. “If someone said, ‘Here’s $10 billion to invest in renewables,’ we wouldn’t know how to do it,” Dudley said. That’s a recent statement from the CEO of BP, Robert Dudley. As crazy as this sounds, he’s not wrong. He doesn’t have the cheapest capital and even if he did, it takes a lot of work to properly invest that kind of money into renewables. Just ask any solar developer what they would consider a good year, even if they disregard the hurdle rate of their private equity capital. Even if an oil company came to the US with an energy trading desk willing to take merchant exposure to solar projects, deploying $10 billion or even $1 billion would difficult to do year over year. That’s the scale problem in our industry that is often distributed and fragmented.
Going 100% Solar. What is it going to take to connect large corporate users with solar generation at the solar sites? That’s the question that could be the key in opening up markets like Texas, Pennsylvania or Virginia. Finding off takers is too expensive for individual developers in low energy value markets so if there is a demand created at the corporate level, solar developers will be able to focus on the work they already know.
Subsidies, Bailouts And The ITC. There is no doubt that all energy sources are still getting multiples of the incentives and non-monetary benefits compared to solar. While the big newspapers wonder how incumbent power and utility companies ready themselves for solar’s growth, I wonder how our industry should look forward the next time they want a subsidy, export change or bailout. At the State level, solar does this week (see Illinois and NJ) but what happens at the Federal level now?
Net Metering Fights. Curious to see a utility ‘pondering’ solar growth in a State that has 500% growth when it goes from 10 systems to 50. The opportunity utilities to be different is so great but the mentality of what worked 20 years ago is deeply ingrained into the utility boardroom. Now expect more fights in low solar penetration States like Arkansas, Michigan, etc and the industry needs to step up.
I’m Hiring. If you or someone you know are looking for an inside or outside sales position for a great company in Quick Mount PV, send me an email. We are doing great things including manufacturing right here in Walnut Creek in the Bay Area.
Resi Highlights Continue. As we enter the first residential solar advisory council survey, I will continue to post images of your installs. Just send your with your logo and location and yours can be highlighted as well.

Have a great day!

News

 

Have a great day!
Yann

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

So apparently the bailout of nuclear and coal plants is still a thing that is under consideration, so I have to keep writing about it. This time, there's a new study out that says the new bailout is going to cost $34 billion - that's B-illion, with a "b" - to implement. When there are more competitive solutions like solar and wind on the open market. Are we tired of all the winning yet? The Houston Chronicle reported today on the study, which was prepared for pro-solar advocacy group Advanced Energy Economy by the The Brattle Group, which the newspaper points out is opposed to the bailout plan (as are most Americans, based on all the support solar and wind get in all of the polls, Katie). I've included the entire report below, and it is certainly worth reading in its entirety. But I'll post a couple of highlights from the executive summary to whet your appetite:

• "Current and likely future wholesale market conditions will continue to add pressure on some coal and nuclear plants to retire even if a financial support mechanism is put in place."
Damn that INVISIBLE HAND! It seems that no matter how much Donald Trump and Rick Perry want to prop up these failing plants, Adam Smith's Hand will come along to keep them failing.
• "We conservatively estimate that cost-of-service recovery (including embedded capital) could at least double the policy cost to between $20 and $35 billion per year."
Well, now isn't THAT a lovely thought? So we're going to throw good money after bad and STILL not be able to save the coal jobs Trump promised. And as for the nuclear side of things...I have two nuclear plants built in the 1970s and 1980s that are STILL being paid off by me and my fellow ratepayers. Exactly how long are we planning these bailouts to last? And aren't these the same government officials who keep telling us we have to reduce spending so we don't leave an enormous debt burden to our children? Where is that restraint now?

This bailout is the same boondoggle it has always been, a giveaway to the monopoly utilities (another instance of cognitive dissonance that nearly makes my head explode, but that's a discussion for another day) and their wealthy investors, while your average taxpayer and ratepayer get screwed. Tell me again the one about how you love the free market and how the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers? To hell with the lotta ya. More: Well, There Goes That Bulwark: Powelson’s Retirement Puts Coal, Nuke Bailout Back On The Front Burner FERC Commissioners Tell Senate: Coal, Nuke Bailout Unnecessary Despite True Believers, EXPERTS Say Trump Nuke Bailout Could Cost $17 Billion Per Year In Overly High Electric Bills [pdf-embedder url="http://www.solarwakeup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Brattle_AEE_Final_Embargoed_7.19.18.pdf"]