Natural Gas Plans Hit Snag For Arizona Utility

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: In a move the surprised many, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) told APS, the state’s largest utility, to get more of its electricity from renewables instead of natural gas.

The plans presented by APS submitted to the commission planned to add 5.3 GW of natural gas generation by 2032.
In contrast, APS planned to add only 183 MW of renewables to the portfolio.
The commissioners, who are sometimes accused of being too chummy with the utility they regulate, told APS unequivocally to stop fooling around and add more renewables to their generation portfolio.

SolarWakeup’s View: When I first read about the Arizona Corporation Commissioners’ decision to halt (at least temporarily) the Arizona Public Service (APS) plan to almost double its natural gas portfolio in favor of renewables, I thought it must have been a typo. Most of what I’ve read out of the state in recent years has centered on the sometimes cozy relationship the commissioners have with the state’s biggest utility.

After I realized Yann Brandt was not, in fact, punking me, I stood and cheered.

Instead of going along with APS’ 15-year resource plan, the commissioners instead told them to join the 21st century and draw up plans to acquire more renewable energy in its portfolio. And let’s be honest: With the highest insolation rates anywhere in the country, solar is just a natural fit for the state.

From E&E News and writer Benjamin Storrow comes the following note from an environmental activist:

“I don’t want to overstate national implications, but I do think it’s recognition that continued investment in natural gas is risky,” said Stacy Tellinghuisen, a senior climate policy analyst at Western Resource Advocates. “Commissioners are seeing clean energy is cheaper. They’re seeing that’s what the public wants. So I think this decision reflects all those factors.”

The battle over solar – particularly rooftop solar – has been bitter and brutal in The Grand Canyon state, with one commissioner saying that the fight over net metering (one that ended with significant changes being made that have made residential rooftop solar a harder sell) was something he never wished to be involved in again. Over time, many solar advocates in the state have worried aloud about what the state would do in terms of building a sufficient reneweable infrastructure or hold APS responsible.

It’s only one instance, this temporary natural gas moratorium, but maybe it signals a longer-term vision by the ACC that will place solar at the front and center of the clean energy infrastructure debate in Arizona once again.

More:

Regulators freeze new gas projects, demand renewables

Some states block plans for new power plants

The Trump Energy Cabinet and the Fight in Arizona

Clean Energy Credit Union Will Back Solar Projects

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: Yann Brandt sat down with Blake Jones and Terri Mickelsen, the driving forces behind the Colorado-based Clean Energy Credit Union (CECU), which they expect will:

provide loans to people who want to invest in products like solar installations, electric vehicles, energy efficiency and other similar investments.
give new clean energy markets another financing option.
It’s also important to note the CECU is a federally insured credit union, where advocates and enthusiasts can put their money and feel good about how their money is being used.

SolarWakeup’s View: I can’t believe someone hasn’t done this already.

Yann Brandt, managing editor of SolarWakeup, flew to Colorado to chair a panel at the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA) conference with Blake Jones and Terri Mickelsen, the driving forces behind a new solar financing vehicle called the Clean Energy Credit Union. As Jones says, it’s a place where clean energy geeks can park their money and know that the loans it is used for align with your values.

I say it surprises me that no one has done this already, but that’s not really true. After listening to the podcast, I have a much greater appreciation for the hurdles Jones and Mickelsen had to clear before they could even open the credit union for business. As a “21st century financial institution,” of course, the entire operation is online – and the savings collected from not having brick-and-mortar locations will be passed on to borrowers in the form of lower interest rates.

The podcast is quite mesmerizing. It’s not an easy road Jones and Mickelsen (and the rest of the team at CECU) have chosen. But they are confident that they are starting a movement that will draw more traditional financial institutions into the space and make loans for clean energy as ubiquitous as car or home loans.

Here’s wishing them the best.

More:

Clean Energy Credit Union

How Should We Categorize Community Solar?

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: A debate, started by SolarWakeup founder Yann Brandt, has been joined over this simple question: Where should community solar be slotted in the U.S. Solar Market Insight report?

Currently, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and GTM Research categorize community solar as part of the commercial & industrial segment for report purposes.
Yann Brandt, on the other hand, believes the location of the system is more important than the offtaker, which would instead put the majority of community solar projects in the utility category.

SolarWakeup’s View: If you were coming to this article expecting me to take a strong stand on where community solar should be slotted in the U.S. Solar Market Insight report, I’m afraid I’m going to disappoint you.

On the one hand, I can see SEIA and GTM Research’s point. If you’re talking about the scale of project, then you might be able to make the argument that, because of their generally smaller size, community solar might fit into the C&I category.

Speaking for myself only, that’s how I’ve always thought of community solar.

But during a discussion in the SolarWakeup offices, Yann made a pretty compelling argument, at least from where I sit.

In essence, community solar isn’t so much an independent category of solar as much as it is an innovative way for the owner or developer to attract offtakers to purchase electricity from the project.

And in no other segment of the industry is the offtaker considered when placing projects in different categories. So since the majority of community solar projects are ground mounted utility scale, shouldn’t they be considered utility projects?

Now, I recognize that discussion isn’t black and white. Some community solar projects are rooftop, carports or adjacent properties. Some ultra large scale solar farms are selling energy to corporate offtakers. Where do those fall within the current industry segmentation?

And while this discussion won’t be wrapped up neatly in a bow in one post (especially when I myself can see both sides), it’s certainly a discussion worth having. Because when we report numbers that will be used by the non-solar community, we need to make sure they’re as accurate as any human endeavor can be to avoid the general public misunderstanding our industry.

South Carolina Solar Soul Under Attack

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: The burgeoning South Carolina solar industry is being debated in the state’s legislature, with two conflicting bills offering significantly different visions of its future.

The utilities are at again (by which I mean lying) about a cost-shift to reduce how much the utilities pay solar customers under net metering
A second bill would remove a 2% cap on how much solar utilities have to accept, a measure designed to expand the industry”
Meanwhile, solar advocates worry that Dominion Energy’s attempt to buy the parent company of South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCEG) could damage solar’s prospects in the state

SolarWakeup’s View: All I can tell you is that I shook my head in disbelief as I perused all the South Carolina solar news lately.

I’ve seen this lunacy before, where a state is caught between a voracious anti-solar utility and, you know, its citizens. But some legislators in South Carolina, whose solar industry has only been growing since former Governor Nikki Haley signed net metering legislation into law in 2014, are trying to undo all the progress the state has made by essentially dismantling the work Haley began.

For reals. And this misguided attempt to kill the South Carolina solar industry is based on the same lie the utilities are telling Kentucky lawmakers to undermine the solar industry there, to wit: Solar customers are shifting costs to non-solar customers, a lie I have debunked so many times I’ve lost count.

To those of you new to this zombie lie, a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has said that though a miniscule cost shift happens, it only happens when a state reaches 10% solar penetration.

Wanna guess how much electricity South Carolina produces from solar? According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, 0.21%. So, yeah, the cost shift is a lie here just as much as it is in Kentucky.

Here, let’s let a South Carolina backer of the net metering destruction bill explain himself, courtesy of Sammy Fretwell of The State:

State Rep. Bill Sandifer, R-Oconee, said he is not opposed to solar power but the existing system is unfair to power companies and customers who don’t use solar energy.

Utilities say non-solar customers are paying to subsidize solar customers – a point sun-power advocates sharply dispute.

That is akin to socialism, Sandifer said. “It is totally wrong for customers, or ratepayers who are not utilizing solar, to be paying for the people who are utilizing it. This prevents that.’’

Aside from the mislabeling of net metering as a “subsidy” – it’s actually a free-market way of compensating solar users for the excess electricity produced (even Ayn Rand would be happy with this arrangement), Sandifer’s argument might as well have come from a SCEG spokesperson. (And as another aside, does the word “socialism” scare anyone under the age of 60 anymore? Lordy….)

Meanwhile, SCANA Corp., the parent company of SCEG, is up for sale, and Dominion Energy of Virginia is the buyer of choice for many. But solar advocates worry that such a purchase would further damage the industry because of Dominion’s lobbying might. I have no idea whether those concerns are real, but I tend to trust solar advocates of utility ones.

Opposing this idiotic bill are efforts to remove a 2% cap on solar capacity that most observers expect to be hit by the utilities this year. If that happens, the solar industry could stop growing and could well freeze in place.

So there you have it – the battle over the future of South Carolina solar is set – and now it’s up to the solar customers in the state to keep the worst-case scenario from happening. Let’s raise the cap and keep net metering – it’s really the best solution for everyone.

More:
Utility friendly politicians take aim at solar expansion in SC

South Carolina solar advocates worry Dominion-Scana deal will stall industry

Zombie Lie Informs Kentucky’s Attempt To Kill Its Solar Industry