Answers to Questions on Commercial PV Solar from an Industry Perspective

Posted on by cannasolar

The age of information in which we live is amazing. Answers, opinions and misinformation are everywhere. Renewable energy, specifically photovoltaic solar (PV solar), is no different. I’ve discovered more and more social media posts as well as opinion based articles from specialized news outlets that are not fact based but categorically false. Ironically, they are on both sides of the pro and anti renewable spectrum. Therefore, I believe it’s necessary to post some basic questions and answers based on my experience in the industry. If you are seeking genuine real world industry answers these would be mine. 

 

1. What is the business case for commercial PV solar?

Answer: Commercial PV solar is a long term operating cost control and energy risk management asset for a business. It reduces purchased kWh, hedges against future utility rate increases, supports sustainability goals, and creates an owned energy asset with a 25+ year useful life. Financial incentives and depreciation improve the economics of the investment. Each business case is different and, in some cases, it may not work for an organization. 

2. What are the financial benefits of installing solar for a commercial business?

Answer: The main financial benefits are reduced utility energy purchases, potential federal tax credit value (currently sunsetting), depreciation benefits, utility or state incentives (where available), and long term savings by producing electricity onsite. The value depends on load profile, utility rate plan structure, installation cost, tax appetite, incentive availability and financing. It’s not always a good fit for every business. It depends on your situation. 

3. What are the non financial benefits of commercial solar?

Answer: Non financial benefits include sustainability leadership, lower emissions (important when you are in an emission control district), customer and stakeholder goodwill, energy independence, and the ability to prepare for future batteries, EV charging, or an onsite microgrid for resilience. Solar can also help meet corporate Environmental Social Governance, supplier, or public sector CO2 energy reduction goals if they have been set or mandated.

4. How does solar reduce utility electricity costs?

Answer: Solar reduces utility costs by generating electricity onsite that offsets kWh otherwise purchased from the utility. The savings are strongest when solar production lines up with daytime business loads and when exported energy is credited at a favorable rate. When paired with batteries it can further reduce operating costs for utility KW demand fees. Depending on the utility rate plan structure versus the cost of the investment determines if the case for investment should be made.  

5. How does solar reduce exposure to future utility rate increases?

Answer: Each kWh produced by the solar system is a kWh the business does not buy from the utility, so the owner is partially insulated from future energy rate escalation. This hedge is valuable because the solar system cost is largely fixed upfront while utility rates and riders can change over time.

6. What types of businesses benefit most from solar?

Answer: Businesses with high daytime electrical consumption, large roofs or land, long term site control, and the ability to use tax benefits usually benefit most. In some situations, the value of solar shade structures can drive investment i.e. solar covered car parking, diminished water evaporation, agri photovoltaics, etc. Examples include manufacturing, warehouses, cold storage, schools, public facilities, tribal facilities, agricultural operations, and fleet depots.

7. What industries are adopting commercial solar?

Answer: Common adopters include manufacturing, logistics, agriculture, education, healthcare, municipalities, tribal governments, retail centers, water and wastewater facilities, and fleet operators. Adoption is strongest where utility electricity costs are high, site control is long term, and the organization values energy cost predictability, independence and resilience. The biggest driver of adoption is the leadership in an organization. It’s generally a decision of economics, independence, resilience or carbon offset/ reduction. 

8. What are the risks of not installing solar?

Answer: Risks include continued exposure to utility rate increases, missed incentive windows, inability to control a portion of energy costs, and falling behind customer or stakeholder sustainability expectations. Delaying may also reduce access to tax credits, rebates, grants, or favorable interconnection capacity when these are available. In some cases, the risk is minimal, this is especially true if renewables are not an achievable investment whether its due to space, energy load or a financial ROI period based on an organization’s acceptable standards. Each business case is different. 

9. How does solar support sustainability or ESG goals?

Answer: Solar supports sustainability goals by reducing grid electricity purchases and the emissions associated with operations. It also creates measurable data for Environmental Social Governance reporting, including annual kWh production, estimated avoided emissions, and progress toward renewable energy targets.

10. How does solar improve energy independence?

Answer: Solar improves energy independence by allowing a facility to produce part of its electricity onsite. Solar alone generally does not provide backup power during a grid outage unless it is paired with batteries, a generator, transfer equipment, and controls that allow safe islanded operation. Grid connected solar systems (in most cases they are all grid connected) will shut down when there is a utility power grid loss. This is to ensure the solar system does not back feed into the grid. It ensures safety for line workers and allows the utility to more easily address the issue causing the outage. If you want electricity from your solar system during an outage a battery is necessary regardless if it is the day or night. 

11. How is a commercial solar system sized?

Answer: A commercial solar system is sized by reviewing annual and interval load data, available roof/land area, utility rate structure, interconnection limits, export rules, budget, and owner goals. The best size is usually the system that maximizes useful onsite energy value rather than simply maximizing nameplate capacity. Each situation is unique to itself and all of these factors need to be considered to identify if it is appropriate for a business to adopt or not. 

12. How much roof or land area is needed for solar?

Answer: Area depends on module wattage, racking type, access pathways, setbacks, tilt, row spacing, and site constraints. The best answer is identify the overall site load can be offset with the available space and is justified by the investment. 

13. What is the difference between kWdc and kWac?

Answer: kWdc is the direct current nameplate capacity of the PV modules; kWac is the alternating current output capacity of the inverters. The DC size is usually larger than the AC size because modules rarely operate at nameplate output continuously. This is pretty technical and, in most cases, not important to know for a business owner to fully understand. It’s generally conversation for the contractor, engineer and utility but sometimes people ask. 

14. What is the typical DC/AC ratio for commercial solar?

Answer: The DC/AC ratio compares PV module capacity to inverter capacity. Commercial and utility systems often use ratios around 1.2 to 1.4, but the optimal ratio depends on climate, clipping tolerance, inverter cost, interconnection limits, and production goals. It’s another technical conversation among designers and engineers that isn’t relevant to most decision makers but its good to understand what it means if it ever comes up in conversation. 

15. What is the expected annual production from a commercial PV system?

Answer: Expected annual production is estimated with solar modeling software using weather data, module orientation, tilt, shading, losses, inverter capacity, soiling, degradation, and availability. Results are commonly reported as kWh/year and specific yield in kWh/kWdc. The benefit of PV solar is predictability over time. Cloudy or rainy days have an impact on production so does shade or dust build up as well as PV module degradation. All of these need to be considered in the equation for output. In general terms solar production is a long term game and if your self producing then you’re going to see benefit. Solar systems are like any other piece of equipment they diminish in output over time but system maintenance ensures operability and production over time 

16. How does shading affect PV output?

Answer: It absolutely affects output negatively. Trimming trees or vegetation around systems is a must. Designing a system to mitigate or avoid shading is the standard of a good design. 

17. What is the difference between rooftop, carport, and ground-mounted solar?

Answer: Apart from the obvious answers on the structure type if you have a choice then the lowest cost option in order are ground mount, then rooftop and finally carport (shade structure). However, there are benefits to each and depending on budget, goals and intention for revenue (fee to park under shade structure) then the approach for the business for adoption may be different. 

18. How does single axis tracking compare to fixed tilt solar?

Answer: In terms of PV solar output trackers are much more advantageous. Fix tilt ground mounts are becoming less and less the choice for install in large PV installations. Small scale installations will most likely be fixed tilt. The upside to fixed tilt is that O&M costs are much less since trackers have moving parts that wear out or fail. However, the cost benefit analysis of the project opportunity always includes an O&M factor. 

19. What is the useful life of a PV system?

Answer: Commercial PV systems are commonly planned for 25 to 35 years of operation. (I know of and witnessed systems being online producing past +20 years in the field in Arizona) Modules degrade gradually, inverters can fail in time, and some balance of system components (wiring, connections, etc.) may require replacement during the life of the system. In general terms, as long has the installer has best practices in place for design and installation the system will have minimal failures. Maintenance is required for manufacture warranties, longevity and maximum output. There is a difference between PV solar module manufacturers’ quality of equipment and the same is true with inverters. Working with a professional that has years of experience is valuable when choosing good equipment.  

20. How much maintenance does a commercial solar system require?

Answer: A regular schedule is a must. Our service agreements layout a two year site visit schedule to inspect, check tolerances, clean equipment etc. Modern systems having online monitoring portals that provide detailed production output data that allows you to keep an eye on the system. However, you still need to have technicians do site visits to be proactive on maintenance. They use the monitoring data to pinpoint issues on the system which helps reduce time in the field. 

21. What is the current cost per watt for commercial solar?

Answer: Installed cost depends on system size, mounting type, equipment selection, labor, interconnection, civil work, permitting, utility upgrades, and tariffs. Pricing changes especially when we see bottle necks in supply, tariffs or incentives being applied or sunsetting away. In general terms the overall cost of installed renewable energy generation systems continues to decrease. Renewable energy technologies continue to improve in output, availability, technology, lean manufacturing, global adoption and this has benefited the investor. Each situation is different but in general if the cost to install and operate a PV solar system was not feasible or financially advantageous then there wouldn’t be a growing global industry built around the technology. 

22. What is the installed cost of rooftop solar versus ground mount solar?

Answer: It depends on a number of factors that need to be included in a cost analysis to determine the answer. It constantly changes like every other construction project you evaluate as an investment. However, in general terms if you have space a ground mount system typically costs less. 

23. What is the payback period for commercial solar?

Answer: Great question, the answer depends on your situation. A proper ROI analysis include utility rates, degradation, O&M, tax benefits, financing, replacement costs, and escalation assumptions. In general terms, we have answers that support an installation type specific to a rate plan which is specific to a utility. Its not too hard for us to provide an answer but we always look at opportunities on case by case basis. 

24. What is the levelized cost of energy for solar?

Answer: LCOE is the lifetime cost of producing electricity divided by lifetime energy production, usually expressed in $/kWh. It is useful for comparing solar to utility energy costs, but it does not fully capture demand charges, resilience, tax timing, or financing structure. Again, it’s specific to construction costs of the project versus output expectancy of the system. 

25. How do tax credits affect solar ROI?

Answer: Tax credits always improve ROI. The Inflation Reduction Act was full of tax credits created to further incentivize renewable adoption in the US. The One Big Beautiful bill deconstructed those incentives. The result is that adoption will slow versus its previous potential with incentives that would have been in place. However, the industry must adapt to become more efficient, cost effective and creative to continue to grow. The truth is that governments always incentivize energy production. Fossil fuels are much older form of technology that is more firmly established with a +100-year head start and absolute global adoption. The future is a mix of both renewable and non renewable energy generation to power our needs for energy. 

26. How do depreciation benefits affect solar ROI?

Answer: It depends on which accounting practice you use in your calculation. Commercial solar, storage, and charging equipment may qualify for depreciation benefits depending on ownership and tax rules. In PV solar there is a 100% Bonus Deprecation that can be applied to the asset. The value calculation depends on basis, bonus depreciation availability, MACRS classification, taxable income, and tax advisor review of the business financial situation to correctly calculate this.

27. How does utility rate structure affect solar savings?

Answer: Each rate plan is different which makes the opportunity for PV solar different for a system owner. To make PV solar advantageous versus the utility (which may be delivering PV solar generated energy to your meter) the overall cost of the electricity you generate on your system must be less than the current cost you pay to purchase it from a utility. It’s about the lowest cost of energy today at the point in time of installation of the system. In time, over the life of the system the cost to produce energy should continue to be less and increase the cost savings as utility rates typically increase. Utilities sometimes change their rate structures which changes the value proposition of self generation of PV solar. In general terms, utility kWh rates don’t decrease but it is possible. Anything is possible. It’s not likely. 

28. How do demand charges affect solar economics?

Answer: Solar may reduce demand charges if its output coincides with the customer monthly peak, but the reduction is not guaranteed. Batteries are required to significantly reduce demand charges. If loads are constant and predictable then load management is predictable because they can discharge during peak intervals or the most cost effective time frame.

29. What is the expected O&M cost for commercial solar?

Answer: Maintenance includes annual telecom subscription fees (monitoring), visual inspections, vegetation control, inverter service, torque checks, thermal scans, cleaning where justified, and corrective maintenance. A sound O&M plan properly accounts for these and should include a percentage cost increase over time that accounts for inflation. 

30. How does inflation affect long term solar value?

Answer: Inflation in PV solar systems needs to be accounted for like inflation in any other business cost calculation. Typically, its going to be applied to two categories in the calculation for value proposition. First, the cost of assumed utility electricity over time and the cost to maintain the system over time. Historically, we’ve seen the cost of power electronics and PV modules decrease so if there is equipment that needs to be replaced outside of a MFG warranty the historical trend has worked in favor of the asset owner.

31. Is there a cost associated with project evaluation?

Answer: In general terms no but it depends on the project and the level of analysis being performed. If environmental or land studies need to be done, then yes. However, we typically are able to evaluate most projects at no cost and provide answers to clients to help them understand their opportunity. 

Koch Brothers backed group, climate denier join APS’s anti-clean energy campaign

Posted on by cannasolar

In this post Energy and Policy Institute’s Matt Kaspar reveals how the Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity and Heartland Institute Climate Denier James Taylor have joined the effort to fight a 50% renewable energy mandate for Arizona.

 

James Taylor appears on a panel titled, “Cost of Alternative Fuels” at the 12th International Conference on Climate Change in 2017.

 

Before Arizona voters head to their polling place in November, they will receive the Secretary of State’s publicity pamphlet that includes information about the statewide initiatives that will appear on the ballot. The booklet will also include arguments for and against ballot measures that were submitted by individuals, politicians, and groups who either paid $75 to have their comments in the pamphlet, or had their comments sponsored by an organization. Joining the dozens of filers that submitted arguments against the Clean Energy Healthy Arizona ballot, which would require Arizona utilities to use more renewable energy, are Andrew Clark, the state director for the Koch Brothers’ Americans For Prosperity Arizona chapter, and James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, a think tank that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change and routinely attacks clean energy.

Perhaps best known for its ill-conceived 2012 billboard campaign that compared those concerned about global warming with the Unabomber and Osama Bin Laden, the Heartland Institute also hosts conferences where attendees deny climate science, promote fossil fuels, and attack environmental regulations and renewable energy policies. Taylor, a senior fellow for Heartland, is also president of The Spark of Freedom Foundation, a pro-fracking and pro-nuclear organization.

Americans for Prosperity is the political advocacy group founded and funded by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, the owners of Koch Industries. AFP works in sync with other organizations funded by the Kochs or allied with their interests to advocate against policies that would protect the environment and combat climate change. Together, Heartland and AFP state chapters and the national organization have specifically targeted the Clean Power Plan and state renewable energy standards. The Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona ballot seeks to increase the state’s current renewable energy standard of 15% by 2025 to 50% by 2030 – so it is no surprise that Taylor and Clark have joined with Arizona Public Service in attacking the effort.

Voters will receive the voting booklets in early October; they can currently read an online version on the Secretary of State’s website.

 

APS’ network of politicians and organizations also join voter pamphlet

In addition to the Heartland Institute and Americans for Prosperity figures, dozens of lawmakers and organizations also filed arguments against the initiative; many of them have received significant funding from APS throughout their career.

Source: Arizona Secretary of State Campaign Finance Database for state contributions; Center for Responsive Politics for federal contributions. Spreadsheet of contributionsEnergy and Policy Institute

The fourteen Arizona state legislative and federal politicians that submitted arguments against the Clean Energy Healthy Arizona ballot have received a total of $166,918 in state and federal campaign contributions throughout their careers from the political action committee of Pinnacle West, the parent company of APS. Reps. Biggs, Gosar and Lesko have further collected a total of $54,650 in federal campaign contributions from APS individuals, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Several of these lawmakers have recently worked to undermine Clean Energy Healthy Arizona this year.

Sen. Kavanagh sponsored a rival ballot initiative to compete with the Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona ballot initiative, which critics called an effort to confuse voters. That effort did not make it out of the legislature. An APS spokeswoman said the utility had proposed the language.

Rep. Leach introduced legislation, which was signed by Governor Ducey, that will limit financial penalties for utilities who fail to meet renewable energy standards if voters decide to increase them in November. APS admitted it helped craft this legislation as well.

Rep. César Chávez and Sen. Robert Meza co-authored an op-ed against the ballot initiative earlier this year. Furthermore, Sen. Meza has received income from some non-profit organizations that have received funding or have board relationships with APS. Energy and Policy Institute reported in April that he had received pay from Chicanos Por La Causa, The Armory and PSA Behavioral Health Agency – all of which have ties to APS.

Others have helped APS in other ways throughout their careers. For example, in 2016, as a state senator, Debbie Lesko worked with APS to create a ballot measure to compete with a pro-solar ballot measure sponsored by former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Chairwoman Kris Mayes. Six years before that, Lesko tried to pass a bill that would have classified nuclear power as renewable – essentially gutting the state’s renewable energy standard.

Along with the politicians featured in the pamphlet, many of the organizations that submitted arguments against the initiative have a relationship with APS either as a recipient of the utility’s cash or by having an APS executive on the board.

Additionally, Kimberly Wold, executive director of Prosper, submitted an argument against the ballot. In 2013, APS admitted – after first denying – that it funneled money through a consulting firm to Prosper, which then funded ads to attack solar energy. APS spent $9 million on public relations efforts to fight rooftop solar during that year.

Many of the arguments in the pamphlet are sponsored by Arizonans for Affordable Electricity, which is the political action committee set up by APS to specifically fight the clean energy ballot. At the end of June 30, Pinnacle West had contributed a total of $7,536,300 to Arizonans for Affordable Electricity.

 

  Matt Kaspar is the Research Director at the Energy & Policy Institute. He focuses on defending policies that further the development of clean energy sources. He also frequently focuses on the companies and their front groups that obstruct policy solutions to global warming. 

This article was originally published on the Energy and Policy Institute blog,

California Sets Goal Of 100 Percent Clean Electric Power By 2045

Posted on by cannasolar

California has established an ambitious goal of relying entirely on zero-emission energy sources for its electricity by the year 2045.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill mandating the electricity target on Monday. He also issued an executive order calling for statewide carbon neutrality — meaning California “removes as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it emits” — by the same year.

“This bill and the executive order put California on a path to meet the goals of Paris and beyond,” Brown said in a statement. “It will not be easy. It will not be immediate. But it must be done.”

As the Trump administration rolls back federal efforts to combat climate change, California has actively pursued a leading role in the international fight against global warming.

California Gov. Jerry Brown Signs New Climate Change Laws

California Gov. Jerry Brown Signs New Climate Change Laws

The latest announcement comes shortly before Brown heads to San Francisco for the Global Climate Action Summit.

The bill specifically requires that 50 percent of California’s electricity to be powered by renewable resources by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030, while calling for a “bold path” toward 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. (“Zero-carbon” sources include nuclear power, which is not renewable.)

Previously, California had mandated 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030.

California is not the first state with such ambitions — in 2015, Hawaii established a goal of 100 percent renewable electricity sources by 2045.

But, as KQED’s Lauren Sommer reported last year, “California uses about 30 times more electricity than Hawaii and is the fifth largest economy in the world.”

California already gets a substantial portion of its electricity from renewable resources.

The California Energy Commission estimates that 32 percent of retail energy sales were powered by renewable sources last year.

But the supply of renewable energy varies from day to day — even moment to moment.

NPR’s Planet Money reported that on a sunny day this June, nearly 50 percent of the state’s electricity came from solar energy alone.

California Lawmakers Debate 100 Percent Clean Energy Mandate

But as Sommer reported last year, that variability means it’s tricky to get renewable energy supply to match up with electricity demand:

“The sun and wind aren’t always producing power when Californians need it most, namely, in the evening.

“The state’s other power plants, like natural gas and nuclear, aren’t as flexible as they need to be to handle those ups and downs. Hydropower offers the most flexibility but is scarce during drought years.”

Large-scale energy storage systems can help address that problem, Sommer said, as could a “better-connected transmission grid system.”

California has dramatically stepped up its climate-change policies four times in the last four years, as Capital Public Radio’s Ben Bradford reported last month.

Before the new 100 percent zero-emission goal, lawmakers approved “higher renewable energy use, tighter greenhouse gas targets, and extension of the cap-and-trade program,” he wrote.

The new bill was supported by Democrats who emphasized the damaging consequences of climate change, while opposed by state Republicans who highlighted the policy’s financial costs, Bradford reported.

California’s utilities had been on track to meet the previous goal, of 50 percent clean power by 2030, “but scientists debate whether cost-efficient 100 percent clean energy is feasible or if it would require new technological advances,” Bradford wrote.

Some cities across the U.S. have attained 100 percent renewable electricity or energy supplies — including Aspen, Colo., Burlington, Vt., and Georgetown, Texas.

And earlier this year, for one entire month, Portugal produced enough renewable energy to meet its entire electrical demand — although the country did rely on fossil fuels to balance out the periodic disconnect between supply and demand.

As NPR reported at the time:

“For most countries in the world, a fully renewable energy supply still seems like a challenging target. Some small island nations have managed it — and a few larger countries, too.

“Iceland and Norway meet essentially all of their electrical needs through hydro and geothermal power, and have for years — but those countries take advantage of extraordinary geology, making the accomplishment hard to replicate.

“Several small islands are all-green, but larger countries are rare. On particularly windy days in 2015 and 2017, Denmark exceeded its electrical needs through wind power alone.

“And several times in the past few years, Costa Rica has kept on the lights through on all-renewable power for several months, fueled by heavy rains that fed into hydroelectric facilities.”

CorrectionSept. 10, 2018

A previous version of this story stated that California was setting a goal for 100 percent renewable electrical energy sources. In fact, the ultimate goal calls for zero-emissions sources, which include renewable resources as well as nuclear power, which is a non-renewable zero-carbon energy source.

 

This article was originally published on http://www.npr.org on Sept 10, 2018 by Camila Domonoske

Arizona renewable energy referendum meets signature requirement

Posted on by cannasolar

Now that a random 5% signature sample verification has been mathematically achieved, the only thing standing between the initiative and voters in November is the lawsuit it faces.

 

Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona’s (CEHA) embattled initiative to impose a 50% by 2030 renewable energy mandate has passed another one of the hurdles standing between it and it’s place on the November ballot.

On Wednesday, the office of Arizona Secretary of State Michelle Reagan released the results of the office’s random 5 percent sample of signatures. The review found that over 70% of the signatures reviewed were valid, representing 16,146 of the 22,722 collected. Though the results of Yuma County have not yet been reported, the bill has reached the mathematical requirement to move on.

Furthermore, with the exceptions of Apache, Maricopa and Mohave counties, no county fell below 75% validity, which is funny, considering the utility front group challenging the signatures’ validity, Arizonans for Affordable Electricity (AAE), claimed that same 75% to be the amount of fraudulent signatures.

An important distinction to be made here is that invalid does not mean fraudulent. Invalid signatures could very well just be incomplete or ones that were filled out improperly.

These allegations will still see their day in court, as the two sides will meet before Judge Daniel Kiley on Monday, per AAE’s original lawsuit. With this ballot verification, it would be surprising if CEHA were to lose the case.

The lawsuit should be the final hurdle standing between the renewable energy initiative and the November ballot. Speaking of hurdles, AAE has put so many in front of the initiative previously, that it may qualify for the Olympics, too. The group has previously alleged that CEHA’s signature collection fleet was comprised of violent criminals and at least one Russian spy. AEE has utilized Twitter as an outlet, painting the main backer of CEHA, Tom Steyer, as a “California billionaire” solely hell-bent on raising the taxes of Arizona citizens, with their #StayOutSteyer campaign.

The other pending renewable energy proposal, Commissioner Andy Tobin of the Arizona Corporation Commission’s 80% “clean energy” by 2050 goal, has not received nearly the opposition from AAE that CEHA has. Before going into why, it’s important to remember where AAE gets a significant portion of their funding from.

So why would Arizona Public Service prefer one renewable energy effort over another? Well, for starters, we at pv magazine are not clear that Commissioner Tobin’s proposal is a mandate; as the documentation repeatedly refers to the clean energy targets as “goals”, and does not specify any structure for penalties (such as alternative compliance payments in renewable portfolio standard policies) for not reaching these goals. This could means that unlike the mandatory language of the 50% by 2030 initiative and other renewable portfolio standard policies, utilities would not necessarily any mechanism holding them accountable should they fall behind in their transition to clean energy.

The CEHA initiative also calls for 10% of the total 50% renewable energy to be generated from distributed energy resources. Like other utilities APS has long treated distributed, customer- and third-party owned solar as a threat to its business model and revenues. Commissioner Tobin’s plan also includes nuclear power generation under the blanket of clean energy, while CEHA’s RPS does not. This means under Tobin’s proposal the 3.3 GW Palo Verde nuclear power plant, partially owned by APS and the largest in the nation, would receive incentives based on its output. Under the 50% by 2030 proposal it would not.

The tactics that have been used to fight CEHA’s RPS initiative come as no surprise, since Arizona and the Arizona Corporation Commission are known for having incredibly dirty politics. In this case, there is hope. If the RPS initiative survives its court date, it will head to the ballot, putting the future of Arizona Energy in the hands of the voters. And here it is worth note that the 480,464 signatures the initiative collected represent 7% of the state’s overall population.

 

This article was originally published on   of http://www.pv-magazine.com

 

Arizona Utility APS’s Real Plan: Fossil Fuels Forever

Posted on by cannasolar
Arizona’s biggest investor-owned electric utility, Arizona Public Service (APS), wants to lock the state into a fossil-fuel-based future, even though there is a clean, reliable energy option that would lower electric bills, reduce health-harming emissions, and create thousands of jobs. APS is vociferously opposing the Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona ballot measure, which would require utilities to get 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2030. The likely reason: APS wants to build a bunch of new gas-fired power plants, and they will make less money in a world where the ballot measure passes and their dirty-energy-building-boom no longer makes sense.

We know APS’s plans because they filed a detailed proposal — called an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) — at the Arizona Corporation Commission last year. In the IRP process, Arizona utilities map out how they will meet customers’ electricity needs over the next 15 years.

APS proposed no new large-scale solar plants in its plan. This is shocking. The plan covers the next fifteen years, Arizona generates just six percent of its electricity from solar, and solar costs so little in Arizona. Instead of building renewables, the utility proposed a massive, multi-billion-dollar build-out of fossil fuel-fired power plants: 2,000 Megawatts of gas combined cycle units (which are designed to operate around-the-clock), and 3,500 Megawatts of gas combustion turbine units (which are designed to meet peak needs). This building boom would increase gas-fired power plant capacity substantially, from 57 percent of total capacity today to 66 percent in 2032, and substantially increase APS’s use of fossil fuels. Use of coal and gas for energy production would increase by 40 percent between 2017 and 2032.

APS wants to meet Arizona’s future electricity needs almost exclusively with fossil fuels

In the plan, gas-fired resources account for 99.7 percent of APS’s new electricity generation, and large-scale solar is absent. The utility does not plan to build any new utility-scale renewable energy power plants (there’s just one, small wind contract extension). APS’s plan also cuts energy efficiency programs in half, and they propose just a small amount of energy storage.

In contrast to APS’s “fossil fuels forever” plan, a 50 percent renewable energy future can meet Arizona’s electricity needs at lower cost and risk than APS’s plan, with big environmental benefits. Modelling of a renewable energy future conducted by the research firm ICF for NRDC finds that 50 percent of the state’s electricity needs can be reliably met by renewable energy by 2030. A 50 percent renewable portfolio standard would lead to the development of 5,320 Megawatts of solar capacity by 2030.

Building those new solar power plants would create jobs, and take away the need for any new gas plants and the out-of-state fuel they require. Our modeling — described here — suggests the renewable energy future would reduce energy infrastructure costs by $4.1 billion between 2020 and 2040 and reduce energy bills, because new renewables are cheaper than unneeded gas plants.

APS spends a lot of time talking about the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. But they are just trying to confuse people. Their real plan is all fossil fuels, all the time. A renewable energy future would be better for Arizona’s economy and environment.

Posted: August 21, 2018

Originally posted on the Natural Resources Defense Council website.